HJBBBroffillHI^^
11; .: i
GKBS3
v" , / *,\
;v!A> v v-.4V
Kwttt% ^ <.
FROM-THE- LIBRARY-OP
TWNITYCOLLEGE TORONTO
FROM
THE WILLIAM CLARK
MEMORIAL LIBRARY
DONATED 1926 A.D.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BIBLICA
A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LITERARY
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY
THE ARCHEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY
AND NATURAL HISTORY
OF THE BIBLE
EDITED BY
THE REV. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D.
ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD
AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE
CANON OF ROCHESTER
AND
J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D.
FORMERLY ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
VOLUME III
L to P
Toronto
GEORGE N. MORANG & COMPANY LIMITED
1902
All rigtits reserved
6s
I \ O
COPYRIGHT, 1902,
Bv THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
First edition, April,
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
NOTES
The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see
above, p. xiv 3 i. []) of the Encyclopedia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly
obvious. The bibliographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles.,
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mai. ; I Esd., 4 Esd. (i.e., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith, Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremy (i.e., Bar. ch. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 3 23 ), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor.. Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.,
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Rev. [or Apoc.].
An explanation of some of the symbols (A, K, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that
the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached : thus
OTJC^ = The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition (exceptions RPW, AOF^ ; see
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ; for those under the line see
below under D 2 , E 2 , J 2 , P 2 .
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested that this work be referred to as the Encyclopedia Biblica, and that the
name may be abbreviated thus: Eticy. Bib. or EBi. It will be observed that all the larger
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections () ; or any passage can readily be cited
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end
of the work.
Abulw. . . Abulwalid, the Jewish grammarian
(b. circa 990), author of Book of
Roots, etc.
Acad. . . The Academy : A Weekly Review
of Literature, Science, and Art.
London, 69^".
AF . . . See A OF.
AHT . , Ancient Hebrew Tradition. See
Hommel.
Alt\test\. Unt. . See Winckler.
Amer. Journ. of American Journal of Philology,
Phil. So/.
A\ f tner. ]f[ourn. \ American Journal of Semitic Lan-
S\_em.] L\_ang.] guages and Literatures (continu
ing Hebraica [ } 84- 95]), 9$ff.
Am. Tab. . . TheTell-el-AmarnaLetters^AT^)
Ant. . . . Joseph us, Antiquities.
AOF . . Allorientalische Forschungen. See
Winckler.
Apocr. Anecd. . Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd
series, published under the
general title Texts and Studies
at the Cambridge University
Press.
Aq. . . . Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp,
revolt against Hadrian), author
of a Greek translation of the Old
Testament. See TEXT.
Ar. . . . Arabic.
Aram. . . Aramaic. See ARAMAIC.
Arch. . . Archeology or Archaologie. See
Benzinger, Nowack.
Ar. Des. . . Doughty, Arabia Deserta, 88.
Ar. Heid., or Reste arabischen Heidentums. See
Heid, Wellhausen.
Arm. . . Armenian.
Ass. . . . Assyrian.
Ass. HWB . Assyrisches Handworterbuch. See
Delitzsch.
As. u. Eur. . W. M. Miiller, Asien u. Europa
nach aitagyptischen Denkmdlern,
93-
AT, A Tliche . Das Alte Testament, Alttestament-
liche. Old Testament.
A T Unters. . Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen.
See Winckler.
AV . Authorised Version.
Bab. .
Baed., or
Baed. Pal.
Baethg., or
Bae
BAG
Baraitha .
BDB Lex.
Be. .
Beitr.
Beitr. z. Ass.
Benz. HA
ben, b ne (son, sons, Hebrew).
Baer and Delitzsch s critical edition
of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic,
69, and following years.
Babylonian.
Baedeker, Palestine (ed. Socin),
(2), 94; (3), 9 8 (Benzinger) based
on 4th German ed.
Baethgen, Beitr age zur semitischen
Religions-geschichte, 88.
C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische
Geschichte, pt. i., 86; pt. ii., 88.
Earth, Die Nominalbildung in den
semitischen Sprachen, i., 89; ii.,
91; W 94.
See LAW LITERATURE.
[Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon]
A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament, based on
the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F.
Brown, with the co-operation of
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs,
Oxford, 92, and following years.
E. Bertheau (1812-88). InJCGH;
Richter u. Ruth, 45 ; W 83;
Chronik, 54; < 2 >, 73; Esra,
Nehemia u. Ester, 62; W, by
Ryssel, 87.
Beitrage, especially Baethgen (as
above).
Beitrage zur Assyriologie u. semi
tischen Sprachwissenschaft ; ed.
Fried. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt,
i., 90; ii., 94; iii., 98; iv. i, 99.
I. Benzinger, Hebraische Archa
ologie, 94.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Konige in KHC, 99.
A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Is-
raeliten u. der Juden zu den
Fremden, 96.
Gustav Bickell :
Grundriss der hebraischen
Grammatik, 69 f. ; ET, 77.
Carmina VT metrice etc., 82.
Diehtungen der Hebr der, 82 f.
Kritische Bearbeitung der
Prov., 90.
Bibliotheca Sacra, 43^".
De Bello Judaico. See Josephus.
Schenkel, Bibel - Lexicon ; Real-
worterbuch zum Handgebrauch
fur Geistliche u. Gemeinde-
glieder, 5 vols., 69- 75-
S. Bochart (1599-1667) :
Geographia Sacra, 1646 ;
Hierozoicon, sive de Animali-
bus Scriptitra; Sacra;, 1663.
Aug. Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. Griac.,
4 vols., *28- 77.
Babylonian and Oriental Record,
Kon. .
Bertholet, Std-
lung
Bi. . . .
Biblioth, Sac.
BJ . .
BL . .
Boch.
Boeckh
BOR
Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, Ausfuhrhches
Lehrbtich der hebraischen Spra-
che, 66- 68.
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des
Fl. Josephus, 79.
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Bu. . . . Karl Budde :
Urgesch. . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
1-124), 83.
Ki.Sa. . Die Biichcr Richter und Samuel,
ihre Quellen undihr Aufbaujcp.
Sam.. . Samuel in SBO7^ (Heb.), 94.
Das Buck Hiob in HK, 96.
Klagelieder and Ilohelied in KHC, 98.
Buhl . . See Pal.
Buxt. Syn.Jud. Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629),
Synagoga. Judaica, 1603, etc.
Buxt. Lex. . Johann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644),
Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi-
cum et Rabbinicum, 1639, folio.
Reprint with additions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., 69 and 74.
c., dr. . . circa.
Calwer Bib. . Calwer Kirchelexikon, Theologi-
Lex. sches Handworterbuch, ed. P.
Zeller, 89~ 93.
c. Ap. . . contra Apionem. See Josephus.
CH . . . Composition des Hexateuchs. See
Wellhausen.
Chald, Gen. . The Chaldean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. A new edi
tion, thoroughly revised and cor
rected by A. H. Sayce, 80.
Che. . . T. K. Cheyne :
Proph. Is. . The Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols.
( 8o- 8i; revised, < 5 >, 89).
Job and Sol. Job and Solomon, or The IVisdom
of the Old Testament ( 87).
Ps. . . The Book of Psalms, transl.
with comm. ( 88); <- , re
written (forthcoming).
OPs. . . The Origin and Religious Con
tents of the Psalter ( Bampton
Lectures, 89), 91.
Aids . . Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, 92.
Founders . Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, 94.
Intr. Is. . Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah ( 95).
Is.SBOT. Isaiah in SBOT [Eng.],
( 97); [Heb.], ( 99).
Jeremiah, his Life and Times in Men of the
Bible ( 88).
Jew. Rel. Life Jewish Religious Life after the
Exile, 98.
CIG . . Corpus Inscriplionum Grczcarum
(ed. Dittenberger), 82^". See
also Boeckh.
CIL . . Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
Berlin, 63, and following years,
14 vols., with supplements.
CIS . . Corpus Inscriptionum Semitica-
rum, Paris, 8i/". Pt. i., Phoeni
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.
Class. Rev. . The Classical Review,
Cl.-Gan. . . Clermont-Ganneau :
Rec. . . Recueil d Archeologie,
Co. . . . Cornill :
Ezek. . Das Buch des Propheten
Ezechiel, 86.
Einl. . Einleitung in das Alte Testa
ment, 91; < 3 >, 96.
Hist. . History of the People of Israel
from the earliest times, 98.
CO T . . The Cuneiform Inscriptions andtlie
Old Testament. See Schrader.
Crit. Man. . A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu
ments, 94.
Cr. Rev. . . Critical Review of Theological and
Philosophical Literature [ed.
Salmond],
D Author of Deuteronomy ; also used
of Deuteronomistic passages.
D2 . . Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
HISTORICAL LITERATURE.
Dalm. Gram. . Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-
palastinischen Aramdisch, 94.
Worte Jesu Die IVorte Jesu, i., 98.
Aram. Lex. Aramiiisch - Neuhebr disches
Worterbuch zu Targum,
Talmud, und Midrasch,
Teil i., 97.
Dav. . . A. B. Davidson :
Job . . Book of Job in Camb. Bible, 84.
Ezek. . Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, 92.
DB . . . W. Smith, A Dictionary of the
Bible, comprising its Antiquities,
Biography, Geography, and Nat
ural History, 3 vols., 63; DB^,
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
93-
or, J. Hastings, A Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its Lan
guage, Literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Theology,
vol. i., 98; vol. ii., 99.
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de
la Bible, 95 ff.
de C. Orig. . Alph. de Candolle, Origine des
Plantes Cultivees, 82; < 4 >, 96.
ET in the International Scien
tific Series.
De Gent. . . De Gentibus. See Wellhausen.
Del. . . Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, etc.
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre
ceding, author of:
Par. . . IVo lag das Parodies? ( ( 8l).
Heb. Lang. The Hebrew Language viewed
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES vii
in the light of Assyrian Re
search, 83.
Prol. . Prolegomena eines neuen hebr,-
aram. Worterbuchszum A T,
86.
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch,
96.
DHM Ep. Denk. D. H. Muller, Epigraphische Denk-
mdler aus Arabien, 89.
Die Propheten in ihren urspri mglichen Form.
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi-
tiscken Poesie, 2 Bde., 96.
Di. . . . Dillmann, August (1823-94),
in KGH : Genesis, 3rd ed. of
Knobel, 75 ; W, 82 ; ( fi >, 92 (ET
by Stevenson, 97) ; Exodus und
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel,
80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, 97;
Numb., Deut., Josh., 2nd ed. of
Knobel, 86; Isaiah, ^, 90; (edd.
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die-
stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, 98).
Did. . . Didache. See APOCRYPHA, 31, I.
Dozy, Suppl. . Supplement aux Dictionnaires
Arabes, "J9ff.
Dr. . . . Driver, S. R. :
H T. . A Treatise on the Use of the
Tenses in Hebrew, 74; W,
81; < 3 >, 92.
TBS . Notes on the Hebrew Text of
the Books of Samuel, 90.
Introd. . An Introduction to the Litera
ture of the Old Testament,
W, 91; ( 6 >, 97.
Par. Ps. . Parallel Psalter, 98.
Deut. . Deuteronomy in The Inter
national Critical Commen
tary, 95.
Joel and Amos in the Cambridge Bible, 97.
Lev. SBOT SBOT (Eng.), Leviticus, as
sisted by H. A. White, 98.
Hebrew Authority in Authority and Archeology,
Sacred and Profane, ed.
David G. Hogarth, London,
99-
Is. . . Isaiah, His Life and Times, in
Men of the Bible, < 2 >, 93.
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici
Sacri.
Du. . . . Bernhard Duhm :
Proph. . Die Theologic der Propheten
als Grundlagefiirdie inner e
En tw icklu ngsgesch ichte der
israelitischen Religion, 75.
Is. . . Das Bitch Jesaia in HK, 92.
Ps. . . Die Psalmen erkldrt, \nKHC,
99-
. Old Hebrew historical document.
2 . . Later additions to E. See HIS
TORICAL LITERATURE.
EB^ . . Encyclopedia Britannica, gth ed.,
75 - 88.
Ebers, Aeg. BM Georg Ebers ( 37- 98), Aegypten u.
die Bilcher Mose s, i., 68.
Einleilung (Introduction). See
Cornill, etc.
The English Historical Review,
Einl.
Eng. Hist. Rev.
Ent\_st~], . . Die Entslehung des Judenthums.
See Ed. Meyer.
ET . . . English translation.
Eth. . . Ethiopic.
Eus. . . Eusebius of Coesarea (2nd half of
3rd to 1st half of 4th cent. A.D.) :
Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; On the Names
of Places in Holy Scripture.
EV . .
Ew.
Lehrb.
Gesch.
Dichter
Proph.
Expos.
Exp\os\. T[imes]
/and/! . .
FFP .
Field, Hex.
F[r.-}HG .
Fl. and Hanb.
Pharm.
Floigl, GA
Founders .
Fr.
HE . . Historia Ecclesiastica.
P\r<zp.~\E\v.~\ Praparatio Evangelica.
Chron. . Chronicon.
English version (where authorised
and revised agree).
Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) :
Lehrbuch der hebrdischen
Sprache, 44; < 8 >, 70.
Geschichte des Volkes Israel ;
( 3 > i.-vii., 64- 68 ; ET < 2 > 5
vols. (pre-Christian period),
69- 8o.
Die Dichter des Alien Bundes
< 3 >, 66 /
Die Prof he ten, 40/5 ( 2 ), 67
/; ET 7 6/
Expositor, 5th ser., 95 ff.
Expository Times, Sg-
following (verse, or verses, etc.).
fauna and Flora of Palestine.
See Tristram.
F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qua
super sun tsive Veterum Interpre-
tum Grczcorum in totum Vetus
Testamenttim Fragmenta ( 75).
Fragmenta Historicorum Gr&co-
rum, ed. Muller, 5 vols., 4i- 72.
F. A. Fliickiger and D. Hanbury,
Pharmacographia.
Floigl, Geschichte des semitischen
Altertums in l^abellen, 82.
Founders of Old Testament Criti
cism. See Cheyne.
O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com
mentaries on books of the Apo
crypha in KHG.
Sigismund Frankel, Die aram di-
schen Fremdivorter im Arabi-
schen, 86.
Frankenb. . W. Frankenberg, Die Spruche in
KH, 98.
Frazer . . J. G. Frazer :
7 otemism ( 87).
Golden Bough ( 90); ( 2 > in prep.
Pausanias s Description of
Greece (translation and
notes, 6 vols., 98).
Fund. . . J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. judi seller Geschichte, 96.
(5 Greek Version, see above, p. xv./
and TEXT AND VERSIONS.
GA . . . Geschichte d. Alterthums (see
Meyer, Floigl).
GA . . . Geschichte Agyptens (see Meyer).
GBA . . Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens
(see Winckler, Hommel).
GASm. . . George Adam Smith. See Smith.
GA T . . Reuss, Geschichte des Alten Testa
ments, 81 ; <->, 90.
Gei. Urschr. . A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber-
setzungen der Bibel in Hirer Ab-
hangigkeit von der inneren Ent-
wickiung des Judenthums, 57.
Ges. . . F. H. W. Gesenius (1786-1842):
Thes. . Thesaurus Philologictis Criti-
cus Ling. Hebr. et Chald.
Veteris Testament!, 35~ 42.
Gramm. . Hebrdische Grammatik, 13;
( 2ti >, by E. Kautzsch, 96 ;
ET 98.
Lex. . . Hebrdisches u. chalddisches
Flandworterbuch, 12 ; ("J
(Muhlauu.Volck), 90; ( 12 >
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim-
mern), 9S ; < 13 ) (Buhl), 99.
Ges.-Bu. . . Gesenius-Buhl. See above, Ges.
vi ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Konige in KHC, 99.
A. Bertholet, Die Slellung der Is-
raeliten u. der Juden zu </<
Fremden, 96.
Gustav Bickell :
Grundriss der hebraischen
Grammatik, 6g/. ; ET, 77.
Carminei VT metrice etc., 82.
Dichtungen der Hebraer, 82 f.
Kritische Bearbeitung der
Prov., 90.
Bibliotheca Sacra, 43^".
De Bello Judaico. See Josephus.
Schenkel, Bibel- Lexicon ; Real-
worterbuch zum Handgebrauch
fiir Geistliche u. Gemeinde-
glieder, 5 vols., 69- 75.
S. Bochart (1599-1667) :
Geographia Sacra, 1646 ;
Hierozoicon, sive de Animali-
bus Scriptures Sacra:, 1663.
Aug. Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. Grcec.,
4 vols., 28- 77.
Babylonian and Oriental Record,
Kon. .
Bertholet, Std-
lung
Bi. . . .
Biblioth. Sac.
BJ . .
BL . .
Boch.
Boeckh
BOR
Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, Ausfithrliches
Lthrbuch der hebraischen Spra-
che, 66- 68.
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des
Fl. Josephus, 79.
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Bu. . . . Karl Budde :
Urgesch, . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
1-124), 83.
Ri.Sa. . Die Bucher Richler und Samuel,
ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbaujyo.
Sam. . . Samuel m SBOT (Heb.), 94.
Das Buck I Hob in HK, 96.
Klagelieder and Hohelied in KHC, 98.
Buhl . . See Pal.
Buxt. Syn.Jud. Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629),
Synagoga Judaica, 1603, etc.
Buxt. Lex. . Johann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644),
Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi-
cum et Rabbinicum, 1639, folio.
Reprint with additions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., 69 and 74.
f., dr. . . circa.
Calwer Bib. . Cahver Kirchelexikon, Theologi-
Lex. sches Handw drterbuch, ed. P.
Zeller, 89- 93.
c. Ap. . . contra Apionem. See Josephus.
CH . . . Composition des Hexaleuchs. See
Wellhausen.
Chald. Gen. . The Chaldean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. A new edi
tion, thoroughly revised and cor
rected by A. H. Sayce, 80.
Che. . . T. K. Cheyne :
Proph. Is. . The Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols.
( 8o- 8i; revised, < 5 >, 89).
Job and Sol. Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom
of the Old Testament ( 87).
Ps. . . The Book of Psalms, transl.
with comm. ( 88); - 1 , re
written (forthcoming).
OPs. . . The Origin and Religious Con
tents of the Psalter ( Bampton
Lectures, 89), 91.
Aids . . Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, 92.
Founders . Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, 94.
Jntr. Is. . Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah ( 95).
Is. SBOT. Isaiah in SBOT [Eng.] f
( 97); [Heb.], (-99).
Jeremiah, his Life and Times in Men of the
Bible ( 88).
Jew. Rel. Life Jewish Religious Life after the
Exile, 98.
CIG . . Corpus Inscriptionum Grcecarum
(ed. Dittenberger), 82^". See
also Boeckh.
CIL . . Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
Berlin, 63, and following years,
14 vols., with supplements.
CIS . , Corpus Inscriptionum Semitica-
rum, Paris, 81^". Pt. i., Phoeni
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.
Class. Rev. . The Classical Review, 87 ff.
Cl.-Gan. . . Clermont-Ganneau:
Rec. . . Recueil d Archeologie, 85^".
Co. . . . Cornill :
Ezek. . Das Buck des Propheten
Ezechiel, 86.
Einl. . Einleitung in das Alte Testa
ment, 91 ; < 3 >, 96.
Hist. . History of the People of Israel
from the earliest times, 98.
COT . . The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the
Old Testament. See Schrader.
Crit. Alon. . A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu
ments, 94.
Cr. Rev. . . Critical Review of Theological and
Philosophical Literature [ed.
Salmond], 91 ff.
D Author of Deuteronomy; also used
of Deuteronomistic passages.
Do . . Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
HISTORICAL LITERATURE.
Dalm. Gram. . Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-
palastinischen Aramdisch, 94.
Worte Jesu Die Worte Jesu, i., 98.
Aram. Lex. Aramaisch - Neuhebraisches
Worterbuch zu Targum,
Talmud, und Midrasch,
Teil i., 97.
Dav. . . A. B. Davidson :
Job . . Book of Job in Camb. Bible, 84.
Ezek. . Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, 92.
DB . . . W. Smith, A Dictionary of the
Bible, comprising its Antiquities,
Biography, Geography, and Nat
ural History, 3 vols., 63; DB^,
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
93-
or, J. Hastings, A Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its Lan
guage, literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Theologv,
vol. i., 98; vol. ii., 99.
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de
la Bible, 95 ^
de C. Orig. . Alph. de Candolle, Origine des
Plantes Cultivi-es, 82; >, 96.
ET in the International Scien
tific Series.
De Gent. . . De Gentibus. See Wellhausen.
Del. . . Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, etc.
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre
ceding, author of:
Par. . . IV o lag das Parodies ? (*8l).
Heb. Lang. 77ie Hebrew Language viewed
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
in the light of Assyrian Re
search, 83.
Prol. . Prolegomena eines neuen hebr.-
aram. WorterbuchszumA T,
86.
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch,
96.
DHM Ep. Denk. D. H. Miiller, Epigraphische Denk-
mdler aus Arabien, 89.
Die Propheten in ihren ursprunglichen Form.
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi-
tischen Poesie, 2 Bde., 96.
Di. . . . Dillmann, August (1823-94),
in KGH : Genesis, 3rd ed. of
Knobel, 75; <*>, 82 ; < 6 >, 92 (ET
by Stevenson, 97) ; Exodus und
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel,
80 ; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, 97;
Numb., Deut., Josh., 2nd ed. of
Knobel, 86 ; Isaiah, ( 5 >, 90 ; (edd.
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die-
stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, 98).
Did. . . Didache. See APOCRYPHA, 31, I.
Dozy, Suppl. . Supplement aux Dictionnaires
Arabes, 79 ff.
Dr. . . . Driver, S. R. :
HT. . A Treatise on the Use of the
Tenses in Hebrew, 74; W,
81; (3), 92.
TBS . Notes on the Hebrew Text of
the Books of Samuel, 90.
Introd. . An Introduction to the Litera
ture of the Old Testament,
(D, 91; (6) ; 97.
Par. Ps. . Parallel Psalter, 98.
Deut. . Deuteronomy in The Inter
national Critical Commen
tary, 95.
Joel and Amos in the Cambridge Bible, 97.
Lev. SBOT SBOT (Eng.), Leviticus, as
sisted by H. A. White, 98.
Hebrew Authority v& Authority and Arcfueology,
Sacred and Profane, ed.
David G. Hogarth, London,
99-
Is. . . Isaiah, His Life and Times, in
Men of the Bible, < 2 >, 93.
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici
Sacri.
Du. . . . Bernhard Duhm :
Proph. . Die Iheologie der Propheten
als Grundlage fiir die inner e
En tw ickln ngsgesch ichte der
israelitischen Religion, 75.
Is. . . Das Buch Jesaia in HK, 92.
Ps. . . Die Psalmen erkldrt,\^KHC,
99.
E Old Hebrew historical document.
2 . . Later additions to E. See HIS
TORICAL LITERATURE.
EB^ . . Encyclopedia Britannica, gth ed.,
75 - 88.
Ebers, Aeg. BM Georg Ebers ( 37-98), Aegypten u.
die Biicher Mose s, i., 68.
Einleilung (Introduction). See
Cornill, etc.
The English Historical J?eview,
Einl.
Eng. Hist. Rev.
Ent\_sf\. . . Die Entstehung des Judenthums.
See Ed. Meyer.
ET . . . English translation.
Eth. . . Ethiopia.
Eus. . . Eusebius of Csesarea (2nd half of
3rd to 1st half of 4th cent. A.n.) :
Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; On the Names
of Places in Holy Scripture.
EV
Ew.
HE . .
P\r(Ep.~\E\v.~\
Chron.
Lehrb.
Gesch.
Dichter
Propk.
fits tori a Ecclesiastica.
Prtzparatio Evangelica.
Chronicon.
English version (where authorised
and revised agree).
Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) :
Lehrbuch der hebrdischen
Sprache, 44; ( 8 >, 70.
Geschichte des Volkes Israel ;
W i.-vii., 64- 68 ; ET <*> 5
vols. (pre-Christian period),
69- 8o.
Die Dichter des Alien Bundes
W, 66 /
Die Propheten, 40/5 < 2 ), 67
Expos.
. T\_imes\
f.^ndf. . .
FFP . .
Field, Hex. .
F[r.~\HG . .
Fl. and Hanb.
Ph arm.
Floigl, GA .
Founders . .
Fr. . . .
Frankenb.
Frazer .
Fund.
GA . .
GA . .
GBA .
GASm. .
GA T .
Gei. Urschr.
Ges. .
Thes.
Gramm.
Lex. .
Ges.-Bu. .
Expositor, 5th ser.,
Expository Times, 8g- g
following (verse, or verses, etc.).
Fauna and flora of Palestine.
See Tristram.
F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qu<z
supersuntsive Veterum Interpre-
tum Gracorum in totum Vetus
Testamentum Fragmenta ( 75).
Fragmenta Historicorum Gr&co-
rum, ed. Miiller, 5 vols., 4i- 72.
F. A. Fliickiger and D. Hanbury,
Pha rm acograph ia .
Floigl, Geschichte des semitischen
AUertums in Tabellen, 82.
Founders of Old Testament Criti
cism. See Cheyne.
O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com
mentaries on books of the Apo
crypha in KHG.
Sigismund Frankel, Die aramdi-
schen Fremdworter im Arabi-
schen, 86.
\V. Frankenberg, Die Spruche in
KH, 98.
J. G. Frazer :
Totemism ( 87).
Golden Hough ( 90) ; ( 2 > in prep.
Pausanias s Description of
Greece (translation and
notes, 6 vols., 98).
J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. judischer Geschichte, 96.
Greek Version, see above, p. xv.yC
and TEXT AND VERSIONS.
Gesc/iichte d. Altertlnims (see
Meyer, Floigl).
Geschichte Agyptens (see Meyer).
Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assvriem
(see Winckler, Hommel).
George Adam Smith. See Smith.
Reuss, Geschichte des Alien Testa-
inents, 81 ; (->, 90.
A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber-
setzungen der Bibel in ihrer Ab-
hangigkeit von der inneren Ent-
ivicklung des Jtidenthums, 57.
F. H. W. Gesenius (1786-1842):
Thesaurus Philologicus Criti-
cus Ling. Hebr. et Chald.
Veteris Testamenti, 35- 42.
Hebrdische Grammatik, 13 ;
W, by E. Kautzsch, 96 ;
ET 98.
Hebrdisches u. chalddisches
Handworterbuch, 12 ; <">
(Muhlau u.Volck), 90; ( *>
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim-
mern), 95 ; < 13 ) (Buhl), 99,
Gesenius-Buhl. See above, Ges.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Gesch.
GGA
GGN
GI .
Gi[nsb].
GJV
Glaser
Skizze
Gr. .
Gra. .
Gesch.
Ps. .
Gr. Yen. .
GVI
H .
HA or Hebr.
Arch.
Hal.
Mil. .
Hamburger
\RE\
Harper, ABL
HC .
Heb.
Hebraic a .
Heid.
Herst.
Herzog, RE
Jlet Herstel
Hex.
Hexap.
HG .
Hierob.
Hilgf. .
Hist.
Hist. Proph.
A/on.
Hi[tzj. .
HK .
Geschichte (History).
Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen,
Gottingische Gelehrte Nachrichten,
45 /
Geschichte Israels. See Winckler.
Ginsburg, Ma ssoretico-critical Edi
tion of the Hebrew Bible, 94, In
troduction, 97.
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes.
See Schiirer.
Eduard Glaser :
Skizze der Gesch. u. Geogr.
Arabiens, 90.
K. Grimm (1807-91). Maccabees
( 53) and Wisdom^fx?) in A GV/.
Heinrich Gratz :
Geschichte der Juden, i.-x., 74
ff.; ET i.-v., 9 1 - 92.
Kritischer Commentar zu
Psalmen, 82 f.
Versio Veneta. See TEXT.
Gesch. des Volkes Israel.
Ewald, Stade, etc.
den
See
The Law of Holiness (Lev. 17-
26). See LEVITICUS.
Hebrciische Archao(ogie. See Ben-
zinger, Nowack.
Joseph llalevy. The inscriptions
in Rapport sur une Mission Ar-
cheologique dans le Yemen ( 72)
are cited : Hal. 535, etc.
Mela nges d Ep i graph ie et
d Archeologie Semiliques? ]4 t .
Hamburger, Realencyclopiidie fur
Bibelund Talmud, i. 70, ^ 92;
ii. 83, suppl. 86, 91 /, 97.
R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Baby
lonian Letters belonging to the
A"[Kuyunjik] collection of the
British Aluseum, <)3ff.
Hand- Com men la r sum Neuen
Testament, bearbeitet von H. J.
Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius, P. W.
Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, Sg- gi.
Hebrew.
Continued as AJSL (q.v.}.
Reste arabischen Heidentums. See
Wellhausen.
Kosters, Ilet Herstel van Israel in
het Perzische Tijdvak, 93; Germ.
transl. Die Wiederherstellung
Israels, 95.
See PRE.
See Herst.
Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Holzinger,
etc.).
See Field.
Historical Geography of the Holy
Land. See Smith, G. A.
See Bochart.
A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar (Einl.,
etc.), and ed. since 58 of ZWT.
See Schurer, Ewald, Kittel, etc.
J. F. M Curdy, History, Prophecy,
and the Monuments : i. To the
Downfall of Samaria ( 94) ; ii.
To the Fall of Nineveh ( 96).
F. Hitzig ( 1807-75), in KGH: Pre-
diger ( 47), Hohelied ( 55), Die
kleinen Propheten ( 38; < 3 >, 63),
Jeremias(\\; <V66). Also /to
Psalmen ( 35- 35; < 3 >, 63- 6s).
Handkommentar zum Alien Testa
ment, ed. Nowack, 92 ff.
Holz. Einl.
Hommel .
AHT
GBA
Hor. Hebr.
HP . .
HPN .
HPSm. .
Samuel
HS . .
HWB .
IJG .
Intr[od]. .
Intr. Is. .
It. . .
//. Anton.
J
]i
J[ourn.~\ A{ni^\
0[;-.] S\_oc.~\
Jastrow, Diet.
J{ourn.~\ As.
JBL
JBW
JDT
JE . .
Jensen, Kosm.
Jer.
Jon.
Jos.
J\_ourn.~\ Phil.
JPT
JQR
JRAS
JSBL
KAT
. H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den
Hexateuch ( 93), Genesis in the
KHC ( 98).
. Fritz II ommel :
. DiealtisraelitischeUeberliefer-
ung; ET, Ancient Hebrew
I radilion, 97.
. Geschichte Babyloniens u. As
sy rie us, 85^".
. Lightfoot, Horn Hebraicce, 1684.
. Holmes and Parsons, Vetus Testa-
mentutn Gr<cum cum variis
lectionibus, 1798-1827.
. G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Names, 96.
. Henry Preserved Smith.
in International Critical Commentary.
. Die Heilige Schrift. See Kautzsch.
. Riehm s Handworterbuch des bibli-
schen Alterthums, 2 vols., 84;
w > 93-94- See also Delitzsch
(Friedr.).
. Israelilische u.ji tdische Geschichte.
See Wellhausen.
. Introduction.
. Introduction to Isaiah. See
Cheyne.
. Itala. See TEXT AND VERSIONS.
. Itinerarium Antonini, Fortia
d Urban, 45.
Old Hebrew historical document.
Later additions to J.
Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 51 ff.
M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Tar-
gumim, the Talmud Babli, etc.,
and Midrashim, 86 ff.
Journal Asiatique, 53 ff.; 7th
ser., 73; 8thser., 83; 9thser., 93.
Journal of Biblical Literature and
Exegesis, 90 ff.; formerly ( 82-
88) called Journal of the Society
of Biblical Lit. and Exeg.
Jahrbucher der bibl. IVissenschaft
( 497*65).
Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie,
5 6- 7 8.
The Prophetical narrative of the
Hexateuch, composed of J and E.
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der
Babylonier, 90.
Jerome, or Jeremiah.
Jonathan. See Targum.
Flavius Josephus (b. 37 A.D.), Anti-
quitates Judaica:, De Bello
Judaico, Vita, contra Apionem
(ed. Niese, 3 vols., 87~ 94).
Journal of Philology, i. (Nos. I and
2, 68), ii. (\os. 3 and 4, 69), etc.
Jahrbucher fur protestantischeTheo-
logie, 75- 92.
Jewish Quarterly Review, SS- 8g/~.
Journal of Royal Asiatic Society
(vols. 1-20, 34^.; new series,
vols. 1-24, 65~ 92; current series,
Kau.
Gram.
HS .
See/^Z.
Die Keilinschriftenu.d.Alte Testa
ment. See Schrader.
E. Kautzsch :
Grammatik des Biblischen-
Aramaischen, 84.
Die heilige Schrift des Alien
Testaments, 94.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Apokr. . Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepi-
graphen des alien Testa
ments, 98 f.
KB. . . Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,
Sammlungvon ass. u. bab. Texten
in Umschrift u. Uebersetzung, 5
vols. (i, 2, 3 a, b, 4, 5), Sq- gb.
Edited by Schrader, in collabora
tion with L. Abel, C. Bezold,
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and
H. Winckler.
Ke. . . . K. F. Keil (d. 88).
Kenn. . . B. Kennicott (1718-83), Vetus
Testamentum Hebraicum cum
variis lectionibus, 2 vols., 1776-
80.
KG . . . Kirchengeschichte.
KGF . . Keilinschriften u. Geschichtsforsch-
ung. See Schrader.
KGH . . Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Hand-
buck. See Di., Hitz., Knob., Ol.
KGK . . Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den
heiligen Schriften Alien u. Neuen
Testaments sowie zu den Apo
kryphen, ed. H. Strack and
O. Zockler, 87 ff.
KHC . . Kurzer Hand-commentar zurn
Alten Testament, ed. Marti, 97 ff.
Ki. . . . Rudolf Kittel :
Gesch. . Geschichte der Hebr- der, 2 vols.,
88, 92; Eng. transl., His
tory of the Hebrews, 95-
96.
Ch. SBOT TheBookofChronicles,Cn\.\c3\
Edition of the Hebrew text,
95 (translated by Bacon).
Kim. . . R. David Kimhi, circa 1200 A.D.,
the famous Jewish scholar and
lexicographer, by whose exegesis
the AV is mainly guided.
Kinds ], . . Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia. See W. R. Smith.
KI. Proph. . Kleine Propheten (Minor Prophets).
See Wellhausen, Nowack, etc.
Klo[st], . . Aug. Klostermann, Die Biicher
Samuelisundder Konige ( 87) in
KGK.
G VI . . Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis
zur Kestauration Tinter Esra
und Nehemia, 96.
Kn[ob], . . Aug. Knobel( 1 807-63) in KGH:
Exodus und Leviticus, <-) by Dill-
mann, 80; Der Prophet Jesaia,
43, < 3 >, 61. See Dillmann.
Ko. . . . F. E. Konig, Historisch-Kritisches
Lehrgebaude der Hebraischen
Sprache, 3 vols., 8i- 97.
K6h. . . Aug. Kohler.
Kr. . . . Kre (lit. to be read ), a marginal
reading which the Massoretes
intended to supplant that in the
text (Kethib); see below.
Kt. . . . KethTb (lit. written ), a reading
in the MT; see above.
Kue.. . . Abr. Kuenen (1828-91) :
Ond. . . Historisch-critisch Onderzoek
naar het ontstaan en de
verzameling van de Boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols.,
6i- 65; <2), 85- 89; Germ,
transl., Historisch-kritische
Einleitung in die Bucher
des Alten Testaments, 87-
92; vol. i., The Hexateuch,
translated by Philip Wick-
steed, 86.
Godsd. . De Godsdienst van Israel, 69~ 7O;
Eng. transl., 3 vols., 73- 75.
De Profeten en der Profetie onder Israel, 7e-
ET, 77.
Ges. Abh. . Gesammelte Abhandlungenzur
bibl. Wissenschaft, German
by Budde, 94.
L . . de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris
Testamcnti Canonicorum, Pars
Prior Greece, 83.
Lag. . . Paul de Lagarde ( 27- 9i) :
Hagiographa Chaldaice, 73.
. Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo-
cryphi Syriace, 61.
Ges. Abh. . Gesammelte Abhandlungenjbf).
Mitt. . Mitteilungen, i.-iv., 84~ 89.
Sym, . Symmicta, ii., 80.
Prov. . Proverbien, 63.
Ubers. Uebersicht iiber die im Ara-
or BN maischen, Arabischen, und
Hebraischen ubliche Bildung
der Nomina, 89.
Beitr. . Beitrage z. baktrischen Lexiko-
grapliie, 68.
Proph. . ProphettE Chaldaice, 72.
Sent. . Semi tic a, ySf.
Arm. St. . Armenische Stttdien.
Or. . . Orientalia, i., 79.
Lane . . E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English
Lexicon, 63^".
L [and] B . W. M. Thomson, The Land and
the Book, 59; new ed. 94.
LBR . . Later Biblical Researches. See
Robinson.
Levy, NHWB J. Levy, Neuhebraisches u. chal-
daisches Worterbuch, 76- 89.
Chald. Lex. Chaldiiisches Worterbuch iiber
die Targumim, 67 ff.
Lehrgeb. . . See Konig.
Leps. Denkm. . R. Lepsius, Denkmaler aus Aegyp-
ten u. Aethiopien, 49~ 6o.
Lightf. . . John Lightfoot (1602-75), H r <*
Hebraicce (1684).
Joseph B. Lightfoot ( 28- 89);
commentaries on Galatians
((", 74); Philippians ( > ,
73) 5 Colossians and Phile
mon ( 75).
Lips. if. . . Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostel-
geschichten u. Apostellegenden,
83- 90.
Low . . . J. Low, Aramdische Pftanzenna-
men, 8 1.
Luc. . . See L.
LXX or (5 . Septuagint. See above, p. xv /,
and TEXT ANL> VERSIONS.
Maimonides . Moses Maimonides (1131-1204).
Exegete, author of Afishneh
Torah, More Nebokhim, etc.
Mand. . . Mandsean. See ARAMAIC, 10.
Marq. Fund. . J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. jiidischer Geschichte, 96.
Marti . . K. Marti :
Gram. . Kurzgefasste Grammatik d.
biblisch-Aramaischen
Sprache, 96.
Geschichte der Israeli tischen Religion 1 ^, 97 (a
revision of A. Kayser, Die
Theol. des AT).
Jes. . . Das Buch Jesaia, in KHC, "99.
Masp. . . G. Maspero :
Dawn of Civilisation, Egypt
and Chaldea (( 2 >, 96).
Les premieres Melees des
Peuples; ET by McClure.
GA .
Entsi[eli\.
Meyer
MGWJ .
MH .
MI .
Midr.
Mish.
x ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
about the end of the seventh
century A.D. See TEXT.
A New English Dictionary on
Historical Principles, ed. J. A.
MBBA . . Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- H. Murray, 88 ff.; also H.
Bradley, 97^.
MDPV . . Mittheilun^en und Nachrichten des Muss-Arn. . W. M\iss-&.rr\Q\\., A Concise Diction
ary of the Assyrian Language,
94-99 (A-MAG).
Merx . . A. Merx, Archiv f. wissenschaft- MVG . . Mittheilungen der Vorderasiat-
ischen Gesellschaft, 97 ff.
Mey.. . . Ed. Meyer: " n. . . . note.
Nabatsean. See ARAMAIC, 4.
Nominalbildung, Earth; see Ba.
Die israelitischen Eigennamen
nach ihrer religionsgeschicht-
lichen Bedeiitung, 76.
Marginalien u. Materialien, 93.
A. Neubauer, Geogr aphie du Tal-
mtid, 68.
Natural History of the Bible. See
Tristram.
Neu-hebr. u. chaldaisches Wort^er-
buch. See Levy,
number.
Th. Noldeke :
Utitersuchungen z. Kritik d.
Alten Testaments, 69.
Altteslamentliche Litteratur, 68.
W. Nowack :
h.~\ Lehrbuch d. Hebraischen
Archaologie, 94.
Die Kleinen Propheten (in
HKC), 97.
New Testament, Neues Testament.
Justus Olshausen :
Die Psalmen, 53.
Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache,
61 [incomplete].
Orientalistische Litteratur-Zei-
tung, ed. Peiser, 98 f.
Historisch-critisch Onderzoek. See
Kuenen.
Onkelos, Onqelos. See Targ.
See OS.
Origin of the Psalter. See Cheyne.
Onomastica Sacra, containing the
name-lists of Eusebius and
Jerome (Lagarde, < a >, 87; the
pagination of ^) printed on the
margin of W is followed).
Old Testament.
Old Testament in tlie Jewish
Church. See \V. R. Smith.
Priestly Writer. See HIST. LIT.
Secondary Priestly Writers.
F. Buhl, Geogr ap hie des alien Pal-
astina, 96. See also Baedeker
and Reland.
Palmyrene. See ARAMAIC, 4.
Palestinian Syriac or Christian
Palestinian. See ARAMAIC, 4.
Proceedings of American Oriental
Society, 51 ff. (printed annually
at end of JAOS).
Wo lag das Paradies? See
Delitzsch.
Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, 95.
Prieparatio Evangelica. See Euse-
--, . - bius.
MT . - . . Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of PEFAf\emJ\ . Palestine Exploration Fund Me
moirs, 3 vols., 8i- 83-
Palestine Exploration l- nnd
[founded 65] Quarterly State
ment, 69 ff.
The Struggle of the Nations
Egypt, Syria,and Assyria.
Histoire Ancienne des Peuples
Murray
de T Orient ( <)<)/.).
Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka-
demie.
Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des
Muss-Arn.
Deutschen Palastina- Vereins,
95 1-
A. Merx, Archiv f. wissenschaft-
MVG
liche F.rforschung d. AT ( 69).
Ed. Meyer:
n.
Geschichte des Alter thums ;
Nab.
i., Gesch. d. Orients bis zur
NB .
Beeriindung des Perserreichs
( 84) ; ii., Gesch. des Abend-
Nestle, Eig.
Ian des bis auf die Per-
scrkriege ( 93).
Marg. .
Die Entstehung des Juden-
Neub. Geogr. .
thums, 96.
H. A. W. Meyer (1800-73),
NHB
founder of the series Kritisch-
exegetischer Kommentar iiber das
NHWB .
Neue Testament.
Monatsschrift fur Gesch. u. Wiss.
no. .
des Judenthums, 5 1 ff.
Mishnic Hebrew, the language of
No[ld]. .
Unters. .
the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid-
rashim, and considerable parts of
the Talmud.
Now.
Mesha Inscription, commonly
known as the * Moabite Stone.
See MESHA.
Kl. Proph.
Midrash. SeeCHRONici.ES, 6(2).
Mishna, the standard collection
NT .
(completed, according to tradi
tion, by R. Judah the Holy, about
Ol[sh]. .
75..
200 A.D.) of sixty-three treatises
r S. .
T 7 t
(representing the Jewish tradi
Lehrb.
tional or unwritten law as devel
oped by the second century
OLZ(orOr.LZ)
A.D.), arranged in six groups or
/~l 7
Seders thus : i. Zeraim ( 1 1
Una.
tractates), ii. Mo ed (12), iii.
Ndshlm (7), iv. Neztktn ( 10), v.
Onk., Onq.
K odd shim ( 1 1 ) , vi. To/wroth (12).
Onom.
OPs.
.Aboda zara, iv. 8 Mikwa oth, vi. 6
Aboth, iv. 9 Mo ed Katan, ii. n
OS .
Arakhin, v. 5 Nazir, iii. 4
Baba Bathra, iv. 3 Nedarim, iii. 3
Baba Kamma. iv. i Ngga im, vi. 3
Baba Mesi a, iv. 2 Nidda, vi. 7
Bekhoroth, v. 4 Ohaloth, vi. a
Bgrakhoth, i. I Orla, i. jo
OT .
Besa, ii. 7 Para, vi. 4
Bikkurim, i. ii Pe a, i. 2
OTJC .
Chagiga, ii. 12 Pesachim, ii. 3
Challa, i. 9 Rosh Ha(sh)shana,
Chullin, v. 3 ii. 8
P .
Hemai, i. 3 Sanhedrin, iv. 4
P 2 .
Eduyoth, iv. 7 Shabbath, ii. i
Pal.
Erubin, ii. 2 Shebu oth, :v. 6.
Gittin, iii. 6 Shebi ith, i. 5
Horayoth, iv. 10 .Shekalim, ii. 4
Kelirn, vi. i Sola, iii. 5.
Palm. . .
KerithSth, v. 7 Sukka, ii. 6
Kethubdth, iii. 2 Ta anith, ii. 9
Pal. Syr. .
Kiddushin, iii. 7 Tamid, v. 9
Kil ayim, i. 4 Tebul Yom, vi. 10
PAOS .
Kinnim, v. ii Temura, v. 6
Ma Sser Sheni, i. 8 Terumoth, i. 6
Ma aseroth, i. 7 Tohoroth, vi. 5
Makhshirin, vi. 8 Uksin, vi. 12
Par.
Makkoth, iv. 5 Yadayim, vi. ii
Mfgilla, ii. 10 Yjbamoth, iii. I
MS ilS, v. 8 Yoma, ii. 5
Pat. Pal. .
Menachoth, v. 2 Znbim, vi. 9
PE .
Middoth, v. 10 Zebachim, v. I
Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of
PEFM{_em.~\ .
the OT substantially as it was in
the early part of the second
PEFQ{u.St. \ .
century A.D. (temp. Mishna).
It remained unvocalised until
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xi
Per.-Chip.
Pers.
Pesh.
Ph., Phoen.
PRE .
Preuss. Jahrbb,
Prim. Cult,
Prop h. Is.
Prol. .
Prot. KZ .
PSBA
PS Thes.
Pun.
R
R JE .
R D .
R P .
i~5R
Rab.
Rashi
Rec. Trav.
REJ .
Rel. Pal. .
Rev. .
Rev. Sem.
Ri. Sa. .
Rob.
BR
LBR or BR iv.
or BRW iii.
Perrot and Chipiez :
Histoire de PArt dans
quite. Egyptt Assyrie
Perse Asie Afineuere
Grece Etrurie Rome;
*lff.
ET: Ancient Egypt, 83;
Chaldiza and Assyria, 84;
Phoenicia and Cyprus, 85;
Sardinia, Judaa, etc., 90;
Primitive Greece, 94.
Persian.
Peshltta, the Syriac vulgate (2nd-
3rd cent.). Vetus 1 estamentum
Syriace, ed. S. Lee, 23, O T and
NT, 24.
W. E. Barnes, An Apparatus Cri-
ticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta
Version, 97.
Phoenician.
Real-Encyklopadie fur protestan-
tische 1 heologie u. Kirche, ed.
J. J. Herzog, 22 vols., 54- 68;
< 2 >, ed. J. J. Herzog, G. L.
Plitt, Alb. Hauck, 18 vols., 77-
88; ( 3 ), ed. Alb. Hauck, vol.
i.-vii. [A-Hau], go- gg.
Preussische Jahrbucher, 72^".
E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture,
71; (3>, 91.
The Prophecies of Isaiah. See
Cheyne.
Prolegomena. See Wellhausen.
Protestantische Kirchenzeitung fur
das Evangelische Deutschland
(vols.i.-xliii., 54- g6); continued
as Prot. Monatshefte ( 97jf.).
Proceedings of the Society of Bibli
cal Archeology, 78^.
Payne Smith, 1 hesaurus Syriacus.
Punic.
Redactor or Editor.
Redactor(s) of JE.
Deuteronomistic Editor(s).
Priestly Redactor(s).
H. C. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia,
i.-v. ( 6i- 84; iv. < 2 >, 91).
Rabbinical.
i.e. Rabbenu Shelomoh Yishaki
(1040-1105), the celebrated
Jewish commentator.
Recueil de travaux relatifs a la
pliilol. et a I Archeol. egypt. et
assyr. 70 ff.
Revue des Etudes juives, i., 80 ; ii.
and iii., 81 ; and so on.
Reland, Palastina ex Monumentis
veteribus illustrata, z vols., 1714.
Revue.
Revue semitique, 93_$".
Die Bucher Richter u. Samuel.
See Budcle.
Edward Robinson :
Biblical Researches in Pales
tine, Mt. Sinai, and Arabia
Petrcea, a journal of travels
in the year 1838 (i.-iii., 41
= JSA W, i.-ii., 56).
Later Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine and the adjacent Regions, a
journal of travels in the year
1852 ( 56).
Physical Geography of the Holy
Land, 65.
Roscher .
RP . .
RS or Rel. Sent.
RV . . .
RWB . .
Rys. . .
Saad. . .
Sab. . .
Sab. Denkm. .
Sam. . .
SB A W . .
SBE . .
SBOT (Eng.)
Ausfuhrliches Lextkon d. Griech-
ischen u. Romischen Mythologit
SBOT (Heb.)
Schopf. .
Schr. .
KGF
KA T
COT
Schiir. .
GJV
Records of the Past, being English
translations of the Ancient Monu
ments of Egypt and Western
Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols. i.-xii.
( 73- 8i). New series [AV J (- )]ed.
A. H. Sayce, vols. i.-vi., 88- 92.
See ASSYRIA, 35.
Religion of the Semites. See W.
R. Smith.
Revised Version (XT, 80 ; OT,
84; Apocrypha, 95).
G. B.Winer (1789- 1858), Biblisches
Realworterbuch, 20; < 3) , 2 vols.,
47 /
Ryssel; cp. Dillmann, Bertheau.
R. Sa adya (Se adya; Ar. Sa id),
the tenth century Jewish gram
marian and lexicographer (b.
892); Explanationsofthe/w/tfj;-
legomena in the O T, etc.
Salxean, less fittingly called
Himyaritic; the name given to
a class of S. Arabian inscrip
tions.
Sabdische Denkmaler, edd. Miiller
and Mordtmann.
Samaritan.
Sitzungsberichte der Berlinischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
The Sacred Books of the East,
translated by various scholars
and edited by the Rt. Hon. F.
Max Miiller, 50 vols. 1879^".
[Otherwise known as the Poly
chrome Bible ] The Sacred Books
of the Old Testament, a new Eng.
transl., with Explanatory Notes
and Pictorial Illustrations ; pre
pared by eminent biblical scholars
of Europe and of America, and
edited, -with the assistance oj
Horace Howard Fur ness, by Paul
Haupt, 97 f.
Haupt, The Sacred Books of the Old
Testament ; a critical edition of
the Hebrew text, printed in
colours, with notes, prepared by
eminentbiblical scholars of Europe
and America, under the editorial
direction of Paul Haupt, 93 ff.
Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in
Urzeit u. Endzeit, 95.
E. Schrader ; editor of KB
Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-
forschung, 78.
Die Keilinschriften u. d. Alte
Testament, 72; <- >, 83.
Eng. transl. of KATW by
O. C. Whitehouse, The
Cuneiform Inscriptions and
the Old Testament, 2 vols.,
85, 88 (the pagination of
the German is retained in
the margin of the Eng. ed.).
E. Schiirer:
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Jesu Christi ;
i. Einleitung u. Politische Ge
schichte, 90; ii. Die Inneren
Zustiinde Palastinas u. des
jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter
xii ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Jesu Christi, 86; new ed. vol.
ii. Die Inneren Zustande, 98,
vol. iii. Uas Judenthum in der
Zerstreuung u. die jiidische Lite-
ratur, 98.
Hist. . ET of above ( 90 /.}. Vols. I /
(i.e., Div. i. vols. i f.~) =. vol. I
of German; vols. 3-5 (?.<., Div.
ii. vols. 1-3) = vol. 2 of German
[=vols. ii., iii. of < 3 ].
Selden . . J. Selden, de Jure naturali et
gentium juxta disciplinam Ebrce-
orum, 7 bks., 1665.
de Diis Syris, 1617.
Semitic.
Sinaitic; see ARAMAIC, 4.
Smend, Die Listen der Bucher
Esra u. Nehemiah, 8l.
Sem.
Sin.
Smend, Listen
Smith
GASm.
HG
George Adam Smith :
The Historical Geography of
the Holy Land, especially in
relation to the History of
Israel and of the Early
Church, 94 (additions to < 4 >,
96.)
WRS ^ . . "William Robertson Smith ( 46-^4):
O TJC The Old Testament in the Jewish
ChurchS$>\ ; <->, revised and much
enlarged, 92; (Germ, transl. by
Rothstein, 94).
Proph. . The Prophets of Israel and their
place in History, to the close of
the eighth century B.C., 82; w,
with introduction and addi
tional notes by T. K. Cheyne,
95-
Kin. . Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia, 85.
R[el.~\S\_em.~\ Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites: ist ser., The Funda
mental Institutions, 89; new
and revised edition (j?5< 2 ), 94;
Germ, transl. by Stube, 99.
[The MS notes of the later Burnett
Lectures on Priesthood, Divina
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic
Polytheism and Cosmogony
remain unpublished, but are
occasionally cited by the editors
in the Encyclopedia Biblica as
Burnett Lects. MS.]
SP . . A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine
in connection with their history,
56, last ed. 96.
Spencer . . De Legibus Hebrccorum Ritualibus
(2 Vols. 1727).
SS . . . Siegfried and Stade, Hebraisches
Worterbuch zum Alten Testa-
mente, 93.
St., Sta. . . B. Stade :
GVI . . Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, 8l-
88.
Abh. . . Ausgewdhlte Akademische Re-
den u. Abhandlungen, 99.
St. Kr. . . Studien und Kritiken, 28 ff.
Stad. m. m. . Sladiasmus magni marts (Mar-
cianus).
Stud. Bibl. . Studio Biblica, Essays in Biblical
Archeology and Criticism and
kindred subjects, 4 vols., 8$- gi.
Sw. . . . H. B. Swete, The Old Testament
in Greek according to the Septua-
gint; O, 87- 94; (), 95- 99.
SWAW . . Sitzungsberichte d. Wiener Aka-
demie d. Wissenschaften.
Sym[m]. .
Symmachus, author of a Greek
version of the Old Testament
(circa 200 A.D.). See TEXT.
Syr. . . .
Syriac. See ARAMAIC, 1 1 /
Tab. Peut.
Tabula Peutingeriana, Desiardins,
68.
Talm. Bab. Jer.
Talmud, Babylonian or Jerusalem,
consisting of the text of the
Mishna broken up into small
sections, each followed by the dis
cursive comment called Gemara.
See LAW LITERATURE.
T[ar]g. . .
Targum. See TEXT.
Jer. . .
The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru-
shalmi.
Jon. .
Targum Jonathan, the name borne
by the Babylonian Targum to
the Prophets.
Onk. .
Targum Onkelos, the Babylonian
Targum to the Pentateuch
(towards end of second century
A.D.).
ps.-Jon.
The Targ. to the Pentateuch,
known by the name of Jonathan.
TBS
Der Text der Bucher Samuelis :
see Wellhausen ; or Notes on the
Hebrew Text of the Books of
Samuel : see Driver.
temp. . .
tempore (in the time [of]).
T[extus] R[e-
The received text of the NT.
ceptus]
See TEXT.
Th[e]. . .
Thenius, die Bucher Samttelis in
A-67/, 42; <-V6 4 ; < 3) , Lohr, 98.
Theod. .
Theodotion (end of second cen
tury), author of a Greek version
of the Old Testament ( rather a
revision of the LXX than a new
translation ). See TEXT.
Theol. Studien .
Studien, published in connection
with Th. T (see DEUTERONOMY,
332).
Thes.
See Gesenius.
R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria-
cus, 68 ff.
Th.T
Ti. or Tisch.
Theologisch Tijdschrift, 67^!
Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum
Grace, editio octava critica
maior, 69- 72.
TLZ
Theologische Literaturzeitung,
76 ff.
Tosephta .
See LAW LITERATURE.
Treg.
S. P. Tregelles, The Greek New
Testament; edited from ancient
authorities, 57- 72.
Tristram .
H. B. Tristram :
FFP .
The Fauna and Flora of Palestine,
89.
NHB
The Natural History of the Bible,
(8) So
TSBA .
oy.
Transactions of Soc. Bib. Archaol.,
Tub. Z. f. Theol.
vols. i.-ix., "72^".
Tubingen Zeitschrift f. Theologie,
34/
Untersuch. .
Untersuchungen. See Noldeke,
Winckler.
Urgesch. .
Die biblische Urge^chichte. See
Budde.
v. . .
verse.
Var. Apoc. ,
The Apocrypha (AV) edited with
various renderings, etc., by C. J.
Ball.
Var. Bib.
The OldandNew Testaments(\M)
edited -with various renderings,
ttc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xiii
Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarke,
A. Goodwin, W. Sanday (NT)
[otherwise known as the Queen s
printers Bible ].
Vet. Lat. . . VersioVetus Latina; the old-Latin
version (made from the Greek) ;
later superseded by the Vulgate.
See TEXT AND VERSIONS.
Vg. . . . Vulgate, Jerome s Latin Bible :
OT from Heb., NT a revision
of Vet. Lat. (end of 4th and be
ginning of 5th cent.). See TEXT.
We., Wellh. . Julius Wellhausen.
De Gent. De Gentibuset Familiisjudceis
qua; in I Chr. 2 4 nume-
rantur Dissertatio ( 70).
TBS . Der Text der Biicher Samuelis
( 70- .
Phar. u. Die Phansderu. d.Sadducder;
Sadd. eine Untersuchung zur in-
neren judischen Geschicht
( 74>
Gesch. . Geschichte Israels, vol. i. ( 78).
Pro/. . 2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled
Prolegomena zur Gesch. Is
raels, 83; ET 85; 4th
Germ. ed. 95.
IJG . . Israelitische u. judische Ge
schichte, 94; ( 3 >, 97; an
amplification of Abriss der
Gesch. Israels u. Judo s in
Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,
84. The Abriss was sub
stantially a reproduction of
Israel in EB^ ( 8i; re-
published in ET of Prol.
[ 85] and separately as
Sketch of Hist, of Israel and
Judah, (3), 91).
\ArJ\Heid. Reste Arabischen Heidentums
(in Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten )
( 87; < 2) , 97)-
Kl. Proph. Die Kleinen Propheten iiber-
setzt, mit Noten ( 92; ( 3 >,
; 9 8).
CH . . Die Composition des Hexa-
teuchs und der historischen
Bucher des Alten Testaments
( 85; Zweiter Druck, mit
Nachtragen, 89; originally
published mJDT2\ 392 ff.,
[ 76], 22 47 [ 77], and in
Bleek, Einl. W, 78).
Weber . . System der Altsynagogalen Palasti-
nischen Theologie ; orDieLehren
des Talmud, 80 (edited by Franz
Delitzsch and Georg Schneder-
mann) ; ( 2 >, Judische Theologie
auf Grund des Talmud und
verwandter Schriften, 97 (ed.
Schnedermann).
Wetstein . . J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamen-
tum Grcecum, etc., 2 vols. folio ;
1751-1752.
Wetz. . . Wetzstein, Ausgewahlte griechischc
und lateinische Inschriften, ge-
sammelt auf Reisen in den
Trachonen und um das Hau-
rdngebirgeJbT, ; Reisebericht uber
Hauran und Trachonen, 60.
WF . . . Wellhausen- Furness, The book of
Psalms ( 98) in SBOT (Eng.}.
WH [W & H] . Westcott and Hort, The New Tes
tament in the Original Greek,
Wi. Hugo Winckler :
Unlers. . Untersuchungen z. Altoriental-
ischen Geschichte, 89.
Ali[tesf]. Alttestamentliche Untersuch-
Unt. ungen, 92.
GBA . Geschichte Babyloniens u. As
sy rie its, 92.
AOforAF Altorientalische Forschungen,
1st ser. i.-vi., 93~ 97; 2nd
ser. (AFW)\., 98 /
GI . . Geschichte Israels in einzel-
darstellungen, i. 95.
Sarg. . Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons,
89.
KB*, . . Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-
Amarna (ET Metcalf ).
Wilk. . . J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
37~ 4i ; < 2 > by Birch, 3 vols., 78.
Winer . . G. B. Winer :
RWB . Bibl. Reahvorterbuch ; see
RWB.
Gram. . Grammatik des neutestament-
lichen Sprachidioms^, neu
bearbeitet von Paul Wilh.
Schmiedel, 94^; ET of
6th ed., W. F. Moulton, 70.
WMM . . See As. u. Eur.
Wr. . . . W. Wright :
Comp. Lectures on the Comparative
Gram. Grammar of the Semitic
Languages, 90.
Ar. Gram. A Grammar of the Arabic
Language, translated from
the German of Caspan and
edited, with numerous addi
tions and corrections by W.
Wright; < 2 2 vols., 74- 75;
( 3 > revised by W. Robertson
Smith and M. J. de Goeje,
vol. i. 96, vol. ii. 98.
WRS . . William Robertson Smith. See
Smith.
WZKM . . Wiener Zeitschrift fiir d. Kunde
des Morgenlandes, 87 ff.
Yakut . . The well-known Arabian geo
graphical writer (1179-1229).
Kitab Mo jam el-Bulddn edited
by F. Wustenfeld (Jacut s Geo-
graphisches Worterbuch, 66- 70).
Z . Zeitschrift (Journal).
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie u. ver-
wandte Gebiete, 86 ff.
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache
u. Alterthumskunde, 63^".
ZATW . . Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, 81 ff.
ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-
Idndischen Gesellschaft, 46^".
ZDPV . . Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-
vereins, 78^".
ZKF . . Zeitschrift fur Keilschriftforschung
und veriuandte Gebiete, 84 /.,
continued as ZA.
ZKM . . See WZKM.
ZKW . . Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissen
schaft u. kirchliches Leben (ed.
Luthardt), i.-ix., So- Sgfc
ZLT . . Zeitschrift fur die gesammte luther-
ische Theologie und Kirche, 40-
78.
ZTK . . Zeitschrift fur Theologie und
Kirche, 91 ff.
ZWT . . Zeitschrift fur wisstnschaftliche
Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), 5
xiv ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS
ACL .
APK .
Crit. Bib. .
GA .
OCL .
Ohnefalsch-Richter
SMA W
Altchristliche Litteratur : e.g.
Adolf Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius,
of which there appeared in 1893 Pt. I. Die Ueberlieferung und der
Bestand, and in 1897, Pt. II. Die Chronologie, vol. I. down to
Irenceus (cited also as Chronol., i).
Gustav Kriiger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in den
ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1895 (in Grundriss der Theoiogischen
\ \ issenschaften].
F. Spiegel, Die alt-persischen h eilinschriften, 1862, ( 2 < 1881.
Cheyne, Critica Biblica (in preparation).
Geschichte Aegyptens.
W. C. van Manen, Handleiding voor de Oudchristelijke Letterkunde
(1900).
M. H. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, die Bibel, und Homer, 1893.
Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen Akademieder Wissenschaften, Munich.
Arranged according to the alphabetical order of the first initial. Joint authorship is where
possible indicated thus ; A. B. 1-5 ; C. D. 6-10
A. B. BERTHOLET, ALFRED, Professor Extra-
ordinarius of Exegesis in the University
of Basel.
A. C. P. PATERSON, A. C., M.A. (Oxon.).
A. E. S. SHIPLEY, A. E., M.A., F.Z.S., Fellow,
Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ s College,
Cambridge.
A. J. JULICHER, GUSTAV ADOLF, D. D., Pro
fessor of Church History and New
Testament F.xegesis, Marburg.
A. R. S. K. KENNEDY, Rev. ARCHIBALD R. S.,
M.A. , D.D. , Professor of Hebrew and
Semitic Languages, Edinburgh.
A. S. SOCIN, The late A., Professor of Oriental
Languages, Leipsic.
B. D. DUHM, BERNHARD, D. D. , Professor
of Old Testament Exegesis in the Uni
versity of Basel.
C. C. CREIGHTON, C. , M.D. , London.
C. C. T. TORREY, CHARLES C., Ph.D., Professor
of Semitic Languages, Yale University.
C. H. T. TOY, C. H., D.D. , Professor of Hebrew,
Harvard University.
C. H. W. J. JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., Assistant
Chaplain, Queens College, Cam
bridge.
C. P. T. TIELE, The late C. P. , D. D. , Professor of
the Science of Religion, Leyden.
E. A. A. ABBOTT, Rev. E. A., D. D. , London.
E. H. HATCH, The late Rev. EDWIN, D.D.
E. K. KAUTZSCH, E.. D.D., Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis, Halle.
E. M. MEYER, EDUARD, Professor of Ancient
History, Halle.
E. N. NESTLE, Eb. ( D.D., Maulbronn, Wiir-
temberg.
F. B. BROWN, Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., Daven
port Professor of Hebrew and the
cognate Languages in the Union
Theological Seminary, New York.
G. A. B. BARTON, G. A., Professor of Biblical
Literature and Semitic Languages,
Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania.
G. A. D. DEISSMANN, G. ADOLF, D.D. , Professorof
New Testament Exegesis, Heidelberg.
G. A. S. SMITH, Rev. GEORGE ADAM, D.D.,
LL. D. , Professor of Hebrew and Old
Testament Exegesis, United Free
Church College, Glasgow.
G. B. G. GRAY, Rev. G. BUCHANAN, M.A. ,
Professor of Hebrew in Mansfield
College, Oxford.
G. F. H. HILL, G. F., M.A., British Museum.
G. F. M. MOORE, Rev. GEORGE F., D.D.,
President and Professor of Hebrew in
Andover Theological Seminary, And-
over, Mass.
H. G. GUTHE, HERMANN, Professor Extra-
ordinarius of Old Testament Exegesis,
Leipsic.
H. H. W. P. PEARSON, H. H. W., M.A., Royal Gar
dens, Kew.
H. U. USENER, H., Professor of Classical Phil
ology in the University of Bonn.
H. W. WINCKLER, H., Ph.D., Privat-docent in
Semitic Philology, Berlin.
H. W. H. HOGG, HOPE W. , M.A. , Lecturer in
Hebrew and Arabic in Owens College,
Victoria University, Manchester.
H. Z. ZIMMERN, HEINRICH, Professor of Semitic
Languages and Assyriology, Leipsic.
I. A. ABRAHAMS, ISRAEL, London, Editor of
the Jewish Quarterly Review.
I. B. BENZINGER, Dr. IMMANUEL, Privat-
decent in Old Testament Theology,
Berlin.
KEY TO SIGNATURES IN VOLUME III
xv
J. A. R. ROBINSON, Rev. J. ARMITAGE, D.D. ,
Canon of Westminster.
J. D. P. PRINCE, J. D., Ph.D., Professor of
Semitic Languages and Comparative
Philology, New York University.
J. G. F. FRAZER, J. G. , LL.D. , D.C.L., Litt.D. ,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
J. L. M. MYRKS, J. L., M.A., Magdalen College,
Oxford.
J. W. WELLHAUSEN, JULIUS, D.D., Professor
of Semitic Philology, Gbttingen.
K. B. BUDDE, KARL, D.D. , Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and the Hebrew
Language, Marburg.
K. M. MARTI, KARL, D.D., Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and the Hebrew
Language, Berne.
Lu. G. GAUTIKR, LUCIEN, Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and History,
Geneva.
M. A. C. CANNEY, MAURICE A., M.A. (Oxon.),
St. Peter s Rectory, Saffron Hill,
London, E.G.
N. M. M LEAN, NOKMAN, M. A. , Lecturer in
Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ s College,
Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Caius
College, Cambridge.
0. C. CONE, Rev. Professor ORELLO, D. D. ,
Professor of Biblical Theology in St.
Lawrence University.
P. V. VOLZ, Herr Repetent PAUL, Tubingen.
P. W. S. SCHMIEDEL, PAUL W. , D. D. , Professor
of New Testament Exegesis, Zurich.
S. A. C. COOK, STANLEY A., M.A. , Fellow of
Caius College, Cambridge.
S. R. D. DRIVER, Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon
of Christ Church, Oxford.
T. G. P. PINCHES, THEOPHILUS G., M.R.A.S.,
formerly of the Egyptian and Assyrian
Department in the British Museum.
T. K. C. CHEYNE, Rev. T. K. , D. Litt. , D. D. , Oriel
Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Ro
chester.
T. N. NOLDEKE, THEODOR, Professor of
Semitic Languages, Strassburg.
T. W. D. DAVIES, T. W., Ph.D.. Lecturer in
Semitic Languages, University College
of North Wales, Bangor.
W. C. A. ALLEN, Rev. W. C, M.A., Chaplain,
Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and
Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.
W. C. V. M. MANEN, W. C. VAN, D.D., Professor of
Old-Christian Literature and New Tes
tament Exegesis, Leyden.
W. E. A. ADDIS, Rev. W. E. , M.A. , Lecturer in
Old Testament Criticism in Manchester
College, Oxford.
W. H. B. BENNETT, Rev. W. H. , Litt.D., D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Languages and
Literature, Hackney College, London,
and Professor of Old Testament
Exegesis, New College, London.
W. H. K. KOSTERS, The late W. H. , D. D. , Professor
of Old Testament Exegesis, Leyden.
W. J. W. WOODHOUSE, W. J., M.A., Professor of
Greek, University of Sydney.
W. M. M. MULLER, W. MAX, Professor of Old
Testament Literature, Reformed Epis
copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia.
W. R. S. SMITH, The late W. ROBERTSON, D.D.,
Adams Professor of Arabic, Cambridge.
W. T. T.-D. THISELTON-DYER, Sir WILLIAM TUR
NER. C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., Director
Royal Gardens, Kew.
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME III
Arranged according to alphabetical order of surnames.
ABBOTT, E. A.
ABRAHAMS, I.
ADDIS, W. E.
ALLEN, W. C.
BARTON, G. A.
BENNETT, W. H.
BENZINGER, I.
BERTHOLET, A.
BROWN, F.
BUDDE, K.
CANNEY, M. A.
CHEYNE, T. K.
CONE, O.
COOK, S. A.
CREIGHTON, C.
DAVIES, T. W.
DEISSMANN, G. A.
DRIVER, S. R.
DUHM, B.
FRAZER, J. G.
E. A. A.
I. A.
W. E. A.
W. C. A.
G. A. B.
W. H. B.
I. B.
A. B.
F. B.
K. B.
M. A. C.
T. K. C.
0. C.
S. A. C.
C. C.
T. W. D.
G. A. D.
S. R. D.
B. D.
J. G. F.
GAUTIER, Lu.
GRAY, G. B.
GUTHE, H.
HATCH, E.
HILL, G. F.
HOGG, H. W.
JOHNS, C. H. W.
JULICHER, G. A.
KAUTZSCH, E.
KENNEDY, A. R. S.
KOSTERS, W. H.
M LEAN, N.
MANEN, W. C. V.
MARTI, K.
MEYER, E.
MOORE, G. F.
MULLER, W. M.
MYRES, J. L.
NESTLE, E.
NOLDEKE, T.
Lu. G.
G. B. G.
H. G.
E. H.
G. F. H.
H. W. H.
C. H. W. J.
A. J.
E. K.
A. R. S. K.
W. H. K.
N. M.
W. C. V. M.
K. M.
E. M.
G. F. M.
W. M. M.
J. L. M.
E N.
T. N.
PATERSON, A. C.
PINCHES, T. G.
PRINCE, J. D.
ROBINSON, J. A.
SCHMIEDEL, P. W.
SHIPLEY, A. E.
SMITH, G. A.
SMITH, W. R.
SOCIN, A.
THISELTON-DYER, W.
TIELE, C. P.
TORREY, C. C.
TOY, C. H.
USENER, H.
VOLZ, P.
WELLHAUSEN, J.
WINCKLER, H.
WOODHOUSE, W. J.
ZlMMERN, H.
A. C- P.
T. G. P.
J. D. P.
J. A. R.
P. W. S.
A. E. 8.
G. A. S.
W. R. S.
A. S.
T. W.T.T.-D.
C. P. T.
C. C. T.
C. H. T.
H U.
P. V.
J. W.
H. W.
W. J. W.
H. Z
MAPS IN VOLUME III
MEDITERRANEAN (Eastern) . ...... between cols. 3610 and 3611
MESOPOTAMIA . ..... ,, 3052 ,, 3053
MOAB .......... ,, 3168 ,, 3169
NEGEB ....... . . ,, 3376 ,, 3377
NINEVEH
(1) City ........... col. 3423
(2) District .......... ,, 3422
PHOENICIA and LEBANON ....... between cols. 3734 and 3735
AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SOME OF THE ARTICLES IN
VOL. III., WITH THE AUTHORS NAMES
LADANUM
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
LAMP, LANTERN
LAW AND JUSTICE .
LAW LITERATURE .
LAZARUS .
LEAVEN .
LEBANON.
LEPROSY, LEPER
LEVITES .
LEVITICUS
LINEN
LION
LOCUST .
LOGOS *.
LORD S DAY
LORD S PRAYER
LOVINGKINDNESS
LUKE .
LYCAONIA
LYSANIAS
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
MACCABEES ( BOOKS)
MAGIC .
MALACHI
MAMMON ...
MANASSEH
MANNA .
MANTLE .
MARK .
MARRIAGE
MARY .
MASSAH AND MERIBAH
MASSEBAH
MATTHEW
MATTHIAS
MEALS .
MEDICINE
MELCHIZEDEK .
MEPHIBOSHETH
MERCY SEAT .
MESHA (with Illustration)
MESOPOTAMIA (with Map)
MESSIAH .
MICAH
MIDIAN .
MILK
MILL, MILLSTONES .
MINISTRY
MITRK
MIZRAIM .
MOAB (with Map)
MODIN
MOI.ECH, MOLOCH
MONTH
MOSES
MOURNING CUSTOMS
Music (with Illustrations)
MYSTERY .
N ADAB AND ABIHU .
NAHUM .
NAME
NAMES
NAPHTALI
NATIVITY (-NARRATIVES)
NATURE WORSHIP .
NAZARETH
Sir W. T. Thistleton-Dyer.
The late Prof. W. Robertson
Smith and Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
S. A. Cook.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof. G. B. Gray.
Rev. E. A. Abbott.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
The late Prof. A. Socin.
Dr. C. Creighton.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. A. Bertholet.
President G. F. Moore.
Norman M Lean.
A. E. Shipley, S. A. Cook, and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
A. E. Shipley, S. A. Cook, and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. A. Jiilicher.
Prof. G. A. Deissmann.
Prof. Eb. Nestle.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
Prof. Charles C. Torrey.
Prof. Charles C. Torrey.
Prof. Zimmern and Prof. T. W.
Davies.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. C. C. Torrey.
Prof. Eb. Nestle.
Hope W. Hogg.
Norman M Lean and S. A. Cook.
I. Abrahams and S. A. Cook.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
S. A. Cook.
President G. F. Moore.
Rev. W. C. Allen.
Rev. W. C. Allen.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Dr. C. Creighton.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. G. A. Deissmann.
Prof. S. R. Driver.
The late Prof. A. Socin and Dr.
H. Winckler.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith, Prof.
E. Kautzsch, and Prof. T. K.
Cheyne.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. Th. Noldeke.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
I. Abrahams and S. A. Cook.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. G. A. Smith, Prof. J. Well-
hausen, and Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
I. Abrahams.
President G. F. Moore.
Prof. Karl Marti.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof. J. D. Prince.
Prof. A. Jiilicher.
Rev. W. E. Addis.
Prof. Karl Budde.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. Th. Noldeke, Prof. G. B.
Gray, Prof. E. Kautzsch, and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Hope W. Hogg.
Prof. H. Usener.
President G. F. Moore.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
NAZIRITE
NEBO (MOUNT)
NEBUCHADREZZAR .
NEGEB (with Map) .
NEHEMIAH
NEPHILIM
NETHINIM
NEW MOON
NICODEMUS
NILE (with Illustration)
NIMROD .
NINEVEH (with Plans)
No, NO-AMON .
NOPH
NUMBER .
NUMBERS (BOOK)
OATH
OBADIAH (BOOK)
On
OLD -CHRISTIAN LITERA
TURE
OLIVES, THE MOUNT OF .
ONIAS ....
OPHIR ....
PALACE (with Illustrations)
PALESTINE
PAPYRI ....
PARABLES
PARADISE
PASSOVER, and FEAST OF
UNLEAVENED BREAD
PAUL (with Map)
PAVEMENT
PENNY (with Illustrations) .
PENTECOST
PERGAMOS
PERSIA ....
PESTILENCE
PETER, THE EPISTLES OF
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO .
PHILIP THE APOSTLE AND
PHILIP THE EVANGELIST
PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES) .
PHILISTINES
PHINEHAS
PHOENICIA (with Map)
PHRYGIA ....
PILLAR OF CLOUD AND FIRE
PITHOM ....
PLAGUES, THE TEN
POETICAL LITERATURE .
PONTUS ....
POOR ....
POTTERY (with Illustrations)
PRAYER ....
PRESBYTER
PRIEST ....
PROPHETIC LITERATURE,
PROPHET, AND PROPHECY
PROSELYTE
PROVERBS (BOOK)
PSALMS (BOOK) .
PTOLEMAIS
Pui
PURIM
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Rev. C. H. W. Johns.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
The late Prof. W. H. Kostersand
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Rev. E. A. Abbott.
Prof. W. M. Mullen
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Rev. C. H. W. Johns.
Prof. W. M. Miiller.
Prof. W. M. Mullen
Prof. G. A. Barton.
President G. F. Moore.
M. A. Canney and Prof. T. K.
Cheyne.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Prof. W. C. van Manen.
Prof. Lu. Gautier.
Prof. H. Guthe.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne and Dr. I.
Benzinger.
The late Prof. A. Socin, Prof. W.
M. Miiller, H. H. W. Pearson,
and A. E. Shipley.
Prof. G. A. Deissmann.
Prof. A. Jiilicher.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
The late Rev. E. Hatch and Prof.
W. C. v. Manen.
M. A. Canney.
G. F. Hill.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse.
The late Prof. C. P. Tiele and
Prof. F. Brown.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. O. Cone.
Prof. W. C. van Manen.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
Prof. W. C. van Manen.
President G. F. Moore.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne, Prof. W. M.
Miiller, and S. A. Cook.
Prof. Ed. Meyer.
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse.
Prof. G. B. Gray.
Prof. W. M. Miiller.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. B. Duhm.
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse.
A. C. Paterson.
J. L. Myres.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Rev. Canon J. A. Robinson.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. A. Bertholet.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne, Prof. H.
Guthe, Paul Volz, and Rev.
Canon J. A. Robinson.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. W. H. Bennett.
Prof. C. H. Toy.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. G. A. Smith.
T. G. Pinches.
Rev. C. H. W. Johns. Dr. J. G.
Frazer, and Prof. T. K.Chevne.
CONTRIBUTORS
TO
VOLUME III.
ABBOTT, Rev. E. A.. D.D.,
London
ABRAHAMS, I., M.A. , London .
ADDIS, Rev. W. E.. M.A., Man
chester College, Oxford
ALLEN, Rev. W. C. , M.A. , Exeter
College, Oxford
BARTON, Rev. Prof. G. A., Ph.D.,
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
BENNETT, Rev. Prof. W. H. ,
Litt.D., D. D.. London
BENZINGER, Dr. linmanuel,
Berlin
BF.RTHOLET, Prof. A., Basel
BROWN, Rev. Prof. F., D.D.,
New York
BUDDE, Prof. K. , D.D. , Mar
burg
CANNKY, Maurice A., M.A. ,
London
CHEYNE, Rev. Prof. T. K.,
D.Litt., D.D., Oxford
CONE, Rev. Prof. O., D.D., St.
Lawrence University
COOK, S. A., M. A. , Caius Col
lege, Cambridge
CREIGHTON, C. , M. D. , London
DAVIES, T. W. , Ph.D. , University
College, North Wales
DEISSMANN. Prof. G. A., D.D.,
Heidelberg
DRIVER, Rev. Prof. S. R. , D.D. ,
Oxford
DUHM, Prof. B. , D.D., Basel .
FRAZER, J. G. , LL.D., D.C.L.,
Trinity College, Cambridge
GAUTIER, Prof. Lucien, Geneva
GRAY, Rev. Prof. G. B., M.A.,
Mansfield College, Oxford
GUTHE, Prof. H., D.D. , Leipsic
HATCH, the late Rev. Edwin,
D.D.
HIM., (}. F., M.A.. British
Museum
HOGG, H. W., M.A.. Owens
College, Manchester
JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A.,
Queens College, Cambridge
JULICHKR, Prof. A., D.D.,
Mar bore
Lazarus ; Nicodemus.
Mantle ; Mitre ; Modin.
Nadab and Abihu.
Matthew ; Matthias.
Number.
Nadabath ; Proselyte.
Law and Justice; Marriage;
Mourning Customs ; Ne-
thinim ; New Moon ;
Palace ; Passover ; Pente
cost.
Levites ; Priest.
Persia.
Nahum.
Oath ; Pavement.
Lamentations (Book) ;
Lovingkindness ; Mel-
chizedek; Mephibosheth;
Micali ; Mizraim ; Moses;
Name ; Nazareth ; Nebo
(Mt. ); Negeb ; Nephi-
lim ; Ninirod ; Ophir ;
Paradise ; Plagues, The
Ten ; Prayer ; Prophetic
Literature ; Psalms
(Book).
Peter (Epistles of).
Lamp ; Lion ; Locust ;
Manna ; Mantle; Massah
and Meribah ; Mitre ;
Phinehas.
Leprosy ; Medicine.
Magic.
Lord s Day ; Mercy Seat ;
Papyri.
Mesha.
Poetical Literature.
Purim.
Olives, Mount of.
Law Literature ; Names ;
Pillar of Cloud and Fire.
Onias ; Prophetic Litera
ture.
Paul.
Penny.
Manasseh ; Naphtali.
Nebuchadrezzar ; Nineveh ;
Purim.
Logos; Mystery; Parables.
KAUTZSCH, Prof. E. , D.D., Halle
KENNEDY, Rev. Prof. A. R. S. ,
D.D., Edinburgh
ROSTERS, the late Prof. W. H. ,
D.D., Leyden
M LEAN, N., M.A., Christ s
College, Cambridge
MANEN, Prof. W. C. van, D.D.,
Leyden
MARTI, Prof. K., D.D., Bern .
MEYER. Prof. Ed., Halle .
MOORK, Rev. Pres. G. F.. D.D.,
Andover
MULLER, Prof. W. M., Phila
delphia
MYRK.S, J. L. , M.A. , Magdalen
College, Oxford
NESTLE, Eb. , D.D. , Maulbronn,
Wurtemberg
NOLDEKE, Prof. Theodor, Strass-
burg
PATERSON, A. C. , M.A. .
PEARSON, H. H. \V., M.A.,
Royal Gardens, Kew
PINCHES, T. G. , formerly of
British Museum
PRINCE, Prof. J. D., Ph.D.,
New York
ROBINSON, Rev. J. A., D.D. ,
Canon of Westminster
SCHMIEDEL, Prof. P. W. , D.D.,
Zurich
SHIPLEY, A. E., M.A., Christ s
College, Cambridge
SMITH, Rev. Prof. G. A., D.D.,
Glasgow
SMITH, the late Prof. W. Robert
son, D.D.
SociN, the late Prof. A., Leipsic.
THISELTON-DYER, Sir W. T.,
K . C. M. G. , F. R. S. , Director,
Royal Gardens, Kew
TIELE, the late Prof. C. P. , D. D. ,
Leyden
TORREY, Prof. Charles C. , Ph. D. ,
Andover
TOY, Prof. C. H., D.D., Harvard
USENER, Prof. H., Bonn .
VOLZ, Herr Repetent Paul,
Tubingen
WELLHAUSEN, Prof. Julius, D. D. ,
Gottingen
WINCKI.ER, H., Ph.D., Berlin .
Wooimorsi . 1 rof. W. J., M.A. ,
Sydney
ZIMMEKN, Prof. H., Leipsic
Messiah ; Names.
Leaven ; Meals ; Milk ;
Mill ; Oil.
Nehemiah.
Linen ; Manna.
Old - Christian Literature ;
Paul ; Philemon ( Epistle
to) ; Philippians (Ep. ).
Month.
Phoenicia.
Leviticus ; Massebah ; Mo-
lech ; Nature Worship ;
Numbers (Book) ; Philis
tines.
Nile; No; Noph ; Pharaoh;
Phinehas ; Pithom.
Pottery.
Lord s Prayer ; Mammon.
Midian ; Names.
Poor.
Palestine (flora).
Pul.
Music.
Presbyter; Prophet (New
Testament).
Luke ; Lysanias ; Mark ;
Mary ; Ministry ; Philip.
Lion ; Locust ; Palestine
(fauna).
Moab ; Ptolemais.
Lamentations (Book) ; Le
vites ; Malachi ; Messiah ;
Micah ; Nazirite ; Oba-
diah(Book); Priest ; Pro
selyte ; Psalms ( Book I.
Lebanon ; Mesopotamia ;
Palestine.
Ladanum.
Persia.
Maccabees (Family) ; Mac
cabees (Books) ; Malachi.
Proverbs.
Nativity.
Prophetic Literature.
Moab.
Mesopotamia.
Lycaonia ; Pergamos ;
Phrygia ; Pontus.
Magic.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
LAADAH (nil? 1 ?, 35 ; perhaps abbrev. from mjth^i
El passes by ; cp EI.AIJAH), a Judahite ; iCh.42i (JiaSad
[H], aa6a [A], Aa6r)i [LJ). For a probable solution of the. pro
blem of Laadali, see LECAH.
LAADAN (ftl/?), iCh. 726 23 7 ff. 26 2 i AV, RV
LAUAN (q.v. }.
LABAN (\1? ; A&BAN [ADEL]), son of Nahor
(Gen. 295 J ; cp 244?, where Bethuel, son of, should
be omitted as an interpolation). 1 He was also brother
of Rebekah (2429), and became father of Leah and
Rachel (chap. 29), and of several sons (30 35 31 1) ; he
was therefore uncle and father-in-law of Jacob. Accord
ing to P (25 20) he was, like Bethuel, an Aramaean
(anx, EV a Syrian ) ; but P does not mean to deny
that he was a Nahorite ; Milcah and Aram are both
probably corruptions of Jerahmeel, and the northern
Jerahmeelites dwelt at the city of Nahor. It is in
fact here that the tradition given by J places the home
of Laban (24 10 2/43) ; the God of Laban, too, is called
by E the God of Nahor (31 53). Elsewhere (see
NAHOR) it is suggested that Nahor is most probably
miswritten for Hauran ; very possibly J and E had
before them corrupt versions of the traditional narrative.
It would be unfair to criticise the character of Laban
as if he were a historical individual ; we can only ven
ture to infer that the later Israelites criticised the char
acter of the Aramaeans very unfavourably. It is
essential, however, to notice the religious difference
between Laban and Jacob ; note especially the incident
with the teraphim (Gen. 31 30 ; cp 352, and see TEKA-
PHIM). Since Laban i.e. , the Laban-tribe resides
in or near a city of Hauran it is archasologically
important to try to clear up the name. A very similar
name, LIBNI [y.v.], is given in Ex. 617 Nu. 3 18 to a
son of Gershon, son of Levi ; in i Ch. 617, however,
Libni s father is called Gershom. Now, Gershom
(= Gershon) is a Jerahmeelite name. Gershom in
Ex. 222 is the son of Moshe (Moses), who was the son
of Amrani (Ex. 6 20, P) ; Amram, like Abram, contains
in our view an abbreviation of the name Jerahmeel. Levi
too is claimed elsewhere (LEVI, i) as a Jerahmeelite
name ; it corresponds to Leah, which is explained
elsewhere (LEAH) as a fragment of a feminine form of
Jerahmeel. The natural inference, if these data be
granted, is that Laban and Libni are both connected
with Leah and Levi ; p 1 ?, Laban, may be from pi 1 ?, and
Libni may be a further development of pS.
Hence the Levi-tribe was at one time viewed as the equal of
the Jacob-tribe, though afterwards it had to accept an inferior,
dependent position. It thus becomes unnecessary to combine
Laban with an Assyrian god Laban (cp [ihi] libitti, god of
1 Similarly the references to Bethuel in Gen. 24 15 2450 (J) are
to be viewed as interpolations. See Mez, Gescli. d. St. Harran,
iqff. and Dillmann s Genesis. In Gen. 2220-23 (J) tne list should
end with and Laban and Rebekah.
brickwork, KB 82 looyC) mentioned by Delitzsch and Sayce
(Hibb. Led. 249, n. 3), or with the Lapana (probably Helbon)
of Am. Tab. 139 35 37, or to regard the name as originally a
title of the Harranian moon-god (Schr. A A 7~( 2 ) on Gen. 27 43;
Jensen, ZA, 1896, p. 298 ; cp Goldziher, Heb. Myth. 158; Wi.
GI 2 57). Gunkel (Gen. 292) finds the Laban legend free from
mythology ; on the other side, see Winckler, op. cit.
LABAN (\> ; AoBON [BAFL]), an unknown locality
(Dt. li); perhaps the same as LIBNAH (2, q.v. ). Cp
WANDERINGS, 10.
LABANA (ALBANIA [BA]), i Esd. 629 = Neh.748,
LEBANA.
LABOUR (l^a, Gen. 31 42; tatf, Dt. 26 7 ), Labourer
(eprATHC.Mt-937). See SLAVERY. The use of labour
for fruit of labour (e.g. , Hab. 817) is one of the most
questionable Hebraisms of the EV.
LACEDAEMONIANS (AAKeAAlMONioi [AV], Av
K&|. [A]; see Swete, ad loc. and App. ), mentioned
only in 2 Mace. 5 9 ; elsewhere always Spartans
(CTTAPTIATAI) is used. See JASON, 2 (end), SPARTA.
The Jews claimed kinship with the Lacedaemonians (see
SPAKTA for diplomatic relations between the two peoples about
300 B.C. and 145 B.C.). For the presence of Jews in Sparta, we
may compare i Mace. 1523, ar >d in the Peloponnese generally,
Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36.
LACHISH (pi? ; A&\eiC [ BAL . etc.]). A city in
the Shephelah (Josh. 1639, A^X 7 ?!? [B*A], Xa. [B ab super-
1 H" torfr scr ^ * ts k n g w ^ ^ our otner Amorite
^ kings, was defeated by Joshua at Gibeon
(Josh. 103-15; cp GIBEON, i, MAKKEDAH) ; on the
fate of the city and its population, see Josh. lOsi/. It
seems to have been a chariot-city (Mic. 1 13 ; cp i K.
9 19 and BETH-MARCABOTH). The Chronicler speaks of
its fortification by Rehoboam (2 Ch. 11 9). Amaziah fled
thither from a conspiracy (2 K. 14 19 ; see AMAZIAH,
i). Sennacherib besieged and took the place on his
expedition against Egypt, and sei.t the Rabshakeh
thence to Jerusalem (2 K. 1814, 17, cp 198; Is. 862
Xa[xhs |T], cp 378 [om. NAOQ]). Lachish was one of
the two last fenced cities to be captured by Nebuchad
rezzar s army (Jer. 34?). It is mentioned in a list of
cities in Nehemiah (1130); but on critical grounds we
cannot assume that Jews really dwelt there in the period
referred to (see EZRA ii., 5, n. 3). Prof. Petrie s infer
ences from his excavations entirely bear out this opinion
viz. , that, after the return of the Jews Lachish appears
to have been hardly reoccupied (Tell el-Hesv, 29).
In Mic. 1 13 Lachish is called the beginning of sin for the
daughter (i.e., people) of Zion. Possibly some heathen Philis
tine rites (cp Is. 2&) had been introduced at Lachish, and
spread thence to Jerusalem. The play on the name of Lachish
is obscure. Read perhaps D -^f 1 1 f"l33"iD PT 1 . Make ready
chariot horses ;1 cp Ass. narkabate raklsit, chariot-horses,
87
2689
1 See Ges.-Buhl, s.v. pm ; and, for the rest, Che. JQR
10576./C [!8g8]. MT is rendered in RV, Bind the chariot to the
2690
LACHISH
Del. Ass. HIVB 622 ; rakis and liik ish produce an assonance.
The people of Lachish have good cause to flee, for they are
partners in the sins of Jerusalem.
The antiquity of Lachish is proved by the references
to it in some of the Amarna tablets (i5th cent. B.C.).
Zimrida (cp ZIMKI) was prince of the city under the
Egyptian king Amen-hotep IV. Efforts were made to
shake his allegiance to Egypt ; but he handed over the
man who had tried to seduce him to an Egyptian official.
Soon after, however, Lachish rebelled against him ; the
fate of Zimrida remains uncertain.
See Am. Tab. 217, 219, 181, and Peiser, OLZ, isth Jan. 1899.
Max Miiller, however (OL/., isth March 1899), finds some
difficulties in the situation supposed by Peiser. No. 219 is the
famous tablet found at Tell el-Ht-sy (see below, 2) and included
by Winckler in his edition of the Amarna Tablets.
There is also in the British Museum a bas-relief (found at
Kuyunjik) with this inscription, according to Winckler, Sen
nacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, took his seat on
the throne, and the captives from Lachish marched up before
him ( Textbuch, 37). This confirms the inference from 2 K.
198 that Sennacherib s siege of Lachish was successful.
Eusebius and Jerome place the site of Lachish 7 R.m.
S. of Eleutheropolis, towards the Uarom (OS 274 9
Q.. 13f>22). This does not agree with the
position of Umm Lakis, which most recent
scholars have identified with Lachish, this place being
\V. , not S. , of Eleutheropolis. In fact, its sole re
commendations consist in a very slight resemblance
of its name to that of Lachish (k, not k, is the second
consonant), 2 and in its being only three-quarters of an
hour from Ajlan (Eglon) ; cp Josh. 10 34. It presents,
as Conder states, only a few traces of ruins, two
masonry cisterns, and a small, low mound (PEFQ, 1878,
p. 20). On the ground of this apparent insignificance,
Robinson long ago rejected it (#/?> 389), adding that the
mound of Tell el-Hesy must certainly represent some
important city ; a finer position could hardly be
imagined. It was left for Conder, however, to point
out that Lachish ought to be, and for Petrie virtually
to prove that it was, the city which Tell el-Hesy repre
sents. The work of excavation was begun by Flinders
Petrie in April 1890. A study of the walls and of the
pottery of different levels led him to the conclusion that
the earliest dwellings are not later than the seventeenth
century B. c. , and the latest belong to the fifth century
B.C. The great walls below the level of the ash-bed
belong to the pre-Israelitish or Amorite times. The
stones below the bed of .ashes belong to the rude period
of the Judges. The ashes represent a desolation when
the tell was used by alkali-burners. [Bliss accounts for
the great bed of ashes differently.] The buildings
above the ashes represent the cities of the various Jewish
kings to the time of the Captivity. It was in the third
city, in the stratum overspread by the ash-bed, that the
cuneiform tablet was found ; other tablets must or may
have been carried off by foes.
Petrie identifies the tell with Lachish for three reasons.
1. The position commands the only springs in the district,
except those of Tell en-Nejileh (see EGI.ON ii.).
2. It corresponds sufficiently with the geographical deter
mination in \.\\eOnotasticon, being only three miles farther from
Eleutheropolis than Eusebius and Jerome say that Lachish was.
3. It agrees with the situation represented on Sennacherib s
swift steed ; but the first word (Qrn) is, strictly, untranslatable,
and BOT can hardly be used of a chariot-horse (see HORSE,
i, 4). The order of the words chariot and swift steed
is also scarcely possible ; to alter it in the translation (G. A. Smith)
is arbitrary. If, however, Prof. Smith s rendering might stand,
his explanation would be at least plausible. He sees an allusion
to the Egyptian subsidies of horses and chariots (in which the
politicians put their trust), which would be received at Lachish,
as being the last Judtean outpost towards Egypt.
1 Came forward into his presence (M Curdy, Hist. Profih.
Mon. 2427). Cp Meinhold, fcsaja u. seine Zeit (1898), who
also adopts Wi. s translation of sal/at ntaftarsu etik. Bezold,
however (KB l 115), renders received the spoil of Lachish ; and
Del. brought up before himself (>.f., took a minute survey of) the
spoil of Lachish (Ass. HWB 159(1).
" So Robinson. According to Conder the name is pronounced
Umm Lags. Sayce states that, after repeated inquiries of the
fellahln, he assured himself (in 1881) that the name was Latis;
but Bliss confirms Conder s statement ; Umm Laggis is the
form which he gives.
2691
LADANUM
bas-relief, and the remains in the tell permit a conception of
the fortunes of the site which agrees with the data of history.
F. J. Bliss took up Petrie s work in March 1891. His general
conclusion agrees with that of his predecessor ; the importance
of the site is such that hardly any other identification appears
possible.
Whether Umm Lakis is really the site of a Jewish
settlement which took the place of the old Lachish, is
less certain. G. A. Smith (Twelve Prophets, 2 80 /.)
has suggested that Umm Lakis may represent the
ancient Elkos, which, according to Epiphanius, was
beyond bet Gabre, of the tribe of Simeon (cp
ELKOSHITE, c). The consonants are suitable ; but
we should not have expected the vocalisation Lakis.
Conder has identified Umm Lakis with the Malagues of
the Crusaders. To the present writer the site of
Lachish appears to be identified with virtual certainty by
Petrie s brilliant investigation. Cp BRONZE, HONEY,
POTTERY ; and, on the strategical importance of Lachish,
see GASm. HCii^f.
See Flinders Petrie, Tell el-Hesy: a Memoir (1891): F. J.
Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities; or Tell el-Hesy excavated
(1898). For a fresh translation of the Lachish tablet see Peiser,
OLZ, isth Jan. 1899, and cp WMM, OLZ, isth March 1899.
W. Max Miiller adheres to Umm LSkis (in spite of the k) as the
site of Lachish. He thinks the letter was addressed, not to the
Egyptian grand vizier, but to a neighbour of Zimrida. The
grounds for the prevalent view are not, however, discussed.
T. K. C.
LACUNUS, KV LACCUNUS (AAKKOYNOC [BA],
f)avaua<; 1 [L]), the name of one of the sons of Addi in the list of
those with foreign wives, i Esd.93i (see EZRA i., 5 end). If
we compare || E/ra 10 30, we shall see that the name has arisen
from the names Chelal, Benaiah (n33 ^r). the final ^ of
Chelal having been taken with the following name, and the 3
read as a 3 i.e., n jsh-
LADAN (n^, 38 ; AA^AN [BL]).
1. An Ephraimite, i Ch. 7 26 RV, AV LAADAN (\aBBav [B],
Ka.8a.av [A]) ; whose name appears in v. 20 as ELADAH (q.v.).
See ERAN. EzKRii., 3 and cp EI-HRAIM i., 12.
2. RV, AV LAADAN, a Gershonite name, i Ch. 23 7-9 (eSav [B].
AeaSai/ [A], Aaa. [L]) 26 21 (\aSav [B once], AeS. twice Aaafid [A],
AaaSai/[L]). See LIBNI, r.
3. i Esd. 637 AV, RV DALAN. See DELAIAH, 4.
LADANUM (D$, lot. CTAKTH [ADEFL], RESINA).
Gen. 3?2st (RV "K- MYRRH) 43nf (EV MYRRH), is the
name of a resin called by the Arabs Iddhan or Iddan l
which was yielded by some species of Cistus. It was
known to the Greeks as early as the times of Herodotus
and Theophrastus by the names \-rjSov, \ddavov, and
\rjdavov, which are very closely allied to the Arabic
name.
Ladanum is described by Herodotus (8112) as particularly
fragrant, though gathered from the beards of goats, on which
it is found sticking; similarly Dioscorides (1 128). Tournefort,
in modern times (I oyage, 1 29), has given a detailed description
of the mode of obtaining ladanum. He relates that it is now
gathered by means of a \aSa.vio7ripiov or kind of flail 2 with
which the plants are threshed. When these thongs are
loaded with the flagrant and sticky resin, they are scraped
with a knife ; the substance is then rolled into a mass,
in which state it is called ladanum or labdanum. Ladanum
consists of resin and volatile oil, and is highly fragrant, and
stimulant as a medicine, but is often adulterated with sand in
commerce. The ladanum which is used in Europe is collected
chiefly in the Greek isles, and also in continental Greece. It
is yielded by species of the genus Cistus (especially by C.
creticus) which are known in this country by the name of Rock
Rose ; they are natives of the S. of Europe, the Mediterranean
islands, and the N. of Africa. According to Tristram (FFP
235) Palestinian ladanum is derived from Cistus z illosus, L.,
which grows in the hill districts E. and W. of Jordan, and is
especially plentiful on Carmel. Cistus creticus, which is only
a variety of this and distinguished by its viscidity, is the
common form on the southern hills. [Fonck thinks of the Cistus
salvifo/ius, which is also plentiful on Carmel, for the ladanum;
but H. Christ (ZDPT d^ff. [1899]) questions this identification.]
Ladanum is said by Pliny, as it was long before said by
Herodotus, to be a product of Arabia, though this has not
been proved to be the case in modern times. Enough,
however, has been adduced to show that ladanum was
known to, and esteemed by, the ancients ; and, as it is
1 According to Moidtmann and Miiller (Sab. Denk. 84) the
Iddhan is the proper Arabic form derived from Persian.
2 Specimens of the implement can be seen in the Museum at
Kew (Crete and Cyprus).
2692
LADDER
stated to have been a product of Syria, it was very
likely to have been sent to Egypt both as a present and
as merchandise. The word Iddan is found in the in
scription on a S. Arabian censer (Sab. Denk. 84), and
in Assyrian in the list of objects received as tribute from
Damascus by Tiglath-Pileser III. (KAT& 151, 18). The
biblical narrative (J) shows that oS was some precious
gum produced in Canaan or at least in Gilead.
See Royle s article Lot in Kitto s Bibl. Cycl., on which this
article is mainly based. N. M. W. T. T.-D.
LADDER (D^D ; KAiM&I) Gen. 28 i 2 f. The render
ing ladder is unfortunate ; a flight of steps is meant accord
ing to most scholars. Cp BETHEL, 2. Probably, however,
nSj/D, ascent is the right reading (adapt suffixes accordingly),
cpNeh.3i 5 12 3 7 (<S K A.i>aKes = ni ?i;o)- So Che. SeeSTAiRS,4.
The classical use of the term ladder in topography (cp
Paus. viii. 64 and see Frazer s note) is exemplified in The
Ladder of Tyrus, RV . . . OF TYRE (KAIMAKOC Typoy
[ANY]), i Mace. 11 59, the northern limit of the region
over which Simon the Maccabee was made commandant
(<TT parr]y 6s) by Antiochus VI., son of Balas. Josephus
(BJn. 102) defines it as a high mountain 100 stadia N.
from Ptolemais. It is the steep and lofty headland now
known as the Ras en-Nakiirah the natural barrier
between Phoenicia and Palestine (Stanley). True, we
should have expected the title to have been rather given
to the fids el-abyad, the Promontorium album of Pliny.
Regarded from the S. , however, the Ras en-Nakurah,
which Neubauer (Gdogr. 39) identifies with the NO^IO
llx hv of the Talmud, may have presented itself as the
end of the Lebanon and the barrier of Tyre.
LAEL pN7, 22, 37, l [belonging] to God ; or,
the form having no sure parallel in Hebrew, read Joel,"
see GENEALOGIES i. , 7, col. 1664, no. 3), a Gershon-
ite, Nu. 824 (A&HA [BAF], AAOyHA [L]).
Gray (fiPJV 207) quotes the parallel of LEMUEL in Prov. 31 i,
and, as more remotely analogous, BESODEIAH and possibly
BEZALEEL. All these names, however, are liable to grave sus
picion. Noldeke, indeed, has shown that there were such
Semitic names as Lael (in later times?), but not that MX is
correct in its reading. X. K. C.
LAHAD ("in?), b. JAHATH (q.v., i), a clan of Judah,
i Ch.4 2 f (AAA9 [B], AA[A]A [AL]), Jerahmeelite, to
judge from the names (Che. ).
LAHAI-ROI ("iO r6 ["IN?]), Gen. 2462 25 xi AV,
RV BEER-LAHAI-ROI (q.v.).
LAHMAS (OVrh; MAXGC [B], AAMAC [A], AAM-
MAC [L]), Josh. 1540 RV n -, or, according to many
MSS, Lahmara (DOP1?), as in EV. A town in the low
land of Judah, perhaps the modern el-Lahm, z\ m. S.
from Eleutheropolis (Bet Jibrin).
LAHMI (>pr6 ; eAe/v\ee [B], Aee/wei [A], AOOMI
[L]), brother of Goliath (i Ch. 20 5 f). See ELHANAN,
2.
LAI8H. i. (BJ?j A<MC<\ [BAL]), the original name
of the northern frontier-city DAN (q.v.), Judg. 18? 14
2 7 29 ([oyA&/v\]&ic [B], &AeiC [A]). Another form
(probably) is Lesham (see LESHEM). In the list of
Thotmes III. it perhaps appears as Liusa (Mariette,
Brugsch, etc. ). On the narrative in Judg. 18 see JUDGES
(BOOK), 12.
Winckler (6V 2 63^) endeavours to show that the foundation
of Dan is related not only in Josh. 1947 and Judg. 18, but also
in Judg. 1 22-26. The city in the land of the Hittites called
Luz ( unto this day ) must have been Dan ; the statement that
it was called Luz involves a confusion between the name of
the sanctuary (properly an appellative meaning asylum see
Luz) and that of the city. Winckler also suggests that Laish
and Leshem really mean there is not and nameless respec
tively, in allusion to the destruction of the old city by the
Danites. It may be more natural to suppose that here, too,
there is an early writer s misunderstanding, and that Laish
1 Cp Nold., Verwandtschaftsnamen als Personennamen in
Kleinigkeiten zur semitischen Onomatologie (WZKM 6314
[1892]).
2693
LAMENTATION
(whence Leshem) is a corruption of Luz, or of a name from which
Luz is corrupted.
2. Is. 1030. See LAISHAH. T. K. c.
LAISH (8*7, as if lion, 68 ; in 2 S. 3 15 K l 1 ? Kt. ).
evidently a short form of Laishah (Shalishah). See
LAISHAH, PALTI. The name occurs in i S. 2644 (some
MSS have Kt. ch 1 ? ; ctyuas [B], Atus [A], iwaj [L]) ; and
in 2 S. 815 (o-eX\7?y [B], Xaets [A], a-eXXe^ [L, for which,
see BAHURIM, n. i]).
LAISHAH (n^; AAic<\[Q mg -]. f which NCA[BA]
is a corruption : Aeic [Theod.], AAIC [Symm. et forte
Aq.]), a place in Benjamin near Gallim (?) and Anathoth
(Is. lOaof RV, AV unto Laish ). According to Conder
(PEFQ, 1875, p. 183) and Van Kasteren (ZDPV
13ioo/". ) it is the modern el-Jsdwiyeh, a small village
on the E. slope of a mountain to the NNE. of the
Mount of Olives, less than an hour s walk from the
neighbouring village of Anata. The site still shows
traces of high antiquity (Guerin, Judte, 38o/ ; Gray
Hill, PEFQ, 1899, pp. 45-47). It is doubtful, however,
whether we can trust the name Laishah any more than
GALLIM [q. v. ]. Both Laishah and Laish are pro
bably distortions of SHALISHAH [q.v.~], the name of
the district in which Gibeah of Sha ul (rather Gibeah
of Shalishah ), mentioned just before (see v. 29), was
situated. For another possible corruption of the
same name see MERAB, MEPHIBOSHETH. Cp further
SHECHEM.
Grove (Smith, DBPl, s.v.} suspects the identity of Laishah
and the Eleasa of i Mace. 9 5 (aA.a<7<x [A], eA. [KV]), where Vg.
gives Laisa, while Halevy (Kofiut Mem. Semitic Studies, 241^)
identifies Laishah with CHEPHIRAH [y.v.], both names, accord
ing to him, meaning lion-town. T. K. c.
LAKUM, RV Lakkum (WJ3& ; AcoA&M [B], AKROY
[A], AAKOYM [L]), an unidentified town in Naphtali
(Josh. 19 33).
LAMB(nb, seh, Gen. 22 7 / etc.; 2B |, ktseb. Lev.
4 35 etc. ; BO3, kebei, Lev. 14 12 etc.). See SHEEP ; and cp
CATTLE, 2.
For Gen. 33 19 (nB B>j3, AVmg. lamb ), see KESITAH.
LAMECH CSJlp^), Gen. 4 18-24. See CAINITES, 8/,
SETHITES.
LAMENTATION. Lamentations for great calamities,
especially for deaths, held an important place among the
1. Character customs of the Israelites. We may
regard these lamentations in different
aspects, according as they are private or public, non-
literary or literary. The origin of lamentation is a
simple cry or wail, and even when art had elaborated
new kinds of lamentation in which musical instruments
played a part, the simple cry was a necessary accom
paniment such a cry as the prolonged well, woe is
me, still customary in Syria, with which <?? //, Adi
dhi, hoi ddon, ah, me, ah, my brother, ah, lord,
in 2 K. 9 37 ( L ), i K. 13 30 Jer. 22 18 34s niay be
compared. This is what is primarily meant by the
nihl ( ru; cp vrjvia, and see BOB) i.e. , wailing
(EV) of Jer. 9 TO [9] 18-20 [17-19] 31 15 Am. 5i6 Mic.
24 : f. The heart-rending -well, however, is not the only
expression of woe ; songs in measured verse and with
musical accompaniment are chanted by the professional
mourning women of Syria, and so it was in Palestine
of old (cp MOURNING CUSTOMS, i). We may pre
sume that public lamentations were on the same model.
Pinches 2 (Smith s DBI^b] has translated a Baby
lonian hymn, probably prehistoric, which, at any rate
in a wide sense, may be called an elegy (like the
Lamentations ). For a dirge in the stricter sense we
can go to the twelfth tablet of the Gilgames epic, where
we find the lament of Gilgames over the dead hero
Eabani (cp CREATION, 20, n. 4 ; JOB, 4).
1 The term is used here rather widely.
2
also
2694
2 Cp BOR, Dec. 1886, pp. 22/1 ; Halevy, RP 11 T6o. It
been compared with Ps. 79 (Che. Ps.W 223).
has
LAMENTATION
Thou takest no part in the noble feast ; to the assembly they
call thee not ; thou lifted not the bow from the ground ; what
is hit by the bow is not for thee ; thy hand grasps not the club
and strikes not the prey, nor stretches thy foeman dead on the
earth. The wife thou lovest thou kisse.st not ; the wife thou
luite^t thou strikest not. The child thou lovest thou kis>cit
n n ; the child thou hatest thou strikest not. The might of the
earth has swallowed thee. O Darkness, Darkness, Mother
Darkness ! thou enfoldest him like a mantle ; like a deep well
thou enclosest him ! 1
The result of the crying and lamenting of Gilgames
was that Ea-bani s spirit, after holding intercourse with
Gilgames, was transferred from the dark world of the
shades to the land of the blessed. Wailing, it would
seem, had an object, apart from that of relieving the
feelings of the mourners, and in this case it was to effect
an improvement in the lot of the dead. Perhaps, how
ever, it may once have been intended as an attempt to
influence the supernatural powers, and to bring back
the departed tenant of the body ; - for this we may
compare the familiar Arabic mourning phrase addressed
to the dead, Depart not. At the same time there is
a considerable mass of evidence that suggests a very
different object viz. , to drive away the spirits of the
dead lest they should harm the living. 3
The most trustworthy specimen of an ancient Hebrew
dirge is David s lament over Abner (28. 833/1 ; see
AHNKK). Whether the reported lamen-
2. or
Specimens.
tation over Saul and Jonathan (2 S. 1 17-
27) can safely be classed with this, or
whether it is not rather a literary product of the post-
exilic age, is becoming somewhat doubtful (see JASHER,
BOOK OF, 2). At any rate, in Am. 5i we have a
beautiful specimen of a new class of elegy the pro
phetic :
Prostrate is fallen to rise no more | the virgin Israel ;
There she lies stretched on the ground ; | no one raises her up.
Jeremiah (8822) represents the women of the house of
the king of Judah (Zedekiah) as singing a dirge contain
ing these words,
Misled thou wast and overpowered | by thy bosom friends ;
Thy feet sank in the mire, | but those remained behind.
Other specimens of prophetic dirge-poetry will be found
in Jer. 9 19 21 22 [18 20 21], The prophet, however, who,
more than any other, delights in elegy, is Ezekiel (see
Ezek. 19 26 17 2?2 3 2 28 12 322 cp also 32 18), and among
the many passages of limping verse in the later por
tions of Isaiah there are some (e.g. , Is. 14 4^-21) that
bear an elegiac character.
The little elegy in Am. 5 1 helps us to understand
the Lamentations wrongly ascribed to Jeremiah. The
death which the singers of these poems lamented was
that of the Jewish nation (cp Jer. 9 19 [18] Ezek. 19), and
as early as the time of Amos this form of speech was in
use. As Robertson Smith has said, the agonies of the
nation s last desperate struggle took a form modelled on
the death-wail sung by "cunning women" (Jer. 917)
and by poets "skilful of lamentation " (Am. 5 16) at the
wake (^N) of the illustrious dead. 4
The researches of Budde leave no doubt that one
of the metres specially used in dirges was that of
the so-called limping verse, in which the
uniformly undulating movement which is
the usual characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is changed to
a peculiar and limping metre. 8
In the Psalter the limping verse is often found;
but there is only a single passage in which, Budde
thinks, it is used for the purpose of lamentation. This
is Ps. 137 4-9 ; but it is questionable whether Budde s
view is correct ; and still more doubtful is it whether the
1 Translated from Haupt s German version by Ragozin,
Chaldea, 313 f. (1891) ; but cp Jeremias, Izdubar-Niinrod,
41 (1891).
2 Cp Frey, Tod, Seelen%laube und Seelenkult, 55.
3 Cp \VRS Rel. Sem.fl), 100, n. 2; Griineisen, Ahnencultus,
100. Cp the strange anecdote given in We. Ar. Held. 161 (the
cattle killed that their lowing might add to the noise of the
lamentations).
4 B(9}, art. Lamentations, Book of.
5 Budde, New World, March 1893.
269.;
3. Metre.
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
use of what this able critic calls the elegiac metre can
be taken to prove the early exilic date of this remark
able song (see PSALMS, 28, ix. ).
The term Kinah-metre for the so-called limping verse
is convenient. We cannot, however, regard the theory
that it is primarily elegiac as proved. Budde s attempt
to explain why it is not used in David s famous elegy
(ZATWZ+s) viz., that this elegy had a private
character is far from convincing ; and even apart from
this it is hazardous to assert that because some early
elegiac passages are in the Kinah metre, the metre
must therefore have been reserved originally for elegiac
poetry. See Minocchi, Le Lamentazioni, 36.
Wetzstein s description of the funeral ceremonies in modern
Syria will be found in Bastian s Zt. f. Ethnologic, 1873. See
also Budde s essays Die hebraische Leichenklage, /.Dl [ r
GiSo^C, and The Folk-song of Israel, New World, March
1893 ; Jastrow, Rcl. of Bab. and Ass. 604 f. 658 660. On the
professional mourning women see A* /A 2 ), 2 78 ; Trumbull,
Studies in Oriental Life, 153^ ; Goldziher, Aluhaiittnedanische
Studicn, 1 251. Cp further POETICAL LITERATURE.
T. K. C.
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK) 1
External characteristics ( i). Chap. 4 ( 5) ; its date 8).
Chap. 1 ( 2) ; its date ( 10). Chap. . r . (g 6) ; its date ( 7).
Chap. 2 ( 3) ; its date (S 9). Traditional authorship ( 12).
Chap. 3 ( 4) ; its date ( n). Bibliography ( 13).
In Hebrew Bibles the Book of Lamentations bears
the superscription H^N, Ah how! (cp li 2i 4i).
_ , . The Talmud, however, and Jewish
. x erna writers in general call it nirp, Klndth
characteristics. ,
(i.e. , elegies or dirges ), which is
the Hebrew title known to Jerome in his Prologus
Galeatus (leremias cum Cinoth, id est, Lamentationibus
suis). (S s title is Qpijvoi. A fuller title, assigning the
book to Jeremiah, is found in Pesh. and in some MSS
of e.g. , in B X, but not in A and B* and in (5
and Pesh. Lamentations is attached to the Book of
Jeremiah (Baruch intervening in the former version).
At the same time BN have the introductory verse assign
ing at any rate chap. 1 to Jeremiah. It is a mistake
to suppose that this arrangement of Lamentations is
original, the scheme which accommodates the number
of the sacred books to the number of the twenty-two
Hebrew letters being self-evidentlv artificial, and the
evidence that this arrangement (adopted by Jos.) had
an established place among the Jews of Palestine being
scanty and precarious. It is noteworthy, too, that the
translation of Lamentations in <&, which agrees pretty
closely with our Hebrew text, cannot be by the same
hand as the translation of the Book of Jeremiah.
The poems which make up the book are five, and
the first four are alphabetical acrostics - successive
stanzas (each consisting, in chap. 3, of three verses,
elsewhere of one verse) beginning with successive letters
of the alphabet. The last poem (chap. 5) has twenty-
two stanzas, like chaps. 1-4, but is not an acrostic.
In chaps. 2-4, however, by an irregularity, the s-stanza
precedes the y-stanza. The sense shows that this is not due to
a transposition of the original order of the stanzas, whilst the
fact that the same irregularity occurs three times makes it plain
that the deviation from the common order rests on a variation in
the order of the alphabet as used by the author (cp WRITING).
According to Bickell, Cheyne, and Duhin, the same irregularity
occurs in the true text of Ps. 9-10 (an acrostic poem), and not a few
critics (including Bickell, Baethgen, Konig, and Duhm)find it in
that of Ps. 34. It is perhaps better, however, to prefix D p ^S to
v. 1 8 (as Street long ago suggested), and to omit .-nrp (Che.
fs.(-}). Another case of want of uniformity concerns the use of
~\VR and y; relativum. In Lam. 1 only ijj N occurs (vv. 7 12) ; in
1 In 1882, when Robertson Smith printed the article Lamen
tations in EB(9), it was hardly possible to give more than the
vaguest determination of the date of the Lamentations. Budde,
whose commentary (1898) marks our entrance on a fresh critical
stage, is naturally more definite in his conclusions ; the present
writer has retained all that he could of Robertson Smith s work,
in order to recognise the continuity of criticism. Some of the
retained paragraphs, as being specially distinctive, have been
marked with signs of quotation. This does not apply to trans
lations from the Hebrew.
2696
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
Lam. 2 -u; J< " v - I7 > W n m - I S/- > > n Lam. 3 neither -|t?N nor
Iji ; in Lain. 4 and 5 only & (4 9 5 18). The observation is
Konig s ( //. 420).
The metre of the first four poems differs from that of
the fifth. The metre of the fifth poem consists of
ordinary three-toned lines ; the metre of the first four
poems is in the so-called limping verse, which, being
specially, though not exclusively, used for elegies, is
commonly called the Kinah metre (first fully made out
by Budde l ). To speak oifive Lamentations is incorrect.
It is only chaps. 1 2 and 4 that are properly dirges, as
referring to a deatli the death of the Jewish nation
(see LAMENTATION, 2). These are highly elaborate
and artificial poems in which every element of pity and
terror which the subject supplies is brought forward
with conscious art to stir the minds of the hearers. In
their present form they appear to be rather late works ;
but they may perhaps have embedded in them phrases
of earlier elegies - such as were used liturgically in the
fifth month (Ab) in Zechariah s time (Zech. 7s), and of
course earlier, to commemorate the fall of the temple. 3
To suppose that our Kinoth were already composed
when Zechariah gave his decision to the deputation
(Zech. 7s) is hardly consistent with the evidence. Let
us now consider their contents.
1 The first elegy commences with a picture of the
distress of Zion during and after the siege (li-u);
T Jerusalem, or the people of Judah, being
figured as a widowed and dishonoured
princess. Then, in the latter half of the poem she
herself takes up the lamentation, describes her grievous
sorrow, confesses the righteousness of Yahwe s anger,
and invokes retribution on her enemies. In a carefully
restored text, it is seen to be a beautiful, though
monotonous, composition in elegiac metre.
In v. 6 MT is correct. By turning Q V N. harts, into
Q 1 ? !*, rams, spoils the figure. Verse 7 is grievously cor
rupt both in MT and in . Read in the first stichus, IT ;
lynxpa" 1 ?! ; between D and Dlj3 is a collection of variants,
all corruptions of 30"7D. In the last hemistich read, nnNC D,
her desolation. In r>. 10 MT is rough; read Zion (JVS)
spreadeth forth her hands because of her pleasant things
(Bickell). In v. 14, for 1/pb: read tpJM ; in aj8 read fvapn DT2.
On v. 19 see Budde.
In the second chapter the desolation of the city and
the horrors of the- siege are again rehearsed and made
, T _ more bitter by allusion to the joy of the
O. IjclITl. a, f T i r-r-i. r .
enemies of Israel. The cause of the
calamity is national sin, which false prophets failed to
denounce while repentance .was still possible, and now no
hope remains save in tears and supplication to stir the
compassion of Yah we for the terrible fate of his
people. The structure is the same as in chap. 1,
except that a introduces the i6th, y the i/th verse as
in chaps. 3 and 4. There is more vivid presentation,
more dramatic life, more connection and progress of
thought ; but the religious element is less pervasive.
These are among the blemishes which need removal. In the
very first verse covers (imperf.) with a cloud (3 JT) is an im
possible word (note Pasek after 13N2). Probably we should
read t? 3rr, put to shame ; y and W are easily confounded.
In 7 . 2/ both AV and RV overlook the metrical structure. The
rendering of MT should be He hath brought to the ground,
hath profaned the kingdom, and its princes. The first verb,
however, is unsuitable, and the combination kingdom and
princes is unnatural. Read njSpO 1J3, the royal crown (cp
111370 "102, Esth. 1 n, etc.), and all becomes plain. Verses
4678 have given much trouble, but are not incurable. Read
(see Crit. Bib.) :
1 For translated specimens see below. See also LAMENTA
TION, POETICAL LITERATURE.
2 Just so, phrases of earlier psalms may conceivably have
passed into some of the existing late psalms. Proof and dis
proof are alike impossible.
3 On the gth day of Ab this event is still celebrated by the
synagogue. See Mas. Sdpherint, chap. 18, and the notes in
Muller s edition (1878).
2697
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
1 Foe-like, he hath bent his bow, | his arrows he prepareth ;
He slaughtereth and killeth the children, | the delights of the
eye,
In the tent of Zion he hath poured out | his wrath like fire.
And he hath smitten to pieces his dwelling with an axe, | hath
destroyed his sanctuary,
Yahwe hath brought low in Zion | ruler and judge,
And rejected in the fury of his anger | king and priest.
Yahwe hath rejected his altar, | hath cast down his sanctuary,
He hath delivered into the hand of the foe | all her precious
things,
Terrible nations stretch out the line | in Yahwe s house.
Yahwe purposeth to destroy | the precious things of Zion,
He hath not kept his hand from annihilating [all her palaces].
He hath annihilated bulwark and wall, | together they languish.
In v. 12 MT makes the little children call out for corn and
wine (["i pi, a doubly impossible phrase), and, in v. 18
(according to EV), it reads Their heart cried unto the Lord, O
wall of the daughter of Zion. Clearly wrong, and, v. 18
especially, not to be superficially dealt with. Verse 12 can be
restored with certainty ; there is no question asked, and
therefore no answer is returned. Read, They say to their
mothers, Wo unto us ! for our life goes. Verse 18 should
probably be read as follows :
Cry out because of Jerusalem s disgrace, | Zion s insult,
Let tears run down like a torrent | day and night,
Give thyself no pause, | let not the apple of thine eye cease.
The third elegy [if we may call it such] takes a
personal turn, and describes the affliction of the
. - individual Israelite, or of the nation under
the type of a single individual, under the
sense of Yahwe s just but terrible indignation. But
even this affliction is a wholesome discipline. It draws
the heart of the singer nearer to his God in penitent
self-examination, sustained by trust in Yahwe s un
failing mercy, which shows itself in the continued
preservation of his people through all their woes.
From the lowest pit the voice of faith calls to the
Redeemer, and hears a voice that says, "Fear not."
Yahwe will yet plead the cause of his people, and so
in the closing verses the accents of humble entreaty
pass into a tone of confident appeal for just vengeance
against the oppressor. Of the two views (individual or
nation) here indicated respecting the subject of the elegy,
the latter appears to be the one most easily defensible.
As in the case of so many of the psalms and in that of
the Songs of the Servant of Yahwe (see SERVANT OF
THE LORD), the speaker is the company of the humble-
minded righteous who form the kernel of the Jewish com
munity. Hence it is easy for the imagined speaker to
pass from the ist person singular to the ist person plural,
and to say in v. 48 that he weeps unceasingly for the
disaster of his country-people ( ay re)- The vehemence
of the imprecations at the close of the elegy is most easily
intelligible if the offences referred to have been committed
against the Jewish people, not against an individual
(e.g., Jeremiah), imagined by the poet. This is the
view of Hupfeld (on Ps. 38), Reuss, Cheyne, Lohr,
and especially Smend (/.A T\V 8fcf. [1888]). It is
opposed especially by Stade (Gl J 701) and Budde,
mainly (see the latter) on two grounds : (i) the occurrence
of certain expressions in vv. i and 27 (Oettli wrongly
adds v. 14), and (2) the inconsistency of personifying
the community elsewhere as a woman, but here as a
man. Against this we may urge (a) the analogy of so
many other poems, which are marred (as indeed
Lam. 3 appears to some to be marred) by the assumption
of an individualising reference, (f>) the possibility of
interpreting vv. i and 27, as Smend has done, of the
people conscious of its solidarity (nasn) and looking
forward to an extended future (vnyj3?)i and (<:) the
probability, admitted by Budde, that Lam. 3 is the
latest of the five poems it is, in fact, rather a poetic
monologue of Israel than an elegy. On vv. 52-58
Budde remarks, Abruptly the poet turns to his own
sufferings. ... To regard the community as the
subject is possible (cp Ps. 6, etc.), but more probably it
arises from the inconsiderate use of the psalms which
served as models. It is surely not right to assume
inconsiderateness, when such a highly characteristic
2698
6. Lam. 4.
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
idea as the solidarity of all good Israelites is in question ;
the idea was one which had incorporated itself in the
Jewish system of thought.
As to vv. 114 and 27. It is no doubt quite possible to
explain, I am the man, as I am the people ; and the
particular word for man (133) occurs again in irv. 27 35 39.
But the closing words by the rod of his fury (inTDy VZ ^ Zt .,,.-
peculiar, inasmuch as the name of Yahwe has not been mentioned,
nor will it be till v. 18. It is probable that the text is corrupt.
In v. 14 a doubt is hardly possible; 8V, my people, should
be C Sl , peoples. In i>. 27 I"nyj3, in his youth, introduces
a new idea (that a young man has time before him to profit by
chastisement), which is not further utilised. Here, too, the text
seems to be corrupt.
In v. i read perhaps yijrSy IMfl JIN, it is the Lord who
visits mine iniquity, and in v. 27 .11,T fnya D^N KB" 3 310,
it is good that he bear mutely the rebuke of Yahwe.
The variant V1iy:a is thus accounted for. 1^30 in Ps. 88 16
requires a similar correction. A few other blemishes may be
mentioned. Gall and travail (v. 5) should be my head ( t KI)
with travail (Pratorius, ,?/! 7~/K 15 326 [1895]). In v. i6a the
teeth and the gravel-stones are troublesome ; Lohr leaves
the latter, but gives dots, expressive of perplexity, for the
former ; v. i(J> is, on linguistic grounds, hardly less improbable.
The reading we propose is as simple and appropriate as possible.
And I girded sackloth on my flesh ; I rolled myself in ashes (see
Crit. Rib.). In v. 39 a living man cannot be right; >n DIN
should be Q nSjt- Not improbably we should read, Why do we
murmur against God, (against) him who visits our sins? Cp v. i
as above.
In the fourth acrostic the bitter sorrow again bursts
forth in passionate wailing. The images of horror
imprinted on the poet s soul during the last
months of Jerusalem s death-struggle and
in the flight that followed are painted with more ghastly
detail than in the previous chapters, and the climax is
reached when the singer describes the capture of the
king, the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of
Yahwe, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall
live among the nations." The cup of Israel s sorrow
is filled up. The very completeness of the calamity is
a proof that the iniquity of Zion has met with full
recompense. The day of captivity is over, and the
wrath of Yahw& is now ready to pass from his
people to visit the sins of Edom, the most merciless of
its foes. At any rate, even if the fourth acrostic is not
the work of an eye-witness, the poet stands near enough
to the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem to be able to
describe them, and there has been trouble enough
since then to awaken his imaginative faculty. It must
be admitted, however, that through literary remini
scences and an inborn tendency to rhetoric the author
falls short in simplicity and naturalness of description.
It is also certain that corruption of the text has here
and there marred the picture. Happily the faults can
often be cured. Verses if. , for instance, should run
thus,
How is Sheba s gold polluted | the choice gold !
Sacred stones are poured forth | at every street-corner !
The sons of Zion so precious | to be valued with fine gold
How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, | the handiwork of
the potter !
It is a most beautiful and moving piece of rhetoric. All the
critics misunderstand the first line, and few have done complete
justice to the second. It is not the dimming or the chang
ing of fine gold that is referred to, nor is the first stichus so
overladen as MT represents. It is the desecration of the image
of God in the persons of slaughtered citizens of Zion that calls
forth the ,-|TN ( alas, how ! ) of the elegy. (For at every
street-corner cp 219, and the interpolated passage Is. 51 20.)
Reading NSB for cyi , makes MT s phrase, sacred stones,
secure. 1 In ? . 3 the sea - monsters should probably rather
be jackals."- Verse 5 is in a very bad state ; the beginning of the
cure is due to Budde. Read,
Those that ate the bread of luxury* | perish in the steeets.
1 Budde proposes ) 33K, precious stones ; cp 7 . 2.
2 Budde prefers sea-monsters, but expresses surprise that
the natural phenomenon referred to should have been known to
the writer. Read n<3p ; the Aramaic ending p- may be put
down to the scribe.
C-ny. On 1 ?, Budde. For /. 2, cp Dt. 28 54 56, Jer. 22 14, and
see Crit. Bib.
2699
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
The delicate, the possessors of halls, | embrace ash-mounds.
Verse 7 gains not less by critical treatment. Her Nazirites
(TVI3) should be her dignitaries ( T:n) ; the absurdities of
the second part of the verse in MT are removed elsewhere (see
SAI I HIKK). Verses it,/, in MT (and therefore also in EV) are
a mass of inconsistencies. It can hardly be doubted that the
true text runs nearly as follows
Her princes wander in the countries, | they stumble in the
lands,
And they are not able to find | for themselves a resting-place.
Away men call unto them away, | away, rest not,
For they find no resting-place, | they may not sojourn any more. 1
The mistakes of MT were caused by the reference to bloodshed
in v. 13, from which, however, TV. 14 f. are quite distinct. The
passage is reminiscent of Jer. 22, Dt. 2865.* On v. 21 see 8.
The fifth chapter, which [in vv. i, 20-22] takes the
form of a prayer, [is not an acrostic, and] does not
, T _ follow the scheme common to the three
O. I ifl.TTI. D _ . . .
foregoing sections. The elegy proper must
begin with the utterance of grief for its own sake. Here
on the contrary the first words are a petition, and the
picture of Israel s woes comes in to support the prayer.
The point of view, too, is changed, and the chapter closes
under the sense of continued wrath. The centre of the
singer s feeling lies no longer in the recollection of the
last days of Jerusalem, but in the long continuance of
a divine indignation which seems to lay a measureless
interval between the present afflicted state of Israel and
those happy days of old which are so fresh in the re
collection of the poet in the first four chapters. The
details, too, are drawn less from one crowning mis
fortune than from a continued state of bondage to the
servants of the foreign tyrant (v. 8), and a continued
series of insults and miseries. And with this goes a
change in the consciousness of sin : " Our fathers have
sinned, and are not ; and we have borne their in
iquities " (v. 7; cp Zech. 1 2-6, and similar complaints
in very late psalms).
The contents of chapter 5 are such that we are com
pelled to enter immediately on the question of its date.
_. . - The author of the poem endeavours, it is
. _ true, to express the feelings of an earlier
Lain. 6.
generation ; he indites a complaint of
the sad lot of those who have not only -survived the
great catastrophe, but also remain on the ancestral soil.
He cannot, however, preserve consistency ; he speaks
partly as if he were one of a people of serfs or day-
labourers in the country-districts especially perhaps in
the wilderness of Judah (see Budde on v. 9) partly as
if some of those for whom he speaks were settled in or
near Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (v. n). Moreover,
he says nothing of the sword of the all-powerful enemy,
which had robbed Judah of the flower of her population ;
less eminent foes are referred to under conventional
terms (of which more presently). This is a matter of
great moment for the critic, who by the help of the
Book of Nehemiah can with reasonable probability
determine the author s age. The important distichs
are vv. 6, 8, 9, 10, 18, of the first four of which we give
a rendering based on a critically emended text. (The
MT of t . 6 has caused hopeless perplexity. )
6 We have surrendered to the Misrites,
We have become subject to the Ishmaelites.
8 Arabians rule over us,
There is none to deliver out of their hand.
9 We bring in our corn (Upn _?) with peril of our lives
Because of the Arabian of the desert.
10 Our young men and our maidens are sold
Because of the terror of famine.
The terms Misrites (see MI/.RAIM, 2 b~] and Ish
maelites are conventional archaisms, many parallels for
which use are probably to be found in the Psalter (see
_ B M nisnto rne- wi
crE: 1 ? yi-na I KSC iS:v uSi
rjy^it I-VID | mo G"? WIJD mo
m 1 ? ifip v S I yi-np me- V 3
2 In v. 16 Lohr partly sees aright, but unfortunately creates a
doublet. Bickell s general view is better than Budde s or Lohr s.
2700
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
PSALMS[BOOK]), and, so far as Misrites is concerned, in
the fourth elegy (Lam. 421 ; see below, 8). Theenemies
intended are the Edomites who had probably joined in
the Babylonian invasion, and had occupied the southern
part of the old territory of Judah, and perhaps, too, the
Nabataan Arabs, one of whom was the Geshem or
Gashmu of whom Nehemiah speaks l (Neh. 2 19 ; cp 4 7,
the Arabians ). The trouble from these foes (at any rate
from the Edomites) no doubt began early ; but it also
continued very long (see EDOM, 9 ; NEHEMIAH, 3).
Their dangerousness was particularly felt at harvest-
time ; this is indicated in v. 9, of which a welcome illus
tration is furnished by Is. 628 (age of Nehemiah), where
we read
By his right hand has Yahwe sworn | and by his strong arm,
Surely I will no more give thy wheat | to be food for thy foes.
The trouble from insufficient agricultural labour and
from the general economic disturbance doubtless
continued, and it is difficult not to illustrate v. 10
(according to the text rendered above) by the thrilling
account which Nehemiah gives (Neh. 5 1-13) of the
sufferings of the poorer Jews, and of the selling of their
children into slavery. Once more, it is not denied
that there are features in the description in Lam. 5
which suggest an earlier period ; but we cannot shut
our eyes to the accordance of other features with
the circumstances of the Nehemian age. Nehemiah
certainly has not yet come ; mount Zion is still
desolate (v. 18 ; cp Neh. 13), and such central authority
as there is does not interest itself greatly in the
welfare of the Jewish subjects. It is still possible to
speak of Yahwe as forgetting his servants for ever,
and to express, in a subdued tone, the reluctant
admission that it might not be God s will to grant the
prayer for the restoration of Israel as of old,
Unless thou hast utterly rejected us,
(And) art exceedingly wroth against us.
(Lam. 5 22 ; cp RV.)
Still, though the situation of affairs is bad, a deliverer
Nehemiah is at hand. The allusion in v. 126 to
Lev. 1932 (in the Holiness-law) suggests that the writer
is a member of that stricter religious party among the
Jews, which presumably kept up relations with men
like Nehemiah and Ezra, and afterwards did their best
to assist those great men. It does not seem necessary
or natural to suppose with Budde that w. nf. are a
later insertion (see his note) ; Budde s mistake is partly
due to his following the corrupt reading of MT in v. na,
which ought almost certainly to be read thus,
Grey-haired men and honourable ones suffer contempt ; 2
The persons of old men are not honoured.
The points of affinity between Lam. 5 and Job, Psalms,
and 2 and 3 Isaiah also deserve attention. 3
(a) Job. Cp T. 15/7, Job 3031; i>. i6a, Job 19 96. (A)
Psaltns. Cp v. i, Ps. 44 13 [14] 89 50^ [51^] 5 v. 8 (pns, to
deliver ), Ps. 18624; I0 n lSySl, Ps. 11 6 119 53!, but note
that in all these passages 71 is miswritten for ni!?S (Ezek. 7 18,
etc.); v. ii ( Zion, cities of Judah ), Ps. 69 35 [36]; v. 15,
Ps. 30 ii [12]; v. 176, Ps. 67 [8] and (for use of ^n) 6924
23]; v. 13 (7]Wt), Ps. 887 81 4, etc.; v. 19, Ps. 45 6 [7] 102 12 ;
v. 20, Ps. 13 i [2] 74 10 89 46 [47] (O p; ^N, Ps. 21 4 [5], etc.) ;
v. 21, Ps. 803 7 [4 K]. (c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. V. 2 (7|Dn:, sense),
Is. CO 5 ; v. 3 (3N i N-D Din;), Is. 63 16, the Jews no longer bne
Israel ; v. 7 (h^.D), Is. 58411; v. ii ( Zion, cities of
Judah ), Is. 40g; v. 18, Is. 54 10 [9] ; v. 226, Is. 57 16 54 13
[ill
1 In z: gi, however, the writer may also be thinking of 31J?3
"13122 in Jer. 82. It is worth noting that in all probability
Hosea (5 13) calls the king of Mtisur an Arabian (see JAREB).
2 ^H D"133J1 D 3B (cp Lev. 1932).
3 (3 Isaiah = Isaiah, chaps. 56-66.) In the selection of phrase
ological parallels Lohr s very full tables (see below, 13) have
been of the greatest service. A little more criticism on his part
would have made his tables even more useful.
2701
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
When we put all these data together, no earlier date
seems plausible than 470-450 B.C. (i.e. pre-Nehemian).
At the same time, a later date is by no means impossible.
The shadows of evening darkened again, till night fell
amidst the horrors occasioned by the barbarity of
Artaxerxes Ochus (359-338 B.C.). Then, we may be
sure, the fasting for the old calamities assumed a fresh
vitality and intensity. It is at any rate difficult to place
a long interval between Lam. 5 and Lam. 1-4, and
Lam. 2-4 contain some elements which at least permit
a date considerably after Nehemiah.
As it is the poorest of these plaintive compositions, we
may conjecture Lam. 5 to be also the earliest. There
is only one point of contact between Lam. 5 and Lam.
1-4 viz. mv. 3, cp 1 1 and this is of no real significance.
In Lam. 63, the mothers, if the text is right, are the
cities of Judah (Ew. , Lohr) ; more probably, however,
we should read irnJCTN, 1 our citadels. Those high,
strong buildings, where formerly the warriors had held
out so long against the foe, are now, complains the
poet, untenanted and in ruins (cp Lam. 2s), as helpless
and incapable of helping as widows. In Lam. 1 1
Jerusalem itself is compared to a widow.
We next turn to Lam. 4, which, like Lam. 5, seems
to contain an archaising reference to Musri (cp Miz-
RAIM, 2 b), by which the writer means the
8. Date of
Lam. 4.
land adjoining the S. of Palestine occupied
by the Edomites after their displacement
by the Nabataeans. Verse 21 should probably run
1 Rejoice and be glad, O people of Edom, that dwellest
in Missur a ("nsca). Were it not for the archaistic
Missur (Musur), which may point to a later age when
archaisms were fashionable, we might assign v. 21 to
some eye-witness of the great catastrophe ; words quite
as bitter are spoken against Edom by the prophet
Ezekiel (chap. 35).
Another suspicious passage is v. 20 :
The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Yahwe, | was taken
in their pit, 3
Of whom we said, Under his shadow | we shall live among the
nations.
That the king intended is, not Josiah (so Targ. ), but
Zedekiah, is certain. But a writer so fully in accord
with Jeremiah and Ezekiel (see w. 6 13) as the author
of Lam. 4 would never have written thus, unless he
had been separated from the historical Zedekiah by a
considerable interval of time. Zedekiah, to this writer,
is but a symbol of the Davidic dynasty ; the manifold
sufferings consequent on subjection to foreigners made
even Zedekiah to be regretted. 4 Budde s view of this
passage is hardly correct. The words Under his
shadow we shall live, etc., surely cannot refer to the
hope of a feeble but still respected (?) native royalty
in the mountains of Moab and Ammon. It is in fact
strictly David, not Zedekiah, that the poet means. At
the accession of each Davidic king each restored
David loyal subjects exclaimed, Under his shadow
we shall live among the nations. The strong rhetoric
and the developed art of the poem are equally adverse
to the view that it is the work of one of the Jews left by
Nebuchadrezzar in Jerusalem. How long after Lam. 5
it was written, is uncertain ; see below, 9.
Points of contact between Lam. 4 and other late works, (a)
Job. Terms for gold and precious stones in im. 127; cp Job
28; v. 3 D 35T(Kr.), Job 39 13 (crit. emend.; see OSTRICH) \v. 5.
1 2 S. 20 19 hardly justifies the equation, mother = city.
Zion alone, in the poet s time, could be called mother (cp Ps.
87 5, ). The play on armanoth and almanoth is a very
natural one. Budde would take father and mothers liter
ally ; but father should be fathers and as widows should be
widows to justify this view.
2 PV n?3 not on y ma ces the second part of the limping
verse too long, but also makes the poet guilty of an inaccuracy
(see Uz).
3 Seinecke gives the right explanation (GVI 230). SS,
however, explains anointed of Yahwe as a phrase for the pious
kernel of the Jewish people.
< Read cnwa (see Budde).
2702
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
( embrace ash-mounds ), Job 248; v. 8a, Job SOjcxz; v. 8&,
|..t, I .iao (crit. emend.). (<*) Psalms. V. -,/>, Ps. IIS;*; v. ia
( the kings of the earth ), Ps. 2 3 76 12 [13], etc.; the inhabitants
of the world, 24 i 338 98;; v. 20 (fTPO), Ps. 1851 288 84ioJ
r. 21 (entr with no:?), Ps. 40 16(17] "04(5]; w. ai/ (Edom),
17 ?/ (Che. / i.l 2 )). (c) 2 /rarYtA. I . 2, Is. 51 20 (?). The
phrase in Is. is an interpolation (Bu., Che.), (if) Deuteronomy
(late parts). I . 8 (133), Dt. 32 27 ; v. 9 ("if ni3B), Dt. 82 13 ;
v. 16 (Jjn and C 33 N^ 3), Dt. 2850; r. 17 ( our eyes failed . . . ),
Dt. 28 32 ; v. 19 (eagles), Dt. 28 49. (e) Ezekicl. V. 8 (dry tree),
Ezek. 1724 2047; v. ii (nan rta), Ezek. 5 13 6 12 13 15;
f . 18 ([*> N2), Ezek. 726.
Lam. 2 and 4 are rightly regarded by Noldeke and
Budde as twin poems. They agree in poetical structure ;
_. . both too are highly dramatic. Both
9. Date Of S p ea k O f tne strange reverses suffered by
Lam. 2. {he j eac j ers O f tne s tate ; both, with much
pathos, of the fate of young children. The reference
to the law (tirdh) in v. 9 stamps the writer as a
legalist ; the idealisation of Jerusalem in v. \$b would
incline us to make the poem nearly contemporary with
Ps. 48, or even later than that poem, if Ps. 483, pre
supposed in Lam. 2, is corrupt. The reference to
solemn feasts and sabbaths in 26 is as imaginary as
the supposed reference to the resounding cries of the
worshippers in the temple in 2?. The same date must
of course be given to both the twin poems. They
probably belong to the same age as the many per
secution psalms in Ps. 1-72 * .*., to the latter part of
the Persian period (see, however, PSALMS [BOOK]).
Phraseological parallels. 1 (a) Psalms. I , i God s footstool
in Zion), Ps. 99 5 132 7 ; v. 2 (apy niK:), Ps. 232 65 13,
etc.; (j -iK 1 ? SVn). Ps. 89 4 of (cp above, 3); v. 3 (pp y-|j),
Ps. 75 10 [ i i];z. 6 (corrected), Ps. 74 6 (corrected); . 7(rut), Ps.
432 449(10], etc.; w. ii 1219 (t]ay), Ps. 61 2 [3] 773(4] etc.;
v. 16 (\V J3TJ), Ps. 35 16 37 12 112 10 ; . 19 (]3 Kt), Ps. 63 4 [5] ;
119 48 (.TV017N), Ps. 63 6 [7] 00 4 119 148 ; Ps. 62 gt (3 1 ? TJSr).
(6) 2 Isaiah. V. 13 (TO? and iTO>n), Is. 46 5.
(c) Deuteronomy (late T parts). V. 3 (] THS), Dt. 29 23 ;
i . 4 ( n ?"5 ^i of God), Dt. 32 23 ; v. 6 ({ , of God), Dt. 32 19.
(a) Ezekiel. I v. 2 17 21 (S?n K 1 ?), Ezek.5n 7 4 9 8189510;
7/. 2 (D^ri and J^K 1 ? JT3H), Ezek. 13 14 ; 7 . 8 ( s 3N,Hiphil),Ezek.
31 5 I V^K li however, is not strong enough ; read yS3 l ( se e
above, 3); v. 10 (IBV flty.l), Ezek. 27 30; (C pC i:n), Ezek.
7 18 2731; r. 14 (N]C* nm), Ezek. 186923 21 34 (with ij?, as
here) 2228; 7 . 14 (^.rj 1 ). Ezek. 13 10 n 14 15, and especially
2228 ; 7 . 15 ( B n? ??) Ezek. 16 14 28 12, and often ; w. is/-
(p?r), Ezek. 27 36.
Lam. 1, Budde fully admits, can hardly be the work
of an eye-witness of the fall of Jerusalem. That it is
much later in origin than Lam. 2 and
4 seems an unnecessary inference. 2 Here,
again, the parallels are very important.
Parallels, (a) Job. V. 20, Job 30 27 (sense).
(b) Psalms. I . 3 (0"1S?), Ps. 118 5 (sing.) 116 3 (plur.) ; v. 6,
Ps. 42 i [2], cp Job 19 22 and (crit. emend.) 28. The pursued
hart is a favourite image for the pious community or individual
in time of trouble ; v. 7 (^ "lliy pK), Ps. 30 io[n] 54 4 [6] 72 12 ;
r. g(Sy S^::T) (but read J ySri), Ps. 35 2688 i6[i7]55 12(13]; t>. 10
(Snp), Ps. 22 25 [26] 35 18 40 10 896 107 32 149 i (used in the post-
exilic religious sense; see ASSEMBLY); 7>7 . n f. (C3J with
HK1), Ps. 22 17(18] 80 14 [15] 1424(5]; w. 12 18 (3iK3D), Ps. 32 10
88^7(18] 69 26(27]; v. 13 (D nsS), Ps.l8i 7l etc.
(c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. I v. 4512 (.IJin), Is. 51 23 ; cp Job 19 2 ;
w. 7 10 ii (D TOTO), Is. 64 n [io];V 9 (fnnrw npt), Is. 47? ;
v. 10 (acnpa *D2, so read for 1N3 [Gra.]), cp Is. 64 ii [to] ; v. 15
Gl3 Till), Is.63i^;cpjoel 3[4]i 3 ; w. 1017(1; CH9), Is. 662;
Cp 25 i\ (very late) Ps. 1436.
1 Let another expression of thanks here be given to Lcihr for
hi- useful labours.
2 Robertson Smith inclined to Ewald s view that the y stanza
originally preceded the j stanza ; Budde is of an opposite
opinion.
2703
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
10. Date of
Lam. 1.
(if) Deuteronomy (late parts). V. 5 (rXI 1 ? ;vn), Dt. 28 1344;
v. 20 (jraa-pnp), 01.3225.
(e) Ezekiel. Vv. 2 19 (3HK, in figurative sense), Ezek. 16
3336/ 285922; v. 6 (ny-)C), Ezek. 34 14 (fa s) 18 (6is); w.
8 17 (.-TO, .TT3), Ezek. 7 ig/
The date of Lam. 3, relatively to Lam. 1 2 and 4, is
very easily fixed. It shows a further development of
f l le art f acrostic poetry which reminds
11. Date 01 us of j, g 119 and its superabundant
Lam. 3. i, terar y reminiscences place it on a level
with the poorest of the canonical psalms. That, like
some at least of those psalms, it is pervaded by a deep
and tender religious feeling, may be most heartily ad
mitted. Budde (p. 77) is probably right in assigning
Lam. 3 to the pre-Maccabitan portion of the Greek
age.
Parallels, (a) Job. Vv. 79, Job 19s; n. 8, Job 19 7; vi>.
I2/:, Job 7 20 (for Kb-D read mac) 16 is/; v. 14, Job 30g (cp
Ps.69i2[i3]; but in all three passages nrjp, stringed music, and
in Lam. 863 -"" J3C 1 should be ?l3 3t>, a mock ); v. 15 (cp v.
19). 2 Job 9 18 ; v. 176, Job 7 7* : w. 3046, Job 16 10.
(6) Psalms. V. 46, Ps.8420 [21] 51 8 [10] ; v. 6 (D 3riD),
Ps. 74 20 8S6[ 7 ] 143 3 ; (cViy TO) Ps. 143 3;v.8 (y\V), Ps. 88 14
/; 7 . 17 (), Ps.88i 4 Iis]; v. 20 (rw>, p s . 4425 (26]; cp
4257; t . 22 ( non), Ps. 89 i [2] 10743; vv- 23 (after D*1B3^
insert vpni) 3 3*? < Ps. 51 ^ 13^1 P- s - * 5 (26] ; 7 . 24, Ps. 165
7326 119 57 142 5 [6]; v. 25, Ps. 37 ?a 119 71; v. 31, Ps. 94 14 ; r.
33 (!TK ), Ps. 4 2 (3] 492(3] 62 9(10]; v. 37, Ps.33 9 ; v. 41
C]3 Kt 3), Ps. 63 4 [5] 119 48 ; v. 46 (ns nsB), Ps. 22 13 [14] 35 21 ;
7 . 48a, T Ps. 119 136 ; v. 49 O.a?), Ps. 77 2 [3] ; v. 50, Ps. 14 2, etc. ;
v. 52 ( like a bird ), Ps. 11 1 [2], if the text is sound ; (C3H 3 k)
Ps. 35 19 09 4 [5] ( n Nib) ; v. 53, Ps. 103 4 (inss, so point) Ps.
88 16 [17] 119 139; v. 54, Ps. 427(8] 69 */.; 7^.55, Ps. 886(7]; v.
57 (-mpK DV), Ps. 56 9 [10], etc. ; v. 58, Ps. 119 154 ; v . 62 Qvari),
Ps. 19 14 [15] ; v. 64 (SlC? 3 n), Ps- 28 4.
(c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. I . 21 (3*7 W 3 !?K), Is. 44 19 468 (Dt.
*39)t I 7 . 26 (DCH), Is. 47 5 ; T/. 30*1, Is. 50 6 ; v. 32 (vnon 3^3),
Is. 03 7 (Ps. 106 T 45 ).
It is true that, according to a tradition only recently
called in question, the author of Lamentations is the
. prophet Jeremiah (cp Bdbd bathrd,
12. Traditional ^ A picturesque notice prefixed
autnorsnip. to @ , s version says that> . after Israel
was taken captive and Jerusalem laid waste, Jeremiah
sat down and wept, and sang this elegy over Jerusalem,
and the introduction of the Book in the Targum runs,
1 Jeremiah the prophet and chief priest said thus.
There is also a passage in the Hebrew canon itself
which was anciently interpre ed as connecting the name
of Jeremiah with our book. In 2(Jh. 8625 we read,
And Jeremiah composed an elegy upon Josiah, and
all the singing men and singing women uttered a
lamentation over Josiah unto this day ; and they made
it (i.e., the singing of such elegies) a stated usage in
Israel ; behold it is written in the Lamentations ; see
JEREMIAH ii. , 3(1). Josephus says 4 that the dirge
of Jeremiah on this occasion was extant in his days
(Ant. x. 5i), and no doubt means by this the canonical
Lamentations. Jerome on Zech. 12 n understands the
passage in Chronicles in the same sense ; but modern
writers have generally assumed that, as our book was
certainly written after the fall of Jerusalem, the dirges
referred to in Chronicles must be a separate collection.
This, however, is far from clear. The rnj p of the
Chronicler had, according to his statement, acquired a
fixed and statutory place in Israel, and were connected
with the name of a prophet. In other words, they
were canonical as far as any book outside the Penta-
1 nrjJS implies no affectation of originality (Bu.); D =< J
(dittography).
2 Read "WO (note the parallelism).
3 vom. if written cm, would easily fall out after mp. Omit
VCrp i 1 " 22. (So partly Bu.)
* This passage of his article in Ency. Brit, is quoted and
endorsed by Robertson Smith in CT/CP) 181, n. 2 ; he refers
to Noldeke, Alttest. Lit. (1868), 144.
2704
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
teuch could be so called in that age. It thus seems
highly probable that in the third century B.C. (see
CHRONICLES, 3) the Book of Lamentations was used
liturgically by a guild of singers, and that a portion of
it was ascribed to Jeremiah as its author. Even this
evidence, however, is some three centuries later than
the events referred to in Lamentations. It is also
discredited by its connection with an undoubted error
of interpretation. The reference in Lam. 4 20 to the
last representative of the much-regretted Davidic family
is couched in terms which the Chronicler felt unable to
apply to any king later than Josiah ; Lam. 4 therefore
had to be a dirge on Josiah, and who could have written
such a dirge but Jeremiah ?
Though there is a considerable element in the
vocabulary of Lamentations which can be paralleled
in Jeremiah, there are also many important character
istic words not used by the prophet, and some dis
tinctive Jeremianic ideas are wanting in those poems.
And in spite of a certain psychological plausibility in
the traditional theory (cp Jer. 823 [9i] 13 17 14 17) it
must be admitted that the circumstances and the
general attitude of the prophet make it extremely diffi
cult to conceive his having written these poems. From
Jer. 8828 39 14 it is plain that during the capture of the
city he was not a free man, and could not go about
observing the sad condition of the citizens. Nor was
his attitude towards the Chaldoeans the same as that
implied in the poems, for the poems are the expression
of unavailing but ardent patriotism, whereas Jeremiah
persistently counselled patient submission to the foreign
rule. The sense of guilt, as Budde remarks, is very
imperfectly developed in Lamentations. Here the
blame of the national calamities is thrown on the
prophets and priests ; but Jeremiah s prophecies are
full of stern appeals to the conscience. There are
some passages, too, which in the mouth of Jeremiah
would go directly against facts e.g., 2g and 41720 (see
Lohr, 16). It is at best a very incomplete answer
that in chap. 3, where the singer s complaint may be
thought to take a more personal turn, Jeremiah himself
may be pictured in his isolation from Israel at large.
Indeed, upon a close examination it turns out that
this interpretation rests on a single word in 814 viz.,
By, my people, which, as we have seen, should rather
be D EJf. peoples, so that the singer of chap. 3, as the
general argument of the poem requires, is a representa
tive of Israel among the heathen, not an isolated figure
among unsympathetic countrymen.
It is unnecessary to adduce seriatim the similarities of ex
pression and imagery in Lamentations and the Book of Jeremiah
respectively. It is admitted that the Hook of Jeremiah had an
enormous influence on the subsequent literature, and it would
constitute a perplexing problem if in poems dealing with the
religious aspects of the national troubles there were not numerous
reminiscences of Jeremiah. Driver (fntr.P), 462) has made a
judicious selection of some of the more striking similarities. On
the vocabulary see Lohr, ZA TW\T,T,ff.
The most urgent question is that relating to the text. Here,
as elsewhere, a very natural but no longer justifiable conser
vatism has hindered an adequate treatment
13. Literature, of critical questions. It must also be remem
bered that the date of Lamentations can
be satisfactorily discussed only in connection with the date of
Psalms and Job. The older literature is fully given by Niigels-
bach (p. 17); but recent commentaries, from Ewald s onwards
(if we put aside those in which JEREMIAH \q.v.\ and Lamenta
tions are treated together), are much more important. Ewald
treats the five Lamentations among the Psalms of the Exile
(Dichter, vol. i, pt. 2, ( 2 ) 1866). See also Thenius in KGH , 1855,
who ascribes chaps. 2 and 4 to Jeremiah ; Vaihinger, 1857; Reuss,
La Bible: Poesic Lyriyue, 1879; S. Oettli, in KGH, 1889; M.
Lcihr, 1891, and again in HK, 1893 ; S. Minochi (Rome, 1897) ;
K. Budde, in KHC (Fiinf Megillot), 1898. Recensions of the
text have been given by G. Bickell, Carmina VT metrice,
112-120(1882): andin fKZAW8[i89 4 ] loi^; C. J. Ball, PSBA
9 [1887] \yijf. (metrical; cp Budde, Filvf Meg. , 71, n. i) ; a
translation of a revised text by J. Dyserinck, 7/I.T26 [1892]
339 ; emendations by Houbigant, Notce^ criticte (1777), -477-
483. On the metre see especially Budde, in ZA TW1 [1882] -iff,
12 [1892] 264^ ; cp Preuss. Jahrbb. 1893, 460^ On the literary
criticism see also Th. Noldeke, Die alttest. Liieralur (1868),
142-148; F. Montet, Etude sur le livre de Lam. (1875); Seinecke,
2705
LAMP, LANTERN
GVll (1884) 29 ff.; Stade, GVI (1887) 701, n. i; Steinthal,
Die Klagelieder Jer., in liibel u. Rel.-pliilosophie, 16-33 (1890
Jewish); S. A. Fries, in ZATIVVA (1893) no^T (Lam. 4 5,
Maccabaean works ; Lam. 1-3 probably by Jeremiah) ; M. Lohr,
in ZA TH/ 14 (1894), 51 _^ (an answer to Fries) ; and ib. 31 ff.
(full statistical tables on the vocabulary of Lamentations).
Winckler (A O FP), 8445) refers Lamentations to a partial de-
sttuction of Jerusalem in the time of Sheshbazzar, in which, he
thinks, the temple was not destroyed. See, however, OBAIJIAH.
Among the Introductions Konig s gives perhaps the most dis
tinctive treatment to the critical questions ; but Driver s is fuller.
T. K. c. (with some passages by w. R. s. ).
LAMP, LANTERN. Before we proceed to a con
sideration of the use of artificial light among the early
Hebrews there are eight Hebrew (including Aramaic)
and Greek terms which have to be mentioned.
Passing over such terms as TIN, TINO, ,TYINC, $o>s, tj>ta<j-r^p,
and the like, we have :
1. TJ, tier, sometimes rendered candle in AV (e.g., Job 18 6
21 17 29 3, etc.), and even in RV also (Jer. 25 10,
1. Terms. Zeph. 1 12), for which, as the Amer. Revisers
recognise, lamp is everywhere to be preferred :
so in RV of Job, I.e., and in AV also of Ex. 27 20. Cognate with
tier is :
2. Y3, nir, used only in a figurative sense, AV light in i K.
11 36, 2 K. 8 19, 2 Ch. 21 7 (mg. candle ), but RV lamp (so also
in Prov. 21 4 where AV plowing, mg. light, RVii tf- tillage ;
see the Comm.), and AV also in i K. 15 4. From the same
common root is derived JTTUO, mcndriih^ which, with the single
exception of 2 K. 4 10, is always used of the temple candelabrum
(see CANDLESTICK).
3. TS7, lappld (deriv. uncertain), though rendered lamp in
AV Gen. 15 17 J_obl2 5 (RV also in Dan. 10 6 Is. 62 i), should
rather be torch (as in RV, so already AV in Nah. 2 4 [5], Zech.
12 &) .; it is rendered lightning in Ex. 20 18 EV. On the
apparently cognate nnSs (Nah. 23 [4] AV torches ) see IKON,
2, col. 2174.
4. WJBhaji nebrasta, in Bibl. Aram. Dan. 5 5, EV candle
stick. 2
5. AU^I/OS (in (5 for no. i), candle in AV of Mt. 615 Mk. 4 21
Lk. 8 16, etc., but lights (in pi.) Lk. 12 35 ; RV lamp(s).
6. Au^i/ia (in for menorah, see 2 above), candlestick AV
Mt.5is Mk. 42i Lk. 8 16 11 33 (RV stand ), and EV Heb. 9 2
Rev. 1 12 2 i 5 etc. (in Rev., RVie-, Or. lamp-stands ).
7. Aa^in-as, lamp AV Rev. 4 5 8 10, etc., and EV Mt. 25i-8,
properly torch (so EV in Jn. 18 3, RV in Rev. I.e., and RVmg.
in Mt. I.e.). The word was transferred from the torch to the
later invented lamp. In Judith 1022 mention is made of silver
lamps (A<x)A7ra6es apyupcu).
8. (jta.vo !, Jn. 18 3 1, EV lantern (properly a torch).
The oldest form of artificial light was supplied by
torches of rush, pine, or any other inflammable wood.
_ , . j ,. The origin of the lamp is quite un-
2. Introduction known Classka , trac f ition \ scribed
o amps. j tg mvent j on to trie j j nt e ff or t s O f
Vulcan, Minerva, and Prometheus, whilst Egypt, on the
other hand, claimed the credit for herself. At all events,
according to Schliemann, lamps were unknown in the
Homeric age, and, on the authority of Athenyeus
(15700) were not in common use (in Greece) until the
fourth century B.C. With the Romans, too, the candela
is earlier than the lucerna and the candelabrum, and
was used, even in later times, by the poorer classes
rather than the more expensive lights requiring oil.
The oldest kind of lamp is the shell-shaped clay
vessel consisting of an open circular body with a pro-
_ ,. jecting rim to prevent the oil from
a- being spilled. This variety is found in
Cyprus from the eighth to the fourth century B. c. , s and
many Egyptian specimens, ascribed to the middle of the
second millennium, were found at Tell el-Hesy. 4 These
rude clay vessels have survived in the E. to the present
day. The earliest Greek and Roman lamps (lychni,
lucernes) are almost always of terra-cotta, bronze is
rarer. 8 In Egypt and Palestine, on the other hand,
1 According to Hommel, SiiJ-arab. Chrcst. 128, the related
mrtJD n Hal. 353 = torch.
2 Deriv. quite obscure ; see the Lexx. According to Barth
(ZA 2 117) the n is a nominal prefix.
3 Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, 368, fig. 2532, 411 n. ; tab.
210 16.
4 Bliss, Mound of Many Cities (1898), 136, fig. on p. 87.
8 Cesnola, Salaminia (1884), 250^
2706
LAMP, LANTERN
terra-cotta or even porcelain lamps do not seem to occur
before the Roman and Byzantine periods respectively. 1
Another popular variety is the shoe-shaped lamp, sc\. r.il
specimens of which were found by Peters at Nippur,- sometimes
plain, sometimes blue enamelled, and a few in copper. They
appear to be all post-Babylonian. (The older lamps were of a
squarish shape ; the most elaborate specimen was evidently
Seleucidan.) Lamps of this description were used by the early
Christians (cp Diet. Christ. Ant. s. Lamps, gig). 3
Generally speaking, therefore, the lamps of the
Semites and Egyptians contrasted unfavourably with
4 Earlv Jewish tnose ^ ^ rec ^n or Roman manufac-
Lainrjs lure, and we may further conclude
that the Hebrew lamp underwent little
improvement and elaboration previous, at all events, to
the time of the Seleucidre. We may also infer, in
cidentally, that there are no grounds at present (at least)
for supposing that P s temple-candelabrum was marked
by any exceptional beauty even in Samuel s time the
sanctuary was lit only by a tier ( 1, i above).
In spite of the numerous references to the ner in the
OT we have really no indications to guide us to its
shape, and in the light of the evidence above ( 3) we
can only surmise that it approximated to if it was not
identical with the plain shell-shaped clay utensil already
described. As the interesting passage in 2 K. 4 10
proves, a lamp of some kind formed a part of the
furniture of every room, and the exceptional use of
mlnordh suggests that already it was customary to set
the lamp upon an elevated stand. This we know was
done in NT times. At all events we must not suppose
that a candelabrum of the typical classical shape is
intended in this pre-exilic reference. The more usual
practice was to set the lamp upon a niche in the wall.
As the term ///MA, njJC 3, shows, the wick was commonly of
FLAX [g.v.]. Whether, as in Egypt (cp Herod. 262), the oil
was mixed with salt (to purify the flame) is unknown ; see OIL.
The Oriental prefers to keep a light burning through
out the night * a custom not wholly due to fear of
5. Beliefs and darkness -d Kitto (Bibl. CycL.s.v.}
metaphors su SS ests that thls Practice gives point
to the familiar w/fcr-darkness of the
NT. The contrast implied in the term outer refers to
1 the effect produced by sudden expulsion into the
darkness of night from a chamber highly illuminated
for an entertainment. Probably the custom originated
in the widespread belief which associates and sometimes
even identifies light and life.
So, the extinguishing of light is the cessation of life, Prov.
SOzo, cp Prov. 13g 2420 Job 18 6 21 17 29 3. Similar is the use
of nir ( 1, 2 above), and the metaphor quench the coal in 2 S.
14 7 (CoAL, 4). The light may typify the life of the individual,
of the clan, or of the nation. In 2 S. 21 17 where David is the
lamp of Israel, we may perhaps see in the people s anxiety to
safeguard his person a trace of the primitive taboo of kings. 5
Again we find the widespread custom of the ever-burning sacred
hearth or lamp (cp CANDLESTICK), on which see N APHTHAK and
cp Paus. i. 2b6f., viii. 589, and Class. Diet., s.v. Prytaneum.
On the association of the deity with flame, see FIRE.
Finally may be mentioned the Lydian custom (Paus. vii. 22 2) of
lighting the sacred lamp before the image of Hermes in the
market-place of Phara; before approaching it for oracular
purposes. This may, conceivably, illustrate i S. 83 where the
point is emphasised that the lamp has not gone out. Did the
writer believe that there would have been no oracle had the
light been extinguished? 7
From primitive cult to established custom is an
1 Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. ii^; Clermont-Ganneau, Archaro-
logical Researches, 1 it>jf., 486 f.
I Nippur,1-$&f., cp pi. v., no. 10.
3 Whether glass lamps were used in Egypt must be considered
problematical, see Wilk. Anc. Kg. 8424 (fig. 620).
4 Doughty found paper-lanterns thus used among the Bedouins
(A r. Des. 1 8 72).
6 Cp the care taken of the sacred torch-bearer among the
Greeks (see Kawlinson on Herod. 85).
So the Yezidis light lamps at sacred springs (Parry, Six
ntttnt/is in a Syrian monastery, 363).
7 As it stands the passage is difficult. It is ordinarily sup
posed to indicate that it was still night-time (in v. 15 read: he
rose u/> early in the morning ). Are we to suppose, therefore,
that the ner only burned for a few hours (note that ^33 is
intransitive)? This would be opposed not only to P, but also to
universal custom.
2707
LAODICEA
easy step. On the lighting of torches and lamps on
c T am no in t le occas on of marriage festivities see
FeSSs MARRIAGK.I Whether, as Bliss has
conjectured, 2 lamps ever played a part
in foundation-ceremonies, cannot at present be proved.
The burning of lamps before the dead is too widely
known to need more than a passing mention ; see,
further, MOURNING CUSTOMS. On lamps in Jewish
festivals see DEDICATION, FEAST OF, col. 1054, and
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. s. A. c.
LAMPS ACUS, i Mace. 15 23 EV m e- (after Vg. LAMP-
SACUS) ; EV SAMPSAMES (y.v.).
LANCE. For }VT3, kldon, Jer. 5042 AV, RV spear,
see JAVELIN, 5, WEAPONS. For npn, rdmah, i K. 1828 RV, AV
lancet, see SPEAR, WEAPONS.
LAND -CROCODILE (PI3), Lev. 1130, RV, AV
CHAMELEON, (q.v. , i).
LANDMARK (^3|), Dt. 19 14, etc. See AGRICUL
TURE, 5.
LAND TENURE. See LAW AND JUSTICE ( 15,
18).
LANTERN (d>A.NOc). Jn.l8 3 f. See LAMP.
LAODICEA (AAoAlKlA [Ti.WH] from N every
where; in TR everywhere A&oAiKeiA.. which is cer
tainly the correct Gk. form [Authors and inscrr. ]. B
has AAOAlKlA in Col. 2i Rev. 1 n 814 ; but AAOAiKeiA
in Col. 4131516. Latin, Laodicea ; but also Laodicia
and other wrong forms are found. The ethnic is A&O-
AiKeyc [Lat. Laodicensis], Laodicean, Col. 4i6 [cp
Coins]). The NT passages indicate the position of
Laodiceia 3 as ( i ) in the Roman province of Asia, and
(2) in close proximity to Colossce and Hierapolis. A
coin represents the city as a woman wearing a turreted
crown, sitting between (ppYriA and KARIA. which are
figured as standing females. This agrees with the
ancient authorities, who are at variance whether Lao
diceia belongs to Caria or to Phrygia. 4 It was in fact
close to the frontier, on the S. bank of the Lycus, 6 m.
S. of Hierapolis and about 10 m. W. of Colossas (Col. 4
1316). In order to distinguish it from other towns of
the same name, it was called AaodiKfia i] 7r/>6s (or twi)
T$ Ai /cp (Laodicea ad Lycum, Strabo, 578).
Laodiceia probably owed its foundation to Antiochus
II. (261-246 B.C.), and its name to his wife Laodice.
The foundations of the Greek kings in Asia Minor were
intended as centres of Hellenic civilisation and of
foreign domination. Ease of access and commercial
convenience were sought, rather than merely military
strength. Hence they were generally placed on rising
ground at the edge of the plains (Ramsay, Hist. Geogr.
of AM, 85). Such is the situation of Laodiceia,
backed by the range of Mt. Salbacus (Baba Dagk) and,
to the SE. , Mt. Cadmus (Khonas Dagh}. Being a
Seleucid foundation, Laodiceia contained a Jewish
element in its population, either due to the founder or
imported by Antiochus the Great about 200 B.C. (Jos.
Ant. xii. 34>. 5 In 62 B.C. Flaccus. the governor of
Asia, seized twenty pounds of gold which had been
collected at Laodiceia, as the centre of a district, 6 by
the Jews for transmission to Jerusalem (Cic. Pro Flacco,
68 ; cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 20, a letter addressed by the
Laodicean magistrates to Gaius Rabirius in 48 or 45 B.C. ,
guaranteeing religious freedom for the Jewish colony).
1 Also a classical custom. Probably the flame was originally
regarded as a vivifying and fertilising agent ; cp especially
Frazer, C.olden Bought, 8303. One remembers that Hymen is
figured with a torch.
2 Op. cit. 84.
1 fAt least six cities of this name were founded or renovated in
the later Hellenic period. Cp LYCAONIA.]
* Carian, Ptol. and Steph. Byz. s.r: Antiocheia ; Phrygian,
Polyb. 5 57, Strabo, 576.
8 [Cp Willrich, Juden u. Griechtn, 41 f. , who denies the
genuineness of the document.]
8 Cp Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 2667.
2708
LAODICEA
The prosperity of Laodiceia began _only with the^ Roman
period (Str. 578, /uuicpa Trporepoi/ overa avfqo-ii^cAa/Sci/ e<f> T>UUII>
Kai Ta)f rjfj.fTfpu)! varfpiav, which sums up the first century B.C.).
Strabo traces the growth of the city to its excellent territory and
its fine breed of sheep ; but the real secret lay in its situation at
a knot in the imperial road -system (cp Pol. 657). At
Laodiceia the great eastern highway met three other roads :
(i) from the SE., from Attnleia and Perga ; (2) from the NW.,
the important road from Sardis and Philadelpheia ; (3) from the
NE., from Dorylaeum and northern Phrygia. The city was thus
marked out as a commercial and administrative centre. It was the
meeting-place of the Cibyratic conventus, and a banking-centre
(Cicero proposes to cash there his treasury bills of exchange Ad
Ji ai. 3 5, pecunia quie ex publica permutatione debetur. Cp
id. Ad Att.5is). To this financial side of the city s repute
refers Rev. 3 18 ( I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the
fire ). Laodiceia also became great as a manufacturing town.
The fine glossy black native wool (of the colour called <copafrjs,
Str. 578) was made into garments of various shapes and names,
and into carpets. 1 A reference to this trade is found in Rev. 3 18
( I counsel thee to buy of me . . . white raiment [i/uana Aeuica
not the dark garments of native manufacture]). The town
thus rapidly grew rich. Although it was passed over in 26 A.D.
as not sufficiently important to be selected as the site of a
temple to Tiberius (Tac. Ann. 455), it needed no help from
the imperial exchequer in order to repair the havoc wrought by
the great earthquake 2 of 60 A.D. (Tac. Ann. 1^27, propriis
opibus rmaluit). Hence the boast in Rev. 3 17 ( I am rich,
and increased with goods, and have need of nothing ).
Asklepios (/Esculapius) enjoyed great honour at
Laodiceia. He is there the Grecised form of the native
deity, Men Karos, whose temple was at Attouda, some
12 m. to the West (cp NEOCOROS). It was connected
with a great school of medicine. That Laodiceia
identified itself with this worship is clear from its coins,
which under Augustus have the staff of Asklepios en
circled by serpents, with the legend ZeDts or ZeDiS
4>iAa\i;0T7S : Zeuxis and Alexander Philalethes were two
directors of the school. The expression in Rev. 3i8
( eye-salve to anoint thine eyes with, that thou mayest
see 1 RV) refers to the Phrygian powder (retftpa. <bpvyia)
used to cure weak eyes. We may infer that this was made
at Laodiceia, and that the Laodicean physicians were
skilful oculists. Thus the three epithets poor and blind
and naked in Rev. 3 17, are carefully selected with refer
ence to three conspicuous features in the life of the city.
Of the history of Christianity in Laodiceia little is
known. From Col. 2i ( /or them at Laodicea, and for
as many as have not seen my face in the flesh ), it is
clear that at the time of writing Paul was not personally
known to the bulk of the converts at Laodiceia. This
inference is by no means irreconcilable with Acts 19 1
[on the expression TO. dvurepiKo. fJ-fpT], the upper coasts
AV, the upper country RV, see GALATIA, 7, col.
1596, and PHRYGIA, 4]. The foundation of the Laodi
cean church must be traced to Paul s activity in Ephesus
(Acts 18 19 19 10, so that all they which dwelt in Asia
heard the word ). The actual founder of the church
would appear to have been Epaphras (Col. 17 4i2/. ).
From Col. 4 16 we gather that Paul wrote also to
Laodiceia when he wrote to Colossoe ; but the Laodicean
epistle is lost unless we accept the view that it is the
extant Epistle to the Ephesians (cp COLOSSI ANS, 14).
The epistle, extant in Latin, entitled Epistola ad
Laodicenses, is a forgery. 3 The subscription to i Tim.
The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea
AV is also false.
The site of Laodiceia (mod. Eski-Hissar, the Old
Castle ) is now quite deserted; the ruins are many
but not striking. The old city has served as a quarry
for Denizli, a large Turkish town at the foot of the
Baba Dagh, about 6 m. to the southward.
Ramsay, in his Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, \ 32 jff.
34I./I 2512 542^, etc., gives nearly all that is known of
Laodiceia and the Lycus valley generally,
Literature, with map of Laodiceia. Map of the Lycus
valley in his Church in the Rom. Einp.ip), 472.
See also Anderson, in/aurn. of Hellenic Studies, 1897, pp. 404^,
and Weber, Jahrb. des arch. Instituts, 1898. w. J. W.
2709
LASEA
LAPIDOTH, RV LAPPIDOTH (niTS 1 ?, as if
i
torches or [cp D^TS?, Ex. 20 18] lightning flashes ;
AA(J>[e]iAo>6 [BAL]), husband of DEBORAH (Judg. 44).
There is reason, however, to suspect that both Deborah
and Lappidoth may be corruptions, the former of
the name of the centre of the clan of Saul ( Ephrath i. e. ,
Jerahmeel ; see SAUL, i), the latter of PALTIEL, the
origin of which was of course unknown when the
Deborah legend was elaborated. The narratives in
Judg. 4 and Josh. 11, and the song in Judg. 5, have in
fact most probably undergone considerable transforma
tion. See SHIMRON-MERON, SISERA. T. K. c.
LAPIS LAZULI (Rev. 21 19 RV m e-), the name by
which a well-known blue mineral (mainly silicate of
aluminium, calcium, and sodium), the source of ultra
marine, has since the Arabian period been designated ; 1
it is now brought chiefly from SW. Siberia, through
Persia and Turkestan. To the Greeks it was known as
ffdirfaipos, to the Hebrews as vsp, sappir (see SAP
PHIRE), to the Assyrians and Babylonians (most prob
ably) as the ukmi-slor\e, to the Egyptians as the hspd.
It was prized alike for personal ornaments and for archi
tectural decoration. A large number of Egyptian objects
of luxury made from it have been preserved ; various
Assyrian seal-cylinders, inscribed tablets, and the like,
in lapis lazuli, are also known (1450 B.C. onwards).
Rurnaburias of Babylonia sends to Naphuria of Egypt
(i.e., Amenhotep IV.) two minas of ?//?7-stone and a
necklace of 1048 gems and uknu-siones. There is
frequent mention of uknii in the Statistical Table
of Thotmes III. (KPI^ff.}, and Rameses III. is so
rich in uknu that he can offer pyramids of it in his
temple at Medinet Habu. It was one of the seven
stones placed as amulets and ornaments on the breast
of the Babylonian kings, and was used to overlay the
highest parts of buildings. It is sometimes called
ukne-sade (uknu of the mountains), and Esarhaddon
specially mentions the mountains of Media and the
neighbouring regions as sources of the ~uknii. The
inscriptions at ed-Deir el-Bahri speak of it as brought
from the land of Punt.
See Am. Tab. 84042 15 n ; KBZbvo; Del. Ass. HWB,
s.v. uknii ; Wi. AOF\ 150160 271 ; \VMM, As. u. Eur. 278;
OLZ, Feb. 1899. p. 39 ; Peters, Nippur, 2 132 143 195 210 240.
LAPWING (nQ 3-n), Lev. 11 19 Dt. 14i8 AV, RV
HOOPOE (q.v. ).
LASEA (Acts 278, rroAic AAC<MA [AACEA WH,
after B]: noAlC &A&CC& [A], AACC<M& [N*]. A&ICC<\
[N c ], A<\CIA [minusc. ap. Ti.] ; Vg. THALASSA [tol
TH A LA ssi A ; codd. ap. Lachm. THASLASSA, or THAS-
SALA~\}. From Acts we learn that it was near (tyyvs)
Fair Havens, and the configuration of the coast there
abouts restricts us to the N. or the E. There was prob
ably frequent communication between the town and
Paul s ship, which lay for much time at FAIR HAVENS
(q. v. }. The ruins of Lasea were discovered, apparently,
by Captain Spratt, in 1853. They were first examined
and described by the Rev. G. Brown in 1856. The site
lies about a mile NE. of Cape Leoit(d}a (=A^ovra), a
promontory resembling a lion couchant, 4 or 5 m. E.
of Fair Havens. According to Mr. Brown, the peas
ants still call the place Lasea. This position agrees
with that given to a place called Lisia, which in the
Peuti tiger Tables is stated to be 16 m. from Gortyna
(see Hoeck, Kreta\t,\i, but cp Winer 81 , 5, n. 55).
The- true name, according to Bursian (GVftor. 2567), is
Alassa, and the place is identical with the AXai of the
Stadiasmus AJed. 322, and the Alos or Lasos of Pliny
(//AM 12) ; but Bursian is in error in identifying the
remains near Cape Leonda as those of Leben, one of
the ports of Gortyna (Strabo 478), and in putting Lasea
on the islet now called Traphos which lies close to the
coast a little to the NE. of Fair Havens.
1 Laziward,o{PeTS. origin, whence also our azure
2710
LASHA
See James Smith, Voyage and SkifWKk of St. Paul, 4th ed.,
83, 268 f. with map ; Falkener in Jlfus. of Class. Ant. 1852, Sept.
p. 287. For coins with legend WaAao-aewv, cp Head, Hist.
Mum. 386. W. J. W.
LASHA (I -y, pausal form ; AACA [EL] ; AACA
[A ), or rather Lesha, a frontier city of Canaan (i.e., on
the W. side of the Jordan), Gen. 10 igf. Jerome (Qucest.
in lib. Gen. ) and the Targum identify it with Callirrhoe,
a. place famous for its hot springs, near the W&dy Zerka
Main, on the E. side of the Dead Sea (see Seetzen s
account in Ritter, Erdkunde, 15 575^)- The situation
of Callirrhoe, however, is unsuitable. Halevy proposes
to read jit? 1 ?, lASon, which is used in Josh. 152 of the
southern end of the Dead Sea (Recherches bibliques, 8 164) ;
but the article would in this case be indispensable. Sey-
bold ( ZA T \\ , 1896, p. 3 18/:) actually identifies Lesha
with Zoar (also called Bela), which, as the southern point
of the Fentapolis, seems to him to be naturally expected
in such a context. Wellhausen (CH 15) maintains that
we should read cc>S, Lesham the letters j; and D have
a close resemblance in their Palmyrene form. In this
case, the border of the Canaanites is given thus from
Sidon to Gaza, from Gaza to the Dead Sea, and from
the Dead Sea to Lesham i.e., Dan (cp LESHEM).
Most probably, however, the original text referred to
the Kenites or Kennizzites (not to the Canaanites), and
the border was drawn from Missur (not Zidon ) to
Gerar and Gaza (?), and in the direction of Sodom and
Gomorrah as far as Eshcol (?) i.e., perhaps Halusah.
. T. K. C.
LASHARON, RV Lassharon (|iTJ ; 7; THC Apu>K (?)
[B], om. A, AeCApUJN [L]), a royal city of Canaan,
mentioned with Aphek, Josh. 12 18 (EV). ^?D, king
(of), before p"VJv is, however, probably an interpola
tion ; it is not represented in (55. Thus the true sense
will be, the king of Aphek in the (plain of) Sharon
(see APHEK). Those who retain the MT suggest that
Lasharon may be the modern Sarona [SW. of Tiberias.
Kautzsch, HS, renders MT the king of Sharon.
Observe, however (i) that jntrS iVa should mean gram
matically one of the kings of Sharon (see Ges. -Kau.
129 c}, and (2) that Sarona, as a place-name, is
probably a late echo of the older name of a district
(see SHARON, 2). <S in Josh. 129-24, gives twenty-nine
kings, MT thirty -one. It is more likely that the
original writer made thirty.] w. R. s.
LASTHENES (AAc6eN[e]i dat. [ANY], - H c [Jos.]),
the minister of Demetrius II. Nicator (see DEMETRIUS,
2), who was ordered to lighten the fiscal burdens of the
Jews. A copy of the order was also forwarded to
Jonathan the Maccabee (see MACCABEES i., 5), and
appears in i Mace. 1130^ in a form closely akin to that
in Josephus Ant. xiii. 4g[ I26-I3O]). 1 From Josephus
(Ant. xiii. 4s) it would seem that Lasthenes was a Cretan
who had raised a number of mercenaries (cp CRETE, col.
955) w tn which Demetrius had been able to commence
his conquest of Syria. The honorific titles bestowed
upon him in i Mace. 11 31 f. (a\.<yyfvris, irar-^p ; see
CoirsiN, FATHER) testify to his high position, which
(compare 10 69 74*2) may have been that of governor of
Coelesyria, or grand vizier of the kingdom (cp Camb.
Bib. ad loc. ). Later, when quietness had been gained,
the whole of the army of Demetrius was disbanded
(probably at the instigation of Lasthenes) with the
exception of the foreign forces from the isles of the
gentiles (11 38),* a circumstance which gave rise to
widespread dissatisfaction ; see, further, ANTIOCHUS 4 ;
TRYPHON.
1 The most noteworthy differences are (a) v. 37, tv opti r<3
oyi u) as compared with the pieferable TOV ayiov ifpoO [Jos. 128]
opft apparently a cortuplion of tcpu, and (6) v. 38, at 5vya /uei?
ai oirb rStv iraripiav as against aTpaTio>Tu)f [Jos. 8 130] the
reading of Mace, being apparently a doublet with vn!3N read
for vmMax ( as m 10 7 J t see MACCABEES^ FIRST, 3 end]).
2 Jos. 129, no doubt correctly, oi . . ix Kprjnjs.
2711
LATTICE
LATCHET HIT , Is. 5 27 ; IMAC, Mk. 1 7 etc. ). See
SHOES.
LATIN (POOMAICTI) Jn. 19 ^o. See ROMAN EMPIRE.
LATTICE. Although the manufacture and use of
glass (more particularly for ornamental purposes) was
,
,
2. Hebrew
known to the civilisations of the East from
S6
, the earliest times (see GLASS, i), we are
without evidence of the employment of
glass-panes in the construction of windows. Indeed, no
openings such as windows were at any time common
a fact which finds sufficient explanation in climatic con
siderations. In Assyria and Babylonia, to avoid open
ings of any kind in the outer walls, the ancient architects
used doorways reaching to ten or more feet in height,
which were intended to light and ventilate the rooms as
well as to facilitate the movements of their inhabitants
(Place, Ninive, 1313, see Per. -Chip. , Art in Chald.
\i&f>ff.}. In Egypt, again, the openings were small
but admitted of being closed with folding valves,
secured . . . with a bolt or bar, and ornamented with
carved panels or coloured devices ( Wilk. Anc. Eg. \ 363,
cp illustr. p. 362, fig. 132). Of the construction of the
house among the ancient Hebrews we know but little
(see HOUSE) ; the etymology, however, of some of the
terms employed for certain parts l suggests constructions
of lattice work, such as have happily not yet disappeared. 2
At the present day the windows looking out tosvards
the street are small, closely barred, and at a consider
able height from the ground. In the olden times
these windows seem to have looked over the street,
and in the case of houses built upon the city- wall
offered an easy escape into the surrounding country (cp
Josh. 2 15 2 Mace. 819). Cp HOUSE, 2.
The OT words correctly rendered in EV lattice or window*
are four, to which TTTiS, mehcziih (EV light
i.e., light-openine, window) in i K. ~ i, f.
names. lnav be added. Of three other words (nos. 5-7)
AY mistakes the meaning.
(1) TV2.^X t ariMdh (cp Ar. arata, to tie [a knot] ), EV
windowj used of the latticed openings of a dove-cote (Is. 60s
r[e]oo[<r]os [BHA. etc.]), of the sluices of the sky (Gen. 7 n, etc.
Ka.TappaK.Tris [in Is. 24 18 Svpi s]), and metaphorically of the eyes
(Eccl. 12 3 OTTJJ). On Hos. 13 3 (ica7ri<o6ox>) [AO.*] ; Saxpvuf [B]
comes from axptSuv [Compl.] i.e., n3"]K ; EV chimney ), see
COAL, S 3.
(2) jiWl, hallon, Ovpi s, EV window, Gen. 26 8 Josh. 2 15
Judg. 528 Jer. 22 14 (where read vjiSn with Mich., Hi., etc.),
not necessarily a mete opening (SSrii to bore, perforate), since
2 K. 13 17 shows that it could be opened and shut, but probably
an opening provided with a movable covering of lattice-work
(cp 3:c i X ) 3 lattice, Judg. 5 28* Pr. V 6 [where AV casement ]).
3lSn m i K. 64 is very probably the bet hilltini, place of
openings 01 fortified poitico, an architectural expression used
by Sargon (Khars, idif., cp A j9248) as a W. Palestinian term
for tit tifpilti (see FORTKF.SS, col. 1557, and references in Muss-
Am., Ass. HWB s. v. xilant). In i K. I.e., n 3 seems to be
identical with or possibly a portion of the D/1N in v. 3.
(3) D inn (pi.), hdrakkim, Ct. 2 9, cp N3in in Tgg. for pWl.
(4) J ?3 (pi.), kawwln, Dan. 6 10 [u], Aramaic.
To these AV adds
(s) Dfe CC* (pi-), s f Miisi>tA, Is. 54 is; but see BATTLEMENT,
FORTRESS, col. 1557 . i.
(6) rjgs?, sekeph, i K. V 5 (cp C EpS 64*5), a. difficult word
which seems rather to denote a cross-beam (RVnijr. with
beams ) ; and
(7) -Hi, sohar, Gen. 6 t6 (in P s description of the ark). AV
may be nearly right though, in spite of the support given to the
rendering opening for light by Tg., Pesh., Vulg., etc., many
scholars now render roof e.g., RVnig., Budde, and Ball;
Ges.-Buhl and others who compare Ar. zahr. Ass. seru (in Am.
1 "IJ3i; , lattice, i K. 1 2, IICTV<OIO [15L], SLKTVOV [A], see
NET, 5; and H31K (only in plur., except in Hos. 183), see
above (i).
2 See Baed.Pl xli. One must po to the more remote parts of
Arabia to escape from glass window-panes altogether (Doughty,
Ar. Des. 1 286).
a On etymology, cp Moore Judg. ad loc. In Judg. TofncoK[B],
fillCTUUJTTJ [AL].
2712
LAYER
Tab. su ru), back. It is doubtful, however, whether this
comparison is legitimate, (a) The meaning of the Heb. root
~\7TX "inl, to shine, is well-established. (/<) Jensen more safely
connects Ass. sei u with ~)W1>, neck (Kosmol. 28, n. i) ; and
(c) there is no support for a word like -|rtx> roof, in the
Babylonian Deluge-story. has eviyvvayuiv, which is not a
rendering of "13S (Schleusner, Ball, and others) but a corrupt ion
of KOLitvo&o\riv. Josephus (Ant. \. 82) mentions a roof (opo<j>o<;),
but is silent about the window, which in fact seems to be
usually passed over in the accounts of the ark contained in the
various deluge-legends (see DELUGE, 20, . 5), though, to be
sure, J incidentally refers to a window. 1 For RV s rend.
Might, i.e., a great light-opening, cp Symm., Sia<j>a.vf<;. [On
the whole it may be best to read H3"IX (cp <5, reading as above).
Pasek in MT warns us to criticise the text. Cp PSBA 23 141.
T. K. C.J
LAYER. 2 Solomon s temple (see TEMPLE), besides
its sea of bronze (see SEA, MOLTEN), had also ten
. _ _. bronze lavers Mil s ; see POT, and cp
1. In Kings.
COALS, 3, FURNACE, i [2] ; Xoimfc
(55, but in Kings xirr/36/cai Xos [AL-07] ^S- lab rum?
but four times Inter, once lebes, and twice concha ). The
passage in i K. (Tzy-sg) 4 is evidently in great confusion ;
and but little help in the elucidation of the wholly inade
quate details in MT s description can be obtained either
from @ (7 i-zff-} or from Josephus (Ant. viii. 36). The
figures in Stade (GF71 33 8 34o/.), Nowack (HA l^f.},
and Ben/.inger (HA 2 52 ff. ; Kon. 49) may assist vague
conjecture as to what may have been the appearance of
structures which obviously none of the describers had
ever seen.
Fresh light, however, has been thrown on the whole passage
(i Ki. 7 27-39) by Stade s new discussion in ZA TIV 21 (1901),
pp. 145-192, mainly through discoveries of bronze chariots in
Cyprus. The undersetters (RV for nsns) and the stays
(nT) are now intelligible, and so too is the construction of the
mouths of the lavers. Klostermann s excision of vv. 34-36
is found to be inadequate to the explanation of the present state
of the text, which has arisen by the interweaving of two parallel
accounts.
1. Of the lavers themselves all we are told is that they were of
bronze, four cubits (six feet) in diameter, and that they had a
cubic capacity of forty baths (90,000 cubic in., 52 cubic ft.).
Thus they must have been about 2 ft. in depth and when filled
with water their contents alone (325 gallons) must have weighed
about r \ tons. 5
2. Each laver with its foot rested on a base. Of these
bases (nij DC, mckSnoth ; jnex a>1 " ^ > bases) also we have no
satisfactory description. Each of them was four (, Jos., five)
cubits long, four (Jos., five)cubits broad, and three (, Jos., six)
cubits high. Each consisted of n\-\}j,(misg-erotli ; ovyK\ei<nov,
<TvyK\eio-/j.a.Ta) and n<y?p (Jtflaiilm ; ef e^ofitva) ; but how these
words should be rendered is quite uncertain. 6 Ben/inger argues
with some plausibility that the s labbim were the primary
elements in the quadrilateral structure, and the misgeroth only
secondary. The misgerotli were decorated with lions, oxen,
and cherubim.
3. Each base rested on solid brazen wheels ij cubits in
diameter; the axles of these wheels moved myddoth hands or
stays which projected from the lower part of the base and
were of the same piece with it.
4. The ten lavers as described in Kings were ranged
five on the right side and five on the left side of the house
facing eastward. According to 2 K. 1617 king Ahaz
(see Benzinger) cut up the mlkonoth and removed the
misgSroth. Presumably if the lavers themselves re
mained they stood at a lower elevation than formerly.
Perhaps, however, the bases were renewed, since they
are said to have been broken in pieces by the army
1 In J the words for window and roof are p^n (Gen. 86)
and nppn ( covering 8 13) respectively. Mr. S. A. Cook sug.
gests that 6 16 may contain the statement that openings were to
be made upon the first, second, and third stories e.g., iTnnEI
131 D t Pj ?ns3 ^3. For the anticipatory pronominal suffix in
n3, cp Josh. 1 26 Jer. 51 56 Ezek. 41 25, etc.
2 Fr. lavoir, I, at. laziatoriunt.
3 i.e., iavabrutit.
* Contrast the bare notice in 2 Ch. 4 14.
5 Josephus, however (Ant. viii. 36, 85), makes them 4 cubits
(6 ft.) in depth, and thus of much larger capacity.
6 See for example Vg. of v. 28 f. : et ipsum opus basium
intenasile erat et scttlptuiae inter junctures, et inter coronulas
et plectas leones, etc
2713
LAW AND JUSTICE
of Nebuchadrezzar (2 K. 25i3i6 = Jer. 52i72o; J cp Jer.
27 19). What their function was is not stated in MT.
Josephus, who must at least have known the arrange
ments of the temple of his own day, says that the lavers
were for cleansing the entrails of the animals sacrificed,
and also their feet (?).
On the probable mythological significance of the
lavers, see SEA [MOLTEN].
The laver (Jos. Ant. iii. 63 irepippavT-ripiov) of Ex.
30i8 28 35 16 388 39 39 40? n, Lev. 8n (all P) stood on
_ - p its foot (js, (5 /Mcrts, Jos. icpijTris ; basis)
between the door of the tabernacle and the
altar. The laver belongs wholly to one of the later
strata of P. (See Dr. Introd.(^, 38 ; Addis, Doc. Hex.
2276, etc., and the Oxf. Hex.) Its dimensions or shape
are nowhere stated; it is said (Ex. 388) to have been
made out of the mirrors of the women (a very late
Haggadic addition, thinks Wellhausen), and its use was
for Aaron and his sons to wash their hands and feet
therein when they entered the tabernacle.
When we compare the account of the tabernacle in P with the
(very late) description of Solomon s temple in i K. it seems
cuiious that the laver and its bases should be left undescribed in
P ; the case is reversed with the golden candlestick : perhaps we
may conclude that the laver and the candlestick were one.
Moreover, it may be worth noting that the use of only one laver
in P when contrasted with the ten in i K. finds an analogy in the
CANDLESTICK [y.v., i]. See further SCAFFOLD.
(See Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, Taf. 134 ; also his notes on
p. 449.)
LAW AND JUSTICE
Law and custom ( i). Administration ( 8-10).
Effect of settlement ( 2_/.). Punishment ( 11-13).
Written laws ( 4-6). Private law [property, etc.] (T4-
Oral law ( 7). Bibliography ( 19). [18).
Law is, originally, custom. As has been already
shown under GOVERNMENT (esp. 9), the old tribal
, , system knew no legislative authority, no
. persons holding superior power whose
will and command were looked upon as
law or as constituting right. This does not, however,
imply a condition of arbitrary lawlessness ; on the
contrary, tribal custom formed a law and a right of
the most binding character. Its authority was much
more powerful than that established by any mere
popular custom in modern society. To break loose
from tribal custom was, practically, to renounce the
family and tribal connection altogether ; any gross
infraction of that custom was necessarily followed by
expulsion from the tribe and deprivation of all legal
right and protection. Further, it is to be remembered
that in virtue of the intimate relation between the tribe
and its god, every tribal custom is at the same time a
religious custom i.e. , compliance with it is looked
upon as a duty to the divinity by whom the custom is
upheld. This was felt perhaps more keenly in Israel,
than amongst other peoples ; law and righteous
ness were the special concern of Yahwe ; in his name
justice was dispensed and to him were all legal ordin
ances referred. To a certain extent also Yahwe was the
creator of the law. Through his servants the priests,
he gave his decisions (n nin, toroth), which were to a
large degree instructions on points of right. Such a
divine utterance naturally becomes a law, in accord
ance with which other cases of the same kind are
afterwards decided. When viewed in this light the
fact to our modern ideas so surprising- that all
violations of religious observance are looked upon
as crimes against the law and as ranking in the same
category with civil offences, becomes intelligible. The
worship of the tribal god forms a part, by no means
the least important part, of the tribal custom ; no dis
tinction between worship and other integral parts of tribal
custom is perceived.
In this connection we must bear in mind that even before
the monarchy Israel had attained a certain degree of unity
1 The reference in Jer. 52 20 to the twelve brasen bulls under
the bases is apparently due to a confusion with the sea.
2714
_,
ang
LAW AND JUSTICE
in matters of law ; not in the sense that it possessed a written
law common to all the tribes, or a uniform organisation for the
pronouncing of legal judgments, but in the sense that along
with a common god it had a community of custom and of feeling
in matters of law. This community of feeling can be traced back
very far ; it is not so done in Israel, and folly in Israel, which
ought not to be done, are proverbial expressions reaching back to
quite early times (Gen. 34 7 Josh. 7 15 Judg. 19 23 20 10 2 S. 13 12).
The settlement in Western Palestine, so important in
all respects, was peculiarly important in its effect on the
development of law. From the
nature of the case the law had to
te greatly extended - The new cir -
cumstances raised new legal problems.
For one thing, the conception of private property has
for peasants settled on the land a significance quite
different from that which it possesses for nomads.
Property with the Bedouin is uncertain ; it may be gained
and lost in a night ; for peasants a certain security of
ownership is indispensable. Again, with the settlement
on the land a certain differentiation of ranks and classes
became inevitable.
To the Bedouin social distinctions in our sense of the word
are unknown ; within the tribe all are brothers ; no one is
master and no one is servant. Life in village and town soon
brings with it great distinctions. Rich and poor become
high and low, and the protection of the poor and of the alien
becomes a pressing task for the new system of law.
To these considerations it has to be added that, by
the settlement, the bonds of clanship came to be
gradually loosened, and their place taken, so far, by
local unions (see GOVERNMENT, 15) ; upon this there
naturally followed a weakening of the power which tribal
custom had exercised through the family. The individual
was not so dependent on the community ; he could with
greater ease break loose from the restraints of custom.
A certain relaxation of discipline began to make itself
felt. The later view, therefore, which characterised the
period of the judges as one of lawlessness (Judg. 176 etc.)
is partly correct. Custom had lost its old power and
required the support of some external authority.
The first step towards meeting this requirement was
when, by the settlement, the heads of clans and com-
3 Fixed mumt es ( see GOVERNMENT, 16), gradu-
. . , . ally acquired the character of a superior
authority which could be regarded as having
been appointed by Yahwe and could thus come forward
with a claim to legal powers. Their judicial utterances
had no longer merely a moral authority ; they had
behind them the weight of the whole community, which
was interested in giving them effect. The development
of a kind of public law was thus possible. In one
instance at all events this is plainly seen viz. , in the
case of the penalty for manslaughter. Under the tribal
system vengeance upon the manslayer is purely the
affair of the avenger of blood -i.e., the family: the
support of the tribe at large is involved only in cases
where the slayer belongs to another tribe. In settled
communities, however, the supreme authority must,
from a very early date, have begun to recognise it as
falling within its domain on the one hand to guarantee
security of life, and, on the other, gradually to displace
the perilous custom of blood revenge by itself taking
in hand the punishment of the slayer.
This advance towards the formation of an outside authority
was at first by no means an adequate substitute for the un
qualified power of custom which it sought to displace, and
this insufficiency showed the need of fuller political organisation.
There must be an organisation that would render possible or
guarantee the development and consistent administration of a
uniform system of law.
The monarchy provided a system of uniform common
law by furnishing a regular tribunal and by supporting
with its authority the ancient customs and legal practices.
The king and his officials were no legislators ; in fact
for a considerable time after the establishment of the
monarchy there was no real law at all in the modern
sense. The judicial decisions of the king and his
officials were determined simply by the ancient cus
tomary practice, and some time, it would seem, passed
2715
LAW AND JUSTICE
before even this law was codified, although doubtless
it may have been common from an early date for single
legal decrees to be publicly posted up, for example, at
the sanctuaries. The first attempt at a comprehensive
collection of legal precepts and a book of laws is prob
ably to be found in what is known as the Book of the
Covenant, dating probably from the ninth century
(Ex. 2024-2819 ; cp HEXATEUCH, 14, LAW LITERA
TURE, 6-9).
A single glance shows that the appearance of the
Book of the Covenant was not the introduction of a new
4 Book of the aw t * ie kk was a sett i n g down in
Covenant wr l n g f long-current legal practices.
It nowhere enunciates great legal prin
ciples, or attempts to exhibit an abstract system of
law, with a view to its application to concrete cases ;
it is merely a collection of individual legal decisions.
Its origin is clear. Either the frequent repetition
of similar decisions had given rise to an established
precedent, or a single decision had been given by a
divine Torah in either case with the same result, that
a fixed rule was established. Hence is explained the
nature and scope of the contents of the collection.
It deals exclusively with the circumstances and in
cidents of every-day life ; such matters as the legal
position of slaves, injuries to life or limb resulting
from hostility or carelessness, damage to property,
whether daughter or slave, cattle or crop. The ruling
principle is still that of the jus talionis. Trade or
commerce as yet there is none at least no laws are
required for its regulation. That ordinances for the
divine worship and general ethical precepts for the
humane treatment of widows and strangers should
also be included and placed on the same level will be
readily understood after what has been said above ( i).
Still, a distinction is made between jus and fas at
least in so far as the form of decree in the mispdtim
(ethical and legal) differs from that in the dlbdrim
(relating to religion and worship).
The object of this codification probably was to
secure a greater degree of uniformity in adjudication
and punishment. It is matter for surprise that we are
nowhere informed by whom this collection was intro
duced as an official law-book or whether it was ever so
introduced at all. If what we are told regarding
Jehoshaphat s legal reforms (2 Ch. 1?9> comes from a
good source, it would be natural to think of him in this
connection (see Benzinger, Comm. on 2 Ch. 179^).
On the other hand, it is also equally possible that
the Book of the Covenant was never an official law-
book (like Dt. ) at all, that it was simply a collection
undertaken privately (perhaps in priestly circles). As
containing only ancient law and no new enactments,
such a collection would need no kind of official intro
duction but gradually come to be tacitly and universally
accepted.
With the law of D the case is different ; it was
brought in as the law of the state by a solemn act in
6. Thelawof D. th h e l8 . th > ear , of J siah < 621 B : c ->
when king and people made a solemn
covenant pledging themselves to its faithful observ
ance (see 2 K. 23 1 ff. ). This accords well with the fact
that Dt. claims to be more than a mere compilation of
the ancient laws ; it comes before us as a new system.
Though in form and in contents alike it connects itself
very closely with the Book of the Covenant, its literary
dependence on it being unmistakable, it nevertheless,
as a law-book, marks a great advance in comparison
with the other, inasmuch as it embodies an attempt to
systematise both the civil and the ecclesiastical law
under a single point of view, that of the unique relation
ship of God to his people. The norm for determining
what is right and what is wrong is no longer merely
ancient law and custom : the supreme principle is now
the demand for holiness. As a consequence, much of
what has long been established law must disappear ; in
2716
6. The Priestly
Law.
LAW AND JUSTICE
the sphere of worship, indeed, the law-book has ex
pressly in view nothing less than a thorough -going
reform. In spirit the legislation is characterised by its
humanity ; humanitarian ordinances of all sorts, pro
visions for the poor and for servants, for widows and
orphans, for levites and strangers, have a large place.
The priestly law in like manner, after the exile, was
introduced much as D had been (Neh. 8-10). This
law aims only at the regulation of
worship ; law and ethics in the broader
sense are purposely left alone ; the
constitution now given to the community everywhere
presupposes a state organisation and civil rights. It is
only exceptionally that matters belonging to the domain
of law properly so called are dealt with, and even in
these instances that is done only in so far as the
questions are connected with the hierocratic system of P.
Within P, the law of holiness (H) forms a separate col
lection (Lev. 17-26 and some other isolated precepts ;
cp HEXATEUCH, ibfr, LAW LITERATURE, 15,
LEVITICUS, 13-23), though it does not seem ever to
have received separate recognition, but only to have come
into currency in conjunction with the Priestly Law as
a whole. As distinguished from P, H includes ethical
and legal enactments (especially Lev. 19 ), which are
made from the point of view of the holiness of the
people, as in Dt. (the mild humanity of which it also
shares).
The tordh, however, the written and official law,
related only to a small part of civil life. Alongside of
if fi 1 T it was still l 6 ^ ample room for the play
of ancient consuetudinary law. It is
much to be regretted that in the literature which has
come down to us we have no codification of this con
suetudinary law in the form into which it had developed
at the time of the introduction of the Priestly Law, and
in which it is presupposed by that law. For long
afterwards it continued to be handed down only by oral
tradition, and even amongst the scribes of a later epoch
there was still strong reluctance to commit the Haldchdh
to writing.
The further development of law was the main business of the
scribes. The tordh continued to be the immovable found
ation ; the task that remained was, either by casuistical inter
pretation of the written law or by determination of the con
suetudinary law, to fill up the blanks of the tordh and bring
into existence new precepts. The law thus arrived at which
in authority soon came to rank alongside of the written tordh
was comprehensively termed hiildchdh (consuetudinary law).
As it gained in authority the scribes, though not formally recog
nised as lawgivers, gradually came to be such in point of fact.
The results of their legislative activity are embodied in the
Mishna. This rests, however, on an older work of the period of
R. Akiba b. Joseph (circa 110-135 A.D.), under whose influence
it probably was that the hdldchdh hitherto only orally handed
down first came to be codified. From what has been said it will
be evident that the Mishna may very well contain many frag
ments of ancient legal custom, but that it would he hopeless to
attempt with its help to reconstruct the old consuetudinary
Hebrew law as this existed (say) in the Persian or in the Grecian
period. 1 (Cp LAW LITERATURE, 22./C)
All jurisdiction was originally vested in the family.
The father of a family had unlimited powers of punish-
8. Judiciary , n , ient < G f n 382 < C P ?< ?1 < W ith
, _ the coalescence of families into clans
S ^f, em and tribes (see GOVERNMENT, 4) a
portion of the family jurisdiction neces
sarily also passed over to the larger group, and was
thenceforth exercised by the heads of the clan or
tribe. The old tradition in Israel was that the elders
acted also as judges. All three variants of the story
of the appointment of elders as judges (Ex. 1813^
Nu. 11 16^! Dt. 1 13 f. ) have this feature in common
that they place the elders alongside of Moses as his
helpers in the government of the people i.e. , in pro
nouncing judgments (in the gloss Dt. 1 15 the word is
quite correctly given as heads of tribes ). The lighter
cases come up before the elders, whilst Moses reserves
the graver ones for himself. This judicial activity of
1 On the Rabbis and the Mishna see Schiir. GVI H., 25.
2717
LAW AND JUSTICE
the heads of tribes and clans we must, of course, regard,
not as an innovation, but as an ancient usage. The
tradition, however, is once more in accordance with the
facts of the case when, as alongside of and overruling every
human decision, the deity is regarded as the supreme
king -judge. The weightiest matters, those namely
with which human wisdom is unable to cope, come
before God ; for Moses dispenses law as the servant and
the mouth of God as a priest upon the basis of divine
decisions (see above, i). The people come to him
to inquire of God and he is their representative before
God, to whose judgment he submits the case (Ex.
18 15 19). The same conditions continued through
the later period ; alongside of the jurisdiction of the
tribal heads and of the judiciary officers that of God as
exercised through the priests was still maintained.
The entire position otherwise accorded to the elders
shows that their judicial activity was not the consequence
merely of an office with which they had been invested.
Their authority as a whole, and in particular their
judicial influence, was purely moral. In the main
therefore we find the same conditions as are even now
found to prevail among the Bedouins, and so far as the
present subject is concerned we may safely venture to
avail ourselves of what we know of these last to supple
ment the deficiencies of our information regarding
ancient Israel.
Amongst the Bedouins, also, then, it is within the competency
of the sheikh to settle differences ; but his judgment has no
compelling power : he cannot enforce it against the will of the
parties and cannot order the slightest punishment upon any
members of the tribe. The family alone can bring pressure to
bear on the members. Further, many tribes have, in addition,
a kadi, as a sort of judge of higher instance for graver cases ;
for this office men distinguished by their keenness of judgment,
love of justice, and experience in the affairs and customs of the
tribe, are chosen. As a rule the office of kadi continues within
the same family ; but even his judgment is not compulsory.
There is no executive authority provided for carrying it out. If
in the last resort a problem proves so involved that not even the
kadi is able to solve it, nothing remains but to resort to the
judgment of God (cp Burckhardt, Bern. 93 Jjf.)
As already remarked ( 2), after the settlement these
elders in their character as heads of the local commun
ities (zikne hair, Tj;n jpi) gradually acquired the powers
of a governing body (cp GOVERNMENT, 16). So far
as their jurisdiction was concerned, this meant that as
judges they acquired a certain executive power for
carrying out their judgments. How soon this develop
ment took place, and with what modifications in detail,
we do not know. Stories like those of the wise woman
of Tekoa (2 S. \*/.} and of the trial of Naboth (i K.
218^) prove the lact, at least for the period of the
earlier monarchy. Dt. knows of the elders as an
organised judicial institution. From the manner in
which the function of judging is assigned to them in
certain cases, it is clearly evident that the elders also had
executive powers (cp esp. Dt. 19 12 21 iff. 22 is./-)- l n
this executive capacity they act as representing the
entire body of the citizens ; this finds expression, in the
case of death-penalty, in the fact that it is for the entire
community to carry out the sentence (Dt. 17 7). A
solitary exception is made in the punishment of murder ;
even long after the unrestricted right of private revenge
had been abolished, and trial of crimes against life had
been brought within the competency of the regular
courts, there survived a relic of the ancient deeply-
rooted custom which gave the avenger of blood the
right of personally carrying out the death sentence on
the murderer (Dt. 19 12).
(a) Elders. By inference from these facts we may
safely conclude that the judges presupposed by the
Book of the Covenant were in the first
9. Judges. instance the elders of the different localities
all the more so as the judicial competency of these
elders must in the earlier times have been still more
extensive than when the Book of the Covenant was
written. Singularly enough, the Book gives no sort of
indication of the composition of the tribunal, the forms
2718
LAW AND JUSTICE
of process, and so forth in this case also merely taking
for granted the continuance of long-established custom.
It may be permissible to hazard the conjecture that in con
nection with that dependent relation in which sometimes the
mral districts stood to the larger or metropolitan cities, the
jurisdiction of the city would extend also over its daughters
(EV suburbs ; cpNu. 21 25 3242 Josh. 1823 2817 n Judg. 1126).
As the passages cited alx>ve ( 8) show, the juris
diction of the elders continued to subsist under the
monarchy.
()3) The King. Alongside of the jurisdiction of the
elders, however, and to some extent limiting it, there
arose the jurisdiction of the king. The king was judge
par excellence (cp GOVERNMENT. 19). He constituted
a kind of supreme tribunal to which appeal could be
made where the judgment of the elders seemed faulty
(2 S. 144_^i ). Moreover, it was also open to the litigant
to resort to the king as first and only judge (2 S. 152^,
2 K. 15s), especially in difficult cases (i K. 3i6^
Dt. 179, see below [7]). Of this privilege of the king
some portion passed over to his officers also, who
administered the law in his name. Unfortunately we
have nothing to show how the jurisdiction of these
officers stood related to that of the elders in its details,
and whether (or how far) its range was limited. The
same has to be said of the judicial activity of the priests.
That they continued to possess judicial attributes is
implied both by the Book of the Covenant and by
Deuteronomy. Still, on this point an important differ
ence between the two books is unmistakable. In
the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 228 [7]), as in the ancient
consuetudinary law, what is contemplated in cases of
special perplexity is a divine decision, a torah of God
to be obtained at the sanctuary ; God was the judge.
(y) The Priests. In Ut. on the other hand (17g/.
19 15 ft) the priests, thelevites, as judicial officers con
stitute a sort of spiritual college of justice : the cause is
not decided by means of an oracle or divine judgment ;
the priests carefully investigate the case just like
other judges. The studious care with which the
sanctity of their judicial decisions is emphasised (17 10^! )
warrants the conjecture that the change is to be at
tributed to D, especially as, throughout, we are left with
the impression that D has it in view to enlarge the juris
diction of the priests as widely as possible, at the
expense of that of the elders. The elders retain
within their competency only a limited class of offences.
The offences in question are merely such matters as affect in
the first instance only the family a son s disobedience (21 i9_ff.),
slander spoken against a wife (22 13^), declinature of a levirate
marriage (25 1 ff.), manslaughter, and blood-revenge (19n^C,
21 1 jf.). Into the last-cited passage (21 5) a later hand has
introduced the priests as also taking part in the proceed
ings : for them Yah we thy God has chosen to minister unto
him, and to bless in the name of Yahwe ; and according to their
word shall every controversy and every stroke be an interpo
lation which clearly shows in what direction lay the tendency
of this legislation and its subsequent development. That this
studious effort on the one side was viewed on the other with
little favour is shown by the fact that in the central ordinance
relating to the judicial function of priests (1"8_^) the judge
is by an intetpolation placed on a level with the priests. The
simplest explanation is that it is the king who is intended here
and that the object was to save his supreme judicial authority
as against the pretensions of the Jerusalem priesthood (cp the
quite analogous interpolation of the judges in 19 17^).
The Chronicler carries back to Jehoshaphat the
establishment of a supreme court of justice in Jerusalem
and the appointment of professional judges in all the
cities (2 Ch. 19 4-11).
Though not absolutely incredible, the statement is rendered
(to say the least) somewhat improbable by the fact that in
this supreme court the high priest is represented as hav
ing the presidency in all spiritual, and the prince of the house
of Judah in all secular, causes (see Benzinger, Catm. on 2 Ch.
194 ff.). Apart from this, however, Dt. certainly seems to know
of the existence of the professional judges in the various cities
(16 18^.).
Ezekiel and P continue to advance logically along the
line laid down in D. In Ezekiel s ideal future state, in
which the king is but a shadowy figure almost entirely
divested of royal functions, judicial attributes are wholly
assigned to the priests (Ezek. 4424). That P also
2719
LAW AND JUSTICE
assigns the administration of the law, not to the secular
authority but to the piiests, is clear from the representa
tion of Chronicles according to which even David had
appointed 6000 levites as judges ( i Ch. 23 4, 26 29).
This theory, however, was never fully carried out.
In E/ra s time we meet, in the provincial towns, with pro
fessional judges who are drawn not from the priesthood but from
the ranks of the city elders (Ezra 725, 1014). There were
similar local courts throughout the country during the Greek
and Roman periods (Judith Ci6 etc. ; Jos. BJ ii. 24 i ; Shtbl*
ttk 104, SMA 13, Sank. 114 ; in Mt. 622 lOi? Mk. 189, it is to
these local synedria that reference is made). In localities of
minor importance it was certainly by the council of the elders
(cp Lk.73), the 0ovA?j, that judicial functions were exercised (cp
Jos., I.e.); in the large towns no doubt there may also have
been, over and above, special courts. In later times the rule
was that the smallest local tribunal had seven members (cp
GOVERNMENT, 31 ; also Schurer, Gl I 2\^/.). In large
centres there were courts with as many as twenty-three members ;
but in these, in certain cases (such as actions for debt, theft,
bodily injury, etc.) three judges formed a quorum (SanA. 1 i, 2, 3,
2 1). In certain cases priests had to be called in as judges
(.Sank. 1 3). On the great Sanhedrin and its jurisdiction see
GOVERNMENT, 31.
Judicial procedure was at all times exceedingly simple.
In an open place (Judg. 4s i S. 226), or under the
,. . . shadow of the city gate, the judges took
11 their seat (Dt. 21 19 22i 5 25 7 Am. 61215
pro ire. Ru 4l etc ) In Jerusalem Solomon
erected a porch, or hall, of judgment, for his own
royal court of justice (NES.I cSix, i K. 7 7). Plaintiff
and defendant appeared personally, each for his own
case (Dt. 17s 21 20 25 1); on a charge being made
the judge could call for the appearance of the accused
(Dt. 258). Such an institution as that of a public
prosecutor was unknown ; the state or the community
in no case overstepped its judicial functions. In every
case it was for the aggrieved or injured person to bring
forward his complaint if he desired satisfaction. He
also had it in his choice, however, to resort to the
method of private arrangement, and refrain from coming
before the court ; in this event, the matter was at an
end, for no one else had an interest in bringing it into
court. When there is no complainant there is no judge.
The daysman is mentioned only in Job 9 33 (rrrV2).
The proceedings were as a rule by word of mouth,
though in later times written accusations also seem to
have been known (JobSlss/). The chief method of
proof was by the testimony of witnesses. The father,
indeed, who brought a stubborn and rebellious son
before the judge needed no such support (Dt. 21 &ff. ) ;
but in all other cases the law invariably demanded the
concurrent testimony of at least two persons ; on the
word of only one witness a crime could in no circum
stances be held as proven, still less any death-sentence
pronounced (Dt. 176 19 15 Nu. 35 3 Mk. 14s6^
Mt. 266o). According to Talmudic law (Shfbu oth 30^ ;
Bdbd Kammd 88a ; cp Jos. Ant. iv. 815) only free
men of full age were capable of bearing witness ; women
and slaves were incapacitated a rule, doubtless, in ac
cordance with ancient custom, although the OT is silent
on the subject. Whether the adjuration of witnesses
which is alluded to in general terms in P (Lev. 5i) was
an ancient practice, we cannot say. A false witness was
punished, according to the jus talionis, by the infliction
of the precise kind of evil he had intended to bring
upon his victim by his falsehood (Dt. 19i8^T). The
warnings so frequently repeated (as in Ex. 23 1 20 16),
such stories as that of Naboth (i K. 21), and the
remonstrances of the prophets, show that the evil of false
testimony was by no means rare.
Where, from the nature of the case, witnesses were not to be
had, the accused was put upon his oath (Ex. 226-ri [7-12]). In
specially obscure cases God was looked to for the discovery of
the guilty party (Ex. 228(7] S. 14 40.7: Josh. 7 14). The only
trace remaining in the later law of a divine ordeal (see
JKAI.OUSV, TKIAI. op)is in the case of a wife accused of adultery
(Nu. ;> n ff.). Torture, as a means of obtaining confessions,
was not employed ; the Herodian dynasty by whom it was
employed freely seem to have been "the first to bring it into
ue(J<* ^/i- 30 2-5).
Judgment, in the earlier times pronounced orally, but
2720
LAW AND JUSTICE
later occasionally given in writing (Job 1326), was as a
rule carried out forthwith in presence of the judge
(\)i. JiiiH J. i. ); in case of a capital sentence the
witnesses wen- required to be the first to set about its
execution, and the whole community was expected to
take :m active p;nt I I >t. 17?)-
I liiu;li iii tin- paragraph! that follow, the various
l.iu . axe arranged according to their substance, it must
(miii the outset be clearly borne in mind that the
.mi ietit law of the Hebrews does not admit of close
. onelation with the Roman or with the modern systems
based on the Roman, and in particular that the sharp
distmt -tinii between penal and private law by which
these last were characterised does not admit of being
transferred to the former. One of the most striking
illustrations of this is to be found in the manner in
which theft is regarded by Hebrew law.
In Hebrew law the dominant principle is the jus
talionis an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth
11 Penal law (Kx 21 2 )- To urulerstand this
, _ ... properly, it has to be borne in mind
and Jus taltoniB. > . of d<J .
velopment which has been descritxid above, a principle
of this kind had its applicability not as a norm for
penalties to be judicially indicted, but only as regulative
of private vengeance. It is for the individual himself
to pursue his rights ; by universal custom he is entitled
to do to the aggressor exactly what the aggressor has
done to him. In particular, in the most serious case of
all, that of murder, the blood-relation not only has the
right, but is under the sacred duty, to avenge the tleed.
In savage stages of society the demand for vengeance
is held to lie the most righteous and sacred of all
feelings ; the man who does not exact vengeance is
devoid of honour.
An unqualified /KJ talionis makes endless every affair
where it has once been introduced. This appears most
clearly in blood-revenge. Naturally, therefore, in the
early stage of legal development now under considera
tion, when the affair is held to concern private in
dividuals only, the injured party has also the right to
come to some other arrangement with the aggressor
ami accept compensation in the shape of money or its
equivalent (ep the law of the Twelve Tables : si mem-
bnnn ruit, ni cum eo paicit talio esfo}. It was a great
forward step which the Israelites made doubtless
before they took possession of western Palestine when
compensation of this kind was allowed to take the
place of revenge pure and simple. In doing so
they took the most essential first step towards the
substitution of public criminal law for private revenge.
Compensation cannot for long withdraw itself from the
control of general custom, and then there gradually
comes into existence a certain definite scale in accord
ance with which such matters are adjusted (cp Kx. 21 22).
At an early period Hebrew custom seems to have
demanded such a mode of settlement for every kind of
bodily injury (Ex. 21 18) ; but the earlier usage did not
sanction the acceptance of blood-wit, except in the one
case of accidental homicide (Kx. 21 30).
I enal law, in the strict sense of the expression,
constitutes a third stage, its distinctive feature being
that the duty of revenge is taken over from the in
dividual by society at large. Revenge now becomes
punishment, that which regulates it is the general interest
of the community at large. Custom, and afterwards
statute, determine the kind and measure of the penalty ;
tin- leaders of the society, the constituted authorities,
take iii hand the duty of seeing it carried out.
In the ancient Hebrew view of the matter, however,
the object of punishment is not completely attained,
e\en when tin- ideas of retribution and of compensation
have found expression. Grave crimes, and specially
iniiiiler, ,1, hi,- the land; the guilt lies upon the entire
people (cp 3 S. 21 24). The blood of the slayer alone
can appeas.- the divine wrath and cleanse the land
LAW AND JUSTICE
(Nu. 3533 ; cp 2 S. 21). Kvil has to be removed from
the midst of the people by means of punishment (Dt.
19 19).
In close connection with the thought of the transmissibility of
guilt, is the idea which makes children, in particular, specially
liable for the crimes of their fathers. Kven the regularly con
stituted courts of justice, in specially grave cases, punish
capitally the children along with their fathers (2 K. J26 Josh.
724). In a special degree is blood-guiltiness hereditary ; if the
avenger of blood cannot lay hold on the murderer himself, he
can lay hold on his family. The custom is the same among the
I .cdouins to this day. In legal practice it is not abolished till
Dt. ( 24 6).
In the law the only recognised form of capital
punishment is by stoning. In such instances as we
find in a S.I 15 2 K. 10725 )er. 2623,
12. Methods of
punishment.
etc., we are not dealing with punish-
88
2721
nicnts awarded by a court of law. In
the priestly law, and doubtless also by ancient custom,
the death-penalty was enhanced in certain cases by the
burning or hanging (more correctly, impalement) of
the body, by which the criminal was deprived of the
privileges of burial (Lev. 20 14 21 9 Dt. 21 22 ; cp Josh.
725). Dt. here again has a mitigating tendency, en
joining, as it does, the burial of the body that has been
hanged, before sundown.
As to the manner in which stoning was carried out we have
no details; it occurred without the city (Lev. 24 14 Nu. 1636
i K. 21 \ojf., etc.) ; it fell to the witnesses to cast the first stone
(Dt. 177). According to (Jen. 88 24, execution of the death-
penalty by burning seems also to have been customary in Israel.
Crucifixion crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium (Cic.
I err. 664) was first introduced into Palestine by the Romans;
see, further, CROSS, and cp, generally, HANGING.
The first express mention of beating with rods or
scourging as a punishment occurs in Dt. (25 1-3); but
unfortunately we are not told what were the cases in
which the judge was permitted or required to award it,
except in the single instance described in Dt. 22 13^
(unjust charge against a newly-married bride). The
manner of carrying it out is also described, the judge
shall cause [the culprit] to lie down, and to be l>caten
lie fore his face (Dt. 252); not more than forty stripes
may lie given. The later interpreters of the law limited
the number to forty save one (2 Cor. 11 24, Jos. Ant.
iv. 821 23), doubtless so as to avoid a breach of the law
by an accidental error in reckoning, but perhaps also
because in the late period there was substituted for the
rod a three-thonged scourge, with which thirteen strokes
were given.
The money penalties known to the law are really of
the nature of compensations, not strictly punishments
(cp CONFISCATION). On the other hand, in 2 K. 12i6
[17], we read of trespass money and sin money which
belonged to the priests ; but for what offences these
moneys were to be paid we do not know ; probably they
were fines for breaches of ritual.
Of penal restraints upon freedom neither ancient
consuetudinary law nor written statute knows anything.
On the other hand, however, we have in the historical
books frequent mention of imprisonment, stocks and
shackles, or collars (cp COM.AK, 3), as methods by
which kings sought to discipline disobedient servants or
dangerous persons like the prophets (Jer. 20 2 29 26
zCh. 16iol8z5/) ; and imprisonment certainly appears
in post-exilic times as a legal form of punishment to l>e
awarded by the judge ( Kzra "26). See PRISON.
From the modern point of view it is a striking fact that the
Hebrew legislation regards no punishments as involving dis
grace. In Dt. 25 3 the punishment by beating is expressly
restrained within certain limits lest thy brother should seem
vile unto thee. The ancient Israelite, like the modern Oriental,
differed entirely from us moderns in his conception of personal
honour; murder and homicide, adultery and unchastity, false
hood and treachery are in his view matters which do not greatly
affect a man s honour, even when they have been detected and
punished.
In details the penal enactments which have been pre-
_ . served are very meagre and defective.
8 . 01 In cases of manslaughter, as we have
punisl lent. seen b , ood revenge was a sacred duty
in the olden time. Whoso shcddeth man s blood,
2722
LAW AND JUSTICE
by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9s/ ) was at all
times regarded as a divine principle ; the duty of
blood revenge belongs to the nearest relation, the GoEL,
(q.v. ). In principle the right to such revenge is every
where recognised also by the law (Ut. 19 1-13 Nu.
35i6-2i). Still, the transition to a more settled and
orderly condition of society entailed the result (among
others), that the superior authority, as soon as there
began to be such an authority, took blood vengeance also
into its own hand, and thus converted it into a death
penalty (2 S. 144^:). It would appear, however, that
in pre-exilic times it never succeeded in wholly sup
pressing private vengeance. The most important re
striction of it lay in the distinction now made between
murder and manslaughter. Even the Book of the
Covenant distinguished the case in which a man came
presumptuously upon his neighbour to slay him with
guile, and that in which he lay not in wait but God
did deliver him (his adversary) into his hand (Ex.
21 tiff.}. It also recognised within certain limits the
rights of an owner in defending his property (Ex. 22 2/.
[i/]). Similarly, in Dt. (19n-i3), in a case of violent
death a man s known hatred of his adversary is taken
as evidence of murderous intention. P gives the dis
tinctive features of murder with more precision and
somewhat differently ; murder is presumed not only
where hatred and enmity, or lying in wait, can be
proved, but also where a lethal weapon has been used
with fatal effect. From the dangerous character of the
weapon, murderous intention is inferred (Nu. 35 16^).
In the case of murder all forms of the law allow free
course to blood-revenge, that is to say, the death-
penalty is ordered, and that with the express injunction
that a composition by payment of blood-wit is not to be
permitted (Nu. 353i). The manslayer, on the other
hand, enjoys the right of asylum ; see ASYLUM.
In ancient times the right of asylum prevailed at every sanctuary
(Ex. 21 n). The abolition by D of the sanctuaries scattered over
the country made necessary the setting apart of special cities
of refuge, of which D names three for Judah, P three for E.
Palestine and W. Palestine respectively (Nu. 35 iiff. Dt. 441^.).
In the earlier period the right of asylum belonging to the sanc
tuaries had doubtless been unlimited. Still, even the Book of the
Covenant, and afterwards D, assume, what P expressly ordains
(Ex. 21 14), that inquiry is to be made whether the case is one of
murder or of manslaughter. If it is found to be murder,
the city of refuge must relentlessly give up the murderer to the
avenger(Ex. 21 14 Dt. 19 ujff. Nu. 35 it ft). For manslaughter
an amnesty at the death of the high priest was introduced in
post-exilic times (Nu. 35 25). Formerly, according to P, there
was no such relief; if ever the manslayer left the territory
of the city of refuge, he was at the mercy of the avenger (Nu.
35 3 2/).
In the case of bodily injuries, also, the law permits
the application of talio only where intention is to be
presumed. In injuries inflicted in course of a quarrel,
for example, the Book of the Covenant provides that
the aggressor shall only defray the expenses incurred
and compensate the injured person for his loss of time
(Ex. 21 18^). For another particular case of injury
which may be met by a fine, see Ex. 21 22.
The enactments relating to certain gross offences
against morality are characteristic (cp MARRIAGE, a).
The penalty is death ( Lev. 20 10 ff. Ex. 22 18 [20]) in each
case, as also for the offence specified in Lev. 20 18. In
cases of adultery the injured husband had at all times
the right to slay the unfaithful spouse and take venge
ance on her seducer. Dt. categorically demands on
religious grounds the death of both. Only where
violence can be presumed is the woman exempted (Dt.
222 5 /).
On the other hand the seduction of an tinbetrothed maid was
regarded as a damage to property, affecting her family, and as
such was dealt with on the principles of private law (Ex. 2 2 15 [16]
Dt. 22 26_/). That the father in such a case was at liberty to
exercise very stringent legal rights is shown by (len. SS.
According to P (Lev. 21 9) only priests daughters were liable to
punishment that of death in these cases. (Cp MAKKIAGE
4, 6).
That offences against religion came in the fullest sense
under the cognisance of the law has been mentioned
2723
LAW AND JUSTICE
above ( i), also the reasons for that being so. Idolatry
and witchcraft are already made punishable with death
in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 22 1820 [1719]). In
thfe respect Dt. is exceptionally strict ; even solicitation
to the worship of strange gods is a capital offence
(187-16). Finally, P places every deliberate transgression
of any religious ordinance, such as breach of the sabbath,
or the like, on a level with the crime of blasphemy,
which carries with it the penalty of being cut off from
one s people (Lev. 24 15).
To private law belong personal rights and the laws
affecting property, bonds and obligations, inheritance
14 Personal a " cl marr age Inner tance and marriage
rights.
are dealt with elsewhere (see MAKRIAOB,
i, 7, andcp below, 18). In harmony
with the unanimous view of the ancient world, only
the adult free male member of the community capable
therefore of bearing arms and of carrying out blood
revenge was regarded as invested with full legal rights.
(a) Sons ami daughters. The son not yet grown up
and the unmarried daughter are completely under the
power of the father, as also are the married woman and
the slave. Lists of fully qualified citizens appear to
have been drawn up from a tolerably early date ; the
image of the book of life, already employed by J (Ex.
3232; cp Is. 43), would seem to be derived from this
practice, though express evidence regarding it is not
forthcoming till later (Jer. 2230 Ezek. 13g Xeh. 7 5 64
1222 /.). The fact that at a later period the twentieth
year was taken as the age of majority and fitness to
bear arms (Nu. 13 Lev. 27 3 ff.) , affords some ground
for inferring that a similar rule held good for the
earlier times also ; but it must not be forgotten that
under the patriarchal tribal constitution the indepen
dence even of grown-up sons is only relative. The
original significance of circumcision as an act denoting
the attainment of the privileges of full age is treated of
elsewhere (see CIRCUMCISION, 5). Women appear
to have been universally and in every respect regarded
as minors so far as rights of property went ; at least,
apart from female slaves, they hold no property that
they can deal with as they please. They are incapable
of bearing testimony before a court of justice (see above,
10). See further FAMILY, MARRIAGE, SLAVERY.
(6) Strangers and foreigners. In the case of aliens
distinction must be made between the ger (nj) and the
nokri ("*) (See STRANGER AND SOJOURNER.) The
word nokri denotes the alien who stands in no relationship
of protection towards any Israelite trilie. A person in
this category would as a rule make but a brief sojourn
in the land ; in cases when a longer residence was con
templated application would naturally be made for
tribal protection. The nokri in any case of course
enjoyed the ordinary rights of hospitality, which means
a great deal, great sanctity attaching to the rights of
guests. Apart from this, however, he simply has no
rights at all (cp Gen. 31 15 Job 19 15) ; the very laws in
the humane legislation of D which contemplate the case
of the poor and the depressed in the social scale the
law of remission in the seventh year, the law against
usury, and the like never once have any application to
him (Dt. 163 232o[2i]). It is quite otherwise, however,
with the ger i.e., the alien to the people or to the tribe
(for the older period what applies to the people applies
to the tribe 1 ) who has been received within the territory
of one of the tribes or of the nation as a whole, has
effected a settlement there, and acquired the status of a
protected person. Such a. ger stood under the protection
of the tribal god, and enjoyed, among the Hebrews, not
indeed the full privileges of a citizen, yet, in comparison
with what was obtainable among other peoples, a high
degree of immunity and protection. In particular his
position had this advantage, that it greatly prepared
1 A non-Judahite Levite is within the tribe of Judah as much
a ger as is the Canaanite ; cp Judg. 17 7.
2724
LAW AND JUSTICE
LAW AND JUSTICE
the way for complete incorporation with the tribe. In
the older time he had the right of connubium ; it was
in this way that the Canaanites were gradually absorbed
(see MARRIAGE, 2).
The children of a marriage between a ger and an Israelitess
were regarded as entitled to full Israelite privileges (cp i Ch.
217); in the case of the children of an Israelite by a foreign
wife this was, as might be expected, a matter of course (cp for
example Boaz and Ruth). It was otherwise, indeed, when the
case was not that of an alien settling as ger in the country or
marrying into it, but of a foreigner who still maintained the tie
with his own people and who was followed by his wife to his
home ; Hiram the artificer was regarded as a Tyrian although
his mother was a Naphtalite ; she had followed her husband to
his native land and thereby had come under the protection of
the Tyrians (i K. 7 13 f.). The converse case is that of Samson s
marriage, which, however, has an exceptional character (see
KINSHIP, 8); here the Philistine woman remains in her
own home and is only visited from time to time by her husband ;
in such circumstances the children of the union would not have
been regarded as Israelites (Judg. 14 15 if.).
From what has been said as to the meaning of cir
cumcision (see CIRCUMCISION, 5) it seems doubtful
whether uncircumcised gerfm also had the right of
connubium. In general, the Book of the Covenant
enjoined that \\\e ger was not to be treated with violence
(Ex. 222i [20] 289), and, as we gather from the context,
was above all to be secured, without any partiality, in
his full rights as a protected stranger before the courts
of law. On the other hand the ger apart from the
Canaanites, who naturally formed an exception here
was manifestly excluded from the right of acquiring
heritable property within the territory of the tribes of
Israel (cp Mic. 2s Is. 22 16 Ezek. 47 22, where the per
mission to do so is brought in as an innovation).
D renews in a great variety of forms the injunction
to treat the stranger (who is placed upon a level with
the Levite, the widow, and the orphan) humanely and
kindly (10 18 1429 24 14 19 ff.}, to admit him to participa
tion in the general gladness at festal times (614 16 mff. ),
and not to pervert his right (24 17 27 19). Just because
the stranger, as such, occupies an inferior position he
has a double need for love (lOig 26i-n). On the other
hand his position in D is altered for the worse in this
respect that the right of connubium is taken away (Dt.
7 T./. 233 \4\ff- Ex. 34 is/), and undeniably for D the
ger and still more the nokrl occupy a lower position
in the scale of humanity (cp Dt. 14 21). In all this it is
regarded as a matter of course that the ger shall in a
certain sense at least accommodate himself to the religion
of his protectors (Ex. 23 12 20 10 Dt. 5 14 16 u ff. 26 n
31 12). Still, even in this respect the older times
demanded but little ; he might even keep up his own
sacra (cp i K. lljf. 1631); moreover, he need not
observe the rule with regard to clean and unclean meats
(Dt. 14 2 i).
P carries its demands upon the ger much farther ; he
is required to shun idolatry, the eating of blood or that
which is torn, and in general everything that as an
abomination could defile the Israelite (Lev. 178 \off. 15
1826 202 Nu. 19 10-12 ; cp Dt. 142i).
Not only is he obliged to observe the sabbath and permitted
to share in the feast of the ingathering, he is also under obliga
tion to fast with the Israelites on the day of atonement (Lev.
1629), may not eat any leaven in the passover week (Ex. 12 19 ;
the feast itself he is precluded from joining in, unless he be
circumcised), must make atonement for all transgressions of the
law exactly as Israelites do (Nu. 15 14 26 29), and in general keep
holy the name of Yahwe (Lev. 24 16) all this in the interests of
Israel, that there be no sin among the people.
On the other hand the ger enjoys the fullest protection
in the eye of the law ; not only are the protective in
junctions of D renewed (Lev. 19g/ cp 2822 256), but
also equal rights before the judgment seat are expressly
secured to him (Lev. 2422 Nu. 35 15), an essential
advance on the mere appeal to humanity contained in
the older laws. The points in which his privileges still
fall short of those of the full citizen are mainly two : he
is excluded from the worship properly so-called e.g. ,
from the Passover (Ex. 1247/. ), perhaps also from the
2725
Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 2842) and is denied the
right of connubium (Ezra 9 if. u ff. \?ff.].
Both privileges are obtainable only on condition that he re
ceives circumcision, that is to say, becomes fully incorporated with
the commonwealth of Israel (Ex. IZ^jf. Nu. 9 14 Gen. 3414).
Further, the acquisition of landed property is rendered impossible
to him by the operation of the law of the year of jubilee (see
below, 15). Finally, no ger can own an Israelite slave. Should
it ever come about that an Israelite comes under the power of a
ger on account of debt, the latter is bound to treat him not as a
slave, but as a free labourer, and the relations of the debtcr
retain at all times the right to redeem him (Lev. 25 47^).
Thus the ger is by no means treated as on a complete
equality with the Israelite.
The laws concerning property, so far as they have
come clown to us, relate to the disposal of real and
movable estate, borrowing and lending, bonds and
obligations.
Buying and selling in ancient Israel were transacted
in very simple fashion, and the various questions arising
_ _ . out of error, fraud, or over-reaching
15. Buying u *
, ,v seldom if ever arose. Israel was not at
and selling. , . , . ,
3 this period a commercial people.
Certain formalities in the more important transactions
of buying and selling, especially in the transfer of land,
became customary and obligatory from an early period.
The simplest and most ancient of all, doubtless, was
that which required that the purchase should take place
in the presence of witnesses (cp Gen. 287-20). Trans
actions of this kind (as of ever} other kind) might be
further ratified by oath and gift.
The first mention of a formal deed of sale occurs in the time
of Jeremiah (Jer. 326_^); according to the simplest interpreta
tion of the passage it was executed in duplicate, one copy being
sealed and the other open, both copies being handed over for
preservation to the custody of a third party (otherwise Stade in
ZA TIV 5 176 [1885]). In the case of such a document witnesses
and signatures would of course not be lacking. From Jer. 3244
we can see that in the time of Jeremiah the execution of a
written deed was usual where transfer of land was concerned.
Another ancient custom is met with in the Book of
Ruth (47); the seller gave his shoe to the buyer in
token of his divesting himself of his right of ownership
over the object sold. In connection with this is to be
interpreted the expression in Ps. 608 [10] (cp 1089 [10]),
where casting one s shoe over a thing signifies the
act of taking possession (see SHOES, 4).
The same symbolical action came into use (Dt. 25 9) in cases
where a levirate marriage was declined a declinature practically
equivalent to renunciation of right of inheritance. The original
meaning of the ceremony is no longer clear to us ; nor do we
know whether it was regularly observed, or for how long a period ;
the writer of Ruth knows it only as an archaeological fact.
A limit was set to the free disposal of property by
the duties of piety which a person owed to his ancestors.
To ancestral land the Israelite like any other peasant
proprietor felt himself bound by the closest ties.
The paternal property was sacred ; there, often, the
father w r as buried, and children and children s children
were expected also to be laid there (r K.213). It
is in this fact that we are to seek the explanation of
the provisions regarding the right of redemption that
acted as a check upon the right of free sale. Ancient
custom from an early date had given the kinsman
(lawful heir ?) a right of pre-emption and also of buy
ing back (Jer. 32 bff. ). A legal enactment on this
subject, it is true, does not occur earlier than in P
(Lev. 2525/1 ). It is open to question whether the right
of repurchase there conferred upon the proprietor himself
rests upon ancient legal custom ; the enactment in P
stands most intimately connected with the year of jubilee.
The right is unlimited as regards holdings or houses in
the country ; but in the case of houses in walled towns
it lapses in the course of a year (Lev. 25 29^. ). This
also may well have been in accordance with the ancient
practice. On the other hand, the regulation according
to which all real property which has been sold (houses
in towns alone excepted) shall revert again to the old
proprietor at the year of jubilee occurring every fiftieth
year (see JUBILEE), and without compensation (Lev.
25i3j^), belongs to the theory peculiar to P. The
2726
LAW AND JUSTICE
LAW AND JUSTICE
effect of course is to convert every purchase into a lease
merely, of fifty years at the longest.
Harrowing and lending. Here also down to the
post-exilic period the provisions of the law indicate
i Rnri 10- B reat simplicity in the relations of
did lebtors and creditors. Even D con-
n templates only those cases in which
indebtedness of one Israelite to another is the result of
individual poverty ; it knows nothing of any kind of
credit system such as necessarily springs up with the
development of commerce. This fact must never be
lost sight of, if we are to understand the old laws,
which do not admit of application to the circumstances
of commerce and of which the manifest object is simply
to protect the poor debtor against the oppression of a
tyrannical creditor (cp PLKDGE).
The old consuetudinary law took for granted that the
creditor would seek security by exacting a pledge.
In this case he was prohibited by ancient custom from
detaining the outer garment of the needy debtor after
sundown, this garment being practically his only
covering (Ex. 2226 [25]). Moreover, propriety forbade
the exaction of usury from a fellow Israelite (nothing,
however, is said as to any distinction between legitimate
and usurious interest [Ex. 22 25 (24)] ; the clause, ye
shall exact no usury of him is a later gloss in the sense
of D ; cp We. CH 92). The debtor who was unable
to meet his obligations was liable not only to the
utmost limit of his property, but also in his own person
and in the persons of his family ; the creditor could sell
them as slaves (2 K. 4 i Neh. 5 5 6 Is. 50 i ). In the Book
of the Covenant, however, it is already provided that
an enslaved debtor and his belongings shall be released
in the seventh year of his enslavement a provision that
amounts to a remission of the remaining debt (Ex. 21 27).
That these humane regulations were unsuccessful in
the attainment of their object is shown by the constant
complaint of the prophets who, with one voice, reproach
the rich for their hardness in dealing with their debtors.
In full sympathy with the prophetic spirit, D accordingly
made the regulations more stringent.
The prohibition against taking the mantle in pledge was ex
tended with great practical judgment so as to include all indis
pensable necessaries (246 13 17). In no case is the creditor to
make selection of the pledge that suits him in the house of the
debtor ; he must take the pledge the latter chooses (24 io_/l).
The prohibition of usury is so extended as to forbid interest
of any kind. So far as fellow-Israelites are concerned there is
no distinction between usury and interest (L)t. 23 19 \-2a\f., cp
Ezek. 18 15^). In the case of the foreigner, on the other hand,
the taking of usury is allowed.
The law relating to releasing enslaved debtors was
extended by D so as to enjoin the remission of every
debt in the seventh year (Dt. 15 1^; cp especially
v. 9 which makes it impossible to interpret the law [with
Di.] as meaning merely that repayment of the debt is
postponed for a year). That the law was thoroughly
unpractical indeed, and that, strictly carried out, it
would put a speedy end to all lending whatever, the
framer himself shows that he is more or less aware ;
hence his urgent appeal to the benevolence of his com
patriots : Beware that there be not a base thought in
thine heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release,
is at hand ; and thine eye be evil against thy poor
brother, and thou give him nought (v. 9, cp the cold
comfort of v. n). With these exhortations Ezek. 18s/
may be compared. It is not to be wondered at that
precepts so impracticable in many parts should have
had no very great result (cp Jer. 348^:). The Jews
of later times understood very well how to evade them;
the famous Hillel is credited with the invention of the
frosbul viz. , a proviso set forth in presence of the
judge whereby the creditor secured the right of demand
ing repayment at any time irrespective of the occurrence
of the year of remission.
The regulations of the Priestly code were, broadly
speaking, as unpractical as those we have been con
sidering.
2727
The prohibition of usury remains in force (Lev.
The selling of the debtor into slavery is permitted, but mitigated
by the injunction that his master must treat him as if he were a
free labourer for wages. The emancipation is no longer fixed
for the seventh year of slaver j, but, in correspondence with the
whole scheme of I , is postponed to the year of jubilee, recurring
every fifty years. In this year also all real property that has
been sold reverts to the family to whose inheritance it originally
belonged. This on the one hand guards against the unfortunate
possibility of the liberated slave finding himself in a state of
destitution ; but on the other hand the postponement to the
fiftieth year makes the whole provision illusory so far as many
of the enslaved are concerned. Another law, this, which never
gained a permanent footing.
Of suretyship the law has nothing to say. That
such a thing was known and that it had led to some
disastrous experiences, is shown by certain of the pro
verbs, which are so pointedly directed against it ( Prov.
Q*/. 22 2 6/).
Compensation for damage to property. In the Book
of the Covenant the ruling principle for this is that
17 Damages liabilit y attaches only to the party whose
culpability (whether intentional or un
intentional) can be proved, or legally presumed. Such
culpability attaches, to begin with, very clearly in cases
of deliberate injury, especially in that of theft. If it is
sought to apply to Hebrew law the distinction made in
the Civil Law between private law and penal law, theft
falls under the former category ; this appears from the
fact that it establishes a claim to compensation only,
and is not liable to punishment as a crime. At most,
the compensation exacted assumed a penal character
only in so far as by ancient consuetudinary law its
amount had to exceed the value of what had been stolen
(double, for money ; fourfold for sheep, fivefold for
cattle ; see Ex. 21 37 [22 1] 22 3 [2] 6 [5]).
If the thief cannot be detected with certainty the party
found guilty (in cases where two Israelites are concerned) after
appeal to God (efohiin) by the lot must pay double to the other
(Ex. 22s [7]^). In cases of unintentional damage, however,
compensation was also exigible wherever gross carelessness
could be proved, as, for example, where a water-pit had been
left open and a neighbour s beast had fallen into it (Ex. 21 33),
or where cattle left at large had wrought havoc in a cultivated
field (Ex. 22 5 [4]), or where a goring ox had done any mischief
(Ex. 21 32 36), or when cattle had been stolen from a careless
herdsman (Ex. 22 ii [10]) ; cp on the other hand r 1 . 12(11]; see
DEPOSIT. Other instances are given in Ex. 226(5) I 4t I 3l- O
the other hand where no culpability can be made out, there is no
obligation to compensate, as for example where moneys entrusted
have been stolen from the custodian (Ex. 22 7[f>}/.), where a
domestic animal has been torn by wild beasts (22 io[g]f. 13(12]);
cp also 22 14(13] with 22 15(14] 21 35 with 21 36. On these points
D has not any more definite enactments.
The occasional references in P are in agreement with
the mildness of the ancient law. Whoever has em
bezzled, or stolen, or appropriated lost property is
mildly dealt with if he voluntarily confesses his fault ;
he must restore what he has unlawfully appropriated
and pay a fifth of the value, over and above, as a fine
(Lev.24i82i 520-24 [61-5]).
The right of inheritance among the Israelites belonged
only to agnates the only relations in the strict sense
f th e word the wife s relations belong
c jjff erent f arn j] v or e \-en to a different
tribe. Only sons, not daughters, still
less wives, can inherit. There are traces to show that in
the earliest times the wives, as the property of the man,
fell to his heir along with the rest of his estate a custom
which among the Arabs continued to hold even to
Mohammed s time (cp 2 S. 162i/. i K. 2 13^ 2 S. 87 f. ;
also Gen. 49s/! cp 3522 ; the whole institution of levirate
marriages probably finds its explanation here) ; cp
MARRIAGE, 7, KINSHIP, 10. The law of inherit
ance, as just stated, appears to have been common to
all the Semites (WHS, Kin. 54, 264), in this respect
differing in an impoitant point from that of Rome,
which otherwise was also one of agnates ; in Roman
law at least daughters still remaining under the paternal
roof could inherit. Stade (Gl I \yyoff.} deduces the
custom, so far as Israel is concerned, from the ancestor-
worship which anciently prevailed there ; he alone could
inherit who was capable of carrying on the cult of the
2728
i T Vi -j.
. n erit-
ance.
LAW AND JUSTICE
person from whom he inherited. It seems preferable,
however, with Robertson Smith (I.e.) to seek the ex
planation in the connection between inheritance and
the duty of blood revenge. Among other Semitic
peoples all on whom this duty lay had also, originally,
the right of inheritance. In Old German law likewise
the two were intimately connected.
Among the sons, ancient custom gave to the firstborn
(i.e., to the eldest son of the father) a double portion
(Dt. 21 17 ; cp FIRSTBORN). It was indeed always
possible for the father to deprive the eldest son of this
birthright and bestow it upon a younger son (cp Gen.
49321i_^i i K. 111-13), and the favourite wife (as
might be expected) seems frequently to have contrived
this for the benefit of her own eldest son. Custom, how
ever, did not approve of this passing by of the eldest
son, and D, in agreement with the ancient usage, posi
tively forbade it (2115-17).
Whether the landed property also was divided we do not know ;
the more probable view is that it fell undivided to the firstborn,
who had to make some kind of provision for the others. The
privilege of the firstborn must have carried with it one obligation
at least that of maintaining the female members of the family
who remained unmarried ; by the death of the father the first
born became at any rate head of the family.
The sons of concubines had also a right of inheritance
(Gen. 21 iof. ), but whether on an equality with the other
sons we do not know. It must be remembered that
Hebrew antiquity did not recognise a distinction between
legitimate and illegitimate unions in the sense of the
Grasco- Roman jurisprudence (see FAMILY, 8).
Much, however, depended, it would seem, on the
goodwill of the father and of the brother, and no fixed
legal custom established itself. By adoption of course
full right of inheritance was conferred.
When a man died without leaving sons, the nearest
agnate inherited ; but along with the inheritance he took
over the duty of marrying the widow of the deceased
(see MARRIAGE, -j f. }. If this was not done, the
childless widow returned to her own father s house,
whence she was free to marry a second time (Gen. 38 n
Lev. 22 13 RuthlS/).
The later law exhibits a change only with respect to
the inheritance of daughters, conferring upon these
the right to inherit, in the absence of sons. It is
still only by exceptional favour that the daughters in
herit along with the sons (Job 42 15). The express
object of the alteration of the law is stated to be to
prevent a man s name being lost to his family (Nu. 27 4).
At the same time, however, the inheriting daughters are
enjoined to marry only within their father s tribe, so that
the family estate may not pass to an outside family (Nu.
861-12). As has been pointed out by Stade (GVI 1 391),
it is not improbable that in this we have a compromise
with the older view according to which, strictly, the
nearest agnate ought to inherit, undertaking at the same
time the duty of levirate marriage (see FAMILY, 8),
just as was the case in old Athens, where the inheriting
agnate had the duty either of marrying the daughter,
or of making a provision for her suitable to her station.
The later law made provision also for the case of there
being no marriageable daughter, enacting that in that
event the relations of the husband and not those of
the wife were to inherit (Nu. 27s-n).
J- D. Michaelis, Mosaisches RechtV) (1775) ; J. L. Saalschiitz,
Das Alosaische Recht ncbst den vtrvotistanditvitdtn Tal-
1Q T itoi-atiir-o " Mdisch - rablnnischen Bestimtmtngen ( z )
J.3. Ijlt/eratiure. (,853); Schnell,X>Mw/. Recht in seinen
Grundziizendrtrgestelltdl:^; the Hebrew Archaeologies of De
Wette, Ewald, Keil, Schegg, Benzinger, Nowack ; articles in the
Dictionaries of Herzog, Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm ; Kuenen,
Over de Samenstelling van het Sanhedrin in I erslagen en
Mededeelingen der R . Acad. van Wettnschapen \t,\ff. (1866);
Schiirer, Gil 2 143^; Klein, Das Gesetz fiber das gerichtliche
Beiueisverfahren nach viosaisch-talmudisches Recht (1885);
Frenkel, Der gerichtlictte Beiveis (1846); Duschak, Das
Mosaische St>-afrrcht (1869); Goitein, Vergeltungsprincip im
bibl. u. talmud. Strafrecht in Magazinf.d. Wissenschaft d.
Judenthums (1802); Diestel, Die religiosen Delicte im israelit.
Strafrecht in .// / . r )2Q7/?:; A. P. Bissell, The Law of Asylum
in Israel (1884); Wildeboer, De Pentateuchkiitik en het
2729
LAW LITERATURE
Mozaische Strafrecht in Tijd. v. Strafrecht, 4205^, ^>^\ff.,
Selden, De Succcssionibus ad leges llebritornin in bona de-
functorum, 1631 ; A. Bertholet, Die Stetlung der Israiliten u.
Judcnzu den J remden (1896). j B
LAW LITERATURE
Jewish theory ( i). Historical periods ( 5) :
Written laws ( 2). i. Before Josiah ( 6-9).
Why written ! ( 3). 2. Age of Josiah ( 10-13).
Circulation ( 4). 3. Exilic period (jj 14-16).
4. Early post-exilic (g 17-19).
5. Late post-exilic ( 20 f.).
6. Rabbinic ( 22^).
In the present article we have to consider the
origin, the history, and the general characteristics of
those parts of the OT which are immediately con
nected with Hebrew law. In the main these are to
be found in the Pentateuch ; outside the Pentateuch
the most important piece of Law Literature is the
closing section of Ezekiel (40-48). The main
elements in this literature consist of (a) actual laws or
decisions in written form, (6) legal theory, including
casuistical discussions which become prominent in post-
biblical literature (e.g. the Mishna), ideal systems (see
e.g., Ezek. 40-48: see below, 14) and theories of the
origin of institutions (these especially in P : see below,
i7/.), (c) exhortations to obey the laws (very character
istic of H and D : see 13-15).
According to Hebrew or Jewish theory, Yahw6 is
the source of all law (LAW AND JUSTICE, i), Moses 1
1. Jewish Theory. the 1 ? t ? iun ? ^rough whom it was
revealed to Israel. Thus in connec
tion with the various orders of law we find such formulas
as And Yahwe said unto Moses, Thus shah thou say
unto the children of Israel (Ex. 2022, cp 20 21, and also
3427, concluding laws of 3414-26 [cp v. io]J); and
Yahwe spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children
of Israel (Ex. 25 i, and so, or similarly, repeatedly in
P) ; cp further Dt. 4i/. 5 384. At a later period the
Jews formulated the theory that the oral law or tradition
(subsequently written down in the Mishna and other
halachic collections), as well as the written law or scrip
ture, was in the first instance communicated to Moses
Moses received the torah from Sinai, and he delivered
it 2 to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders
to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the
great synagogue (Pirke Abhoth, li).
From the Jewish point of view therefore Law Literature (both
biblical and post-biblical) consists of laws originally communi
cated to Moses orally, and committed, gradually, and at various
periods, to writing; for even the oral law the irapaSotriy -riav
rrpeo-fivTfpiav of the NT was subsequently written down. It
is always the origin of law, however, rather than of the -writing
down of the law that was of primary interest and importance
to the Jews. Moses stands pre-eminent as the human medium
through which the Law came to Israel ; though in the writing
down of the Law Ezra s part is, according to Jewish tradition,
at least as important as that of Moses (CANON, 17).
For present purposes it is unnecessary to discuss at
further length the precise sense 3 in which the Jews traced
their law and consequently, at least indirectly, their
law-literature to Moses. We need only refer to (a) an
exception and (l>) a consequence.
(a) The prophets also were regarded as media of
toroth i.e. , instructions, laws and the priests at
various periods delivered instructions. 4 The pro
phetic instructions, however, scarcely correspond to
what we generally understand by law, and the priestly
instructions are explanations of the law or laws of
Yahwe with which the priests were entrusted (Hos. 46,
Jer. 28 18 18) in reference to specific circumstances (e.g.,
Hag. 2n). 5
1 Occasionally (Nu. 18 18 Lev. 10 8) Aaron is the medium.
There is a tendency, especially among copyists, to associate
Aaron with Moses in the reception of instructions.
- I.e., both written and oral law ; the verb receive (?2p) is
specially used of the oral law.
3 The Rabbis differed on the point ; for their views see Taylor,
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Excursus I., and in ( 2 ) addiu
note i.
4 See BDB, s.v. rrin, i <~, d, e.
5 Much of the Book of the Covenant, Ex. 21-23, may be so
2730
LAW LITERATURE
(6) The consequence of this theory of the origin of
law is that the Hebrew historians never directly and ex
plicitly record the introduction of a new law. We are
thus deprived of what might otherwise furnish us with
simple and straightforward evidence with regard to the
date of the various bodies of law preserved in the OT.
The nearest approach that we possess to such direct
evidence of the change of law at a definite date is
furnished by Ezekiel in his ideal sketch of a future
Jesvish constitution (Ezek. 40-48) ; in this, old customs
which had the sanction of earlier law are condemned
and discarded, and new laws are enunciated, some of
which subsequently gained validity. These changes
are directly revealed by Yah we to the prophet. In D
also, the date of which has l>een determined by criticism
within sufficiently narrow limits, older laws are abrogated
in favour of new ones ; but here the laws are traced to
Moses, and are not, therefore, as in Ezekiel, directly
represented as new, though indirectly the sense of
novelty is here also clearly felt (cp below, 13).
Before proceeding to a synthetic history of Hebrew
Law Literature based on the criticism of the several
n TT -ii. bodies of law, we may notice the external
2. Written
Laws.
evidence unfortunately for the earlier
period very scanty of the existence
and diffusion of such a literature among the Hebrews.
Law, but not necessarily the individual written laws or
the entire literature of law, was, as we have seen,
attributed to Moses. In the main the first four books of
the Pentateuch merely relate oral communications which
were to be orally communicated to the people. Ex.
3427/1 (J), however, records that Moses wrote the short
body of laws (in>. 11-26) which constituted the terms of
the covenant between Yah we and Israel ; a similar
statement is found in 244, but the precise limits of the
words of Yahwe there said to have been written down
and the source of the statement (whether J or E) are
uncertain. 1 Traditions were also current among the
Hebrews that the decalogue was written by the finger
of God on stone tables (Ex. 31 18 32 16 E, Dt. 9io).
Again Hos. 812 implies the existence in the N. kingdom
of written laws, which Ryle (Canon, 33), however,
inclines to regard as prophetic teaching ; if the text be
sound (which is doubtful), the number of these written
laws must have been large. We have, thus, altogether,
sufficiently good and complete evidence that written
laws existed at least as early as the eighth or ninth
centuries B.C. in both kingdoms. 2 The context of the
passage in Hosea (cp Jer. ?22/~.) implies that these laws
had regard rather to social and moral life than to
cultus. 3 Such is the character of the major part of the
laws in Ex. 21-23. On the other hand the laws of Ex.
34 11-26, said by J to have been written by Moses, are
for the most part concerned with the cultus.
For whom, then, we may ask, were these laws
written? Who were to read them? In what sense
__. ... were they literature? These ques-
3. WHy written? tions cannot l>e answer ed with cer
tainty ; but it seems likely that such collections of
written laws were in the first instance intended for
the priests whose duty it was to give decisions (cp LAW
AND JUSTICE, 3, end). When (some of) the laws
of Ex. 21-23 l>ecame incorporated (probably about
the middle of the eighth century) in E, and those of
Ex. 34 11-26 (somewhat earlier) in J (see Exonus,
3 vi.-ix. 4), they became the possession of a larger
circle. To all appearance both these sets of laws
codify existing practices, and do not introduce changes.
regarded. The code may not in its original form have been
attributed to Moses (cp Nowack, }[A 1 310) ; it rather appears
to have been a collection of rules resting on long existing
practice. See l>elow, 7 f.
1 On the relation of these codes to the sources J and E, see
EXMIIUS ii., 8 3 Vl -/-i 4-
2 See further Kue. Hex. ET 175 ff.
* Cp 46 in the light of the context and see We. I rol.(*) pp.
S*S; 43-
2731
4. Circulation.
LAW LITERATURE
There was no need, therefore, for their publicatiorx
merely as laws. Their appearance in Hebrew literature
is rather due to the growth of an historical literature
(yet see Kue. Hex. 15, ET 272).
The publication of Dt. 1 in the seventh century
marks an important stage in the history of Law
Literature. Dt. was the literary em
bodiment of a religious reformation,
the principles of which affected many established
customs. Its publication therefore was necessary : it
was essential that the people at large should know what
was required of them by the new law. There are in the
book passages which clearly imply that such publica
tion was contemplated by its authors, and we learn from
2 K. 2 2f. that they saw their designs carried out. Even
so, however, we must not think of the book as having a
large circulation among many classes of readers. Most
of the people were to become acquainted with it by hear
ing it read to them periodically by the priests and elders 2
(Dt. 319-13, cp 2 K. 282), just as according to the theory
of the book it was in the first instance read to them by
Moses (285861; cp l s 3l2 4 2920 30io) ; the only
copies of which we actually hear, in addition to the
original which was to be kept in the temple (31 26), are
the copy which was to be made for the king (17 iB) and
the copy engraved on stones, referred to in Dt. 27 2 f. 8
(on which see Driver, and, on the text and tradition
PLAISTER).
It is reasonable, however, to suppose that other copies were
in the hands of instructors of the people. It has been inferred
from Jer. 11 1-8 that Jeremiah went about explaining Deuter
onomy (see, e.g., Che. Jer. : his li/e and times, 55 Jf.). Still,
the very limited circulation even of Dt. is a fact to be borne in
mind when we consider the likelihood of the original code having
been modified or expanded.
In the early years of the exile (592-570) Ezekiel wrote his
sketch of the future constitution. The same period and the
later years of exile were probably marked by much legal study
and literary production. This, however, rests on indirect and
internal evidence which is discussed elsewhere (see also below,
i6_/). The same may be said of the early post -exilic period.
Certainly, from the time of Dt. onwards, references
to written law become frequent. Life is no longer
ordered merely or even mainly by long-established and
recognised custom, and in cases of doubt by the oral
decisions of priests, but according to what is written
in the (book of the) law of Moses 3 (Ezra3z 618
Neh. 13i ff. Josh. 831 D [cp 18 D] 236 2 K. 146
D, 2 Ch. 23i8 254 35i2). Other references from
this period to written law are Ezra 76 Neh. 81.
Most significant also is the gradual omission of the
words book of before the law when written law is
implied. Torah, originally denoting a decision orally
delivered, becomes a term for a body of written law
(L.\w AND JUSTICE, i).
Of course long after written law had become a well-
recognised institution, many still depended for their
knowledge of it on hearing it read to them (see Neh.
813 1-3). The circulation of copies, however, must have
become increasingly large ; this is in part indicated by
the existence of the class of scribes. The number of
people who possessed and read the law was certainly
considerable in the second century B.C. (i Mace. Is6/).
Later the reading of the law was widely practised ;
it formed the staple of EDUCATION (q. f . 3 /. ; cp
Schiirer, GJfM, II 354 , ET ii. 2 50).
It is true that the term law was extended so as to cover all
sacred literature (see CANON, 26) ; but this is only a further
proof of the influence gained by the specifically legal literature.
It is unnecessary to dwell on a fact so well recognised as that
the Jews in the first century were (what they certainly were
not, if we are to be guided by our records, down to the time of
1 For the extent of the book as first published and the date
of its origin, see DEUTERONOMV ( $ff.).
2 In Dt. 31 ii read iNipn with (of the priests and elders)
instead of Nipn (MT) of Israel ; cp Di. and Dr. ad lac.
3 In this connection the absence of any referencein Hag. 2io-i2
to a written law (such as Nu. 19) on defilement by the dead, and
the implication that oral instruction on the subject still needed
to be obtained, is significant.
2732
LAW LITERATURE
Josiah) the people of the law, the people of the book 1 (cp e.g.
Jn. 639).
The history of Hebrew and Jewish Law Literature
may be divided into six periods viz. (i) the pre-Josianic
. iT Ppriod< , ( 6-9) ! (2) the Josianic ( 10-13) ;
L8> (3) the exilic ( 14-16) ; (4) the earlier
post-exilic ( 17-19): (s) ^ e later post-exilic ( 20 f. ) ;
and (6) the Rabbinic ( 22 f.). From what has been
said already ( 2-4), it will be easy to understand that
a literature of Law in any very precise sense of the
term begins only with the second (Josianic) of these
periods ; in the first we have to do with the formulation
and committal to writing of existing laws, but scarcely
with the publication, for general perusal or recitation,
of any legal work.
i. Pre-Josianic Period. Written laws were, as we
have seen (2), known in Israel at least as early as
the eighth century B.C. Some of these laws
6. Before
Josiab.
have survived, editorially modified indeed
yet not in such a way as to render their
essential features unrecognisable, in the Pentateuch
in particular in Ex. 20-24 34; see also Ex. 183-16.
Others are probably incorporated without much greater
editorial modifications in other masses of law, especi
ally D and H ; but the consideration of these latter
can be left to later sections. We will confine our
attention for the present to the laws which are closely
connected with the prophetic narratives of the Hexa-
teuch, and (on this ground and on others) may be re
garded with greatest probability as representing early
Hebrew collections of written law.
. There can be no question that both Ex. 34 16 (i2)-26, and
chaps. 20 1-23 19 stand at present surrounded by prophetic
narratives ; but whether their present is the same as was their
original position in the sources is very much open to question ;
and this is particularly the case with Ex. 21 j-23 19 (cp Kue.
Hex. 13, n. 32). If this be the case, can we be sure that the
laws in question ever stood in the sources? In other words,
can we safely argue merely from their position in the Hexateuch
that the codes had been collected in written form as early as
JorE?
Certainty does not seem to be justifiable, and Baentsch
(Bundesbuch, 122)2 as a matter of fact is inclined to attribute the
embodiment of Ex. 21 i-23ig in the prophetic history-book to
the compiler of JE to the complex prophetic source the com
pilation of which must be placed at the close of the seventh
century H.c. Yet two or three considerations render it probable
that these laws occupied a place in one of the two main sources
J or E. (i) If the compiler of JE had not been led by the
previous existence of the code in one of his sources to retain it
in his compilation, would he not rather have adopted the
Deuteronomic code or some laws more in accordance with that
code ? (2) The code, whether incorporated in the earlier sources
or not, is certainly much earlier in origin than JE.
On the whole then, we may conclude that we approximate
to the written laws of Yahwe to which Hosea makes reference
in the decalogue of Ex. 20, the older decalogue of Ex. 34 and
the code of Ex. 2024-23. At the same time a comparison of
Ex. 20 and Dt. 5 warns us that those older laws were sometimes
subject to much editorial expansion (see DECALOGUE), and this
must be borne in mind in attempting to jjain a more definite
idea of the law literature of the earliest period ; the presence of
such expansions can for the most part merely be referred to
here : details must be sought elsewhere. [The upward limit of
date is determined by the one fact that the laws presuppose a
settled agricultural society. See EXODUS ii.]
1 The Introduction of the law, first of Deuteronomy, then
of the entire Pentateuch, was in fact the decisive step by which
the written word (die Schrift) took the place of the spoken word
(die Rede) and the people of the word became a people of the
book (We. Prol.(*), 415). As the historical and prophetical
books existed in part a long time before they became
canonical, so, it is thought, was it the case also with the
Jaw (das Gesetz). Nevertheless, in the case of the law, there
is an essential difference. The law is meant to have binding
force, is meant to be the book of the community. A dif
ference between Law and Canon there never was. It is
therefore easy to understand that the Torah, although as a
literary product younger than the historical and the pro
phetical books, is yet as law (Gesetz) older than those writings,
which originally and essentially bore no legal character, but
obtained the same accidentally in consequence of being attached
to an already existing Law (it. 416).
2 See now (1900) also his Comm. on Ex. Lev. in H K ; he
there admits (p. 188) that some laws stood at this point in E
(cp 20i8-2i 243-8) to be found in 2022-26 2227-29 23 10-16, and
that the judgments (see 7) stood elsewhere in E at a point not
to be denned.
2 733
LAW LITERATURE
These remnants of pre-Josianic Hebrew law fall into
different classes when regarded in respect of their form.
7 - We find ( x ) absolute commands in
.- Ex. 20 3-17 (the Decalogue), Ex.
judgments. 34io _ a6l ^ so . ca]]ed , * de r deca
logue ), and Ex. 202 3 -26 2 (21 15-17) 22i8-22 28-31 281-3
6-19 ; deuteronomic expansions often accompany these
ancient commandments in their present setting see
especially Ex. 204-6 ^b gf. \?b 17 2222-24 27 23 10 126 ;
(2) hypothetical instructions based presumably on
precedent a codification of consuetudinary law- in
Ex. 212-14 18-36 22 1-17 2 5 / 23 4/.
Laws of the former (absolute) type seem to have gone by the
name of Words (c 13~l) , so at least the commandments of the
Decalogue (Ex.20) were termed (Dt. 5 22 4 13 104), as also
those of the older Decalogue (Ex. 34 27) ; and some have sup
posed that the absolute commands of Ex. 21-23 are referred to
by the same term in Ex. 24 3 4 8. On the other hand the hypo
thetical provisions of Ex. 21 2-24, etc., appear to have been
specifically termed judgments (n pSE c) see Ex. 21 i and per
haps 24 3 ; and cp Nu. 35 24 (referring to w. 16-23).
Ultimately, it need not be doubted, these two distinct
types of laws had different origins. The main religious
_,, . duties may at a comparatively early date
. . have been thrown into a scheme of ten
commands ; later, under the influence of
the prophetic teaching, and perhaps as a set-off (cp the
contrast between Mic. 66/. and v. 8) to still earlier
ritual decalogues, other schemes of ten words mainly
inculcating moral duties may have been framed. An
ancient ritual decalogue seems to underlie Ex. 34 12-26
(DECALOGUE, 5) ; individual commands of this kind
appear elsewhere e.g. , in Ex. 23 18 ( =3425). A moral
decalogue, scarcely earlier in origin than the prophets
of the eighth century, clearly survives in Ex. 20.
The judgments, on the other hand, will have
originated in decisions given on particular cases by
priest or other judicial authority (cp LAW AND JUSTICE,
4). These judgments, again, need not all have
originated at the same time or place ; they may very
well as they stand represent a selection from the
established precedents at different sanctuaries ; and to
this may be due the differences of form noticeable
among them.
Whilst, however, such differences are certainly re
markable, and seem best accounted for by difference
of origin, we have not sufficient data to enable us to
determine in more than a quite general way what those
differences of origin whether of time or place actually
were. In particular it seems a fruitless task to attempt
to reach an actual earlier form of the Book of the
Covenant by a series of transformations, such as Roth-
stein (Bundesbuch, 1887) has proposed.
So again we must be content with alternative possi
bilities when we come to consider the later literary
history of both the words and the
9. Literary ,
history.
judgments. The decalogue of Ex.34
certainly seems to have formed part of
the main prophetic source J (Exouus, 3, vii.); the
Decalogue, generally so-called (Ex. 20), part of the
prophetic source E, though whether in an earlier (Ej)
or a later (E^) form is disputed. The Book of the
Covenant, again (Ex. 2022-2819), is also by most re
garded as having formed part of E, though, as we have
seen ( 6), Baentsch thinks that it was first incorporated
by JE. However that may be, further alternatives
arise. Had the Book of the Covenant an independent
existence in writing before it came to form part of E or
JE, or was it the compiler of one of those works who
first brought together from different written or oral
sources the words and the judgments ? These
questions also must be left undecided. 3
One point further only needs to be emphasised here.
Neither J nor E nor JE came, by the incorporation of
1 Yet note the conditional case in 34 20.
2 Yet note v. 25.
s For a fuller discussion of these and references to literature
see EXODUS ii., -$f.
2734
LAW LITERATURE
LAW LITERATURE
these collections of law to be a law-book. The laws
torm but a small part of the whole and are incorporated
not with a view to gain recognition for them ; for they
were based on long-established precedents, or (as in
the case of the Decalogue of Kx. 20) they embodied
some of the moral duties on which prophetic teaching
naturally laid stress : they owe their place to a histori
cal motive they are specimens of those customs, enjoy
ing the sanction of Yah we s favour, which were observed
in Israel.
2. The Josianic Period. The second period brings
us to the first specimen of Law Literature proper
i.e., of works intended for publicity
and having a , egal as their i eading
_. f
10. lime 01
Josiah. move
The historical cause of this new departure was the
religious reformation carried out under Josiah, and
the leading doctrinal motive of the reformation was
the unity of Yahwe ; the main reform aimed at in
practice, the abolition- of local sanctuaries and the
centralisation of worship at Jerusalem. This one main
reform, however, involved many important changes,
especially in the sacrificial customs, the status of the
priests, the right of asylum (see SACRIFICE ; PRIEST,
6 ; ASYLUM, 3).
In Deuteronomy we find the programme of this
reformation (see DEUTERONOMY). Not to repeat a
discussion of the exact limits of the
e
ONOMY, 4 /. ) it will suffice to notice here, that,
regarded from a literary point of view, the book con
sists of three elements : (a) previously existing laws,
in some cases much, in others probably but little, if at
all, modified ( 12) ; (6) regulations for carrying into
effect the contemplated reforms ( 13) ; (c ) exhortations,
accompanied by threats and promises and illustrated by
historical retrospects, to carry out the injunctions of the
book ( 13). The first element is common to Deuter
onomy and the historical works of the preceding period
which embody laws ( 6). The second and third ele
ments entirely differentiate the new from the older literary
form. The purpose of the earlier historical works was
to record and glorify the existing order of things : the
purpose of Deuteronomy was to condemn and displace
that order. In the earlier period laws owed their
position in literature to an historical interest ; hence
forward history becomes an exponent of legal theory
at first (especially in the Books of Kings in their final
form) of the deuteronomic theory, and later (as in
Chronicles) of the priestly theory ( 17).
We turn now to a fuller survey of the various ele
ments, and of the history (so far as it can be discovered
or surmised) of the fusion of them as seen in the existing
book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Previously existing laws. It has long been
recognised that Deuteronomy is in large part based on
12 Laws the laws now founc ^ embodied in the
not new P r P net c narratives of our Hexateuch.
The extent of this common matter may be
seen at a glance by consulting the comparative table in
Driver s Deut. (iv.-vii.) ; see also DEUTERONOMY, 9 ;
EXODUS ii., 4. The close relation between the two
bodies of legislation, often extending to verbal coincid
ences, is thus summed up by Driver (8) : Nearly the
whole ground covered by Ex. 2022-2833 is included in it
[the deuteronomic legislation], almost the only exception
being the special compensations to be paid for various
injuries (Ex. 21 i8-22i6), which would be less necessary
in a manual intended for the people. In a few cases
the law is repeated verbatim, or nearly so ; elsewhere
only particular clauses ; in other cases the older law is
expanded, fresh definitions being added, or its principle
extended, or parenthetic comments attached, or the
law is virtually recast in the deuteronomic phraseology.
(Yet see DEUTERONOMY, 9.)
2735
In addition to this legal matter found in the extant
earlier codes, we have much similar matter not found
there. It is reasonable to suppose that this also was
derived, though by no means always without editorial
modification, from sources similar to those noticed above
( ?) whether oral or written. Down to a period
much later than that now under consideration the
priests gave oral decisions, to which on many ritual
points those in need of instruction were referred.
From established and traditional decisions of this kind,
as well as from written sources, the deuteronomic
writers (like the compiler of H ; below, 15) may well
have drawn. Particularly noticeable among this legal
matter peculiar to Deuteronomy are the laws relative
to unclean animals in chap. 14 (cp DEUTERONOMY,
10) and the laws of chaps. 21io-25i6 (of which only
seven out of a total of thirty-five are found in the
legislation of JE ; DEUTERONOMY, 9) which in their
greater terseness contrast with the generally diffuse
style of even the distinctly legal parts of Dt. and are on
this account with probability regarded as drawn more
directly and with less modification from existing collec
tions of laws. 1
The attempts to determine more precisely the exact literary
character, if the sources were written, and the previous inter
relations of this older matter not found in the legislation of JE
have led to no convincing conclusions. Both Staerk and
Steuernagel have attempted a resolution of the strictly legislative
parts of D into sources, on the ground of the changing usage of
the sing, and pi. for the persons addressed. Steuernagel (Deut.
vi. ff.). also constitutes into sources various other groups of
passages such as (Hi 21-17 i) 18 io-i2 22 5 23 19 25 i3-i6rt, on
the ground of the common clause For any one who does suck
things is abominable to Yahwe (nSj< nc j; S? najm 3)- Even,
however, if we should grant that the criteria suffice to establish
ultimate diversity of origin, they certainly do not establish any
separate literary existence for such sources. Steuernagel him
self expressly discards the idea that such sources need ever have
obtained public currency (ib. xiii.). We can scarcely assert with
safety more than this that these laws, so sharply distinguished
in style from the more distinctively novel elements in Dt. (such
for example as chaps. 12 f. 17 i^jf. 18 \$ff. 20 1-9), must have
had previously some fixed form. The arguments adduced by
Dillmann (NDJ 292/1 340 604^ 606 ; cp Kue. Hex. ET, 256;
Graf, Gesch. Bticher, 25-27) to show that they must have been
written really prove no more than such previous fixity of form
whether oral or written.
But whatever conclusions we may draw in detail, there
seems ample reason for the general conclusion that,
with the single exception, to be noticed immediately,
the legal material, even when it cannot be traced to still
extant earlier codes, is not the novel element in Deuter
onomy.
(^) and (c). This single exception, this new legal
element in Deuteronomy, is the law of the centralisation
13 New ^ worsn P with its various corollaries.
elem t in ^ ut l ^ e mnluence f tms one new legal
Dt element is powerful, clearly felt, and far-
reaching. Take, for example, the lavr
of sacrifice (chap. 12). Much is assumed as known,
for instance the mode of sacrifice ; but in respect to
the place of sacrifice we find what was absent from the
earlier legislation (cp 9 end) is here present a sense
of change ; immemorial practice no longer supports
itself by the mere fact of being such : no longer as
at this day (128) is sacrifice to be offered wherever
one pleases, but at one definite place only (12 13/. ).
Worship must be centralised ; the unity of Yahwe vin
dicated and outwardly symbolised. What has been
legitimate ceases to be so, while some things that had
been illegitimate now become legitimate (12is).
If the law-book, instead of merely glorifying the
existing order of things, aimed at changing it and thus
seriously affecting the life of the people, it needed a
means of commending the changes to the people and
arousing enthusiasm to carry them into effect. Hence
the change is represented as long overdue ; it should
have been made when Yahwe took up his abode in
Jerusalem. Hence also the promises and threats with
their appeal to the hopes and fears of the people ; the
1 See more fully Graf, Gesch. Ditcher, t^f.
2736
LAW LITERATURE
insistence on prophetic principles ; the didactic historical
retrospects.
That the main elements just noted characterised the
book found in the temple (2 K. 228) is plainly indicated
by the narrative of 2 K. 22 /. The legal element is
clear from the title the book of the torah by which
it is there referred to, and from the correspondence of
the actions of Josiah to the demands of the law ; the
sense of change, the newness of the demands, is seen in
the confession that immemorial customs did not conform
to the demands of the law (2 K. 22 13) ; and the hortatory
element must be presupposed to account for the alarm
produced in the king on hearing the book read.
When this is said it still remains uncertain precisely
how much of the present book constituted the book
found in the temple. The critical study of Deuteronomy
leads to the conclusion that the original book was
amplified both in its legal and in its hortatory parts, and
that the present work has resulted from the fusion of
two different editions, so to speak, of the work dis
tinguished from one another more particularly by different
historical introductions (DEUTERONOMY, 4-7) : the
limited circulation of books (above, 4) rendered such
growth of a book easy.
These processes of expansion in large part are to be
placed in the period between the Reformation (621 B.C.)
and the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.) and represent the
continuous literary activity of the reforming party.
Two characteristics of this great product of the
Josianic period must be referred to before we pass to the
next period. ( i ) Deuteronomy is thoroughly practical ;
it is the work of men living amid the actual circumstances
of the life which they wish to reform. The authors
appreciate the effect of the contemplated changes ; if
their principle involved the centralisation of worship,
they see the necessity and make provision for the de-
sanctification of ordinary flesh meals ; if they rob the
local priests of their custom at the local shrines, they
give them their share in the custom of the temple at
Jerusalem ; if they abolish with the local sanctuaries
the numerous asyla offered by the altars there, they
institute cities of refuge civil asyla. (2) This practical
character of the work defines its limitations. It is an
appeal to the people : prophetic principles are enforced
and illustrated in detail by the recital of moral and civil
laws and of ritual law so far as it affected the people.
On the other hand, the details of ritual, the functions
of the priests, receive no attention ; these were suffi
ciently determined by the existing practice at Jerusalem.
3. The Exilic Period. The literature of the exile
bears the marks of the profound change in the external
14 Ezekiel circumstances of the people. The national
life has ceased ; it is now merely the
subject of memory, the subject of hope. Hence the
literary activity of the period shows itself mainly in the
production of theoretical works, the framing of a con
stitution for the restored nation ; and in the preservation
of the regulations of the life that has ceased to be.
The theoretical element is most markedly present in
Ezekiel. In his sketch of the ideal constitution J of the
new state he borrows, needless to say, largely from
ancient practice ; as a priest, he was familiar with the
duties of the priest and the priestly ritual, and he draws
on this knowledge. As contrasted with the Isaianic it is
a priestly conception of holiness that dominates him,
leading him to give the central significance which he
does to the holy city and especially to the temple (Ezek.
40-43 17). This accounts for the almost exclusively
ritual and priestly character of the laws which the
prophet incorporates in his sketch.
Note the ritual for the consecration of the altar (43 18-27), the
regulations regarding the persons who may approach the
sanctuary (44 6-15), the duties of the priests (44 16-27), the priestly
dues (44 28-31), the materials and fixed seasons of sacrifices
(4.) 1 3.46 1 5), the treatment of the sacrificial flesh (46 19-24). As
compared with the actual monarchs of pre-exilic times, Ezekiel s
1 Cp EZEKIEL ii., 13, ?$/.
2737
LAW LITERATURE
prince is an insignificant person, and he comes before us
mainly in connection with the sacrifices (4612-17461-15) and
the distribution of the land (45 7 _/:, 46i6-i8). Beyond some
general exhortations to the princes not to oppress (e.g., 45s),
almost the only references to other than priestly and ritual
matters are in the short section commending just weights and
measures (469-11).
Doubtless it was not Ezekiel s purpose to set forth a
full constitution for the new state. It is equally clear,
however, that his ideal differs from the real state which
had passed away in the position given to the priests,
and in particular the Jerusalem priests. As com
pared with Deuteronomy, Ezekiel increases the priestly
dues and by depriving the local priests priests who
were not descended from Zadok of their priestly
position, makes of the priests of his ideal constitution a
compact and corporate body. In his priestly constitu
tion Ezekiel, moreover, most clearly appears as an
innovator. He is well aware that the priests of the
future will not be as those of the past with which he had
been familiar. In the past, which was the present of
Dt. , all Levites had exercised priestly functions ; in the
future all Levites not descended from Zadok, in other
words all Levites who had not been connected with
the Jerusalem temple, will be degraded into an inferior
order : the Zadokites alone will remain genuine priests.
Ezekiel s remoteness from the actualities of life
(contrast Deuteronomy) comes out particularly in his
division of the country, which he regards as an exact
parallelogram.
A particular value, historically and critically, attaches
to the legal section of the book of Ezekiel. It shows
us, on indisputable chronological evidence, how at least
one mind in exile was working on Jewish law at a time
when circumstances prevented its being put into force,
and how the exile marks the transition from the literary
activity, which had been mainly prophetic, to the literary
activity of the post-exilic period, which became increas
ingly priestly and legal.
Criticism has shown that Ezekiel s was not the only
mind working in v the way just described, and that not to
him alone do we owe legal literature of the exilic age.
The most important of the remaining legal works the
exilic origin of which has been generally admitted (yet
15 La f see LEVITICUS, 28/ ) is the Law of Holi-
Holiness ness ( LEVITICUS - r 3-3)- Though in
its present form incomplete and frequently
modified by the editor who incorporated it with the
larger post-exilic priestly work, it is not difficult to see
the general character and motive of the work of the
exilic compiler or editor. Like Deuteronomy it is based
on earlier legislation, 1 is parsenetic in character (this
feature being specially prominent in the closing section ;
Lev. 26), and is characterised by its humanity (cp, e.g. ,
Lev. 193/. ). Like Ezekiel (40-48) it has as its dominant
note holiness, and appears to have had as its aim the
regulation of the restored community.
H has in addition to these general characteristics so much in
common with Ezekiel that Graf, as is well known, concluded
that P^zekiel must have been the author of H (Gesch. Biicher,
81-83). As has frequently been pointed out, however (e.g., We.
ProU*), 386: Dr. I ntrod.W} , 1487:), whilst in some important
respects H agrees with Ezekiel against D (e.g., the loth of the
seventh month is the feast of the New Year in H [Lev. 26911]
and Ezek. 40 i, not as in P [Lev. 1629] the Day of Atonement)
in others H agrees with P against Ezekiel ; thus the priests are
sons of Aaron, not of Zadok (as in Ezek. 44 15 ff., 48 n). See,
further, LEVITES.
If we may trust the present arrangement, this law-
book (H) began, like the legislation in JE (Ex. 2622-
23 16), with the regulation of sacrifice (Lev. 17) ; it as
sumes (Lev. 174 26n 19so 20 3 21 12-20 262 31) rather
than demands (like Dt. ) that there must be but one place
of sacrifice. Like Ezekiel, the Law of Holiness gives
much attention to the priests and the ritual (chaps. 17
1 Cp, e.g., Lev. 19 15 with Ex 283, Lev. 2227-29 with Ex.
222Q 23i8f., Lev. 25 1-7 with Ex. 28 lo/ See further We.
Prol.(^), 384. It would be unreasonable, however, to limit the
earlier legislation preserved in H to what is found in our extant
earlier codes; see above, 12.
2738
LAW LITERATURE
20-24) ; but it regulates also with considerable fulness
family and social life (esp. chaps. 18-20 25). J
For proof of the date and extent of H, and for various views
as to details, reference must be made to LEVITICUS, 13^, and
the literature there cited, but see, especially, Baentsch, lleilig-
kcitsgesetz. Baentsch s conclusions (on which cp Dr. fntrei/.( 6 )
p. 149 n.) may be summarised as follows : " Between the years
621 and 591, and probably within a year or two of the latter
term, a writer (H) made a collection of previously existing laws,
giving them a partfnetic framework and the historical back
ground of the wandering in the wilderness. This collection
survives in Lev. 18 20 23 9-12 15-17 isa igf> 2022 2415-22 25 1-7
14 17 18-22 23 24 35-38 29 i 2. Some years later later also than
Kzekiel another writer (H 2 )also made a collection of previously
existing laws. These are mainly concerned with the priests and
the offerings, and are provided by their editor with a dogmatic
framework. This collection survives in Lev. 21./C Quite at the
close of the captivity an exile, anxious that the restored com
munity should be regulated aright, united H] and H%, prefixed
chap. 17 (H;t), and concluded the whole with a previously exist
ing prophetic discourse (Lev. 263^), to which he made various
additions (w. 10 17 [?], 34 35 39-43) appropriate to his immediate
purpose." The details 2 of the foregoing theory and the analysis
underlying it have varying degrees of probability ; but the com-
plexitv of the code seems certain (if only on the ground of the
presence of both chap. 18 and chap. 20), and that more than one
exilic process is here represented is highly probable.
Possibly we should refer to the exile also the writing down
and collection of much of the priestly teaching that lies at the
basis of a large part of Leviticus and is
16. Other indicated in Carpenter and Battersby s Hexa-
COllectionS. teuch as P . For arguments as to the date of
this P>, see ih. I. pp. 152 /., and Harford-
Battersby in arts. Leviticus and Numbers in Hastings
DB.
We find then that in the exile legal study and especi
ally the study of the temple ritual and priestly duties
was zealously pursued though (or perhaps we should
rather say, because), the temple being destroyed, both
ritual and priestly duties were for the time being in
suspense : just as after the second destruction of the
temple and the permanent cessation of sacrifice in 70
A. D. the rabbinic study of matters connected with the
temple continued with great if not increased ardour
(see 23).
4. Early Post- Exilic Period. The activity of this
period resulted in (a) the legal and quasi-historical
p .. work known as the Priestly Code (P), and
J (*) the fusion with that work of older
iracter. histories (j E) and of the ]aw . book D>
producing a work substantially the same as our Penta
teuch (on b see 20 f. ).
Towards the end of the sixth or at the beginning
of the fifth century B.C., probably in Babylon, 3 a
great work, historical in form, legal or institutional in
motive, saw the light. 4 Its evident purpose is the vindi
cation of the divine origin of (ewish institutions and
ritual law. Terse to a degree in its treatment of history
generally, reducing the biographies of the heroes of the
past to little more than a genealogy and a table of ages,
it expands into fulness where the origin or purpose of
an institution can be illustrated, as for example in the
history of creation leading up to the Sabbath, that of
the Deluge closing with the command not to eat blood,
the birth of Isaac and the institution of circumcision.
What is chiefly dwelt on in connection with the Exodus
is the institution of the Passover ; the history of the
transition from Egypt to Canaan deals fully only with
the establishment of the central place of worship the
tabernacle and of the sacred classes (the priests and
"Levites) to whose care and service it was confided.
Ezekiel in the exile with prophetic freedom legislates
afresh ; and, with a full sense of the novelty of some
1 Exclusive of those parts of the chapters in question which
are from the hand of later priestly writers. See LEVITICUS,
|X4/
2 For a criticism of one or two of these see a review by the
present writer in JQR 6(1893), pp. 179-182, whence the above
summary is cited.
3 Cp E7ra76^7;, and Kue. Hex. 15, n. 27.
* This can most conveniently be read in Addis s Documents
of the Hexateuch, vol. ii. See also Carpenter and Harford-
Battersby. On the origin of P see HEXATEU;H, g 13-30; on
its relation to Hebrew historical literature, see HISTORICAL
LlTEKATUKE, 9.
2739
LAW LITERATURE
features in the constitution which he draws up, presents
it under the form of the ideal state of the future. The
author of the great priestly history casts his ideal back
into the past ; what ought to be, was ; what ought to
be done now, was done by the true Jew of the past ;
earlier histories represented the patriarchs sacrificing in
various spots ; to P sacrifice apart from the tabernacle
was profanity ; hence in his history the patriarchs never
sacrifice. P s tabernacle itself is anterior to the temple
only in the imagination not in history. The entire work
is legal or ritual fact and theory presented under the
form of history.
Now, what is the literary inter-relation between the
various parts of the work ? P consists of two main
elements ; the history of Jewish institu
tions already described, and masses of
18. P s two
laws mainly concerned with ritual matters.
Were these two elements combined from the first? If
not, when was the combination made? Are even
the two main elements quite simple or to be resolved
into yet further elements? Complete and conclusive
answers to these questions are not obtainable. Certain
points, however, are clear, and the complexity of P is
certain.
(a) The masses of laws in P are in part earlier (for
an example see 15 the Law of Holiness), in part
later (see below, 21) than the priestly history. In
large part, however, it is difficult to decide with cer
tainty whether the laws had or had not a separate
literary, as distinct from a fixed oral, existence before
they were united with this history.
Two things, however, must be observed : (r) For the most
part the masses of law have no organic connection with the
priestly history. This is true, for example, of the great mass
contained in Lev. 1-7 (LEVITICUS, 7), and again such laws as
those of the Nazirite (Nu. 6), of the ordeal of Jealousy (Nu.
611-31), and those contained in Nu. 1510. (2) The laws are not
homogeneous. Taking again as an example Lev. 1-7, we find the
same subjects treated more than once and in a different manner ;
thus 6 8-7 38 covers the same ground as chaps. 1-5 viz. the ritual
of the various forms of offerings and the subscription in 7 35_/T
refers only to 68-734 I 1 instances of actually divergent laws on
the same subject within the priestly code will be referred to in
821.
(/;) The several laws are worked inorganically into
the historical framework though often in the vaguest
manner.
The laws are delivered to Moses or to Moses and Aaron (cp
i). Sometimes the place of delivery (e.g., Lev. 1 i 738) or
time (/ />.) is defined. At times (e.g., Lev. 8) a law is cast entirely
in the form of a history of its first appearance ; and generally
what Aaron is bidden to do may be taken as a standing law
actual or ideal for the priests of the writer s own day. Very
frequently, however, the law is quite general in its terms and is
only loosely connected with the history by the introductory
formulie (see, e.g., Lev. 1-7 23 exclusive of the parts belonging
toH).
(c) Whether or not the history and the various
bodies of law in P had a separate literary career of
their own before they became united, history and laws
belong to the same general period. The force of
critical tradition in favour of the early date of the
priestly history led Graf, it is true, in the first instance
to place the laws, the date of the origin of which was too
obvious to be ignored, remote in time from the history.
The impossibility of this, however, was quickly seen, not
only by Grafs critics, but also by himself. The funda
mental characteristics of the laws which point to the
period in which they originated are in the history merely
a little less explicit. They are there. Laws and history
alike presuppose, for example, the single place of
sacrifice, the distinction between priests and Levites.
In subsidiary matters too, the tie is equally close ;
both alike, for example, use a number to define the
month, and both are generally marked by the same
striking linguistic peculiarities.
The production then of this complex work was one
of the chief results of literary activity in the earlier post-
exilic period. We may consider the possibilities and
1 See further Driver, Introdfo, pp. t,i,f.
2740
LAW LITERATURE
probabilities with regard to the stages in its growth in
connection with the other achievement of the period
the union of this complex whole or of its various parts
with JED.
Here we must consider the external evidence. Un
fortunately that evidence is ambiguous ; and scholars
_. _- ., are much divided in their interpretation
19 f N h 8 10
"
f
evidence consists of the
account of the acceptance of the law
of God which was given by Moses the servant of God
(Neh. 1029) contained in Neh. 8-10 chapters derived
from the memoirs of Ezra but worked over to some
degree by the excerptor (see EZRA ii. , 5). Now the
law to which the people bound themselves on the 24th
day of the yth month of the year 444 was, at least pre
eminently, the law of P.
It is quite clearly P s law of the feast of booths that is found
written in the law (Neh. 8 i$/.) , for the festival lasts eight days
(Neh. 8 is) in accordance with Lev. 23 36 (cp 2 Ch. ~ gf.), not
seven as commanded in Dt. 10 13 (cp i K. 866 Ezek. 45 25 Lev.
- 341, H). Then compare further in detail the ordinances de
scribed in Neh. 1032-39 with the relevant laws in P for detailed
references see the commentators : note especially the agree
ment, as to the dues demanded, of Neh. 1036-40 with Nu. 18;
on the relation of 1032 to Ex. 30 i~$f. cp below, 21 (a).
Was, then, the law of God, read by Ezra and inter
preted by the priests and Levites to the people, simply
the historico-legal work contained in P, or was it this
work already combined with JED and therefore sub
stantially the Pentateuch in its present form ? The
former alternative certainly seems more probable on the
face of it. Would a self-contradictory work like the
Pentateuch in its present form have produced the desired
effect ?
The view that Ezra s law consisted of P alone has been held
and defended, inter alias, by Kayser (Das vorexilische Buck,
pp. 195 f.), Reuss (Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften des A Tft),
yij jf-h Kuenen (Hex. 303), Holzinger (Einl. 438/1). In
addition to the argument already suggested, it is urged that the
time allowed in Neh. 8 for reading and interpreting would not
have permitted of Lev. 23 being reached by the second day if
the whole Pentateuch, not simply P, was the book read.
The opposite view that Ezra read P combined with JED is
adopted, almost of necessity, by adherents of the older critical
school (e.g., Di. NJD 672 f.\ Kit. 93./C), but a s o by others (e.g.,
We. Prol.(*), 415). Among the grounds adduced for this view
is the fact that marriage with aliens (Neh. 10 30 [31]) is expressly
forbidden not in P but only in other parts of the Pentateuch
(Ex. 34 1 2 Dt. ~tff.).
5. Later Post -Exilic (post-Ezran} Period. On the
answer to the questions raised at the end of the last section
20 T t must largely turn our view of post-Ezran
history of P. ! itera T. activit , y Most v of * hat ^l 1 b , e
here discussed must be thrown back
before the period of Ezra, if the view that the law read
by him was (substantially) the whole Pentateuch be
adopted ; and some of the processes may in any case
have fallen rather in the previous period ; a further
preliminary remark needing to be made is this, that
any strict chronological sequence of the processes now
to be mentioned cannot be established. Various hypo
theses may be made which nothing yet known serves
either to invalidate or confirm. With these precautions
we proceed to enumerate various editorial and supple
mentary labours to which criticism has drawn attention.
In some cases it is tolerably certain that those who
undertook them were successors of Ezra.
(a) The union of P with JED. This must have
occurred, if not before (see preceding section), within
a generation or two after, Ezra ; otherwise it would be
difficult to account for the practical identity of the Jewish
and Samaritan Pentateuchs (see CANON, 24/.). The
result of the union was important ; the pre-eminently
historico-prophetic character of JED becomes in the
whole complex work entirely subordinate to the legal
and priestly character of the later work with which
it is incorporated which now gives its dominant note
to the whole.
The earlier fortunes of JE fall for consideration almost
entirely under historical literature ; later they are lost in those
of the great legal work which henceforward is the normative
influence alike over literature (cp CHRONICLES) and over life.
2741
LAW LITERATURE
(i) Removal of Joshua. The process just mentioned
was doubtless associated with another. The history of
P extended to the conquest of Canaan (cp JOSHUA ii.,
5, 12). This last part of the work, dealing with
events subsequent to the death of Moses, no longer
forms part of the law. Whether this truncation of P
took place at the actual time of the union with JED
or subsequently may be left undecided ; but the date
of the process, like that of the union of P and JED,
hangs on the date of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which
does not contain the book of Joshua.
(c) Expansions of P (or of JEDP). The complexity
of P has been briefly discussed already ( 18). We
.... must here draw more special attention
, . , p to sections, related in style and spirit to
P, which do not appear to have formed
part of it originally and certainly may be of post-
Ezran origin. The determination of the secondary
or primary character of many particular sections
of priestly character must often remain inconclusive,
for it frequently turns on general considerations which
will weigh differently with different minds. 1 If it is
unlikely that the law Ezra read was encumbered with
the irrelevant histories of J E and the irreconcilable
laws of the earlier legislation and Dt. , it is scarcely less
unlikely that it contained the self-contradictory laws to
be found within P or the different representations of the
tabernacle and its appurtenances that underlie Ex. 25-31
as well as many of the laws. On the other hand some
laws not immediately and conspicuously connected with
the history (e.g. , those of Lev. 23) must already have
been united with the priestly history ( 18 f). Still, the
account in Neh. 8-10 fails to carry us far in actually
determining the extent of legal matter contained in
Ezra s law-book. As illustrations of the type of expan
sions to which P was subject the following may be cited.
(a) Laws representing and enforcing actual modifica
tions of praxis. In one or two cases it is tolerably
certain that these are not only secondary but also
post-Ezran.
For example, the temple tax in the time of Ezra was one-
third of a shekel (Neh. 1032), and, apparently, a novelty; the
law of Ex. 30 11-16 (cp 2 Ch. 246-io) demands half a shekel ; this
latter amount was actually paid in later times (Mt. 1724; cp Schiir.
GJl ~$), 2206). The most natural conclusion is that the law
of Ex. 30 11-16 is an expansion of P (which is further indicated
by its presupposing Nu. 1) subsequent to the time of Ezra.
Again, the tithe on cattle payable to the Levites according to
Lev. 27 30-33 and referred to in 2 Ch. 31 6 seems to be as little
recognised in Nu. 1821 Neh. 1036-38 [35-37] as in Dt. 1422-29
26 12-15. Once again, the law in Lev. 27 30-33 seems to belong to
the post-Ezran period ; but in this case it must be placed earlier
than the date of Chronicles. Many other similar cases of modifi
cations within P give less clue to the date of their incorporation
in the priestly work or the Pentateuch.
(/3) Another type of expansions is perhaps to be found
in laws embodying practice sufficiently ancient and even
primitive, but sanctioned only as a concession to pop
ular feeling by the scribal class.
For example, the ordeal of JEALOUSY (Nu. 5 11-31) and the
cleansing by the ashes of the red heifer (Nu. 19) are certainly in
some respects primitive. In their present form they betray the
general stylistic characteristics of the priestly school ; but they
stand isolated and unrelated (so far as can be seen) to the_ main
scheme of the priestly work. Cheyne accounts in a similar
manner for the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) ; see
AZAZEL, 4 ; Jewish Rel. Lift, 75 f.
(7) A third type of expansions consists of additions
to the more historical or quasi -historical material.
Most notable is the repetition (Ex. 35-40) in the form
of a detailed account of carrying these into effect of the
directions to build the tabernacle.
Here the relation of MT and renders it probable that we
have to do with tolerably late expansions. Whether or not
many other sections (e.g., Nu. 7) are primary or secondary
depends largely on the assurance with which we are prepared
to judge the possibilities of the original writer s piolixity.
For details see EXODUS, 5, LEVITICUS, iff., NUMBERS,
Ii7.f
(5) Another set of expansions of the primary work
1 For a discussion of many details see EXODUS, 5, LEVITICUS,
-, NUMBERS, \off. 21.
2742
LAW LITERATURE
LAZARUS
is indicated by references to the altar of incense or
the golden altar. This is unknown to Ex. 25-29, and
first appears in the supplemental section Ex. 30i-io.
The original priestly narrative knows only a single altar,
termed simply the altar, and distinguished by the
later writers from the altar of incense as the altar of
burnt-offering. Cp further Wellhausen, C7/< 2 >, 139^
Such are some of the leading instances of the expan
sion of the law after it had become fixed as to its main
form. By degrees the reverence for the letter, which a
few centuries later we know to have been intense, must
have rendered it difficult to incorporate new matter, and
especially new matter differing essentially from the
written law. Glosses may have been made even later ;
such is the conclusion suggested by a comparison of
MT with the versions, especially
6. Rabbinic Period. As there had been laws before
there was any legal literature( 7), so there was much legal
22 P t act v l y a f ter the legal literature collected
.. ,.. . in the Old Testament was complete. To
. , some extent this later activity found a
literary outlet in some of the Apocalyptic
Literature (APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, 2, 58).
To a much larger extent it spent itself in the pro
duction of an oral tradition which had grown to great
proportions by the first century A. D. But whereas the
oral tradition that apparently lies behind the earliest
collections of written law in the OT was a record based
on actual practice and precedent, the later oral tradition
(in its turn the source and indeed the contents of another
great literature the Rabbinic) was largely casuistical ;
it concerned cases that might arise at least as much as
cases that had arisen. The law of God was no longer
established custom ; its principles were contained in the
written law and were capable of being applied to the
minutest circumstances of life. It is with this minute
application, with this working out of the older law, that
the traditions of the fathers which constitute the
Mishna are concerned.
As the first fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.) gave a
stimulus to the fixing of much of previously existing law
>* TW Vi atlc to l ^ e consideration of the law of
SSfSi th f e . fUt <H /" 6 > the second fall
of Jerusalem (70 A.D. ), and the final
dispersion of the Jews from their religious centre, added
zest to the pursuit of the law and to the systematisation
of the legal discussions of the Rabbis. It is the dis
cussions of the Rabbis who lived between 70 A.D. and
about 200 A. D. that chiefly constitute the Mishna.
Earlier Rabbis are mentioned comparatively speaking
with extreme rarity. But when was this traditional
discussion written down ? It is generally assumed
that it was about 200 A.D. Still, it is not certain,
either that none of it had been written earlier, or that
all of it was written then ; by that date it had in any
case assumed a fixed shape or arrangement whether
as oral tradition or in writing ; and thenceforward it
became the subject of further discussion both in
the Palestinian and the Babylonian schools. This
discussion is known as the Gemlra. 1 Mishna and
Gemara together constitute the Talmud or rather the
Talmuds. The result of the Palestinian discussions on
the Mishna was the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud,
completed towards the end of the fourth century or
during the fifth century A.D. ; the result of similar dis
cussions in Babylon was the Babylonian Talmud com
pleted about 500 A. D.
The Talmud is the chief literary product of late
Jewish legal discussion ; but it is by no means our only
one. For example, under the title of Tosephtd we still
1 In addition to the discussions of the Amoraim or post-
Mishnic doctors which constitute the main body of the
Gemfira and are written in Aramaic, the Gemiira contains also
sayings of older doctors not contained in the Mishna, but wiitten
like the Mishna in Hebrew. These are named Baiaitnu
2743
possess a collection of discussions of the Mishnic age
which resembles the Mishna in being arranged accord
ing to topics, but never gained the same authoritative
position. Another branch of this literature consists of
commentaries (Midrdshim) on the sacred text. Here
of course the arrangement is not according to subject ;
from the nature of the case it follows the arrange
ment of the biblical text. The earliest works of
this kind, belonging in their original form to the second
century A. D. and thus closely related in time as well as
in contents with the Mishna, are Mlchiltd (on part of
Exodus), Siphrd (on Leviticus), and Sip/ire (on
Numbers and Deut. ). Any discussion of the
Talmud and the Mishnic literature falls outside the limits
of this article and must be sought for elsewhere. * It has
been necessary, however, to refer to it. The movement
begun by Deuteronomy does not close within the period
of the OT ; its goal is the Talmud ; its course covers
more than a thousand years. Deuteronomy does much
to crystallise principles into rules and thereby partly
strangles the free prophetic life, to which it so largely
owed its existence. Still the principles survive in
it : the appeal to motive is constant. The subsequent
history of law - literature, however, is the history of
the increasing supremacy of rules based on the past
over the living spirit of the present. Ezekiel indeed
questions and displaces deuteronomic laws ; the Priestly
Code amends Ezekiel ; but thenceforward law always
professedly adheres to the norm of scripture, the
written word ; the Mishna is the interpretation of the
written law : the Gemara the interpretation of the
Mishna. G. B. G.
LAWYER (NOMIKOC), Mt. 22 3 s, etc.. Tit. 813. See
LAW AND JUSTICE, and cp SCRIBES.
Lawyer is also given in RVnig. as a rendering of the obscure
word N nsri in L>an. 3 2. See SHERIFF.
LAZAR HOUSE (rPK>pnri 7V3), 2 K. 15 5 RV m e-,
EV several house. See LEPROSY, col. 2767, n. i.
LAZARUS (AAZApoc [Ti. WH]). The name, which
is a contraction of ELEAZAR 2 (<?-v.) i.e. God has
. helped was specially appropriate for the
a e central figure in any story illustrating the
help of God.
For OT examples see Ex.184 2 S. SSgyC In the period of
Judaism we may expect to find the divine help more distinctly
recognised. Cp Ps. 46 i [2] a very present help in trouble ;
70 6 [5] 1 am poor and needy; make haste unto me, O God:
thou art my help and my deliverer. When poverty and piety
were synonymous it was natural to favour such names as Eleazar
and Eliezer. Eleazar is the name given to (2 Mace. 6 18-31) the
scribe called by Chrysostom (1258) the foundation of martyr
dom," a type of those who (4 Mace. 7 19) believe that, to God,
they do not die (and see 3 Mace. 6 iy^).
In Lk. 1619-31 Lazarus is introduced thus : . . . and
he that marries one that is put away . . commits
.... . adultery. Now 3 there was a certain
. -TV rich man . . . and a certain beggar
y named Lazarus was laid at his gale
full of sores. * It is not surprising that the context,
and the giving of a name to the central figure of the
story, induced early commentators to suppose that this
was a narrative of facts. 6 Certainly if the story is one
1 Strack, EM. in den Talmud, 1894; Schur.G/rP)! 87-115,
where further reference to the extensive literature will be found.
2 Hot: Hebr. on Lk. 16 20 (and cp ib. on Jn. 11 i) quotes
Juchasin : Every R. Eleazar is written without an N i.e., R.
Lazar.
3 D and Syr. Sin. om. now.
4 The Arabic Diatess. (ed. Hogg) alters order and text
thus (Lk. Iri), (15) Ye are they that justify yourselves . . .
the thing that is lofty before men is base before God. (19)
And he began to say, A [certainl man was rich . . . This,
besides indicating that a parable or discourse is commencing,
gives it a logical connection with the charges just brought
against the money-loving Pharisees.
8 Iren.iv. 24 (see Grabe s note on Grzecorum et Latinorum
Patrum mutuus consensus ). Non autem fabulam might pos
sibly mean not a mere tale but a tale with a lesson ; but see
also the inferences deduced from the story in Iren. ii. 34 i, and
Teitull. I)e Anint. 7. Tertullian, however, guards himself
against the conclusion that nothing can be inferred from the
story if it is imaginary.
2744
LAZARUS
LAZARUS
of Jesus parables, it is difficult to see why, contrary to
usage, the principal character in it receives a name.
Taking this mention of a name together with other
unique features of the story (the elaborate details about
Hades, and the technical use of the phrase Abraham s
bosom ), may we not conjecture that we have in Lk.
1619-31, not the exact words of Jesus, but an evangelic
discourse upon his words (placed just before it by
the Arabic Diatessaron) that which is exalted among
men is an abomination in the sight of God ? If so,
the insertion of the name Lazarus ( = Eliezer) will be
parallel to the insertions of names (e.g. , Longinus) in
the Acta Pilatl ; the typical character of the name has
been indicated already (see above, i). The final
words of the story ( neither will they be persuaded
etc. ) seem more like an evangelic comment after Christ s
resurrection than like a prediction of Christ before it.
The narrative in Jn. 11 opens thus, Now (5^) there
was a certain man sick, Lazarus of (air6) Bethany from
_ T . (K) the village of Mary and Martha
3. Unique nar- her sjster i Now ^ Mary was she
rative in Jn. that anomtec j t jj e L or d w j tn ointment
and wiped his feet with her hair : and it was her brother
that (?)s 6 adf\(j)6s) was sick. The sisters, therefore,
sent to him, saying, Lord, he whom thou lovest is sick. 2
Lazarus is here referred to as one who required an
introduction. This view is confirmed by the fact that
his name is mentioned only in the unique narrative in
Lk. 1619-31, the historical character of which is very
justly disputed. The sisters of Lazarus too are not
named at all by the first two evangelists. Yet the
name of this Lazarus, about whom the Synoptists are
silent, is connected by Jn. with the greatest of the
miracles; for it appears from Jn. 1139 that Lazarus,
when Jesus arrived, had been four days dead, a cir
cumstance that differentiates this miracle from the
parallel miracle at NAIN-* (q.v.}, and makes it the
climax of Christ s wonderful works. The synoptic
silence has never been explained.
To remark that for the Jews and for the evangelists alike it
was one of "many signs" (1147), and not essentially dis
tinguished from them, -* is to ignore Jn. s dramatic power in
delineating character. For the blind Pharisees no doubt this
stupendous wonder was but one of many signs ; but only in
Jn. And this was because Jn. wishes to represent the Pharisees
as being stupendously blind. It was plainly not one of many
signs for the multitudes in Jerusalem who flocked to meet
Jesus (Jn. 12 18) because they heard that he had done this
sign. In the same way the Pharisees think nothing of the
healing of a man born blind. The blind man, however, reminds
them that such a sign was never worked since the world began.
The Acta Pilati represents the Roman Governor as unmoved
by all the other evidence of Jesus miracles ; but when he hears
of the climax, the raising of Lazarus after he had been four days
dead, he trembles. 5
The distinction drawn above between the Fourth
Evangelist and the Synoptists unfairly discredits the
latter. We must not maintain, without any evidence
but their silence, that the Synoptists were as stupid or
as perverse as Christ s most bigoted and vindictive
adversaries.
The common-sense view of the Synoptic omission of
1 Cp the prepositions in Jn. 1 447^ 46 742 52.
2 "\\v 6e M. has an exact parallel in Jn. 18 14. Such clauses
of characteiisation are frequent in Jn. (e.g. , 7 50, and cp 1^39
he that came to him before, or, by night ). They keep before
the reader the personality of the person described and prepare
him for a new manifestation of the personality.
3 See Acta Pil. 8 and cp Hor. Hebr. on Jn. 11 39. For
three days the spirit wanders about the sepulchre expecting if
it may return into the body. But when it sees that the form or
aspect of the face is changed then it hovers no more but leaves
the body to itself. Cp JOHN, 20.
4 Westcott on Jn. 11 i. On the argument from the silence of
the Synoptists see further GOSPELS, 587;
5 Acta Pil. 8. And others said, " He raised Lazarus . . ."
Why does not Lazarus himself testify before Pilate, like the
man who (Jn. 5 i) had been diseased thirty-eight years, and
Bartima^us (not mentioned by name, though) and the woman
with the issue, and others, a multitude both of men and
women ? Was he supposed to be in hiding, or dead? A
Lazarus is mentioned (*& 2) as one of twelve Jews who testify
that Jesus was not born of fornication.
2745
this miracle is like the common -sense view of the
omission in the book of Kings of the statement made in
the parallel passages of Chronicles that God answered
David and Solomon by fire from heaven. The earlier
author omitted the tradition because he did not accept
it and probably had never heard it. It was a later
development. 1
Is then the record of the Raising of Lazarus a fiction ?
Not a fiction, for it is a development. But it is non-
_ . , historical, like the History of the Crea-
. tion in Genesis, and like the records of
th ^ *t the ther miracles in the Fo u r th Gospel ;
tne account ^ Q ^ w ^ c ^ are poet j c developments
based ? ,
(attempts to summarise and symbolise
the many mighty works of Jesus recorded by the
Synoptists in seven typical signs expressing his work
before the Resurrection). The words of Jesus the
Fourth Evangelist has obviously not attempted to pre
sent in the form and style assigned to them by his
predecessors, and the same statement applies to the
Johannine account of the acts of Jesus. This, however,
does not prevent us from discerning in many cases one
original beneath the two differing representations. For
example, we can see a connection between the healing
of the man born blind and the Synoptic accounts
of the healing of blindness ; and in Jn. s account of the
miraculous draught of fishes after the Resurrection we
perceive clear traces of Lk. s account of a similar event
placed at an early period. So in the present case, if we
are to study the Raising of Lazarus, in which a very
large part is assigned to the intercession of Martha and
Mary, the first step must be to go back to traditions
about the sisters, and to attempt to explain the origin
of the belief that they had a brother called Lazarus
and that he was raised from the dead.
Before we proceed to this, however, it may be well to
remind the reader of the influence exerted by names and
. ... sometimes by corruptions of names on
i Bth the devel P ment of traditions. a The
student of the evangelic traditions is
repeatedly called upon to apply this key, and we shall
have to do so in studying the parallel narratives of the
anointing of Jesus in Bethany given by Mk. , Mt. , and
]n. respectively. Mk. s preface is (Mk. 14$) And
while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the
leper, while he was sitting down to meat (ei> Ty oiniq.
Ziyuwvos rou \firpov KaTa.Kei/j.tvov ai roD). Mt. 26 6 has
simply TOU 8 "IrjcroO yevo/j-evov v B. fv oiKta S. TOV
\eirpov. Now, tv rrj ot /a p in Mk. 9 33, lOio means in
the house, i.e., indoors, no name of owner being
added. Hence Mk. is capable of being rendered,
While he was in Bethany in the house, Simon the leper
himself [also] sitting down. The parallel in Jn. is (Jn.
12 1-2) Jesus therefore . . . came to Bethany where
was (Sirou Jjv) Lazarus ... So they made him a
supper there, and Martha was serving, but Lazarus was
one of them that sat at meat with him (6 5e A. ets fy (K
rdv d.va.KftfJLei ui avv ai Tui), which certainly suggests,
though not definitely stating, that the house belonged to
Lazarus. It has been pointed out elsewhere, however,
(GOSPELS, 10), that belonging to the leper might
easily have been confused with Lazarus, so that the
name may have sprung from a corruption of the phrase.
As regards the dropping of the name Simon, an
analogy is afforded by Ecclus. 50 27^, where, according
to the editors of the recovered Hebrew text, 3 it is prob-
1 See the writer s Diatessarica (287-9) f r an explanation of
the possible confusion between answering a sacrifice-by-fire and
answering a sacrifice by-fire. The Hebrew sacrifice-by-fire
is almost identical in form with the word meaning fire.
2 For OT instances see the author s Diatessarica (46-54).
3 See their note ad loc. It seems worth while, however, to
add that <B, while dropping for Simon (pvCE 1 ?)! adds
lepoo-oAu/uei njs (N* has iepeiis 6 SoAujoteirr;?). May not the
latter be a confused representation of the former? Owing to its
similarity to other common words and phrases, "Simon,"
in Hebrew, might easily be inserted or omitted in translating
from Hebrew. See note on Lk. 7 36 below.
2746
LAZARUS
able that the son of Sirach was originally called
Simon son of Jesus, but that Simon son of was
dropped.
But at this point, if we are to understand the steps
by which Jn. was led to his conclusions concerning
Lazarus, it is necessary to realise the obscurity that he
must have found hanging over the story of the anointing
of Jesus in the house of Simon the Leper, where
Lazarus seemed to him to have been present.
Such a surname as the leper is antecedently im
probable, 1 and it is omitted by Jn. ; but its difficulty
t , indicates that it was not an interpola-
6. The leper,"
tion but a corruption, possibly a con
flation of the name of the place
commonly called Bethany. Jn. alone appears to call
this (Jn. Hi) a village ; and he places it (ib. 18)
15 furlongs, which is exactly two Talmudic miles 2
i.e., a Sabbath day s journey with return from
Jerusalem. This fixed the position, of course, for the
first Christian pilgrims, and subsequently for the Church.
But it did not succeed in imposing the name on the
natives, who call the spot defined by Jn. , not Bethany,
but el- Atarlyek. This fact, and Lk. s comparative
silence, 3 and the total silence of Josephus (even in the
details of the siege), and the Talmudic variations of
spelling and of statement (connecting it with unripe
figs and shops ), and Mk. s description of Bethany
as apparently nearer to Jerusalem than Bethphage
(Mk. Hi, to Bethphage and Bethany ) all indicate
that Bethany was not really a village, but simply
(like Bethphage) a precinct of the city, a part of
the great northern suburb minutely described by
Josephus.
This suburb is casually mentioned as (Jos. Z?/ii. 194)
what is familiarly-called both Bezetha and The-New-
1 Retha v ^ *- v ^ T ^ v re ^frO*" Tpoaayopfvot^itriv
, J- KO.I rr\v KaivoiroXiv). 4 Then, describing
R tha ts S rac ^ ua growth, and its subsequent
enclosure in a wall by Agrippa, the
historian speaks of (ib. v. 4z) the hill (\6<pov) that is
called (KaXfirai) Bezethana (so Big. and Voss. , but
Ruf. /.ebethana, Huds. Bezetha ) ; and he goes on to
say (ib. ) But by the people of the place the new-built
portion was called Bezetha (^K\r)dr) 5 eirixupius Be~e0a
r6 vtoKTiGTOv fdpos), perhaps meaning that the citizens
contracted Bezethana to Bezetha, but more prob
ably that the name, in both forms, was vernacular and
difficult to represent exactly in Greek. He does not
directly and straightforwardly say that Bezetha means
new city, but that (il>. ) being interpreted, / / would
be called in the Greek tongue new city ( K\\d8i y\ui<rcrri
fraiPT} \tyoir &i> TTO\IS). This may well mean that
new city would be the way to express in Greek a
Jewish name not capable of being at once literally and
1 In i K. 11 26, Jeroboam s mother is certainly called Zeruah,
but this is either a deliberate insult or a corruption (see col. 2404,
n. 2). Cp Levy, NHIVB (mn)> on the recognised impropriety
of giving people nick-names from personal blemishes (a custom
common among the Romans, but not among the Jews).
2 liar. Hebr. 1 262.
3 Lk. only mentions the exact Synoptic name once (Lk. 24 50)
as far as to( wards) (eW irpos) Rftliany, in connection with the
Ascension, the return from which is desciibed as (Acts 1 12)
from the mountain called the Place -of -Olives ( EAaia>i>os),
which is near Jerusalem, a. sabbath day s journey. Lk. 19 29
has Bnfacto, not BrjOanW.
* The article before KatfoiroAii/ may he explained as a
blending of the notions New Town and the new town.
Strictly speaking, it ought to be -rqv B. re, not TIJI- re B. But
the irregularity might easily be paralleled from Thucydides.
Moreover the text may be a condensation of TTJK rr)v re B. KO.I
iV K. Trpoo-ay. which is called the Bezetha and the Kainopolis.
It seems clear from the next extract that Bezetha, or Bezethana,
was the Jewish name for Kainopolis or New-town, and that the
two names did not denote different places. If Josephus wrote
in every case BcgtMr, it might easily be corrupted into Bee0<,
being written Be0a. There is one previous mention, also
casual, describing Roman soldiers forcing their way up to the
temple (BJ\\. 15s) through what is called Bezetha Sia TTJ?
Bf0A <caAouM>")- As variants Niese s Index cites B<<Tada,
2747
LAZARUS
briefly translated : 1 and this view is confirmed by the
fact that he never introduces the name without a sort of
apology ( the people call it, etc. ).
That there was such a vernacular name appears from
four parallel versions of a Jewish tradition given by
Griitz (Gesch. ^^3,ff}, to the effect that Jerusalem had
as a suburb two Slices, 2 a lower (no doubt corre
sponding to the lower Kainopolis of Josephus) and
a higher. The higher was considered by common
people, the lower even by strict Pharisees, as part of
the Holy City, for the purpose of eating the meat of
sacrifices, and so forth. The word for Slice is
Betze or Beze, which, with the addition of the word
lower, might easily correspond to Josephus Beze
thana. 3 And having regard to the many variations
and abbreviations probable in a vernacular name, and
to those actually existent in Josephus, we can well
understand how such a name may have been confused
by some with the Mt. of Olives, and by others called
Bethany. * It is also similar to the Hebrew for
leper. 5 Lastly, it may throw light on the parallel
tradition in Lk. (7 36) about a Pharisee asking Jesus to
eat (bread). 6
ouse o ives, as one o te names y wc te t. o
Olives was called. It seems to have been regularly called the
Mt., or Hill, of Olives, or the Mt. of Oil.
\b) pyu
Terrainstiicke.
3 That Josephus should transliterate the Heb. <; (s) by the
Gk. $(z) can excite no surprise : He regularly does this in the
name Zoar, for example. Also the interchange of j and %
(as in Tyx) is frequent (Buhl, 209^). Lower is, in Gratz s
extracts, n:innn, tahtonah. Levy (NHtt K) gives y^3 as
synonymous with yi3, and with "1x3. Be(t)zertha ({<rn S3>
Levy, Chald. Lex. 1 109 a) is the late Heb. for the separate
place (Ezek. 41 12-15) n h g temple; but as regards NONI3
(suggested in Hastings, 2 594) the forms of the root given by
Levy (Chald. Lex.) are said by him to mean only division of
booty, plunder. It is perhaps worth adding that the only
place-name in OT beginning with J3> Josh. 1628, Biziothiah
(rvnvin), s rea ^ by & nmj3> lit. her daughters i.e., suburbs,
and is conflated accordingly, ai Ko^ai aimav icat ai tn-auAeis
avrtav.
* Cp Mk. 11 19, And when it was evening they used to go
forth outside the city, Mt. 21 17 he came forth outside the city
to Bethany, Lk. 21 37 coming forth he used to lodge in the
mount that is called [the mount] of Olives. The divergences
can perhaps be best explained as springing from an original
to Bezetha(na), paraphrased by Mk., conflated by Mt. with
Bethany, and taken by Lk. as Place of Olives. It should be
noted that two of the versions of Gratz s above-quoted tradition
begin Two Slices were on the Mount of Oil, the third has
" (3) Jerusalem, and the fourth there. The third seems
likely to have preserved the original, which perhaps meant
connected with Jerusalem. As the suburbs were outside
Jerusalem proper, in was naturally altered.
5 Reading pys3 as pyso ( a corruption very frequent in )
we have a word very similar to ynsc, leper."
6 Not only is yi 3, slice, or fragment, the regular N. Heb.
word for breaking bread, but also pyi^s was a name given
(Levy 4 i43-^) to a class of hypocrites that aped the practices
of the stricter Pharisees. Space fails to indicate all the traces
of Hebrew influence on the narratives of the Anointing of Jesus.
But one may be given. Lk., without introducing the host by
name, represents Jesus as addressing him by name, thus (Lk.
740) Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. This is
unexampled in the gospels. Yet it is most improbable that Lk.
inserted. in this extraordinary place instead of at the com
mencement what was not in his original, merely because a
Simon the Leper had been mentioned in the Synoptic narrative.
More probably the original had Hearken (xj-ycs;0 or hearken-
to "^( jyOB 1 ), and Lk. mistook this for nycc , Simon. It may
. , -
little from Q pCi raise up, that the two are repeatedly confused
by the LXX, Nah. 1 8 the / lace thereof, <B they that are raised
*/> J er - iOao and to set up, (B place (and see 2 S. 2249,
2748
LAZARUS
It is essential for the reader to keep steadily in view
the traces of obscurity in the earliest Christian traditions
8. First
inferences.
in order that he may understand Jn. s
attitude towards them. Jn. is to be re
garded neither as a fallacious historian nor
as a poet putting aside history, but as a believer, so
penetrated with the sense of the power of Christ s
spirit, and at the same time so conscious of the
obscurity, uncertainty, and inadequacy of the extant
historical records of Christ, that he felt impelled towards
a new representation both of his words and of his
deeds. To describe the latter, he remoulded the
gospel, fusing old traditions and new, written and oral,
inferring, amplifying, spiritualising, but not inventing.
If, therefore, Jn. was led to believe that a man named
Lazarus owned the house in which the anointing
occurred, what inferences would he naturally make in
accordance with his principle of blending scattered tradi
tions? He found in Lk. (1040) an account of a supper
made for Jesus where Martha was cumbered about
much serving, while Mary sat at his feet and heard his
discourse ; and this he might identify with the meal at
which the anointing took place. Martha, however
(without name of husband or father of the house), was
mentioned by Lk. as the hostess. 1 It followed that the
house must have belonged in some sense to her as well
as to Lazarus, and consequently that Lazarus must have
been a younger brother. Hence would arise Jn. s de
scription of Lazarus as the brother of Mary and Martha ;
for indeed it was in this inferential way that Jn. had
reasoned out the existence of a Lazarus.
The next step was to connect the name with Lk. s
Lazarus who was raised from the dead. The last words
_ . of Lk. s Lazarus-narrative are, Neither
" will they believe though one went to them
from the dead, which might become the
basis of a tradition that the Lord said concerning a man
named Lazarus, who died and was buried, that the Jews
would net believe (i.e. , refused to believe) though one went
to them from the dead. But if this Lazarus who sat at
meat when Martha served and Mary anointed Jesus feet,
had been raised from the dead by Jesus, and that, too,
after he had been buried it followed that such a sign
was the climax of all the signs and would naturally
come last of all. It must have been wrought at
Bethany, since Lazarus s house was there. Yet Jesus
could not have been at Bethany when Lazarus died so
the Evangelist would argue for how could he remain
and look on, and permit the death and burial? Jesus
must therefore have been at a distance. In that case,
Martha and Mary must surely have sent to him. Yet
he must have known even at a distance what was
happening ; and if he knew, why did he not come ?
And how would the sisters endure his not coming?
Upon the basis of all these inferences and questions the
Evangelist proceeds to describe how the two sisters sent,
and what they said when Jesus came, and how he
answered their intercession the result being the raising
of Lazarus, the climax of Jesus signs.
Some commentators maintain that the graphic style
of the evangelist proves that he had seen or heard
10 The mot scenes or discourses he describes.
Among his most graphic passages,
however, are the dialogues with Nicodemus and with the
Samaritan woman, at neither of which was he present.
rise up against me, <5 [L] my place ). By themselves, these
facts would have no weight ; but taken in conjunction with the
instances of apparent Hebrew influence (see Diatessarica,
" 334> containing Index to passages from Jn.) they suggest
the possibility of a conflation in Jn. ; and they are worth
mentioning here in order to help the reader to realise that
Jn., as well as Lk. (though in a manner different from Lk. s),
may have attempted to correct existing histories, not by
inventing, but by giving shape and order to vague and floating
traditions.
Martha in New Heb. means sometimes mistress (Levy,
NHWB i> 234 6), the mistress (nmD) of the house who received
us.
2749
i
LAZARUS
The fact is, that Jn. writes as a mystical poet, im
bued with Jewish traditions from Egypt as well as from
Palestine, with a keen eye for human characteristics,
but with a still deeper insight into the unfathomable
love and spiritual power of Jesus, and with a desire to
subordinate every word of his Gospel to the purpose of
manifesting that love and that power to mankind. 1
(i.) The book called Sohar, Zohar (Schottgen on Mt.
2i8), represents the Messiah as weeping when Rachel
f r ner children. By Justin
Tryph - ^4). and Irenes
(421) Rachel was recognised as the type
of the Christian Church, and Justin saw in Leah the
type of the Synagogue, (ii. ) The Apostolic Constitutions
(7 8) mention Lazarus with Job, apparently recognising
in the raising of Lazarus a fulfilment of the famous
prediction found in the received text of Job 1926.- Tradi
tions about Rachel and Job, as well as the Philonian
explanation of Eliezer, 3 may very well have been in the
evangelist s mind when he described the intercession of
the two sisters and put into the mouth of Martha the
words by this time he stinketh. Nor is it farfetched
to see a contrast between Lazarus leaving the tomb
still bound with grave-clothes and with the napkin round
his head and Jesus who, when he rose, left the linen
cloths lying and the napkin . . . rolled up in a place
by itself.
The Greek allusions are of a different kind.
(i.) 11 33, He rebuked \n his spirit "(ei e/3pijuj<raTOT<f)7rci!0xa7i);
cpll38, again rebuking in himself. In Mk. 143 Mt. 930 the
word e/u/3pijxnofttti is applied to Jesus addressing,
12. Greek severally, a leper and two blind men. Probably
allusions. J n - wishes to dispel the impression that the half-
suppressed exclamation of anger that sometimes
accompanied Jesus acts of healing was directed against the
sufferer, whereas it was directed against the suffer ing regarded
as Evil. 4
(ii.) 1133, he troubled himself. This is probably an allusion
both to (a) the refrain in Ps. 42 (41) and 43 (42) () Why art
thou exceeding-sorrowful, my soul (TrfpiAun-os, RV cast down ),
and why dost thou troiible-me-ivitk [? myself] (trvi Tapao-erets,
RV disquieted within me ), and (<^) to the synoptic use of the
passage. The Greek exceeding-sorrowful (wepiAujros) is rare
in the LXX (see Concord.). In NT the word occurs in four
passages, including Mk. 1434 Mt. 2638, My soul is exceeding-
sorroiuful even unto death. These words are not in Lk. But
an early interpolation in Lk., or edition of Lk., substituted (Lk.
2^44) an account of Christ engaged in a conflict (or, agony).
The problem of avoiding a word that might be a stumbling
block, because it signified grief to excess, and yet of inserting
a fulfilment of scripture, corresponding to that in Mk. , is solved
here by Jn. s using the other half of the Psalmist s sentence,
namely, trouble me with myself in the form he troubled him
self. By this extraordinary expression he indirectly meets an
objection that must have occurred to the many thousands of
Greeks and Romans who were familiar with the fundamental
doctrine of Epictetus, Be free from trouble. Jn. teaches that
the Father himself wills that his children, including the eternal
Son, should be troubled for one another. But what he wills,
he does ; and what he does, the Logos does. Therefore the
Logos, here, troubled himself. Later the Logos will be
(1227) troubled in sou!, and last of all, by the treachery of
Judas (1821), troubled in spirit.
1 Regarded as a nariative of fact this story, like others in Jn.,
is defective. Even such commentators as Lightfoot and West-
cott have severally inferred that the journey from beyond Jordan
to Bethany occupied three days {Bibl. Essays), about a day
(Westc. ad loc.).
2 Orig. Comm. on Jn. 15 (ed. Huet, vol. ii. , p. 4 E) oSiofiora
vexpov a.vetm)<rev, Anaphor. Pilat. he raised up one that had
been dead four days. . . . when the dead man had his blood cor
rupted and when his body was destroyed by the worms produced
in it and when it had the stink of a dog.
3 Being interpreted, Eliezer is God my Help. For the
mass [of flesh] imbued with blood is by itself liable to speedy
dissolution, being indeed a corpse ; but it is kept compact and
quickened with a vital spark by the providence of God (>p.
I 4 8i).
4 In a passage quoted by Eusebius {HE v. l6o) from a letter
from the churches of Lyons, ejxjSp. seems to mean loudly cursing
(not muttering curses ). Lucian uses it to express the deep
angry bellowing of Hecate (vol. i., p. 484, Necyoni. 20, ive-
/Spi/nrjo-aTO 17 Bpi^ioj). Cp Ecclus. 183, The rich man wrongs you
and bellows at you besides (Trpoo-eye/jpejoitjo-aTo). Celsus (Orig.
Cels. 2 76) complains that Jesus threatens and reviles on light
occasions, and complains of Jesus saying woe unto you. Jn.
never uses the word woe. It is hardly likely that the difficulty
of Mk.l43 Mt.93o would have escaped educated assailants of
the Gospels at the beginning of the second century.
2750
LEACH
To enter fully into the allusions with which this
narrative teems would be to write a commentary on it.
Without some insight into a few of them, however, no
reader can dispassionately judge what is meant by the
Johannine name Lazarus or the poem of which it is
the centre. K. A. A.
LEACH. See HORSELEECH, LILITH.
LEAD (JYISy, dphcreth [see note below] ; MOXiBoc,
MoAyBoc [/vxoAiBAoc, /woAyBAoc]; plumbum).
Though lead was doubtless well-known to the Hebrews
from an early period, its applications were comparatively
unimportant, and the OT references to it are not many.
(a) Its weight is alluded to in Ex. 15 10 (cp Acts 27 28), and the
mason s and carpenter s plummet was no doubt as often made of
lead as of tin, though the latter happens to be the material men
tioned in Zech. 4 10. Indeed, the distinction between lead and
tin (see TIN) was in early days but imperfectly realised.
(l>) Before the use of quicksilver became known, lead was
employed for the purpose of purifying silver, and separating it
from other mineral substances (Flin. /INZ iy). To this
Jeremiah alludes where he figuratively describes the corrupt
condition of the people : In their fire the lead is consumed (in
the crucible); the smelting is in vain, for the evil is not
separated (Jer. ti 29). Ezekiel (2 18-22) refers to the same fact,
and for the same purpose, but amplifies it with greater minute
ness of detail. Compare also Mai. $2f.
(c) On Job 1923 f. see WHITING. For the use of leaden
tablets as writing material cp Faus. ix. 31 4 (leaden tablet, very
time-worn, with the Works of Hesiod engraved on it) and Plin.
H.N. 13 n.
(</) Although the Hebrew weights were usually of stone, and
are indeed called stones, a leaden weight denominated andk^
(px C P tne Arabic word for lead) occurs in Amos 7 j f.
See PLUMBLINE.
(e) The employment of lead for the conveyance of water
known to the Greeks (Paus. iv. 35 12) and very familiar to the
Romans may perhaps have been resorted to by the Israelites,
but does not seem to be alluded to in OT.
LEAH (Hs ; A[e]lA [BADEFL]) ; some scholars
compare Ar. lav, wild cow ; so Del. Pro!. 80, \VR$
Kin. 195, 219, and doubtfully No. ZU/(;40 167 [1886];
P. Haupt compares Ass. It at, mistress ; but on the
possible analogy of Rachel [see JACOB, 3] we may still
more plausibly suspect Leah [Leah?] to be a fragment
of Jerahme el [Che. ]). The mother of the non-Josephite
tribes of Israel. It was in the house of Joseph that
the truest stock of Israel historically lay ; in fact it
was, according to E, only by underhand dealings on
the part of the Aramrean Laban that the Leah tribes
ever really became Israelite. Still, even the Ephraimite
traditions made the Leah tribe of Reuben Israel s
firstborn, and did not even deny him a place in its
account of the origin of Joseph (Gen. 30 14). See also
RACHEL, TRIBE.
LEANNOTH (HlStf? ; roy ATTOKPIGHNAI [BNA])
Ps. 88 title, RV m K- for singing (so Baethgen). Haupt
(JI)L, iqoo, p. 70) explains, to cause to respond
i.e., to cause God to grant the prayer which is at any
rate not unsuitable to the contents. The analogy of
the corrupt vain 1 ? and iaSS, however (38 70 60, in
titles), suggests a different solution. mjy 1 ? is an easy
corruption of roSy. which the scribe wrote as a correc
tion of the corrupt n^rc- On Alamoth see PSALMS,
26 [4
LEATHER. Although the word leather (or
leathern ) occurs only three times in EV, once of the
girdle of Elijah (2 K. 18 lij; niiK, fcii ij dep/jLarivr)) and
twice of that of John the Baptist (Mk. 16 RV, AV a
girdle of a skin ; Mt. 84), on both which see GIRDLE,
i, and the word tanner 1 is met with only in Acts 943
10632, there can be no doubt that the Hebrews were
familiar with the use of leather and the art of preparing
it from the earliest times. Cp SKIN, PARCHMENT.
1 The Heb. words iiniilt and ifhtrttk find their analogies in
the Ass. anakii and aMru, both of which are variously rendered
lead or tin "(see Muss-Arnolt who cites also antimony for
a&ilrti). Both words are not unfrequently mentioned on Ass.
inscriptions among articles of tribute, abilru in particular being
sent from such districts as Commagene, Kue, Byblos, Melitene
and Tabal ; cp Del. Ass. H WH 9 b and re ff.
2751
LEAVEN
The leathern vessels (niyn S?), frequently referred to
in Leviticus, may be supposed to have included shields
and the like as well as belts and straps, bottles,
quivers and chariot -fittings, sandals and shoes (cp
SHOES). The Egyptian monuments illustrate very
graphically various stages in the working of leather
(see, e.g. , Wilk. Anc. Eg. 1232 2 187 f. ), though it
would \>e hazardous to use this as an argument for the
acquaintance of the Israelites with the higher branches
of the art in the Mosaic age (Ex. 25s, P), of which
we have no contemporary records.
LEAVEN is a general term for whatever is capable
of generating the process of fermentation in a mass of
1. Leaven
dough ( panary fermentation ). Various sub-
, stances were known in ancient times to
expiaine . p OSSess tm - s property. J The locus classicus
for the leavens of NT times is Pliny, //AH 8 26, accord
ing to which the most highly prized leaven was made
in the vintage season by kneading millet or fine bran of
wheat with must. In most cases, however, according
to the same authority, the leaven employed was the
same as that which alone is mentioned in OT or NT
(see BREAD, i), namely a piece of fully fermented
dough retained for the purpose from the previous
day s baking ( tantum pridie adservata materie utun-
tur ). Such a piece might either be broken down in
water in a basin before the fresh flour was added
(Af/ndAotA5i end) or it might be hid in the flour
(Mt. 1833), and kneaded along with it. The Hebrews
named this piece of fermented dough INJ; , if or so
always in MT, in the Mishna TUTC-, I IND, "htty and I lira
LXXandNT &/J.T) (Ex. 12 15 19 13 7 Lev. 2n Dt. 16 4
Mt. 1833, etc.).
-1Kb is derived from an unused root INC akin (according to
Ges. Thes. 1318 l>) to TD> an d Arab, thilra (efftrbuif); cp f,\ni.i\
from eto, and fermentum from ferret? , also leaven (mid. Lat.
leuamen) from levare. In RV sfor is now consistently rendered
throughout by leaven, AV having in Dt. 164 leavened bread 1
(see below).
The mass of flour, water, and salt, in the kneading-
trough, w*.yVr A(rn*tc B) 2 with or without leaven after
being kneaded was termed bdsek (pss), dough or sponge
(Ex.123439 28. 138Hos. 74 Jer. 7i8); orcus, <rr<?as, or
ffrtap, NT ((>vpafj.a ; in the Mishna most frequently rtD j;
(from DDJ; to squeeze, knead [not as Levy from irony]).
If the dough contained no leaven and was baked before
spontaneous fermentation had set in, the result was
nxa. tnassdA (for etymology see Ges. -Bu.< 13 , s.v. j ss),
more fully nso cnS, unleavened bread (fij~i>/*os [fi/rroj]),
but most frequently in OT in the plur. Tiixc, massoth,
unleavened cakes. Dough that had thoroughly risen
under the action of leaven or by spontaneous fermenta
tion (Affnd/wth 5i) was termed rcn, A times, leavened
(from j-cn, Arab, hamuda, to be sharp or sour ; cp Ger.
Sauerteig, 1 Eng. sour dough ), and bread made
therefrom, j-cn DnV, leavened bread (Lev. 7 13). In all
other passages, however, ppn is used substantively, as
synonymous with niiDrtp 3 (Ex. 12 ip/. ), that which is
leavened. 4 For the two words if or and hdmcs are
not synonymous, as has been asserted, but related as
1 See Bliimner, Technologic, etc., der Gewerbe bei Griechen
unti Kouiern , 1 s8_/I
- This word should probably be pointed miff re th (rnKL 1;), from
the same root -|jl M ( see above), to rise, that in which the dough
rises. In Ex. 7 28 12 34 <S, followed byV g. (consj>ersantfari>iai},
has taken the word in an active sense, that which rises, viz.
dough (</>iipa/ua).
3 Mr. James Death has devoted a book, The Beer of the
Bible, one of the iinkrurwn leavens of Exodus (1887), to an
abortive attempt to prove that nXCna is to be identified with an
ancient Egyptian beer, similar to the modern buza.
In half the passages /tames is correctly rendered by (85 as
(vniaTOv (Kx. 187 Lev. 2 1 1), [aproi] fu/ourai (Lev. 7 13 [3]), a.
i>H<o/ueVot (Lev. 23 17), in the rest (Ex. 12 15 [cod. 72, fbpMffr]
13 3 23 18 34 25 Dt. 16 3) incorrectly by vn>7.
2752
LEAVEN
cause and effect (cp the Vg. renderings ferment urn and
fermenhitum). In the OT at least Par is always
leaven ; the verb Spx, to eat, is never applied to it, but
to hdmcs (hence we read, Talm. Ptsdhim t>a, lyxcJ TINS?
nS DN 1 ? i"ii leaven which is not fit for eating).
In the later Hebrew of the Mishna, however, this distinction
is not always observed ; hence we find st ar applied not only to
leaven proper, but also to the dough in the process of leavening
(usually nDy). Thus, in the interesting passage, Pesah. 85, in
answer to the question how the beginning of the process of
fermentation is to be recognised in the dough (liN b), two replies
are given : When the surface of the dough shows small cracks,
like the antennae of locusts, running in different directions, and
again : When the surface has become pale, like (the face of)
one whose hair stands on end (through fear) !
The leaven of OT and NT, then, is exclusively a piece
of sour dough. In the warm climate of Palestine,
fermentation is more rapid than with us, and it is said
that if flour is mixed with water, spontaneous fermenta
tion will set in and be completed in twenty-four hours.
It is often stated, and is not improbable, that the Jews
also used the lees of wine as yeast; but the passages
cited by Hamburger (viz., Pfsdhim 3i and /////* 1 7)
do not bear this out.
The use of leaven being a later refinement in the
preparation of bread (see BREAD, i), it may be re
garded as certain that offerings of bread
,. V f, n m to the deity were from the first un-
the cultus. leavened The cakes of the shew .
bread, according to the unanimous testimony of Philo,
Josephus, Talmud, and Midrash (see reff. under
SHEWBREAD), remained unleavened to the end. In
all cereal offerings, any portion of which was de
stined to be burnt on the altar, the use of leaven,
as of honey, was excluded (Lev. 2411 7 12 82 Nu.
6 15) I 1 though where the offering was not to be
placed upon the altar, but to be eaten by the priests,
it might contain bread that was leavened (Lev. 7 13 23 17
[Pentecostal loaves]; cp Am. 4 5 [cakes of thank-offer
ing], 2 also Mindhoth 5 1 /. ). The antiquity of this
exclusion of ferment from the cultus of Yahwe is vouched
for by the early enactment Ex. 34 250. (from J s decalogue),
and its parallel 23 18 (Book of the Covenant). It is
possible, however, that the former passage may refer
only to the Passover, for which, as for the accompany
ing festival of Afassoth, unleavened cakes (as the name
denotes), elsewhere named the bread of affliction
(01.163), were alone permitted. According to later
enactment, still scrupulously and joyfully observed in
Jewish households, search had to be made in every nook
and cranny of the house with a lighted candle on the eve
of the Passover for leaven, which when found was de
stroyed by burning (Ptsdh. 1 1; for details see PASSOVER).
It is important to note the precise ritual definition of
the leaven (s e or) to be destroyed. Under s e or, for the
purpose of this enactment, were included ( i ) pieces of
leavened or sour dough of the meal of any one of the
five cereals, wheat, barley, and the less common spelt,
fox-ear and shiphon (see FOOD, 3) which had been
kneaded with cold water, and (2) certain articles of
commerce, composed, in part at least, of the fermented
grain of the above cereals. Such were Median spirits,
Egyptian beer, Roman honey, paste, etc. Not in
cluded, on the other hand, were (i) the same cereals
when mixed with any other liquid than cold water, as,
e.g. , the juice of the grape or other fruit (JTITS D ; cp
the passage from Geop. 233 quoted by Blumner, Techno-
logie, etc., 159, n. 5, on the use of grape juice as a
1 The forms which such gifts of unleavened dough (vtassdh)
might take were various. Besides the ordinary ntassdth or
unleavened cakes kneaded with water, we find cakes of fine
flour kneaded with oil, and wafers spread with oil, for which
see RAKEMEATS, if.
2 Some recent scholars of note have maintained, chiefly on
the strength of this passage of Amos, which shows that leaven
was admitted in the cultus of the Northern Kingdom, that the
exclusion of leaven from the altar is not of great antiquity (see
Now. HA 1-2o-]f.)\ but the view taken above certainly repre
sents the better tradition of the cultus of the South.
89 2753
LEBANA
leaven), milk, wine, and even hot water, since these
liquids were not held capable of setting up the prohibited
fermentation, and (2) the meal of other plants, such as
beans, lentils, millet, even when kneaded with cold
water (see Ftsdhim 3i ff., with the commentaries;
Maimonides, nsoi f Dn niD^n).
The raison d etre of this exclusion of leaven from the
cultus is not far to seek. In the view of all antiquity,
Semitic and non- Semitic, panary fermentation repre
sented a process of corruption and putrefaction in the
mass of the dough. The fact that Ezekiel makes no
provision for wine in his programme of the restored
cultus (40^) is probably due to his extending this
conception to alcoholic fermentation as well. Plutarch s
words (QucBst. Rom. 109) show very clearly this associa
tion of ideas : Now leaven is itself the offspring of
corruption and corrupts the mass of dough with which it
has been mixed (17 5 fiV?7 /cal ytyovtv tic <p6opas O.VTT]
/cat (ftdfipft. rb </wpa/iia /j.Lyvv/j.evij). Further, as has been
pointed out by Robertson Smith (Rel. Sem.^zoj,, < 2 22o),
the prohibition of leaven is closely associated with the rule
that the fat and the flesh must not remain over till the morn
ing ( Ex. 23 18 34 25). He points also to certain Saracenic
sacrifices, akin to the Passover, that had to be entirely
consumed before the sun rose. The idea was that the
efficacy lay in the living flesh and blood of the victim ;
everything of the nature of putrefaction was therefore
to be avoided. The flamen dialis, or chief priest of
Jupiter at Rome, was forbidden the use of leaven
(fermentata farina, Aul. Cell., 10 15) on the grounds
suggested, no doubt rightly, by Plutarch (I.e.). At
certain religious ceremonies of the phratria of the
Lalyadag, according to an inscription recently unearthed
at Delphi, Sapdrat (unleavened cakes, according to
Athenaeus and Hesychius) played an important part. 1
The Roman satirist Persius, finally, employs the word
fermentum (leaven) in the sense of moral corruption
In the NT leaven supplies two sets of figures, one
taken from the mode, the other from the result, of
the process of fermentation. Thus
3. Figurative
use of leaven.
Jesus likened the silent but effective
growth of the kingdom in the mass of
humanity to the hidden but pervasive action of leaven
in the midst of the dough (Mt. 1833). The second
figure, however, is the more frequent, and is based on
the association, above elucidated, of panary fermenta
tion with material and moral corruption (cp Bahr,
Symbolik d. mos. Kultus, 2322). Thus the disciples
are warned against the leaven of the Pharisees (Mt.
166/: Mk. 815 Lk. 12 1 ff.}, of the Sadducees (Mt. ib.}.
and of Herod (Mk. ib.). See HERODIANS. Paul,
again, twice quotes the popular saying, a little leaven
leavens the whole lump (i Cor. 56 Gal. 5g), as a warn
ing against moral corruption. The true followers of
Christ are already unleavened (tLfv/j.oi i Cor. 57), and
must therefore keep the feast, that is, must live the
Christian life in the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth (58).
In late Jewish literature, finally, we also meet with the
figurative designation of the inherent corruption of human
nature as leaven. Thus in Talm. Berdklwtk \-ja it is said :
Rabbi Alexander, when he had finished his prayers, said:
Lord of the universe, it is clearly manifest before thee that it
is our will to do thy will ; what hinders that we do not thy will?
The leaven which is in the dough (nD J, 2C> flNb , cp Gen.
Rabba, 34, cited by Levy, s.v. niNb), explained by a gloss as
the evil impulse (jnn ir) which is in the heart. (For this
Talmudic doctrine of original sin see Hamburger, Realtttcycl.
212307^; and in general the works of Lightfoot [on Mt. 166],
Schoettgen [on i Cor. 5 6] and Meuschen.) A. K. S. K.
LEBANA (iO?, 69 ; AA.BANA [BKA], AoBNA
[L]), a family of NETHINIM (q.v.) in the great post-
exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9), Neh. 7 48 = Ezra 2 45
1 MS note by Dr. J. G. Fiazer.
2754
LEBANON
Lebanah (n:^", 1 -white ? AABANOO [BA]) = i Esd.
629, LABANA.
LEBANON. The name (p32^, AlBANOC ; once
[01.825] JJ37, ANTlAlB&NOC [also in Deut. 1; 825
Il2 4 Jos. 1 4 9 i, cp Judith 1 7]; Phoen. }33^ ; Ass.
labndna. In prose the article is pre-
1. Name and fixed except in 2 ch 2 jb [8 ^ . in
position. p 0etr y the usage varies), which comes
from the Semitic root laban, to be white, or whitish, 1
probably refers, not to the perpetual snow, but to the bare
white walls of chalk or limestone which form the charac
teristic feature of the whole range. Syria is traversed
by a branch thrown off almost at right angles from Mt.
Taurus in Asia Minor, and Lebanon is the name of the
central mountain mass of Syria, extending for about
100 m. from NNE. to SSW. It is bounded W. by
the sea, N. by the plain Jun Akkar, beyond which rise
the mountains of the Nusairiyeh, and E. by the inland
plateau of Syria, mainly steppe -land. To the S.
Lebanon ends about the point where the river Lltani
bends westward, and at Banias. A valley narrowing
towards its southern end, now called el- Buka. ,
divides the mountainous mass into two great parts.
That lying to the W. is still called Jebel Libnan ; the
greater part of the eastern mass now bears the name of
the Eastern Mountain (el-Jebel esh-Sharki). In Greek
the western range was called Libanos, the eastern
Antilibanos. The southern extension of Antilibanus,
Mt. Hermon, may be treated as a separate mountain
(see HERMON, SKNIR). For map see PHOENICIA.
Lebanon and Antilibanus have many features in
common ; in both the southern portion is less arid and
_ barren than the northern, the western
2. Description. valluvs ^ Ucr W0 oded and more fertile
than the eastern. In general the main elevations of the
two ranges form pairs lying opposite one another ; the
forms of both ranges are monotonous, but the colouring
splendid, especially when viewed from a distance ; when
seen close at hand, indeed, only a few valleys with
perennial streams offer pictures of landscape beauty,
their rich green contrasting pleasantly with the bare
brown and yellow mountain sides.
The Lebanon strata are generally inclined, bent, and
twisted, often vertical, seldom quite horizontal. Like
. all the rest of Syria, the Lebanon region
3. ueology. a j go j s traversec j ky f au it s , a t which the
different tracts of country have pressed against and
crumpled one another. The buka between Lebanon
and Antilibanus came into existence in the place of a
former trough or synclinal between two anticlinals, by
a tearing up of the earth s crust and a stairlike sub
sidence of a succession of layers. The principal ranges
of the Lebanon and Antilibanus along with the valley of
the Buka have the same trend as the faults, folds, and
strata viz. , from SSW. to N N E.
The range is made up of upper oolite, upper creta
ceous, eocene, miocene, and diluvium.
The oldest strata in Lebanon itself, forming the deepest part
of some of the valleys (Salima, Salib), are of Glandaiia lime
stone, 6oc ft. in thickness, containing sponges, corals, echino-
derms, etc. (the best-known fossils being Lidaris glandaria
and Terebratula [diverse species], found in the Salima \alley near
Beyrout). By its fossils this limestone belongs to the Oxford
group. Under this limestone still older strata of the Kelloway
are found only in the Antilibanus, on Mt. Hermon.
Above the upper oolite follow, in concordant order, strata of
upper cretaceous. First, there is the Nubian sandstone of Ceno-
manian age, a yellow or brown sandstone distinguished by the
presence of coal, dysodile, amberlike resin, and samoit (?), with im
pressions of plant leaves. To the period of the formation of this
member of the system belong volcanic eruptions of basaltic rock
and also copious eruptions of ashes, which are now met with as
tufa in the neighbourhood of the igneous rocks. These eruptive
rocks are everywhere again overlaid by the thick sandstone.
The sandstone stratum (1300 to 1600 ft. thick) has a great influ
ence upon the superficial aspect of the country, having become
the centre of its life and fertility, inasmuch as here alone water
can gather. In its upper beds the sandstone alternates with
1 So with rr in Neh. ace. to Baer, Gi.
2755
LEBANON
layers of limestone and contains (at the village of Abeh) many
shells of gasteropods and bivalves and especially of Trigonia
syriaca as typical fossils. The second subdivision of the
cretaceous formation consists of beds of marl and limestone with
numerous echinoderms, oysters, and ammonites (Buchiceras
syriacum, von Buch), which show that these strata belong to the
chalk marl (Cenomanian). The third subdivision is the Lebanon
limestone a gray or white limestone, marble, or dolomite, about
3000 ft. in thickness, of which the great mass of the mountains
of Lebanon is composed. Here is the zone of the Rudistes
(Radiolites,Spha:rulites). At several localities are also found thin
limestone beds with fine fish remains. The last member
of the cretaceous formation isthe chalk, a whiteoryellowish-white
soft chalky clay, which in its lower half shows the famous fish-
bed of Sahel Alma, and in its upper half alternates with beds of
flint. These most recent strata of all are met with only at the
western and eastern foot of Lebanon (baths in the western half
of the town of Beyrout) and in Antilibanus. On the Jebel
ed-pahr between the Litani and Jordan valleys they contain
many bitumen beds, and also asphalt.
The eocene (nummulitic formation) occurs only very sporadi
cally in Lebanon, especially in the Buka , but predominates in
the eastern offshoots of Antilibanus. It consists of nummulitic
limestones and unstratified coral limestones. The miocene is
represented in the form of marine limestone of upper miocene
age, which is the material of which two mountains on the coast
line are composed the St. Dmitri hill at Beyrout, and the
Jebel Terbol near Tarabulus.
Of pliocene formation there are a few comparatively unim
portant patches (near Zahleh)of fresh-water limestone, deposited
from small lake basins and containing fresh-water snails (Hy-
drobia, Bithynia). To this pliocene period belong also
considerable eruptions of basalt in the N. of Lebanon, near
Horns. Not till after these terrestiial pliocenes had been
deposited did the great movements to which the country owes
its present configuration occur. The diluvial period was marked
by no very noteworthy occurrences. On an old moraine stands
the well-known cedar grove of Dahr el-Kadib.
The western versant has the common characteristics
of the flora of the Mediterranean coast ; but the eastern
portion belongs to the poorer region of
4. Vegetation. the steppes and the Mediterranean
species are met with only sporadically along the water
courses. Forest and pasture-land in our sense of the
word are not found : the place of the forest is for the most
part taken by a low brushwood ; grass is not plentiful,
and the higher ridges maintain a growth of alpine plants
only so long as patches of snow continue to lie. The
rock walls harbour some rock plants ; but there are
many absolutely barren wildernesses of stone.
(1) On the western versant, as we ascend, we have
first, to a height of 1600 ft., the coast region, similar
to that of Syria in general and of the south of Asia
Minor.
Characteristic trees are the locust tree and the stone pine ; in
Melia Azcdarach and Ficus Sycoinorus (Beyrout) we have an
admixture of foreign and partially subtropical elements. The
great mass of the vegetation, however, is of the low-growing
type (inaquis or garrigue of the western Mediterranean), with
small and stiff leaves, frequently thorny and aromatic, as for
example the ilex (Quercus cocci/era), Smilajc, Cist us, Lentiscus,
Calycotonte, etc.
(2) Next comes, from 1600 to 6500 ft., the moun
tain region, which may also be called the forest region,
still exhibiting sparse woods and isolated trees wherever
shelter, moisture, and the bad husbandry of the inhabi
tants have permitted their growth.
From 1600 to 3200 ft. is a zone of dwarf hard-leaved oaks,
amongst which occur the Oriental forms Fontanesia philly-
raoides, Acersyriacunt, and the beautiful red-stemmed Arbutus
Andrachne. Higher up, between 3700 ft. and 4200 ft., a tall
pine, Pinus Brutia, Ten., is characteristic. Between 4200 and
6200 ft. is the region of the two most interesting forest trees of
Lebanon, the cypress and the cedar. The cypress still grows
thickly, especially in the valley of the Kadisha ; the horizontal
is the prevailing variety. In the upper Kadisha valley there is
a cedar grove of about three hundred trees, ammigst which five
are of gigantic size ; it is alleged that other specimens occur
elsewhere in Lebanon. The Cedrus Litani is intermediate
between the Cedrus Dcodara and the C. atlantica (see CEDAR).
The cypress and cedar zone exhibits a variety of other leaf-
bearing and coniferous trees ; of the first may be mentioned
several oaks Quercus Mellul, Q. subalpina (Kotschy), Q.
Cerris, and the hop-hornbeam (Ostrya) ; of the second class
the rare Cilician silver fir (Abies ci/icica) may be noticed. Next
come the junipers, sometimes attaining the size of trees (// -
perns e.rcelsa, J. rufescens, and, with fruit as large as plums,
J. drtif-acea). The chief ornament of Lebanon, however, is the
Rhododendron ponticutn, with its brilliant purple flower clusters ;
a peculiar evergreen, I inca libanotica, also adds beauty to this
zone.
2756
LEBANON
(3) Into the alpine region (6200 to 10,400 ft.) pene
trate a few very stunted oaks (Quercus subalpina,
Kotschy), the junipers already mentioned, and a bar
berry (Berberis cretica), which sometimes spreads into
close thickets. Then follow the low, dense, prone,
pillow-like dwarf bushes, thorny and gray, common to
the Oriental highlands Astragalus and the peculiar
Acantholimon. They are found up to within 300 ft. of
the highest summits. Upon the exposed mountain
slopes rhubarb (Rheum Ribes] is noticeable, and also a
vetch ( Vicia canescens, Lab. ) excellent for sheep. The
spring vegetation, which lasts until July, appears to be
rich, especially as regards corolla-bearing plants, such
as Corydalis, Gagea, Bulbillaria, Colchicum, Pusch-
kinia, Geranium, Ornithogalum, etc.
The alpine flora of Lebanon connects itself directly
with the Oriental flora of lower altitudes, and is unre
lated to the glacial flora of Europe and northern Asia.
The flora of the highest ridges, along the edges of the snow
patches, exhibits no forms related to our northern alpine flora ; but
suggestions of such a flora are found in a Draba, anAntirosace, an
Alsine, and a violet, occurring, however, only in local species.
Upon the highest summits are found Saponaria Pumilio
(resembling our Silene acaulis) and varieties of Galium,
Euphorbia, Astragalus, Veronica, Jurinea, Festuca, Scrophu-
laria. Geranium, Aspliodeiine, Allium, Asperula; and, on
the margins of the snow-fields, a Taraxacum and Ranunculus
demissus.
There is nothing of special interest about the fauna
of Lebanon. Bears are no longer abundant ; the
. panther and the ounce are met with ;
^ the wild hog, hyaena, wolf, and fox are
by no means rare ; jackals and gazelles are very common.
The polecat and the hedgehog also occur. As a rule there
are not many birds ; but the eagle and the vulture may
occasionally be seen ; of eatable kinds partridges and
wild pigeons are the most abundant. In some places
the bat occasionally multiplies so as actually to become
a plague.
The district to the W. of Lebanon, averaging about
six hours in breadth, slopes in an intricate series of
. _, , plateaus and terraces to the Mediter-
6. Geography ,, t . ,
r , ^ ranean. I he coast is for the most
part abrupt and rocky, often leaving
room for only a narrow path along the shore, and
when viewed from the sea it does not lead one to have
the least suspicion of the extent of country lying between
its cliffs and the lofty summits behind. Most of the
mountain spurs run from E. to W. ; but in northern
Lebanon the prevailing direction of the valleys is north
westerly, and in the S. some ridges also run parallel
with the principal chain. The valleys have for the
most part been deeply excavated by the rapid mountain
streams which traverse them ; the apparently inaccessible
heights are crowned by villages, castles, or cloisters
embosomed among trees.
Of the streams which are perennial, the most worthy of note,
beginning from the N., are the Nahr Akkar, N. Arka, N. el-
Barid, N. Kadisha, the holy river (the valley of which begins
far up in the immediate neighbourhood of the highest summits,
and rapidly descends in a series of great bends till the river
reaches the sea at Tripoli), Wady el-Joz (falling into the sea at
Batriin), "Wady Fidfir, Nahr Ibrahim (the ancient Adonis, having
its source in a recess of the great mountain amphitheatre where
the famous sanctuary Apheca, the modern Afka, lay), Nahr el-
Kelb (the ancient Lycus), Nahr Beirut (the ancient Magoras,
entering the sea at Beyrout), Nahr Damur (ancient Tamyras),
Nahr el- Auwaly (the ancient Bostrenus, which in the upper
part of its course is joined by the Nahr el-Baruk). The Anwaly
and the Nahr ez-Zaherani, the only other streams that fall to
be mentioned before we reach the Litani, flow NE. to SW., in
consequence of the interposition of a ridge subordinate and
parallel to the central chain.
On the N. , where the mountain bears the special
name of Jebel Akkar, the main ridge of Lebanon rises
gradually from the plain. Valleys run to the N.
and NK. , among which must be mentioned that of
the Nahr el-Kebir, the Eleutherus of the ancients,
which takes its rise in the Jebel el-Abyad on the
eastern slope of Lebanon, and afterwards, skirting
the district, flows westward to the sea. To the S. of
Jebel el-Abyad, beneath the main ridge, which as a
"2757
LEBANON
rule falls away suddenly towards the E. , occur several
small elevated terraces having a southward slope ;
among these the Wadi en-Nusur ( vale of eagles ),
and the basin of the lake Yammuna, with its intermittent
spring Neb el-Arba in, deserve special mention. Of
the streams which descend into the Buka , only the
BerdonI need be named ; it rises in Jebel Sunnin, and
enters the plain by a deep and picturesque mountain
cleft at Zahleh.
The most elevated summits occur in the N. ; but even
these are of very gentle gradient, and are ascended
quite easily. The names and the elevations of the several
peaks, which even in summer are covered with snow, have
been very variously given by different explorers ; accord
ing to the most accurate accounts the Cedar block
consists of a double line of four and three summits respec
tively, ranged from N. to S. , with a deviation of about
35. Those to the E. are Uyun Urghush, Makmal,
Musklya (or Neb esh-Shemaila), and Ras Dahr el-
Kadib ; fronting the sea are Karn Sauda, Fumm el-
Mizab, and Dahr el-Kandil. The height of Makmal by
the most recent barometric measurement is 10,207 ft- ;
that of the others is somewhat less. S. from them is
the pass (8831 ft.) which leads from Baalbek to
Tripoli ; the great mountain amphitheatre on the W.
side of its summit is remarkable. Farther to the S.
is a second group of lofty summits.
Chief among them is the snow-capped Sannin, visible from
Beyrout; its height is 8554 ft., or, according to other accounts,
8805 ft. Between this group and the more southerly Jebel
Kuneiseh (about 6700 ft.) lies the pass (4700 ft.) now traversed
by the French post road between Beyrout and Damascus.
Among the other bare summits still farther S. are the long
ridge of Jebel el-Baruk (about 7000 ft.), the Jebel Niha, with
the Tomat Niha (about 6100 ft.), near which is a pass to Sidon,
and the Jebel Rihan (about 5400 ft.).
The Buka , the broad valley which separates Lebanon
from Antilibanus, is watered by two rivers having their
watershed near Ba albek (at an elevation of about 3600
ft. ) and their sources separated only by a short mile.
The river flowing northwards, El- Asy, is the ancient
Orontes ; the other is the Litani. In the lower part
of its course the Litani has scooped out for itself a deep
and narrow rocky bed ; at Burghuz it is spanned by a
great natural bridge. Not far from the point where it
suddenly trends to the W. lie, immediately above the
romantic valley, at an elevation of 1500 ft., the im
posing ruins of the old castle Kal at esh-Shakif, near
one of the passes to Sidon. In its lower part the Litani
bears the name of Nahr el-Kasimlyeh. Neither the
Orontes nor the Litani has any important affluent.
The Buka used to be known as CCELESYKIA (q.v. ) ;
but that word as employed by the ancients had a much
more extensive application.
At present the full name is Buka el- Aziz (the dear Buka ),
and its northern portion is known as Sahlet Ba albek (the plain
of Baalbek). The valley is from 4 to 6 m. broad, with an
undulating surface. It is said to contain a hundred and thirty-
seven hamlets or settlements, the larger of which skirt the hills,
whilst the smaller, consisting of mud hovels, stand upon dwarf
mounds, the debris of ages. The whole valley could be much
more richly cultivated than it is at present ; but fever is frequent.
Antilibanus is mentioned only once, in Judith 1 7
(avTi\i()ai>os), where Libanus and Antilibanus means
the land between the parallel ranges i.e. , Ccelesyria.
The Antilibanus chain has in many respects been
much less fully explored than that of Lebanon. Apart
r . from its southern offshoots it is 67 m.
E y ] ong, whilst its width varies from 16 to
m II rises fr m the pla n f y m?I
j n j {s nort h ern portion is very arid
and barren. The range has not so many offshoots as
occur on the W. side of Lebanon ; under its precipitous
slopes stretch table-lands and broad plateaus, which,
especially on the E. side looking towards the steppe,
steadily increase in width. Along the western side of
northern Antilibanus stretches the Khasha a, a rough
red region lined with juniper trees a succession of the
hardest limestone crests and ridges, bristling with bare
2758
tTh
Antilibanus.
LEBANON
rock and crag that shelter tufts of vegetation, and are
divided by a succession of grassy ravines. On the
eastern side the parallel valley of Asal el- Ward deserves
special mention ; the descent towards the plain east
wards, as seen for example at Ma liila, is singular,
first a spacious amphitheatre and then two deep very
narrow gorges. The perennial streams that take their
rise in Antilibanus are not many.
One of the finest and best watered valleys is that of Helbiin
(see HKLBON). The highest points of the range, reckoned
from the N., are Hallmat el-Kabu (8247 ft.), which has a
splendid view; the Fatly block, including Tal at Mfisfi (8755
ft.) and the adjoining Jebel Nebi Bariih (7900 ft. [?]) ; and a
third group near Bludfin, in which the most prominent names
are Shukif Akhyar, and Abu 1-Hin (8330 ft. [?]).
Of the valleys descending westward the first to claim
mention is the Wady Yahfufa ; a little farther to the S. ,
lying N. and S. , is the rich upland valley of Zebedani,
where the Barachl has its highest sources. Pursuing an
easterly course of several hours, this stream receives
the waters of the romantic Ain Fijeh (which doubles its
volume), and bursts out by a rocky gateway upon the
plain of Damascus. It is the Amanah (RV" <> r -)of 2K. 5 12;
the portion of Antilibanus traversed by it was also called
by the same name (Cant. 48). See AMANA. The
French post road after leaving the Buka first enters
a little valley running N. and S. , where a projecting
ridge of Antilibanus bears the ruins of the ancient cities
Chalcis and Gerrha. It next traverses the gorge of
Wady el-Harir, the level upland Sahlet Judeideh, the
ravine of Wady el-Kam, the ridge of Akabat et-Tin,
the descent Daurat el-Billan, and finally the unpeopled
plain of Dimas, from which it enters the valley of
Barada. This route marks the southern boundary of
Antilibanus proper, where the Hermon group begins.
From the point where this continuation of Antilibanus
begins to take a more westerly direction, a low ridge
shoots out towards the SW. , trending farther and
farther away from the eastern chain and narrowing the
Buka ; upon the eastern side of this ridge lies the
elevated valley or hilly stretch known as Wady et-Teim.
In the N. , beside Ain Falfij, it is connected by a low
watershed with the Buka ; from the gorge of the Litani
it is separated by the ridge of Jebel ed-Dahr. At its
southern end it contracts and merges into the plain of
Banias, thus enclosing Mount Hermon on its NW. and
W. sides ; eastward from the Hasbany branch of the
Jordan lies the meadow-land Merj Ayiin (see Ijox).
The inhabitants of Lebanon have at no time played
a conspicuous part in history. There are remains of
8 Political P ren storic occupation ; but we do not j
.. j even know what races dwelt there in the
history and , . , . , r . . ,-.
DODiilation hlstorlcal period of antiquity. Probably
they belonged partly to the Canaanite but
chiefly to the Aramiean group of nationalities ; editorial
notices in the narrative books of the OT mention
Hivites (Judg. 83, where, however, we should probably
read Hittites ) and Giblites (Josh. 13s ; see, however,
GEBAL, i). A portion of the western coast land was
always, it may be assumed, in the hands of the Phoe
nician states, and it is possible that once and again
their sovereignty may have extended even into the
Buka. Lebanon was also included within the ideal
boundaries of the land of Israel (Josh. 13s [D.,]), and
the whole region was well known to the Hebrews, by
whose poets its many excellencies are often praised .
see. e.g.. Is. 37*4 60i3 Hos. 145-7 Ps.72i6 Cant.4n;
but note that the phrase the wine of Lebanon (Hos.
148) is doubtful : see WINE. Jeremiah finds no better
image for the honour put by Yahwe on the house of
David than the top of Lebanon (Jer. 226). The
cedars of Lebanon supplied timber for Solomon s
temple and palace (i K. 56 2 Ch. 28), and at the re
building of the temple cedar timber was again brought
from the Lebanon (Ezra 87 ; cp JOPPA). These noble
trees were not less valued by the Assyrians ; the in
scriptions of the Assyrian kings repeatedly mention
2759
LEBONAH
the felling of trees in Lebanon and Amanus. Cp
CEDAR ; also EGYPT, 33.
In the Roman period the distiict of Phoenice extended into
Lebanon ; in the second century Phoenice, along with the inland
districts pertaining to it, constituted a subdivision of the pro
vince of Syria, having Emesa (Horns) for its capital ; from the
time of Diocletian there was a Phoenice ad Libanum, with
Emesa as capital, as well as a Phoenice Maritima of which
Tyre was the chief city. Remains of the Roman period occur
throughout Lebanon, and more especially in Hermon, in the
shape of small temples in more or less perfect preservation ; the
splendid ruins of Baalbec are world-famous. Although Christi
anity early obtained a footing in Lebanon, the pagan worship,
and even human sacrifice, survived for a long time, especially in
remote valleys such as Afka. The present inhabitants are for
the most part of Syrian (Aramaean) descent; Islam and the
Arabs have at no time penetrated very deep into the mountain
land.
Ritter, Die Erdkunde von Asien; Die Sinai - Halbinsel,
Palastina, u. SyrienC^ (1848- 1855) ; Robinson, Later Riblicai
Researches in Palestine ami the adjacent
9. Literature. Regions (1856), and Physical Geography
of the Holy Land (London, 1865); R. F.
Burton and C. F. Tyrwhitt Drake, Unexplored Syria (1872);
O. Fraas, Drei Monate ii Lebanon (1876); Porter, Handbook
for Travellers in Syria and Palestine (1858,12 1875); Socin-
Benzinger, Palestine and Syria! 3 ) in Baedeker s series of hand
books for travellers (ET, 1898); GASm. HG 45 ff. (1894;
additions, 1896). For maps see Burton and Socin-Baedeker, also
Van de Velde s Map of the Holy Land (Gotha, 1858 ; Germ, ed.,
1866), ami the Carte du Liban d"apres Us reconnaissances de la
brigade topographique du corps expfditionnaire de Syrie en
1860-61, prepared at the French War Office (1862). A. S.
LEBAOTH (n lN3/), Josh. 15 3 2. See BETH-LEBA-
OTH. and note that Lebaoth and Bealoth (Josh.
152 4 ) are probably the same name. Cp BAALATH-
BEER.
LEBB-fflUS (AeBB&ioc or AeBaioc [NL]) occurs in
AV (cp TR) of Mt. 10s as the name of the apostle who
was surnamed (o eTTiKAHGeic) THADIXEUS \_q.v.\
The conflate reading of TR is from the Syrian text ;
Ae/3/3. is a strongly but insufficiently supported Western
reading, adopted by Tischendorf in Mt. 10 3, but not
in Mk. 3i8. If Ae/3/3cuos = "aV, we may with Dalman
(Pal. Gram. 142, n. i ; cp Worte Jesn, 40) compare
the Phoen. xaV and Sin. xaS- It is possible, however,
according to WH, that the reading Ae/3/J. is due to an
early attempt to bring Levi (\ei>eir) the publican (Lk.
527) within the number of the Twelve. Cp LEVI.
Older views (see Keim, Jesu von Nasara, 2310 ; ET
8380) are very improbable.
LEB-KAMAI ("PP/3 1 ?, the heart [i.e.. centre] of
my adversaries ; cp Aq. AV), usually taken to be a
cypher-form of Kasdim (D^T;*?), Chaldasa ; BXA1 2,
however, has XAAAAioyc. or -Aeoyc (Jer. 51 1), and
Giesebrecht and Cornill place c iso in the text. Cer
tainly, Leb-kamai might be the trifling of a very late
scribe, a specimen of the so-called Athbash-writing (on
which see SHESHACH). It is possible, however, that
it is a corruption of VnDnT (Jerahmeel), and that Jer.
50 51 is directed against the much-hated Erlomites or
Jerahmeelites, as well as against the Chaldreans. So
Cheyne in Crit. Bib. See MERATHAIM, PEKOD.
Other cyphers were known as n3 3N ar> d D^ ^N, on which see
Buxt. de Abbrev. Hcb. and Leric. Chald. s.v. ; (for an alleged
example of the C^ SN species, see TABEEL).
LEBONAH (rm; THC AeBtoNA [B], TOY AI-
BANOY THC AeB. [AL]), or (since llbonah, frankin
cense, was not a Jewish product) Lebanah or Libnah,
a place to the N. of Shiloh (Judg. 21 19), identified by
Maundrell (1697) with the modern el-Lubban, a poor
village on the slope of a hill 3 m. WNW. from Seilun
(Shiloh), with many old rock tombs in the neigh
bourhood. The story in Judges mentions Lebonah in
connection with a vintage -festival at Shiloh. This
suggests to Neubauer (Gtogr. 83) that Beth-laban in the
mountains (cp NAZARETH) from which wine of the
second quality was brought for the drink offerings
in the temple (MtndkStk9j) may be our Lebanah
( Lebonah).
2760
LECAH
LECAH (PD?; AH X A [B]. -AA [A], AAIXA [L]),
apparently the name of a place in the territory of
Judah, descended from Er b. Shelah, iCh. 421. If
so, it is perhaps an error for Lachish (Meyer, Entst.
164). More probably, however, mySi ns 1 ? 3N is a cor
ruption (with some dittography) of "?Narn\ and the
meaning is that MARKSHAH (q.v. ) was of mixed Judahite
and Jerahmeelite origin. T. K. c.
LEDGES. For D aVty, ttlabblm (from aW ; cp Syr.,
of the rung?, of a ladder; -riav f^exo^fviav) i K. 728/Tt;see LAYER.
For niT, yadoth (a.s>\i\ xetpii/ [BA], RV stays ), i K. 7 3$f.,
see LAVEK. For 33 13, karkob (ecrxa-pa bis [BAF] in Ex. 27 5),
arula, Ex. 27 5 38 4 t, RV (A V compass ), see ALTAR, 9 a.
For miy, \iztirtiA, Ezek. 43 14 17 20 (lAaoTiJptoi ) 45 ig(iep<$y),
RVnig. ledge, EV settle, cp ALTAR, 4 ; also MERCY SEAT.
LEEKS. The word T Vn, hdslr, which usually
means grass (see GRASS), is in Nu. 11s rendered
leeks by all the ancient versions. Although the
correctness of this interpretation cannot be exactly
proved, it has all tradition in its favour and harmonises
well with the context. The leeks of ancient Egypt were
renowned (Plin. HN, xix. 33 no) ; and rxn is used
in this sense at least once in the Talmud (Low,
228). The garden leek (Allium Porrum) is only a
cultivated form of Allium Ampeloprasum, L. , which is
a native of Syria and Egypt. N. M. w. T. T. -D.
LEGION (AepooN [Ti.WH]), Mk.5gis Lk.8 3 o.
See ARMY, 10 ; GOSPELS, 16.
LEHABIM (D nr6), one of the sons of Mizraim,
Gen. 10 13 (A&BieiM [AEL]) = i Ch. 1 nt (A^BeiN
[A], AABieiM [L]), either a by-form or a corruption of
LUBIM (q.v.).
Another possible view is that D 3n? comes from D [n].J73 =
D [j]]n?3. Baalah was in the S. of Judah towards Edom (Josh.
1529). This stands in connection with a hypothesis respecting
the name commonly read Mizraim which explains a group of
difficult problems, but deals freely with MT. See MIZRAIM ;
Crit. Bib,
LEHI pnp, i.e. , jawbone ; in Judg. 15g Aey[e]l
[BA], Ae\6l [L], and in Judg. 15i 9 CN TH ClAfONi
[B], THC ClAfONOC [AL], in Judg. 15 14, ciAfONOC
[BAL]) or, more fully (v. 17), RAMATH-LEHI (Tip DEI,
i.e., the hill of the jawbone, IiAI -, &N<MpeciC
ClApONOC; riOl is surely not an explanatory gloss
[Doorninck]), the scene of one of Samson s exploits
(Judg. log 14 17 19). According to most scholars the
place derived its name from something in its shape
which resembled a jawbone (cp the peninsula Onu-
gnathus in Laconia), upon which resemblance the popular
wit based a legend. The explanation of Beer-lahai-roi
proposed elsewhere (JERAHMEEL, 4 [c]), however, sug
gests the conjecture that Lehi and Ramath-lehi are
early corruptions of Jerahmeel. There were probably
many places of this name. If so, the place derived its
name from some ancient written source, the text of
which had become corrupted.
Most scholars since Bochart (to Driver s list add now Bu. and
H. P. Smith) have found a reference to the same place in 28. 23 n
(reading were gathered together to Lehi, !Tri{? [en-i viayova,
L ; eis TOTTOV <ria.y6va, Jos. Ant. vii. 123] instead of fl ITJ [ei?
0>;pi a, BA]). The omission, however, in i Ch. 11 13 shows
that the same words and the Philistines were gathered together
to battle occurred in the Chronicler s text of the narrative of
2 Sam., both in v. 9 and in v. n. rrn 1 ?, therefore, must be a
fragment of nsnSaS, to battle (Klo.). The scene of the exploit
was probably the valley of Rephaim (read with Chr. CV *EDNJ,
were gathered together there, refening back to v. 9 [see PAS-
DAMMIM]).
As to the site of the Lehi of Judges, we know from
Judg. 158- I3 , that it lay above ETAM (q.v. ), and Schick l
identifies it with a hill (with ruins) called es-Siyydgh
ff. The name Siaghah is attached to the
shoulder of the mountain above Ayiin Musa, called Jebel Nebfi
(PEFQ, Oct. 1888, p. 184). Cp PISGAH.
2761
LEOPARD
(from ffiaywv?), at the mouth of the Wddy en-.\~ajtl,
and mentions a fountain called Ain Nakura to the east
Conder (Tent-work, 1276), has a still more far-fetched
identification. See EN-HAKKORE, and, on the legend
and its explanation, see, further, JAWBONE, Ass s.
T. K. c.
LEMECH (TO?), Gen. 4 18 5 25 AV m sr-, EV LAMEC?
LEMUEL fatfttfy, pNiO 1 ?, [belonging] to God ?
see NAMES, 22, 37) the name of a youthful king,
mentioned, if the text is correct, in Prov. 31i4. : The
form, however, though possible, is improbable (see
LAEL) ; if a name is intended, the present writer thinks
it is probably Jerahmeel ; we might with much prob
ability read mtlek yUrahmi cl, a king of Jerahmeel.
The following word massd can mean neither poem
nor a supposed Arabian kingdom ; it should rather be
mdsdl (Gratz, Bickell). Bickell, however, thinks that
VND^, in v. 4, has arisen out of Vc 1 ? in D 3^oS (written
D SNSo 1 ?, as in 2 S. 11 1). 2 ^Nia 1 ? was then supposed to be
a personal name, hence the repetition of DoSc Stf after
it. From v. 4 ? was copied into v. i. This would
require the rendering, The words of a [nameless] king,
a wise poem which his mother taught him. The former
view seems preferable. Cp AGUR, PROVERBS, also
Bickell (ZjO/5297) ; Del. and Toy, ad loc.\ Cheyne,
Job and Solomon, 154, 171. T. K. C.
LEND (mjpn, Ex. 22 24 [25]; AANizeiN Lk. 634),
and BORROW (TW, Ex. 822; AANICACGAI, Mt. 5 4 2).
See LAW AND JUSTICE, 16 ; TRADE AND COM
MERCE.
LENTILES, RV lentils i.e., En um lens, L.
(D^CHi;, dddsim; (h&KOC; Gen. 2034 2 S. 17 28 23 n
Ezek. 4gf ; cp also Mish. Shabb. 7 4 often), rightly so
rendered by all the ancient versions, as is shown by the
use of the Ar. adas for the same plant to this clay
(BR\^d). The pottage [TTJ] which Esau obtained
from Jacob he called dm (CIN). As lentil-pottage,
which is one of the commonest among simple people
at the present day, is of a peculiar brownish green, 3
MT must be wrong in vocalising dm in v. 30, adorn,
red. Read Uddm Arab, idam, a by-dish (cp col.
1333, n. 2 ) : Feed me with some of the idom, that idom.
The nutritive properties of lentils are well known.
According to De Candolle (Origine, 257^) W. Asia
was probably the earliest home of the lentil, and it
has been cultivated in that region since the dawn of
history. Cp FOOD, 4, i, col. 1541, and for another
conjectured reference to lentils (2S. 619 i Ch. 163) see
FRUIT, 5, 2.
LEOPARD pEO, Aram. 1O? ; n<\pAd,AlC ; Is. 116
Hos. 13? Jer. 56 13*23 Hab. 18 Cant. 48 Dan. 76 Ecclus.
2823 Rev. 13 2f). A wild beast, noted for its fierceness,
its swiftness (Hab. 18), and its spotted skin (Jer. 1823).
Its name (ndmer) also occurs in place-names (BETH-
NIMRAH, NIMRIM [y</.v.]), which suggests an interesting
enquiry (see below). On the expression the mountains
of the leopards (Cant. 48 || the lions dens ) see CAN
TICLES, 15, col. 693, top. Apart from the textual
phenomena, it is true, we should not be suspicious at
the mention of leopards in Lebanon and Hermon.
Felis pardits may be less common now than it probably was
in OT times ; but it is still found, according to Tristram, round
the Dead Sea, in Gilead and Bashan, and in the wooded
districts of the West. Bloodthirsty and ferocious in the
1 (pRNA has in v. I for ~hs ,N?D? 13^1, oi cfiol Adyoi eiprji-rat
virb 0eoO /3a<riAeW ; and in v. 4 for *?NicS D 3^? "?C, /xera
/SovArJS TTO.VTO. TTOlfl.
2 The scribe began to write C DN^o ?, but wrote by accident
VKD^- As usual, he left the error uncancelled and wrote
straight on correctly. This is no doubt the meaning of Bickell s
condensed statement.
3 This green colour is the colour of the pottage. The raw
husks are brown and the raw grain, stripped of its covering, red.
2762
LEPROSY, LEPER
extreme, it will even kill more victims than it requires, simply
to satisfy its craving for blood. It is in the habit of concealing
itself at wells and at the entrances of villages (Jer. 56), lying in
wait for its prey, upon which it will spring from a great
distance ; it has an appetite for dogs, but men are seldom
attacked, f. pardus has a wide distribution, extending almost
throughout Africa, and from Palestine to China in S. Asia ;
it is also found in many of the larger Kast Indian islands, f.
jubatus (the Cheeta) is scarcer ; it can be found in the wooded
hills of Galilee, and in the neighbourhood of Tabor. _In dis
position it is much less fierce than F. pardus and is com
paratively easily tamed ; in India it is trained for hunting
antelopes, etc. (cp Thomson s statement respecting the panther
in Palestine, LB (1860), p. 444). It has almost as wide a
distribution as its congener ; but does not reach so far K.
The Sinaitic Arabs relate that the leopard was once
a man, but that afterwards he washed in milk and
became a panther and an enemy of mankind (WRS,
Kin. 204). The occurrence in Arabic of the tribal
names namir, dimin. nomair, pi. anmar, and also the
Sab. DTD:N, taken in connection with the above story,
seems to point to a primitive belief in a supposed
kinship with the panther, and it is probable that
the clan which first called itself after the leopard
believed itself to be of one kin with it (cp also the
leopard-skin worn, as is well known, by a certain class
of priests in their official duties). 1 We may further
compare the occurrence of the place-names BETH-
NIMRAH, NIMKIM (qq.v.), and the fact that four
similarly formed names are said to be found in the
Hauran (cp 7,DMG 29437). A place-name po: also
occurs in Sabnean inscriptions. Finally, Jacob of Serugh
mentions bar nemre, son of panthers, as the name of
a false deity of Haran ( ZDMG 29 1 10 ; cp WRS, /.
Phil. 993 ; Kin. 201).* A. E. s. s. A. c.
LEPROSY, LEPER. The word njns. sard ath,
occurs some twenty-eight times in Lev. 13 _/;, also in Dt. 248
2 K. 5 3 (>f. 27 2 Ch. 20 19, and is invariably translated Ac irpa in
, lepra in Vg. The root is jps, meaning originally (probably)
to smite ; the participle I "!* , silril" , is met with in Lev.
13 44/ 143 224 Nu. 62 (Aen-pd?; leprosus\ and jniS3, JHi P,
tnesdra, in Ex.46 Lev. 14 2 Nu. 12 10 28.829 2 K. "111127
738 15 5 2 Ch. _ (} 2o/ 23. NT has Arpa in Mk. 142 Lk. 5 i 2 /,
Aen-pos in Mt. 82 lOa 115 2tJ6 Mk. 1 40 143 Lk. 4 27 7 22 17 12.
In Is. 684 Vg. has et nos putavimus eum quasi leprosum,
where AV has stricken.
The word X^Trpa, in Hippocrates and others, meant
some scaly disease of the skin, quite different from A^<a5
or Xe< * >a " r atr J : of the two le P ra
corres P onds n the whole with psori-
. as . f (scaliness) _ e l e p ha (ntiasi}s with
common or tubercular leprosy. It is probablethat in & the
word lepra was meant to be generic, or to include more
than the X^irpa of medical Greek ; if so, it would have
been a correct rendering of the generic Heb. 3 ( = stroke,
plaga, plague). The lepra of the Vg. , however, became
specially joined in mediaeval medical writings to what is
technically known as leprosy, so that lepra Arabum
meant exactly the same as elephantiasis Gmcorum.
Thenceforward, consequently, all that was said in the
OT of sdrA ath was taken as said of leprosy, which
thus derived its qualities, and more especially its con
tagiousness, not so much from clinical observation as
from verbal interpretation. This confusion belongs not
to the Hebrew text, but to translations and to mediaeval
and modern glosses.
So generically is the Hebrew word used, that two of the
2 Lenrosv of var et es f sdrd ath are in inanimate
(</) houses things viz. , clothes or leather work
(b) garments, j!^ 13 > 47 -rL and - the Wa "? f h U t SeS
(1433-53). The conjecture of some, that
the leprosy of the garment was a defilement of garments
1 See Wilk. Anc. Eg. 1 184, fig. 12, and cp DRESS, 8 ;
ESAU. The origin of the hanging of the leopard s skin in the
house of Antenor (Paus. x. 27 3) is obscure.
2 Among the idolatrous objects destroyed by Hezekiah
(2 Ch. 31 i) and Tosiah (if>., 34 34), the Pesh. enumerates nentri
(MT, C"1C>K, D TDB). To the translators of the Pesh., at any
rate, images of leopards were apparently not unknown.
3 In Ar. the cognate word is used especially of epileptic fits
or the falling sickness.
2763
1 Meaning in
LEPROSY, LEPER
worn by the leprous, is against the sense of the text, to
say nothing of the silence of the context on so essential
a point. Again, the suggestion of Michaelis that the
leprosy of the walls of a iiouse was the peculiar nitrous
exudation or crust that sometimes appears, like a scabby
state of the skin, on newly plastered walls, would imply
that means of a very drastic kind were used against
walls merely because they looked leprous, just as if one
were to root out trees because of bolls and leprous-
looking excrescences on their bark. The leprosies of
walls and garments were real troubles in those things,
which required skill and energy to surmount ; and the
obvious meaning is that they were parasitic invasions of
vegetable moulds or of the eggs of insects.
(a) The description of the house-leprosy (greenish or
reddish patches, lower than, or penetrating beneath the
surface of, the inner wall, Lev. 1437) does not exactly
identify the condition ; but the steps taken to get rid of
it the removal of a part of the wall, the scraping of
adjoining parts, the carrying of the dust so scraped off
to an unclean place, the rebuilding, the replastering, and
the resort to still more thorough demolition if the first
means had not been radical enough and the plague
had come again are very much in the manner of
dealing with dry rot ; whoever has had occasion to
eradicate that spreading fungus from some wall or
partition, will see the general fitness of the steps to be
taken, particularly of the precautions against leaving
any spores lurking in the dust of neighbouring parts.
The mycelium of the dry-rot fungus (Polyforus destructor, or
Merulius vastator, or M. lachrymeins) not only eats into wood
work, but may form between the lath and plaster and the stone or
brick, large sheets of felt-like texture, half an inch or more thick,
the fresh broken surface of which will look greenish yellow or
red. It is most apt to come in damp structures shut out from
the circulation of air. Without contending that the plague, or
the fretting leprosy (1851, DlNpS njnx, perhaps rather a malig
nant leprosy) of the walls of a house was precisely the dry-rot
that it was
mould of the same kind.
of northern countries, one must conclude
vas a parasitic
(b} The leprosy of the garment (Lev. 1847-59) vvas m
woollen, or linen, or in any work that is made of skin.
This excludes the suggestion of Michaelis that it may
have been a contagion of the sheep clinging to its wool.
A greenish or reddish colour, and a tendency to spread,
are the chief indications given as to its nature. If it
changed colour with washing, it might be cured by
rending out the affected piece ; otherwise the garment
or article made of skin was to be burned. Such marks
are perhaps too general for scientific identification ; but
there are various moulds and mildews (such as Afucor
and Penicillium), as well as deposits of the eggs of
moths, which would produce the appearances and effects,
and would call for the remedial measures of the text.
Such being the probable nature of two of the varieties
of sard ath namely, parasitic spreading moulds or
_ _ fretting insects upon inanimate substances
3. Leprosy
. _ ,* f we shall probably not err in discovering
J the same parasitic character in some, if
not in the whole, of the human maladies in the same
context. The most clearly identified of the parasitic
skin-diseases are the plague upon the head or the beard,
or the scall 1 (pna, Lev. 1829-37), and the leprosy causing
baldness (v. 42). These are almost certainly the con
tagious and often inveterate ringworm, or scald-head,
mentagra, or sycosis, of the hairy scalp and beard. To
them also the name of leprosy is given ; and indeed
the most striking part in the ritual of the leper, the
rending of the clothes, the covering the lip, and the
crying out unclean, unclean, follows in the text im
mediately upon the description of an affection of the
head which was probably tinea decah-ans (ringworm),
orfavus, tinea favosa (scald-head), which are still com
paratively common among poor Jews as well as Moslems
(this, says Hirsch, is perhaps to be explained by their
1 An eruption of the skin. The word is connected with scale ;
cp Chaucer, under thy locks thou mayst have the scall [so Mr.
Scrivener].
2764
LEPROSY, LEPER
religious practice of always keeping the head covered).
J ityriiisis versicolor, which affects the trunk especially,
and produces spots of brownish or reddish discolora
tion, is another parasitic skin disease common among
the same classes [cp Schamberg 1 (commenting medically
on Lev. 13)]. The white spots often referred to probably
included leucoderma or vitiligo.
Vitiligo is a disease not uncommon in the darker-skinned races,
being characterised by white spots, bounded by dusky red,
especially on the face, neck, and hands, and on hairy parts such
as the scalp, armpits, and pubes. The disease begins as white
dots, which spread slowly and may become large patches. In
the negro they produce a piebald effect ; they occur also in the
horse and the elephant. The chief reason for discovering vitiligo
among the varieties of sara ath is that the reiterated symptom of
patchy whitening of the hair in Lev. 13 is more distinctive of that
disease than of any other. On the other hand, vitiligo is not
contagious, is not attended by rawness of the flesh, and admits
of no cure. If it be the disease in which patches of hair
turned white (as Kapori and other dermatologists suppose), the
prominence given to it must have been superstitious (elephants
with vitiligo are sacred). As a matter of practical concern,
scabies or itch ought to have found a place ; its best sign is the
sinuous white line marking the track of the female acarus
through the epidermis, but none of the references to a white
spot is precise enough for that ; however, scabies may have been
diagnosed by its attendant eruptions (various) which would be
included under rising or eruption.
The disease of 1812-17, which was placed in the clean
class because it concerned all the body, may have been
psoriasis ( English leprosy ), a scaly disease in which
the characters of brightness and whiteness of the
spots are most marked ; when complicated with eczema,
as it often is, the element of raw flesh would come in,
and therewith perhaps the priestly diagnosis of unclean-
ness. On the other hand, the dull white tetter of
vv. 38 and 39 is clean. For none of these diseases are
the written diagnostics at all clear ; but within the meagre
outline there may well have been a more minute know
ledge preserved by tradition in the priesthood. It is
only in P that the subject is handled at all ; JE make
no provision whatever for the diagnosis, isolation, etc.,
of diseases.
The chief question remains, whether true leprosy is
anywhere pointed at by the diagnostics.
It may be doubted if any one would ever have dis
covered true leprosy in these chapters but for the trans
lation of mrd ath in ( and Vg. Even those (Hensler
and others) who identify white or anaesthetic leprosy
with the white spots, bright spots, white risings, or the
like, do not profess to find any traces of tubercular
leprosy, which is the kind that lends itself most obviously
to popular superficial description, and is the most likely
form of the disease to have received notice. The strongest
argument of those who discover true leprosy in Lev. 13
is that it would have been important to detect the disease
in its earliest stage, and that the beginnings of all cases
of leprosy are dusky spots of the skin, or erythematous
patches, which come and go at first, and then remain
permanently, becoming the white anaesthetic spots of
one form of the developed disease, and the seats of
nodules (of the face, hands, and feet) in the other. This
line of argument assumes, however, a scientific analysis
of the stages of leprosy such as has been attained only
in recent times (igth cent.).
It will be convenient to set forth briefly some characters
of leprosy, as they are uniformly found at the present time in
many parts of the globe. A case of leprosy that
t. irue would be obvious to a passer-by is marked by a
leprosy, thickened or nodulated state of the features, especi
ally of the eyebrows, the wings of the nose, the
cheeks, the chin, and the lobes of the ears, giving the face some
times a leonine look (leontiasis), or a hideous appearance (satyri-
as-s). The same nodules occur, also, on the hands and the feet,
or other exposed parts of the limbs, making a thickened, lumpy
state of the skin, whence the name elephantiasis? In some
cases the nodules on the fingers or toes eat into the joints, so
that portions of the digits fall off, the stump healing readily as
1 J a Y F. Schamberg, M.D., The nature of the Leprosy of
the Bible, reprinted from the Philade Iphia Polychrome, vol. vii.,
nos. 47_/C (igth and 26th Nov., 1898).
3 Especially associated by the ancients with Egypt ; cp Pliny,
xxvi. 1 5, Lucret. 6in 4 /
2765
LEPROSY, LEPER
in an amputation (lepra mutilans ).^ Nodules in exposed situa
tions, or subject to friction and hurts, are very apt to become
sores, yielding a foul sanies which may make a sordid crust.
Besides the skin, certain mucous membranes become the seat of
nodules or thickenings the front of the eyeball (fatinus
leprosus), the tongue and mouth, and the larynx, the thickened
and roughened state of which reduces the voice to a hoarse tone
or husky whisper. These are the most superficially obvious of
all the signs of leprosy, forming together an unmistakable
picture.
A large part of all leprosy, however, perhaps the half, wants
these more obvious characters. A person may be truly leprous,
and have nothing to show for it in the face, or on the hands and
feet perhaps only a nodule here and there along the course of
the nerves of the arms or other part. Many cases, again, have
only a number of blanched or discoloured patches of the skin, in
the same situations where other lepers have nodules or tubercles ;
these correspond to the variety of white leprosy, or macular
leprosy (lepra albicans, waculosa, etc.). The macular and
nodular characters may concur in the same person.
Underlying all these external marks, whether nodules or spots,
is the most significant of all the morbid changes of leprosy the
loss of function in the nerves of the skin. Based upon that was
one of the mediaeval tests to prick the skin along the course of the
posterior tibial nerve behind the ankle on the inner side. In the
modern pathology of the disease, the disorganisation or degenera
tion of the nerves is recognised as fundamental ; it leads to loss
of sensibility, to loss of structural integrity or of tissue-nutrition,
and to a profound lowering of the whole vitality and efficiency
of the organism, whereby leprosy becomes a much more serious
affection than a mere chronic skin-disease. These more profound
characters of the disease, it need hardly be said, are nowhere
reflected in the biblical references.
The causes of this great and incurable constitutional disorder
are believed by many to be something corrupt in the staple food.
One of the most probable dietetic errors, known to prevail in
many, if not in all, parts of the world where leprosy is now met
with, is the eating of fish in a semi-putrid state very often the
more insipid and worthless kinds of fresh-water or salt-water fish
which are preferred in a half-corrupt state of cure on account of
the greater relish. The dietetic theory of the cause of leprosy
does not exclude, of course, other corrupt articles of food besides
fish, the mediaeval writers enumerating several such. Also it is
probable that various unwholesome conditions of living must
work together with corrupt diet, and that there must be a certain
susceptibility in the individual constitution or temperament,
which would be handed down and intensified by descent and
intermarriage. It should be said that the dietetic theory is not
received by all, and is apt to be resisted by those bacteriologists
who make the bacillus lepne the sufficient cause. A primary
dietetic cause does not conflict with a certain possibility of
transmitting leprosy by infection. An acquired or inherited
constitutional malady may develop an infective property ; the
one character does not necessarily exclude the other ; but in
experience it appears that leprosy is seldom produced by any
other means than habitual errors of nutrition (or other endemic
conditions) in the individual or his ancestry.
i. In antiquity this disease was specially, and indeed
exclusively, associated with Egypt circum flumina
6. History
Nili
neque prasterea usquam, says
of leprosy Lucretius ( 6l "3/)- Perhaps
* 3 tion was onlv because other cou:
the limita-
ountries were
less familiar ground. Herodotus does not mention
leprosy in Egypt ; but he says enough (277) on the use
of uncooked fish and on the ways of curing fish, fowl,
and other animal food, to make leprosy probable accord
ing to the etiological theory. On the other hand, he
mentions (1138) a certain skin-disease of the Persians,
\evK7j, sufferers from which were obliged to live outside
the towns. In a passage of Hippocrates (Progn. 114)
this white malady is one of a group of three skin-diseases
\fiXyves KCLL \4irpai Kal XfVKai. A high antiquity is
assigned to leprosy in Egypt by certain legends of the
Exodus, which are preserved by late Greek writers
(especially the Egyptian priest Manetho) known to us
from Josephus s elaborate reply to them in his apology
for Judaism (Contr. Ap. 12634; cp Ant. iii. 114). Cp
EXODUS, 7.
One form of the legend is that leprous and other impure
persons, to the number of 80,000, were separated out and sent to
work in the mines or quarries E. of the Nile, that they were
afterwards assigned a city, and that Moses became their leader.
Another form of it is that the Jews in Egypt were leprous and
scabby and subject to certain other kinds of distempers, that
they begged at the temples in such numbers as to become a
nuisance, and that they were eventually got rid of the lepious
by drowning, the others by being driven into the desert.
Behind these legends there is the probability that the
1 This appears to be alluded to in Dt. 28 35 where the smiting
in the knees and legs is specifically mentioned.
2766
LEPROSY, LEPER
enslaved population of Egypt, occupied with forced
labour in the Delta, would have been specially subject
to those endemic influences (including the dietetic) which
gave the country an ancient repute for leprosy. Still, if
one person in a hundred, whether of the enslaved foreign,
or the free native, labourers, was leprous, it would have
been a rather larger ratio than is found anywhere at
present in the most wretched circumstances. Whilst it
is thus probable that there were cases of true leprosy in
the early history of Israel, no extra-biblical reference to
it in Palestine occurs until the first century B.C. The
army of Pompey was said to have brought leprosy to
Italy, for the first time, on returning from the Syrian
campaign of 63 B.C. (cp Plut. Symp. 7g) ; which should
mean, at least, that the disease was then prevalent in
Syria, as it has probably so remained continuously to the
present time (communities of lepers at Jerusalem, Nablus,
and other places).
ii. The individual cases of leprosy in the OT, how
ever, are not all clearly the true disease. Miriam s
leprosy, Nu. 12 iof., appears to have been, in the mind
of the narrator, a transient thing. The four leprous
men outside the gate of Samaria during the siege by
Benhadad (2 K.. 7s) are sufficiently like the groups of
lepers under a ban in mediaeval and modern times. On
the other hand, the leprosy ascribed to Naaman (2 K. 5),
who had perfect freedom of intercourse with his people,
looks like some more tractable skin-disease. Nor is it
perhaps unlikely that the curative direction of the prophet,
if we assume a generic truth in it, was dictated, not
merely by a belief in the sanctity of the river Jordan, but
also by an acquaintance with the medicinal properties
of some spring in the Jordan valley. At any rate, the
prophet s method of healing has strong pagan affinities.
Thus Pausanias(v. 5 n, Frazer) tells us that in Samicum,
not far from the river, there is a cave called the cave of the
Anigrian nymphs. When a leper enters the cave he
first prays to the nymphs and promises them a sacrifice,
whatever it may be. Then he wipes the diseased parts
of his body, and swimming through the river leaves his
old uncleanness in the water and comes out whole and
of one colour. The other OT case is that of king
Uzziah (or Azariah), who was a leper unto the day of
his death, dwelling in a several house l (2 K. 15s/. ) ;
he was stricken because he encroached upon the pre
rogative of the priesthood (2 Ch. 2616-23). As regards
Job s disease, the allusions to the symptoms may be
illustrated by the authentic statements of careful Arabian
physicians translated by Stickel in his Bitch Hiob (1842),
p. 169 /. One of these may help to justify the references
to bad dreams and (perhaps) suffocation in Job 7 14 f.
During sleep, says Ibn Sina (Avicenna), frequent atra
bilious dreams appear. Breathing becomes so difficult
that asthma sets in, and the highest degree of hoarseness
is reached. It is often necessary to open the jugular vein,
if the hoarseness and the dread of suffocation increases.
iii. In the NT there are only a few notices of
leprosy; but from Mt. 108 it would seem that the cleans
ing of lepers was regarded as specially a work of Jesus
disciples. There is a striking description of the cleans
ing of a leper by Jesus himself in Mk. 1 40-44 (cp Mt.
82-4 Lk. 512-14). There he is said to have touched
the leper, and to have spoken a word of power. The
cleansed man is then told to fulfil the Levitical law of
the leper (Lev. 14 4-10). There is no touch recorded in
Lk. 17 12-19, however, where the ten lepers are told to show
themselves to the priests, and are cleansed on the way.
The Lazarus of Lk. 1620 is only called eiXKO^^cos i.e. ,
ulcerated. It liecame usual, however, to regard him as
the representative of lepers ; and in the mediaeval church
the parabolic Lazarus of Lk. and the real Lazarus of
Jn. 11 were both alike (or perhaps conjointly) associated
with leprosy. Hence lepers were called lazars, and the
1 So AV and RV (with marg., or lazar-house ). The mean
ing of the Heb. n PBnn rra (in Chr. Ktb. me-Bnn n) is un
certain, and the correctness of the text disputed. See UZZIAH.
2767
LEVI
Lazarus of Jn. became a patron saint of leper-houses (as
in the dedication of the great leper hospital at Sherburn,
near Durham, in which Lazarus is joined with his sisters
Mary and Martha). It was perhaps with reference to
the Lazarus whom Jesus loved that lazares or leprosi
were otherwise called pauperes Christi (iath and I3th
cent. ). c. c.
LESHEM (Dt? ; Aece/w and AeceN (&&N) [A],
A<\xeic and A&ceNN (AAK) [B], AeceN (A<\N) [L]), the
name of the northern city Dan, according to Josh. 1947.
Probably it should rather be Lesham, another form of LAISH
(q.v.) ; for the formation cp DB J/ from B J?. So Wellh. dt
Gentifrus, 37 ; CH 15.
LESSAU (AecCAOY [A]), a Mace. 14 16 RV, AV
DKSSAU (q.v.}.
LETHECH (T|^), Hos. 82 EV">e-, EV HALF
HOMER. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
LETTER pap, 2 S. 11 14, etc. ; erriCToAH, Acts
2825). See EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, WRITING.
LETTUS (ATTOYC [A]), i Esd. 829, RV ATTUS =
Ezra82, HATTUSH (i).
LETUSHIM (Dtr-ltt 1 ? ; AAToycieiM [AEL], -pieiM
[D], and Leummim (D EN 1 ? ; Aou>/v\ei/v\ [A], -/v\eiN
[DE], -MieiM[L]), sons of DEDAN (Gen. 25s), the third
in MT being ASSHURIM. In <S five sons are assigned
to Dedan : payovyX ([AEL] i.e. , Sijijrii see REUEL ;
patrov [?7\] [D]), ?a/35e?;\ ([ADEL], i.e., Via-m AD-
BEEL), a<rou/>i/u., Xarowna/u, Xow/xeiytt. In i Ch. 132 the
sons of Dedan are omitted in MT and <S, except by <S A
which enumerates five, as above. Criticism has not
yet led to definite results as to any one of the three
sons of Dedan. If, however, we are right in restoring
the doubtful text of Gen. 106 thus : J And the sons of
Jerahmeel ; Cush, and Mizrim, and Zarephath, and
Kain, and if jtrp-, Jokshan in Gen. 202/. is mis-
written for jtyia, Cushan = t3, Cush (the N. Arabian
Kus), we v may conjecture that mitj N is an expansion
of Diir (Suram or Siirlin) i.e. , cniB J (Gesuram or
Geiurim) that DC taS comes from cntrSs, and ultimately
from cns i ?!i = DnBii (Sarephatham or Sarephathlm), and
that cMoN 1 ? comes from D^KDm 1 (Jerahme elam or Jerah-
me elim). Thus the main difficulties of the two Dedanite
genealogies are removed. For another possible occur
rence of the (corrupt) ethnic []c?aS, see TUBAL-CAIN.
The Tgg. and Jer. (Qita-sf. and Ononi.) assume the three
names to be appellatives, indicating the occupations or modes
of life of different branches of the Dedanites (similarly Hitz. and
Steiner, see articles in L, and cp Margoliouth, in Hastings,
DB 3 99/>). For other guesses see Dillmann on Gen. 25 3, and
cp ASSHUKIM. T. K. C.
LEVI ( ; Aey[e]i. also Aey[e]ic [AE], accus.
AeyeiNi 4 Mace. 2ig), i. Jacob s third son by Leah,
Gen. 2934 (J). The story in Genesis (I.e.) records a
popular etymology connecting Levi with mV, Idvdh,
to be joined (cp Eccles. 815) ; see also Nu. 1824 (P),
where it is said that the tribe of Levi will join itself
to Aaron. Some modern critics too support this con
nexion. Thus Lagarde ( Or. 2 20 ; J// tth. 154^) explains
Levi as one that attaches himself. If so, the Levites
were either those who attached themselves to the
Semites who migrated back from the Delta, therefore
Egyptians, or perhaps those who escorted the ark ;
the latter meaning is virtually adopted by Eaudissin 2
(Priesterthum, 72, n. i). Land, however (De Gids,
Nov. 1871, p. 244, n.), explains bine Levi as sons of
conversion 1 i.e. , the party of a reaction to primitive
nomad religion. But it appears impossible to treat iS
(Levi) as an adjective, against the analogy of all the other
names of Israelitish tribes, and especially against that
1 See CUSH, PUT, and Crit. Bib.
2 ^7, a servant of the sanctuary, from Ij^njji with abstract
or collective signification, Begleitung, Folge, Gefolgschaft.
2768
LBVI
of Simeon and Reuben, and Gesenius s old-fashioned
rendering of Levi ( associatio ) can hardly now be
quoted in support of Land s theory. If Levi is
original it may be best regarded as the gentilic of Leah
(so We. Prol. (3), 146 ; St. A TW 1 i ,6 [1881]) ; NAPH-
TALI (cp frit. Bib.), if an ethnic, may be adduced as
a parallel.
The present writer, however, thinks that Levi is a corrup
tion, and conjectures that LEAH [y.v.] and some at least of her
sons, derived their names, not from animal totems, but from
their ethnic affinities i.e., that Levi comes from Jerahmeel
(pl L =p3 s = pC s = s N21= l ?NSnT ). SeeCrit.BM. Forother
views see We. Heid.C^, 114, n. ((2) O m.); Hommel, AHTz^f. ;
Aufsatze, 1 307". On the Levi-traditions see also MOSES,
SHECHEM.
2. A name occurring twice in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk.
3 24 29!). See generally GENEALOGIES ii., 3/.
3. A disciple of Jesus, called when at the toll-office
(rf\4vi.ot>) , son of Alphceus [Mk.], Mk. 2i 4 Lk. 5 27 t
(XfVfiv, accus. [Ti. WH] ; cp Mt. 9 9 [call of Matthew]).
Three courses are open to us.
(1) We may suppose that this disciple had two names,
one of which (Matthew) was given him by Jesus after
he entered the apostolic circle, and consequently dis
placed the earlier name, as Peter superseded Simon.
The supposition that he had two names might pass;
but the view that one of them was bestowed by Jesus
appears hazardous. There is no evidence that the name
Matthew, the meaning of which is still disputed, was
regarded in the evangelic traditions as having any special
appropriateness to its bearer. It might be better to
conjecture with Delitzsch (Riehm, HWB&, 919 b) that
the full name of the disciple who was called from the
toll-office was Matthew, son of Alphaeus, the Levite
O. 1 !? 1 ! 1 ) ! C P Acts 4 36, Joses who was surnamed Barnabas,
a Levite. It is at any rate in favour of the identification
of Levi and Matthew that the circumstances of the call
of Levi agree exactly with those of the call of Matthew ;
Levi and Matthew are both in the Capernaum toll-
office when the thrilling speech Follow me is addressed
to them. Must not the same person be intended ? May
not Levi be an earlier name of Matthew ? So, among
moderns, Meyer, Olshausen, Holtzmann.
(2) We may suppose that whilst the same fact is
related both by Mk. and Lk., and by Mt., the name of
the man who was called by Jesus was given by Mt. as
Matthew by mistake, the author or redactor of our
first gospel having identified the little-known Levi with
the well-known apostle Matthew, who may very possibly
have been a reXwi/rjs (EV publican ), and was at any
rate regarded by the evangelist as such (so Sieffert,
Ew., Keim \Jesu von Nazara, 2 217] ). We know how
much the re\u)j>cu were attracted to Jesus (note Mt.
9 10 Mk. 2 15 Lk. 15 i 19 2 /); it is very possible that
more than one may have been found worthy to be ad
mitted into his inner circle.
It has been pointed out by Lipsius (Apokr. Apostel-
geschichten) that the fusion of Levi and Matthew is
characteristic of later writers. In the Afeiiologia
Matthew is called a son of Alphpeus and a brother of
James, and in the Breviarium Apostolorum it is said
of Matthew, Hie etiam ex tribu sua Levi sumpsit cog-
nomentum. On the other hand, Lipsius (1 24) mentions
a Paris MS of the gospels (Cotelier, Patres Apost. 1 271)
which identifies the Levi of Mk. with Thaddceus and
Lebbceus, and Lk. s Judas of James. In the Syriac Book
of the Bee (Anecdota Oxon., Sem. ser., i., part ii., ed. and
transl. by Budge) it is said (chap. 48, p. 112) that Levi
was slain by Charmus while teaching in Paneas.
(3) It would be difficult to form a decided opinion
if we could not regard the subject from another and a
somewhat neglected point of view. It will be admitted
that transcribers and translators of Hebrew or Aramaic
names were liable to many mistakes. Now AX0cuos
(cp ALPHAEUS and HELEPH) represents most probably
WM (a derivative of NsSnx, ship ?). Surely it is very
possible that the initial letters N may have become illeg
ible in the document upon which Mt. 9 9 ff. is based.
89 a 2769
LBVITES
There remains fl7, which in Aramaic Hebrew characters
might easily be mistaken for i? i.e., Levi. The original
narrative very possibly had Ilphai the son of Ilphai
by a scribe s error for Mattai the son of Ilphai ; and
it is open to us to hold that Xe/3/3atos = Sin. >Na 7
(Dalman) has also arisen by corruption out of fl^N.
Cp LEKB/BUS.
That Levi appears in the Talmud as a name of Rabbis does
not make Levi a probable name for a common man of Caper
naum. The occurrences in Lk. :i 24 29 are also precarious
supports for the Levi in our text of Mk. and Lk.
T. K. C.
LEVIATHAN. Leviathan (see BEHEMOTH AND
LEVIATHAN ; CROCODILE) is described in Job 41 [40 25-
41]. The last two verses of the description (41 33 [25])
have been misread (cp LlON) and therefore misunder
stood. 1 Who is made without fear is a very question
able rendering; read . . . to be lord of the beasts,
changing niT^a 1 ? into P n Vjia^ There is an exact
parallel to this in Job 40 19, where Behemoth, if we
adopt a necessary critical emendation, is described as
he that was made to be a ruler of his fellows ( it vn
v^an t ljS). Among the other passages which refer to
Leviathan is Ps. 104 26, where there go the ships is
unsuitable to the context. TVJN, ships should cer
tainly be DTjr, dragons (Ps. 74 13 148 7 ; N and n con
founded ; cp Judg. 931), and at the close of the verse
ia~pna >l ? should probably be ^a~CMjS. The psalmist found
this reading in his copy of Job (at 40 19), unless indeed
we suppose that he read there 1 3~prtr^, and copied the
phrase which the Hebrew text (MTand <@) now gives
in Ps. 104 26. The verse becomes There dragons move
along; (yea), Leviathan whom thou didst appoint ruler
therein ; 13 refers to B n (v. 25). T. K. C.
LEVIBATE. See MARRIAGE, 8.
LEVIS. (\eyic [A]), iEsd.9i 4 = Ezra 10 i S , Levite.
See SHAUHETHAI, i.
LEVITES. The Levites (D ; AeyteliTAi) are
defined according to the usual methods of Hebrew genea
logical history as the descendants of Levi
1. Secular (<j e n. 29 34); hence their other name b ne
e Levi ("<h "32). In Hebrew genealogies,
however, we are not necessarily entitled to look
upon the eponym of a tribe as more than an ideal
personality. Indeed, the only narrative in which, on
a literal interpretation, Levi appears as a person
(Gen. 34), bears internal evidence of the intention of
the author to delineate under the form of personification
events in the history of the tribes of Levi and Simeon
which must have occurred after the arrival of Israel
in Canaan. 2 The same events are alluded to in Gen.
49 5-7, where Simeon and Levi are plainly spoken of as
communities with a communal assembly (Ka/ial, Sip) ;
see ASSEMBLY, col. 345.
Simeon and Levi were allied tribes or brothers ; their
onslaught on the Shechemites was condemned by the rest of
Israel; and its results were disastrous to the actors, when their
cause was disavowed by their brethren. The b ne Hamor re
gained possession of Shechem, as we know from Judg. !, and
both the assailing tribes were scattered through Israel, and
failed to secure an independent territorial position. Cp SHECHEM.
The details of this curious portion of the earliest
Hebrew history must remain obscure (cp DINAH,
SIMEON) ; Gen. 34 does not really place them in so clear
a light as the briefer reference in Gen. 49 ; for the former
chapter has been recast and largely added to by a late
writer, who looks upon the action of the brethren in the
light of the priestly legislation, and judges it much more
favourably than is done in Gen. 49. In post-canonical
Judaism the favourable view of the zeal of Levi and
1 The critical emendations are due to Gunkel, Giesebrecht,
and Cheyne.
* Jacob in 34 30 is not a personal, but a collective idea, for he
says, I am a few men, and the capture and total destruction of
a considerable city is in the nature of things the work of two
tribes rather than of two individuals.
2770
LBVITES
Simeon becomes still more dominant (Judith.Oz/; Bk.
of Jubilees, chap. 30, and especially Theodotus, ap. Poly-
histor, in Miiller s fragm.Stijfti an ^ the curse of
Jacob on the ferocity of his sons is quite forgotten. 1 In
the oldest history, however, the treachery of Levi and
Simeon towards a community which had received the
right of connubium with Israel is represented as a crime,
which imperilled the position of the Hebrews and was
fatal to the future of the tribes directly involved.
Whilst, however, the Invites were scattered through
out Israel, their name does not disappear from the
_ . . roll of the tribes (cp Dt. 27 12). In
8. XTUCU? , he blessing O f Moses (Dt. 33), where
tribe. Simeon is passed over, Levi still appears,
not as a territorial tribe, but as the collective name for
the priesthood. The priesthood meant is that of the
northern kingdom under the dynasty of Jehu (on the date
of the chapter, see Deuteronomy, 26) ; and in fact we
know that the priests of the important northern sanctuary
of Dan traced their origin to a Levite (Judg. 17 9), Jona
than the son of Gershom, the son of Moses (Judg. 183o). 2
That the Judrean priesthood were also known as Levites
in the later times of the kingdom appears from the book
of Deuteronomy, especially from 108 /. 18i/I; and we
learn from Ezek. 44 io/ that the Judasan Levites were,
not confined to the service of the temple, but included
the priests of the local high places abolished by Josiah.
It may even be conjectured, with some probability, that the
Levites (like the remnants of the closely-related tribe of Simeon)
had originally settled in Judah and only gradually afterwards
spread themselves northwards. Micah s Levite, as we know,
was from Bethlehem-Judah (Judg. 17 7). :1 But cp MICAH i., 2.
Alike in )udah and in the N. the priestly prerogative
of Levi was traced back to the days of Moses (Dt. 108
33 8) ; 4 but in later times at least the Judrean priesthood
did not acknowledge the Levitical status of their northern
colleagues (i K. 1-31). It must, however, be observed
that the prophets Amos and Hosea never speak of the
northern priesthood as illegitimate, and Hos. 4 certainly
implies the opposite. Presumably it was only after the
fall of Samaria, and the introduction of large foreign
elements into the population of the N., that the southern
priests began to disavow the ministers of the sanctuaries
of Samaria, most of whom can no longer have been
representatives of the old priesthood as it was before
the northern captivity (2 K. 17 28 Judg. 18 30 2 K. 23 20,
in contrast with v. 8 /.).
In the most developed form of the hierarchical system
the ministers of the sanctuary are divided into two
_ _ .. grades. All are regarded as Levites by
d. Lei descent ( cp _ eg ^ Ex ( j 2 _) . but the mass
and priests. of the L ev ; tes are mere subordinate
ministers not entitled to approach the altar or perform
any strictly priestly function, and the true priesthood is
confined to the descendants of Aaron. In the docu
ments which reveal to us the actual state of the priest
hood in the northern and southern kingdoms before the
exile, there is no trace of this distinction.
Perhaps, indeed, it must be conceded to Van Hoonacker
(i95/".) and Baudissin (TL7., 1899^.362; cp also his
Gesch. d. Alt. Priestertums, 113) that Ezekiel has taken
over from the phraseology of the temple of Jerusalem
the distinction between the priests, the keepers of the
charge of the house, and the priests, the keepers of
the charge of the altar, which he refers to as already
1 According to Wellhausen s analysis (JDT1\ 435 /.), the old
narrative consisted of Gen. ^37* n f. 19 25^.* 30 f.. the
asterisk denoting that only parts of the verses marked by it are
ancient. The most satisfactory discussion is that of Kuenen
and Gunkel s commentaries, ad Inc.
2 Read not Manassch but Moses ; see JONATHAN, 2.
3 Cp Budde, Comm. zu Ri. 113 118. Sec also GENEALOGIES
i., 7jv.].
[For the difficult TV ? read with Ball, PSBA, 1896, p.
123, Tp^DH, thy lovingkindnesses.]
2771
LBVITES
existing; but as against Van Hoonacker, Baudissin
observes with justice that we are not entitled to infer
from this that Ezekiel is aware of a distinction be
tween priests (sons of Zadok, or of Aaron) and Levites ;
on the contrary, in 40 45 he uses the designation priests
for those whom he elsewhere calls Levites (44 I0 /. 14
45 5 ). It is better to say that every Levite is a priest,
or at least is qualified to become such (Dt. 108 18 7 ).
The subordinate and menial offices of the tabernacle are not
assigned to members of a holy guild; in Jerusalem, at least,
they were mainly discharged by members of the royal body
guard (the Carians and footmen, 2 K. 1 1 4 RV ; see CARITES, but
also FELETHITES), or by bond slaves, the ancestors of the later
NSthinim in either case by men who might even be uncircum-
cised foreigners (Ezek. 44 7_/.). A Levitical priest was a legiti
mate priest. When the author of i K. 12 31 wishes to represent
Jeroboam s priests as illegal he contents himself with saying that
they were not taken from the sons of Levi. The first historical
trace of a modification of this state of things is found in connec
tion with the suppression of the local high places by Josiah, when
their priests were brought to Jerusalem and received their support
from the temple offerings, but were not permitted to minister at
the altar (2 K. 23 g). 1
The priests of the temple, the sons of Zadok, were
not prepared to concede to their provincial brethren all
4 Countrv the P rivlle S es which Dt. 18 had proposed
" in compensation for the loss of their local
priests. nlinistry . Ezekiel, after the fall of the
temple, in planning a scheme of ritual for the new
temple, raises the practical exclusion from the altar to
the rank of a principle. In the new temple the Levites
who had ministered before the local altars shall be
punished by exclusion from proper priestly work, and
shall fill the subordinate offices of the sanctuary, in place
of the foreigners who had hitherto occupied them, but
shall not be permitted to pollute Yahwe s house in
future by their presence (Ezek. 44 7 ff.). In the post-
exilic period this principle was actually carried out;
priests and Levites are distinguished in the list in
Ezra 2, Neh. 7, i Esd. 5 ; but the priests, that is, the
descendants of the pre-exilic priests of the royal
temple, greatly outnumber the Levites or descendants
of the priests of the high places (cp Ezra 8 i$ff.). Nor
is this at all surprising, if it be remembered that the
duties falling to Levites in the temple had little that
was attractive about them, whilst as long as they re
mained in exile the inferiority of their position would be
much less apparent.
At this time other classes of temple servants, the
singers, the porters, the NETHINIM and other slaves of
the sanctuary (but cp SOLOMON S SER-
5. Singers, etc. VANTS CHILDREN OF), whose heredi
tary service would, on Eastern principles, give them a
pre-eminence over other slaves of the sanctuary, are also
still distinguished from the Levites ; but these distinctions
lost their significance when the word Levite itself came to
mean a subordinate minister. In the time of Nehemiah,
Levites and singers, Levites and porters, are very much
run into one (Neh. 11 ff., see PORTERS), and the absorp
tion of the other classes of subordinate ministers into the
hereditary guild of Levites is at last expressed in the
shape of genealogies, deriving the singers, and even
families whose heathenish and foreign names show
them to have originally belonged to the Nethinim, from
the ancient stock of Levi. Cp GENEALOGIES i., 7 (ii.).
The new hierarchical system found its legal basis in
the priestly legislation, first publicly accepted as an
D -o i integral part of the To rah under Ezra
6. Priestly and Nehemian (ISRAEL, 59). Here
legislation. the exc i usion O f the Invites from all
share in the proper priesthood of the sons of Aaron
is precisely formulated (Nu. 3/) ; their service is regu
lated from the point of view that they are essentially
the servants and hereditary serfs of the priests (39),
whilst, on the other hand, as has already found
vivid expression in the arrangement of the camp in
Nu. 2, they are recognised as possessing a higher
i Baudissin s essentially different view of this verse (223-6)
has been successfully disposed of by Kuenen (Abh.
2772
LEVITES
grade of holiness than the mass of the people. This
superiority of position finds its justification in the
artificial theory that they are a surrogate for the male
first-born of Israel, who, belonging of right to Yahwe,
are handed over by the nation to the priests (cp FIRST
BORN, col. 1526).
The Levites are endowed with the tithes, of which in
turn they pay a tithe to the priests (Nu. 18 21 ff.). These
regulations as to tithes were enforced by Nehemiah;
but the subordinate position of the Levites was hardly
consistent with their permanent enjoyment of revenues
of such importance, and we learn from the Talmud that
these were finally transferred to the priests. Cp TAXA
TION AND TRIBUTE. 1
Another provision of the law i.e., the assignment to
the Levites of certain cities with a definite measure of
inalienable pasture-ground (Nu. 35 Lev. 25 34) was ap
parently never put in force after the exile. It cannot be
reconciled with the prohibition against the holding of
property in virtue of which the Levites in common with
the other needy classes are commended to the com
passion of the charitable.
This prohibition is clearly expressed in the same priestly
legislation (Nu. is 20 2(162), and particularly in D. See e.g.,
Dt. HI 9, Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren ;
IS i. From Dt. IS 6 we gather that the Levites were dispersed
as sojourners in various Israelitish cities i.e.. they had no ter
ritorial possession (cp Gen. 4!> 7). In accordance with this
Ezekiel propounds an idealistic reform according to which the
Levites were to have a domain apportioned to them, where they
were to live together. Josh. 21 (P), i Ch. 18 2 cannot of course
be quoted in support of the prohibition. It should be observed
too that many of the so-called Levitical cities did not become
Israelitish till quite late, and that some of them were so near
each other that the pasture-land assigned to one city would
have overlapped that assigned to its neighbour (e.g., Hebron
and Holon, Anathoth and Almon), whilst the pasture-land of
Hammoth-dor would have included part of the Sea of Galilee.
See Di. Num.-Deut.; Now. HA 2 129; Addis. Hex. 2 448 /.
As the priestly legislation carried its ordinances back
into the time of Moses, so the later developments of
the Levitical service as known in the time of the
Chronicler (on the date, see HISTORICAL LITERATURE,
$ 157) are referred by that author to David (i Ch. 15 1(>
23) or to Hezekiah (2 Ch. 2!)) and Josiah (2 Ch. 35) ; and
by a similar projection of post-exilic conditions into pre-
exilic times, we find, among other modifications of the
original text (such as i S. (5 15 2 S. 15 24 i K. 8 4), various
individuals who had been prominent in connection with
matters of worship invested with the character of
Levites; this has been done not only in the case of
Samuel (comp. i S. 1 i with i Ch. 6 12 f. iSfr.), but even
in that of a foreigner like Obed-edom of Gath. 2 The
chief point is the development of the musical service of
the temple, which has no place in the Pentateuch, but
afterwards came to be of the first importance (as we see
from the Psalter) and attracted the special attention of
Greek observers (Theophrastus, ap. Porph. De Abstin.
ii. 26).
For the reconstruction of the post-exilic history of the
relation of Levites to priests, we are thrown for the
7 Post-exilic most P. art on P ure con J ecture . which,
development.
accordingly, Vogelstein has used with
conspicuous acuteness. He supposes
that the period of prosperity enjoyed by the Levites
under Ezra and Nehemiah was followed by one of
threatening collapse against which they sought and with
success to defend themselves by alliance with the singers
and doorkeepers. The excessive pretensions of the
party thus reinforced, however, led to renewed adversity
(Nu. 1(5), after which they were ultimately able, by
peaceful means (cp the work of the Chronicler), to
G,
Keth ._ ... ,-,,.-. ,
1748, p. 624; and Hottinger, De Decimi s jud., 1713, (i 8 il 17;
cp v. Hoonacker, 60 f. 400 _/., who, on the authority of some
passages in the Talmud, considers the Levites tithe to have
been exacted as early as in Ezra s time.
2 [If the text is correct; on this, see OBED-EDOM: cp also
GENEALOGIES i., 7 [v.] end.]
2773
LEVITES
establish a tolerable modus vivendi. Vogelstein s attempt
is to be accepted at least to this extent : it has con
clusively shown that the post-exilic history of the Levites
did not proceed in a straight line, either upwards or
as Van Hoonacker has tried to make out downwards.
The Levites appear, it is true, to have sunk to a position of
complete insignificance at the close of the history, that is to say
at the close of the OT period; to this Van Hoonacker has very
appropriately called attention. In the NT they are mentioned
only in Lk. Ill 32 Jn. 1 19 and Acts 4 36. If, on the other hand,
their position in Ezra-Nehemiah is only relatively a favourable
one, that is far from justifying Hoonacker s conclusion that
Chronicles, in which they are represented as enjoying a
more favourable position (for the most part comparable to
that of the priests), must be taken as representing the con-
ditionsof pre-exilic times. Baudissin (Rel.-gesch. 45) has shown
that even within the priestly legislation it is possible to trace
a growing respect for the Levites. In his judgment, accord
ingly, we cannot say that in the post-exilic time any con
siderable vicissitudes in the condition of the Levites are to
be observed, and he adds the suggestion, well worthy of
attention, that this fact, coupled with the ultimate subordina
tion of the Levites to the singers and porters, points to the
conclusion that the Levites strictly so-called were merely an
artificial creation a creation of the prophet Ezekiel. 1
Whilst it is not difficult to trace the history of the
rr_ j-*.-^ ! Levites from the time of the blessing
8. Traditional , ...
of Moses and Deuteronomy down-
, ^ , , wards, the links connecting the
Secular and
. . , . ., priestly tribe with the earlier fortunes
priesuy trioe. of the tdbe of Leyi are hardly to be
determined with any certainty.
According to the traditional view, the scheme of the
Levitical legislation, with its double hierarchy of priests
and Levites, was of Mosaic ordinance. There is too
much evidence, however, that in the Pentateuch, as we
possess it, divergent ordinances, dating from very
different ages, are all carried back by means of a
legal convention to the time of the wilderness journey
(cp HEXATEUCH). If, too, the complete hierarchical
theory as held in post-exilic times was really ancient,
it is inexplicable that all trace of it was so com
pletely lost in the time of the monarchy, that
Ezekiel speaks of the degradation of the non-Zadokite
Levites as a new thing and as a punishment for
their share in the sin of the high places, and that no
clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between
priests and Levites has been found in any of the
Hebrew writings that are demonstrably earlier than the
exile. 2 It has indeed been argued that (i) the list of
Levitical cities in Josh. 21, and (2) the narrative of the
rebellion of Korah imply that the precepts of the post-
exilic law were practically already recognized; but (i)
it is certain that there was no such distribution as that
spoken of in Josh. 21 at the time of the settlement,
because many of the cities named . were either not
occupied by Israelites till long afterwards, or, if occu
pied, were not held by Levites.
The Levitical cities of Joshua are indeed largely identical with
ancient holy cities (Hebron, Shechem, Mahanaim, etc.) ; but in
ancient Israel a holy city was one which possessed a noted
sanctuary (often of Canaanite origin), not one the inhabitants
of which belonged to the holy tribe. These sanctuaries had, of
course, their local priesthoods, which in the time of the mon
archy were all called Levitical; and it is only in this sense, not
in that of the priestly legislation, that a town like Shechem can
ever have been Levitical.
(2) So again, the narrative of Korah has proved on
critical examination to be of composite origin ; the parts
of it which represent Korah as a common Levite in
rebellion against the priesthood of Aaron belong to a
late date, and the original form of the history knows
nothing of the later hierarchical system (see KORAH ii).
1 TLZ , 1899, p. 361.
2 Defenders of the traditional view, the latest being Van
Hoonacker, 92 f., have sought such evidence in I K. 8 4.
There are many indications, however, that the text of this
Eart of Kings has undergone considerable editing at a pretty
Ue date. The LXX translators, B 1 -, did not read the clause
which speaks of priests and Levites, and the Chronicler read
the Levite priests (but l& oi iepeis (tat oi Aeueirai) the phrase
characteristic of the deuteronomic identification of priestly and
Levitical ministry.
2774
LEVITES
It has thus become impossible to entertain the idea of
carrying back the distinction of Levites and Aaronites
9. Alternative
in the later sense to an
date
.,
We cannot use the priestly parts of
the Pentateuch and Joshua as a source
for the earliest history. It is probable, however (note
the case of Micah s Levite in Judg. 17/.), 1 that the kin
of Moses had a certain hereditary prerogative in connec
tion with the worship of Yahw (cp Dt. 10 8). In the
earliest times the ritual of Yahwe s sanctuary had not
attained such a development as to occupy a whole tribe ;
but if, as appears probable, the mass of the tribe of
Levi was almost annihilated at an early date, the
name of Levite might very well continue to be known
only in connection with those of the tribe who traced
kin with Moses or remained by the sanctuary. Cp
MOSES, 5. The multiplication of Hebrew holy
places was effected partly by syncretism with the
Canaanites, partly in other ways that had nothing to
do with a central sanctuary, and so arose a variety of
priestly guilds which certainly cannot have been all of
Levitical descent.
It is possible, perhaps, that in some cases where Canaan-
ite sanctuaries were taken over by the Israelites certain
Canaanite priestly families may have contrived to retain
possession of the priestly office. Whether even Zadok himself,
the ancestor of the Jerusalem priesthood, was of Levitical origin
must remain an open question, the answer of Chronicles not
being trustworthy enough to be decisive (see ZADOK, i).
As the nation was consolidated and a uniform system
of sacred law (referred to Moses as its originator) came
to be administered all over the land, in the hands
of the ministers of the greater sanctuaries, the various
guilds may have been drawn together and have aimed
at forming such a united body as we find described in
Dt. 33. -* This unity would find a natural expression in
the extension of the name of Levites to all priesthoods
recognized by the State in Ex. 4 14 Levite is simply
equivalent to a professional designation. If this was
the course of things we can hardly suppose that the
term came into large use till the Israelites were con
solidated under the monarchy, and in fact the integrity
of the text in i S. 15, 2 S. 15 24, as well as in i K. 8 4, is
open to question (cp ARK). Down to the time of
David and Jeroboam, as appears from the cases of
Samuel, Zadok, Eleazer (i S. 7 i), as well as from i K.
1231, the priesthood was not essentially hereditary;
but, like all occupations that required traditional
knowledge, it must have tended to become so more and
more, and thus all priests would appear as Levites by
adoption if not by descent.
Thus also, doubtless, the great number of the priests at Nob,
who are reckoned as of the family of Ahimelech, but can hardly
all of them have been personally related to him, is to be taken
as evidence of the effort to maintain the fiction of a priestly
family as deriving its coherence from common descent. 3 The
interesting parallel case of the Rechabites shows us how easy
to the thinking of those early times was the transition from the
idea of official relationship to that of relationship by blood.
Wellhausen (Prol. (">>, 139 /".) has argued from Dt.
33 9 that the northern priesthood was not an hereditary
guild, but involved the surrender of all family con
nection ; the words, however, are more naturally
understood as praise of the judicial impartiality which
refused to be influenced by family ties. Our data
are too scanty to clear up the details of this interesting
piece of history; but it can hardly be doubted that the
development of a consolidated and hereditary priestly
corporation in all the sanctuaries was closely bound up
with the unification of the state and the absorption of
tribal organisation in the monarchy. The reaction of
1 See MICAH, 2. Add also that of the family of Eli, i S.
2 27 f. ; cp ELI, JERAHMEEL, 3 (end).
2 Cp Ex. 8-225-29,3 related passage, doubtless secondary,
which reads like a commentary to Dt. i-Wg. In it the choice of
Levi to the priesthood is carried back to a reminiscence of a
(possibly historical) action of vigorous faith on the part of the
fellow-tribesmen of Moses [cp MASSAH AND MERIBAHJ.
* Cp Benzinger, HA 409.
2775
LEVITICUS
tribal feeling against the central Government, of which
there are many traces in the history of Ephraim, has
perhaps its counterpart in the opposition to the unified
priesthood which is alluded to in Dt. 33 n. 1
There have been many attempts on the part of recent
writers from the time of Vatke downwards to deny that
Levi was one of the original tribes of Israel ; but they
all break down before the testimony of Gen. 4<. And
with them break down the attempts at an appellative
interpretation of the name Levi. See LEVI, and cp
Kuenen s refutation of the theory of Land, Theol.
Tijdschr. 5, 1872, pp. 628-670: De Stum Levi, and
Kautzsch, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1890, p. 771 f.
Graf, ZurGeschichte des Stammes Levi, "in Merx s Archiv,
i (1869) 68-106; 208-236: Stade, GV! 1152 /f. See further the
literature cited under PRIESTS. W. R. S. A. B.
LEVITICAL CITIES. See LEVITES, 6, 8.
LEVITICUS.
Name and contents ( i). Other remains of H ( 24).
Sources ( 2, 25). Sources of H ( 25).
P in Lev. *-ln ( 3). Characteristics of H ( 26).
Chaps. 1-7 ( 4-6). Unity of redaction ( 27).
Chaps. ll-l;> ( 7-11). H s relation to Dt. Ezek. P
Chap. Id: Day of Atonement ( 28-30).
(12). Chap. 27 ( 31).
Chaps. 17- 2f>: Contents; H ( Composition of Leviticus ( 32).
13-23). Bibliography ( 33).
The name comes through the Latin Leviticus (sc.
liber) from the title in the Greek Bible, (TO) Aey[e]i-
1 Name and TIKON ( sc - BiBAiON), 2 the Levitical
. t book i.e., the part of the Pentateuch
treating of the functions of the Levites.
Levitical is here equivalent to sacerdotal, of the
Levites in the narrower sense the book has nothing to
say and the name thus corresponds to the Hebrew
torath kbhanlm (a^i r^vn), the priests law, in the
Talmud and Massorah. 8 In Jewish writings the book
is more frequently cited by its first word, M ayyikra
The contents of the book are almost exclusively
legislative; 8, !), 10 in part, and 24 10 ff., though narrative
in form, are to be regarded as precedents to which the
ritual practice is to conform or on which the rule is
founded. In the chronology of the Pentateuch the laws
were revealed to Moses and the events narrated occurred
at Sinai in the first month of the second year ot the
exodus (between the first of the first month, Ex. 40 2 17,
and the first of the second month, Nu. 1 i) ; in Lev.
itself there are no dates.
The book begins with the ritual for the several species of
sacrifice, and defines cases in which certain sacrifices are
prescribed (1-7); then follow: the consecration of Aaron and
his sons; the punishment of Nadab and Abihu for a violation
of ritual, with some consequent regulations (s-lll); definition of
various kinds and causes of uncleanness (11-15); ritual for the
Day of Atonement (Id); a collection of laws of more varied
character, religious, moral, and ceremonial, closing with a
hortatory address (17- ^li: see 14) ; provisions for the commu
tation of vows and tithes (21). For more detailed analysis, see
Driver, hitrod.C ), 42^.; Kalisch, Leviticus, \\ijf.
The immediate continuation of JE in Ex. 32-34 is
found in Nu. 1029-12, 5 nor are any displaced fragments
n _ of IE found in Leviticus. The book
i Sources * , ,
belongs as a whole to the priestly stratum
of the Hexateuch. It is not, however, a unit. Chaps.
17-2(5 come from an originally independent body of
laws having a very distinct character of its own ; they
The attempt which has repeatedly been made to attach this
verse to the blessing of Judah may safely be regarded as un
justified (cp Bertholet ad loc.).
- Philo, Leg. Alleg. 2, 26; Quis rer. div. heres, 51; cp
fV AeiMTutri /3ij3Ao., De plant. Not, 6. See Ryle, Philo and
Holy Scripture, i i f.
:l M. Mtnachoth, 4 3, Kiddushin, 33*?; Massorah Magna,
i K. 11 i, etc.
4 Origen in Euseb. HE 6 25; Jerome, Prol. Gal. See
GENESIS, i.
See EXODUS, 3, vii., NUMBERS, 2.
2776
LEVITICUS
have been redacted probably by more than one hand
in the spirit of the priestly scribes, but not wholly
conformed to P, much less made an integral part of it.i
Nor is the remainder homogeneous: 8-10 belong to
the history of the sacred institutions ; - 8 is the
fulfilment of the command to Moses in Ex. 40 12-14, ano ^
should immediately follow Ex. 40 17-38, from which it is
now separated by the collection of sacrificial laws in
Lev. 1-7 ; 10 is in like manner separated from its
antecedents in 10 by the laws on uncleanness and
purification in 11-15. Neither of these groups of laws
is even artificially connected with the narrative;
both give internal evidence of compilation from in
dependent collections of torotli and of extensive and
repeated supplementation and redaction. The critical
problems in Leviticus are, therefore, not less difficult
nor less important than those presented by other books
of the Hexateuch.
We may best begin our investigation with 8-10. In
Ex. 40 Moses is bidden to set up and dedicate the
p . - Tabernacle (i-n) and to consecrate Aaron
8-10 and his sons to the P riesthood ("-15).
The execution of the former part of this
command is related in Ex. 4017-38; of the latter in
Lev. 8. It can scarcely be doubted that the author
of Ex. 40 17 ff. meant Lev. 8 to follow immediately,
and, consequently, that Lev. 1-7, which now interrupt
this connection, were inserted here by a subsequent
redactor. Lev. 8 describes the performance of the rites
for the consecration and installation of priests prescribed
in Ex. 29 1-35, and is related to that chapter exactly as
Ex. 35 ff. to 25 ff. Ex. 35/". have been found, how
ever, to be a later expansion of the probably very
brief account of the execution of the directions given
to Moses in 25 ff? It follows that Lev. 8, also, belongs
to the secondary stratum, and this inference is con
firmed by internal evidence; 4 but, since Lev. 8 knows
only one altar, it seems to represent one of the earlier
stages in the formation of this stratum. 5 Vv. io b n and
30 are perhaps later glosses.
Chap. !), the inaugural sacrifices, is the original
sequel of Ex. 25-29 in the history of Israel s sacred
institutions. It was probably separated from those
chapters only by a short statement that, after receiving
these instructions (and the tables of the testimony),
Moses descended from the mount and did as Yahwe
had bidden him ; this was superseded by the elaborate
secondary narrative in Ex. 35-40 Lev. 8. 6 The hand
of a redactor may be recognised in v. \ ( the eighth
day, the elders of Israel ) and in the last verses (23^) ;
some minor glosses may also be suspected.
The death of Nadab and Abihu, 10 1-5, is the con
tinuation of 9 and from the same source. The in
junction forbidding Aaron and his surviving sons to
defile themselves by mourning (6 f.) is appropriately
introduced in this place, and such a prohibition may
have originally stood here ; but the present form of the
verses is late (cp 21 10-12). Verses 8/. (cp Ezek. 44 21)
and 10 f. (cp 11 47 20 25 Ezek. 44 23 f.) have no con
nection with their present surroundings; the former
would properly have its place in 21 ; the latter is a
fragment, the beginning of which has been lost. Verses
12-15 are a supplement to 9 i-jo. 21, and would naturally
stand after 9 22 ; 16-20 is a very late passage of midrashic
character, 7 suggested by the conflict between the pro
cedure in 9 15 and the rule in (5 24-30.
The chapters which precede the above (1-7) contain a
collection of laws on the subject of sacrifice.
1 On 17-26 (H) see below, 13 ff.; on the relation of H to
P, 3.
- See HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 9.
3 See EXODUS ii. , 5, ii.
4 Popper, Stiftshutte, g\ff.
5 We. C7/(2> 144/7".; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 15, 16, 18.
6 We. C//( 2 ) 146; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 15, 20.
7 We. CV7( 2 ) 149; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 21 ; Uillm. Exod. Levit.W
518; Driver, Introd.( K ) 45.
2777
LEVITICUS
These comprise: burnt offering (1) ; meal offering (2) ; peace
offering (o) ; sin offering (4); sin (trespass) offering (51-13);
trespass offering (."> i4-(i 7 [5 14-26]). Torah
4. Chaps. 1-7 : of burnt offering (Ii8-i3 > [i-6|) : meal offering
Sacrificial ((114-18 [7-11]); priests meal offering (019-23
laWS. 1 [12-16)1; sin offering (624-30 [17-231); tres
pass offering (7 1-7); certain perquisites of
the priests (8 g/".) ; peace offering (7 11-15) prohibition of eat
ing fat or blood (7 22-27) ; the priests portion of peace offering
(1 28-34) : subscriptions, 35/. 37/1
In this collection of laws it will be observed that 1-6 7
[1-5] are addressed to the people; (>8[i]-72i to the
priests. To this difference in the titles corresponds in
general the character of the laws : 1-6 7 [1-5] prescribe
what sacrifices and offerings the Israelite may bring, or
under certain circumstances must bring; ( >%/. [ijf.]
deal with the same classes of sacrifice, but with more
reference to the priests functions and perquisites. Chaps.
1-7 are not, however, a unitary code of sacrificial laws
in two parts containing directions for the worshippers
and the priests respectively. The different order of the
laws (the peace offering in the first part precedes, in
the second follows, the sin and trespass offering), con
sistent differences in formulation (note in the second
This is the law of, etc.), and, finally, the subscription,
7 37, which belongs to the second part only, show that
68 [i]-7 21 formed a collection by themselves.
Further examination shows that neither part of 1-7 is
entirely homogeneous. Chaps. 1 (burnt offerings) and
3 (peace offerings) are substantially
5. Chap. 1-07. j ntacti anc j are good examples of
relatively old sacrificial tbroth.
Slight changes have been made to adjust the laws to the
historical theory of P: for the priest, which seems to have been
originally used throughout (cp 1 9 I2/". 1517811 16), the redactor
has sometimes substituted the sons of Aaron (85 8), more fre
quently Aaron s sons, the priests (15811 82; cp 17); the
reference to the tent of meeting (1 35828 13) is also editorial,
1 14-17 is a supplement (cp 2).
Chap. 2 1-3 (meal offering) has some resemblance to
1 3, but is at least out of place where it stands 3 should
immediately follow 1 (cp 1 2/. 3i); the rest of the
chapter is differently formulated (2nd sing.; note also
Aaron and his sons ) and must be ascribed to a
different hand.
Chap. 4 (sin offering), 2 with its scale of victims and
rites graduated according to the rank of the offerer,
belongs to a class of laws which seems to be the product
of artificial elaboration in priestly schools rather than
to represent the natural development of the ceremonial.
The altar of incense (7, cp 18) is a late addition to
the furniture of the tabernacle; 3 the ritual of the high
priests sin offering (3-12) is much more solemn than that
of Ex. 29 10-14 Lev - 98-n (cp also 8 14-17) ; the sin
offering of the congregation, which is elsewhere a goat
(9 15 Nu. 15 24, and even Lev. 16), is here a bullock; 4
the same heightening of the propitiatory rites is noticed
here as in the offering of the high priest.
Although 5 1-13 has no title, it is not the continuation
of 4 ; it knows nothing of the distinction of persons
which is characteristic of 4, and differs both in formula
tion and in terminology the very precise author of 4
would not have spoken of the victim as an asam (56/C;
cp 14 ff.). The same reasons prevent us from regarding
5 1-13 as an appendix to 4 by a still later hand. 5 In
5 1-6 much difficulty is created by the apparent con
fusion of hattath and asam ( sin offering and trespass
offering ) , two species of sacrifice which are elsewhere
quite distinct. 6 The verses seem also not to be a unit ;
zf. is not an analogous case to i 4, with which $f. are
1 See Bertheau, Sieben Gruppen, etc., 1457?".; Merx, ZWT
641-84 164-181 (1863*; Kuenen, Th. T4 4927^(1870) ; Hoffmann,
Abhandlungen, 1 84 y/. (from MJGL, 1874).
2 See We. CT/l 2 ) 1387.; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 17; Dr.
Introd.(^ 43.
3 See EXODUS, 5, i., LAW LITERATURE, 21 K.
* On the relation of Lev. 4 to Nu. 15 227?"., see NUMBERS, 19.
r > Kue. Hex. 6, n. ija. We. now (CY/( 3 ) 335/) regards
4 61-13 147?" as independent products of the same school.
6 See SACRIFICE, 2-jf.
2778
LEVITICUS
connected. Verses 145^ are in matter and form cog
nate to i S / 6 2-7 [5 21-26].
The most probable explanation is that in 5 iff. a law pre
scribing a trespass offering has been altered so as to require a
sin offering (5^). The insertion of *f. is more difficult to
account for; for these defilements no sacrifice is elsewhere pre
scribed (see 1124^". \:^Jf. etc. Nu. Hlii^.)- If 2/ are
derived from an old torah, it must be supposed that a specific
case, like that in Nu. (i 12 or in Lev. 7 2oy"., was originally con
templated. 1
The mitigations in 57-10, 11-13 are l ater . an d perhaps
successive, additions (cp 1 14-17). The laws in 5 i$/.
62-7 [522-26] are from a group defining the cases in
which a trespass offering is required (cp 5i 4-6), and
make clear the true character of this sacrifice; if 17-19
is of the same origin, the general phrases of \-ja (cp
42 13 22 27) have probably supplanted a more specific
trespass.
These laws, though probably introduced here at a
comparatively late stage in the redaction and not with
out some alteration, are substantially genuine priestly
toroth; certain resemblances, especially in 62-7 [022-26],
to H in Lev. 17-26 point to proximity, if not to identity
of origin (see below, 25).
Chaps. 6 8 [i]-7 21 contain a series of rules, chiefly for
the guidance of the priests, and, in the introductions
6 Chaps 68-7 - P refixed b y the redactor (6s/. [i/] 24 /
[i 7 /]), addressed to Aaron and his
sons. Each paragraph begins, This is the torah of
[the burnt offering, etc.) ; and the resumptive sub
scription, 7 37, is in corresponding form.
Here, as in 1 3, Aaron and his sons or the sons of Aaron
has sometimes been substituted in the text for the original the
priest"; the court of the tent of meeting (0 16 26 [9 19]) is
editorial, as in 135 etc., and other glosses may be noted,
especially in (i 17^ [ioy.].
The rule for the priests meal offering, 620-23 [13-16],
has a different superscription, and is clearly secondary;
the exegetical difficulties are due to subsequent glosses;
630 [23] depends upon 4 (cp 10 16-20) ; 7 8-10, perquisites
of the officiating priest (cp 29-34), are introduced here
in connection with 7 ; 10 is perhaps later than 9, as the
offering of uncooked flour is later than that of bread and
cakes.
The priestly toroth in these chapters, also, are rela
tively old, 3 and there is no reason to doubt that they
represent actual practice ; they have been preserved with
little material change. 4
Chap. 7 22-27, prohibition to the Israelites (2nd pi.) to
eat the fat of sacrifices and the blood of animals (cp 3 id6
17 17 10-14), stands not inappropriately after 11-21,
but is not from the same source. Substantially the
same thing may be said of 28-34, which, again, are
formulated differently from 22-27. A later hand may
be recognised in 32 (2nd pi.), which is a doublet to 33;
34 (ist sing.) is added by the redactor; 35/1 (cp Nu.
18 8) is the subscription to an enumeration of the priests
dues (35^ doublet to 36a), and undoubtedly late ; observe
the anointing of all the priests, 3 6a (see EXODUS ii.,
Si i-) I 37 s l ie original subscription to the toroth in
6 8 [i]-7 21 (the installation is a gloss referring to
6 19-23 [12-16]) ; 38 is added by a redactor.
Chaps. 11 - 15 are naturally connected by their
dealing with the subject of cleanness and uncleanness
(a), and by certain phraseological
7. Chaps. 11-15 : characteristics (6).
Clean and () The chapters deal with: clean and
unclean." unclean animals i.e., kinds allowed or for
bidden for food (11 1-23) ; defilement by con
tact with unclean animals, alive or dead, and the necessary
purifications (24-38) ; defilement by contact with the carcasses of
1 The latter is the Jewish explanation; Shtbuoth, 14 a 6.
2 On the relation of these chapters to 1-6 7 [141 see above, 4.
3 Chap. <!Q [2] has been understood to speak of the daily even
ing burnt offering, and it is hence inferred that the rule is very
late (after Ezra) ; but the text which is manifestly corrupt
does not warrant so large a conclusion.
4 In addition to the verses mentioned above, 1 12 may reason
ably be suspected.
$ Bertheau, Sieten Crupf>en, etc., 169^?".
2779
TT 1
animals 9 "" 2
LEVITICUS
clean animals (39/1) ; unclean reptiles and vermin (41-44) ; sub
scriptions (44./. 46^".). Uncleanness and purification after child
birth^ lli)- Skin diseases; discrimination of unclean kinds from
innocent eruptions; precautions to be taken in suspected cases;
the isolation of the leper" (1 1-46) ; similar appearances in cloth
and leather (47-59); purification of the leper, offerings (141-32);
leprous spots on the walls of houses and their treatment (33-53);
general subscription ( 54-57 ). Uncleanness from sexual secretions
and discharges in health and disease, in man U& 1-18^ and woman
(19-31); general subscription (32_/l).
(*) A unity of redaction is indicated also by the recurrence of
the phrase, This is the torah of, etc., in the subscriptions ( 11 46
1 27 \ A 59 1432 54 57 IS 32^; cp Nu. f>2i)}; in 142 the words
appear in a title, as they do repeatedly in t>8 [iJ-T 21 (see above,
6).
The distinctions embodied in these laws originate in
a low stage of culture and are there of fundamental
importance. 1 A high degree of elaboration, even of a
kind which appears to us artificial, is not of itself proof
of late development ; savage taboos frequently form a
most complicated system. We have no reason to doubt
that the toroth in Lev. 11-15 are based upon ancient
Israelite, and even prehistoric, custom. As they lie
before us, however, the chapters give evidence of having
been formulated in different schools, and of repeated
literary supplementation and redaction.
The close of chap. 11 (45, cp 44 a) exhibits the
characteristic phraseology and motive of H ( I am
rv> 11 Yahwe, ye shall be holy for I am
holy ) 2 the tdr oth especially in 2 -8
4I f " are S milar t0 many
which are embodied in H (see, e.g.. Lev.
18). It is inferred with much probability that the food
laws in Lev. 11 were included in the holiness code; 8
Lev. 2025 implies that H contained such rules. Laws
on the same subject in closely similar form are found in
Dt. 14,4 probably taken from the same priestly collection
from which H derived them. 5 The food laws of H have
been preserved, however, only with many additions and
alterations; 11 1 2 a 8 ioa/3& n (except iSoNH K^), 12 13-19
in their present form, and much in 20-23 4J-4 2 an d 46 /.,
are to be ascribed to successive, and in part very late,
redactors. Laws on a different subject viz., defilement
by contact with unclean animals (24-38) or the carcasses
of clean animals (39/1) have also been introduced, 6
and these again are apparently not all of the same age;
32-38, in particular, seems to be more recent than the
rest.
The rules defining uncleanness after the birth of a
male (122^-4) or female (5) child, and the requisite purifi-
q _, - _ cations in the two cases respectively (6-8),
PVi i/iv t>i - are formulated in the same way as the
rules in chap. 15 (cp 15 2 b ,6 19 25), with
which chapter they are closely connected by their subject ;
122 fixes the duration of uncleanness by a reference to
loig. There can be little doubt that 12 1-7 originally
stood after 15 30 ; what led the redactor to transpose the
chapter it is difficult to imagine. The title (i 20)
is editorial ; the door of the tent of meeting (6,
contrast the sanctuary, 4) is also secondary; 8,
which follows the subscription, like the corresponding
mitigations in other cases, is a later modification of
the law.
The marks by which the priest is to distinguish the
skin diseases which render the subject unclean, from
ift Pha i * / innocent eruptions (182-44) are care-
lu ; nap 1 V : fully defined, and are manifestly the
" " result of close observation. 8 The sub
ject was an important part of the torah of the priests
(Dt. 248), and one which from its nature is likely to
1 See CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.
2 See below, 26.
3 Horst, Lev. xvii.-xxvi. it. Hezekiel, 34; Wurster, ZA TW
4 i23/. (1884) ; Kue. Hex. 15, n. 5; Dr. Introd.( K ) 59; cp also
Dillmann.
4 See the comparative table in Dr. Deut. 157 ff.
8 See DEUTERONOMY, 10.
Kayser, Vore.rilisch.es Buck, i8o_/". ; Kalisch, 1 I uff.
7 Cp FAMILY, t)Jf.
8 Some scholars have thought that 13/1 are in great part from
H ; see below, 24.
2780
LEVITICUS
have been relatively early fixed in writing; the minute
discrimination of symptoms is not to be taken as evi
dence of recent origin, whilst the rites of purification in
14 2-Sa are of a strikingly primitive character. 1 The
chapters are not, however, entirely of the same age.
The original law contained only 13 2-46** 14 2-8<za, with
the subscription 14 576. The ritual of purification in
14 10-20 is obviously a later substitute for z-8a.
In 8d the leper is already clean, in 10 he is still to be cleansed
(cp 2o<5); the connection in 86 (9) is manifestly artificial. The
ceremonies in 10 ff. are patterned after the consecration of
priests in Lev. (cp 14 14-18 with S 23^ 30 Ex. 2lt zof.) ; the
extravagant number of sacrifices, the exact prescription of the
quantity of flour, etc., are other marks of late date and probably
of the factitious character of the whole law (see above, on chap.
4[S])-
The reduction of the number and costliness of the
victims in the case of the poor (1421-31), witli its inde
pendent subscription (32), is presumably still more
recent. The purification of the leper (14 2-8) is separated
from the law for his seclusion (1045^) by a passage of
some length on spots of mould in stuffs and leather
(1847-58) having its own subscription (59), which would
stand more properly in connection with the rules con
cerning patches of mould on the walls of houses
(1433-53). The association of these fungus growths
with eruptive skin diseases ( leprosy ) is not unnatural,
and would lead to similar regulations for inspection by
a priest, and for the destruction or purification of the
materials affected. Chap. 13 47-59 closely follows the
formulation of 13 zff., and may be a comparatively
early supplement to the law on leprosy, if not of
approximately the same age. Chap. 14 33-53 is not im
probably younger.
The introduction (34), with its reference to the future settle
ment in Canaan, is unlike that of any other of the laws in this
group;- and the adaptation of the ritual for the purification of
the leper to the cleansing of the house (49-53) seems artificial;
these verses may, however, be a still later addition, since in 48
the house is already pronounced clean (cp 18 58, where no
further ceremony is prescribed). The subscription, 54-57, has
been expanded in successive stages.
In chap. 15 a basis of old torah in characteristic
formulation is recognisable, most readily at the begin-
11 Chat) 15- nm S an d tl ie enc > f the several para-
Issues S ra Ph s ; tm s basis seems to have been
enlarged, especially by the multiplica
tion of cases of derivative pollution, and some of these
additions seem to be very late. It is not possible,
however, to discriminate sharply between the original
rules and the subsequent accretions. Verse 31, seem
ingly addressed to the priests (read warn [amnrni]
for separate ), is an appropriate close to a collection
of laws on various forms of uncleanness, and does not
suggest the priestly editor; the subscription, 32-34, has
grown by repeated glosses, ^a only is by the first hand.
The beginning of chap. 16 is connected with 10 1-5
not only by v. i (Rp) but also by its contents. Nadab
12 Chat) 16 anc * Abihu lost their lives by presumptu-
Davo f ous v intruding into the presence of
Atonement.3 Yahw6 carrying unhallowed fire (cp
16 i2/i) in their censers; the fate of
these priests is the occasion of a revelation setting forth
the rites with which Aaron may enter the sanctuary
without incurring the like destruction. 4 In the history
of the sacred institutions, \\\*ff. must, therefore, have
immediately followed the death of Nadab and Abihu in
10 i ff. Not all of 16, however, is from this source; in
2-28 a singular piacular ritual, including the bringing
ot the blood of the victim into the inner sanctuary and
1 See WRS Rel. Sem.W 447, cp 422, 428 n. ; Wellh. Heid.V)
156.
2 Frequent in H; see 26.
3 See Reuss, Gesch. d. A T s, 387; Kue. Hex. 15, n. 32;
Dillm. Exod. Levit.W, yflff. ; Che. ZA 77K15 1537?". (1895) ;
Now. Hebr. Arch, ti&jff. On the analysis: Oort. Th.T
Id i42jT. (1877) ; Stade, GVI l 258 n. ; Benzinger, ZA TW$ 65^.
(1889); Addis, Hex. lj,y>; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby,
Hex. i 164^. See also ATONEMENT, DAY OF.
* Note the absence of the incense altar.
2781
LEVITICUS
the sending away into the wilderness of a scape-goat
laden with the sins of the people (see AZAZEL), has been
united with the prescriptions for Aaron s entering the
holy place; in 29-343 is ordained an annual general
fast day (cp 23 26-32), on which the priest performs
rites not further specified for the purification of the
people and the sanctuary (cp Ezek. 45 18 20). Ben
zinger, in his analysis of the chapter, 1 ascribes the last-
named law to the author of 2-4 6 12 /; it stood in
close connection with *). The elaborate expiatory
ceremonies in 1657-1014-28 represent a much later
development (ATONEMENT, DAY OK, 2) ; the fusion
of the two elements had its basis in the praxis itself; the
younger ritual probably never had an independent
literary existence (ZATW 9 &&/,).
As regards the last point, various indications in the text (e g ,
the repetition of 6 in n) seem to point to the union of two
written sources by a redactor, whilst the complex ritual itself,
with its repeated entrances and exits, 2 is explained more easily
as the result of such a combination than as an evolution in
praxis. It is comparatively easy to separate the expiatory cere
monies of the Day of Atonement (disregarding some minor
glosses sa.fi 7-10 15^/3 i6a 18-22^ 26-29*1*).
The introduction, which doubtless directed that these
rites should be performed annually on a certain day, is
missing; remnants of it may perhaps be preserved in
29^-340, which verses are not an old law of P (Ben
zinger), but give evidence of contamination from Lev.
2826-32, and of various glosses. It is more difficult to
determine just what was contained in the original direc
tions for Aaron s entrance into the holy place ; for in
converting this act into a periodical ceremony and incor
porating it in the ritual of the Day of Atonement the
redactor has made much greater changes in this part of
his material. The essential features appear to be: the
ablution, the vestments (4), the sacrifice of a young
bullock as a sin offering (6), the incense burnt in a
censer on coals taken from the altar (12-14) ; a more
detailed restoration cannot be attempted here.
Chap. 263-45 is a solemn address of Yahwe (i pers.)
to the Israelites (pi.), setting before them the blessings
13 Chan 17 26 4 he w " Bestow upon them if they walk
The Hol nesa n ^ s statutes and observe his com-
_ _ mandments, and the calamities with
Law-Boo*/ whjch he win visjt them if (hey wi|1
not hearken unto him and keep these commandments.
Even apart from the subscription ( 4 6) these are the
statutes and the judgments and the laws (hukk im, mis-
pat tm, torotti) which Yahwe made between him and the
Israelites at Mt. Sinai through Moses the character of
the discourse and its resemblance to Dt. 2<S conclusively
prove that Lev. 26 originally stood at the end of a body
of legislation. The distinctive motives and phraseology
of 26 recur in the preceding chapters in numerous
exhortations to observe the statutes and judgments
therein contained (cp 18 1-5 24-30 1!) 2 36^ 37 20 7 f. 22-26
22 31-33) ; briefer words of similar tenor are interspersed
in other places; note also the occurrence of the char
acteristic phrase, I am Yahwe (with various comple
ments), throughout these chapters from 18 2 to 2645.
It is plain, therefore, that 18-25, or at least consider
able parts of these chapters, come from the law-book of
which 26 is the conclusion. From the prominence
given in it to the motive of holiness, this book has been
called the Holiness Law; 4 it is usually designated by
the symbol H. 5 The characteristic formulas of H
appear first in the introduction to 18 (2^-5), and earlier
critics regarded this as the beginning of the extracts
from that book. 6 More recent scholars are generally of
the opinion that 17 is derived from the same source. "
1 ZA TW)(>sff- (1889); see ATONEMENT, DAY OF, i.
2 See ATONEMENT, DAV OF, 7.
3 For literature see below, 33.
4 See 192 -20726 ->\ 8 etc. The name was given by Klost.
<2X7"8S4i6 (i%jj)=PentateHch, 385.
" Kuenen employs Pj, others PH.
6 So Ewald, Nb ldeke, Schrader, Graf, Colenso, Klostermann.
7 So Knobel; Kayser. Vortxilischtx Buck, ijdjf-, cp &4/;
Kue. Hex. 6, n. 27; Wellh. Cffm 151^".; Horst, Lev. xi ii.
2782
LEVITICUS
A reading of Lev. 17-25 discloses a twofold aspect :
on the one hand unmistakable affinity, in parts, to the
priestly legislation ; on the other hand, much that is
at variance with the usual manner of that legislation, or
lies outside the circle of its predominant interests. Both
in contents and in form 19, for example, resembles Ex.
20-23 and Dt. (cp especially Dt. 23^".) much more
closely than P ; the hortatory setting of the laws and the
emphasis on the motives to obedience, not only in 2<!
but also in the preceding chapters, has no parallel in
P, in which the divine imperative is its own all-sufficient
motive; the phraseology of H is peculiar, and strikingly
different from that of P; 1 finally, there are actual con
flicts between the laws in H and those of P, particularly
in regard to the feasts. 2 The priestly element appears
in many cases to be superimposed, or to supplement the
other. The hypothesis which first suggested itself was,
therefore, that older laws were revised and incorporated
by P, 8 sometimes, as in 18-20, in large masses having
a coherence of their own ; the hypothesis was subse
quently extended to 17-2(i (or 18-2(5) as a whole (see
below 30) .
The parrenetic framework in which the laws are set
(see, eg., 18) is of the same character throughout, and
is somewhat sharply distinguished in style from the laws
themselves, as the example just cited shows. Hence
it seems, further, that the author of the collection H,
whom we may designate as RH, embodied in his work,
without radical change, older titles of torah which had
already acquired a fixed formulation. A comparison of
18 20, on the same subject, is peculiarly instructive in
this regard. The result of this preliminary examination
is, therefore, that in Lev. 17-2(i we have a collection of
laws, not all of the same origin, which have been sub
jected to at least two successive redactions, first by RH,
and second by Rp. 4
The subjects dealt with in Lev. 17-2fi are the following:
domestic animals slaughtered to be offered to Yahwe ; blood
not to be eaten (17); incest denned and
14. Contents Of prohibited (!N); various short command-
Chaps. 17-26. ments, chiefly moral and social (Hi); Molech
worship; another law against incest ( 2(1);
rules for priests: restrictions on mourning and marriage; priests
to be physically perfect; regulations concerning the eating of
consecrated food ; victims to be without blemish ; other rules
about victims {t\f.}\ calendar of sacred seasons (28); the oil
for the lamps in the tabernacle, and the shew-bread ; blasphemy ;
manslaughter and torts (24) ; Sabbatical year and Jubilee (2."i) ;
hortatory discourse (2t>).
The order of these chapters is in general a natural
one; 5 difficulty is made only by the position of 19, by
the repetition of the same subject in 18 and 20, and by
24, which in both its parts seems to be foreign to its
present surroundings. It is clear that Lev. 17-25 do
not contain a complete law-book, such as H presumably
was ; many topics which would have a necessary place
in such a code are lacking. These subjects may have
been omitted by the redactor because they were suffi
ciently treated elsewhere, or may have been transposed
to other connections; some such displaced fragments
may be recognised in Ex.-Num. (see below, 24).
Chap. 17 contains a nucleus of old toroth in brief and
consistent formulation, which has been much expanded
xx-vi. u.Hezekiel; Baentsch, Heiligkeitsgcsetz ; Holz. ; Dr.,
etc. See below, 15.
1 On the vocabulary of H see Dillin. Num. Deut. Jos. 637 /. ;
Dr. IntrodA*") 49/ = Holz. Hex. 411 /: Carpenter and
Harford-Battersby. Hex. 1 220 / See also Baentsch, Heilig-
keitsgesetz, and the works cited in 29, n. 9.
2 Chap. 23. The conflict was noticed by George, Feste
ff. (1835) and Hupfeld (1851^.).
3 Book of Origins ; Ewald.
4 In the following sections R p will be used to designate simply
the priestly editor or editors of Lev. 17-2ti, without anticipating
the question of the relation of this redaction to the composition
of P or of the Hexateuch, on which see below, 32.
> On the arrangement see Horst, 47^. The attempt has
been made in H also (see EXODUS ii. , 4, in. end) to show that the
laws were originally grouped in decads. So Bertheau, Sieben.
Gruppen, etc. ; and Paton in a series of articles in JBL (see
33. *)
2783
LEVITICUS
and altered by later hands. A considerable part of
. c p. . _ this expansion is plainly the work of
SlauSer of Kp ( *" JI/ X4 > ; but there is a wer
biaugnter or. stiatum of editor - s work which is re _
Animals. cognised as RH (f-g-, $a,a.b 70, \ob).
The most interesting case of this double redaction is
found in 3-7.
The original law seems to have run : Any Israelite who
slaughters a bullock or a sheep or a goat and does not bring
it into the presence of Yahwe, blood shall be imputed to that
person (i.e., he shall be regarded as haying eaten flesh with
the blood ; cp i S. 14 32-34) ; a redactor introduced the words
the dwelling of (iitiikati) before Yahwe ; 2 the references
to the camp and the door of the tent of meeting are additions
of Rp, adapting the situation to P s tabernacle ; similar addi
tions are to offer it as an offering to Yahwe, and he has
shed blood ; that person shall be cut off from his people (4);
cp the variations of Sam. and (G, as indications of continued and
late manipulation of the text. Verse 8_/ may be a fragment
of a law, corresponding to Ex. 22 20 [19], sacrifice shall be offered
to Yahwe only; 9 is Rp. With \$f. cp 1 1 40 and i 2. 8 (Ezek.
44 31) ; for a stricter rule see Ex. 22 31 Dt. 14 21.
Chap. 18 contains laws on incest and some kindred
subjects (6-23), preceded by an introduction (2^-5), and
10 ,.,~ 10 concluding with admonitions and warn-
16. Cnap. 18 : . ,..,.
Tn^oot ln S s (^-S )- lh s setting is in the
main the work of R H .
Verse 5 is a doublet to 4; 29 is from R P ; 24-28 30, are probably
amplified by later scribes imitating R H , or by contamination from
2d 22-24. Verse 6 is the general rule (perhaps editorial), the cases
follow in a stereotyped scheme (7-17*1) ; 170-24 are differently for
mulated, probably a supplement from another collection of toroth
on the same subject; 21 (Molech) is introduced through a
merely verbal association by RH who wrote 216. A few glosses
mar the symmetry of 7 ff.
Chap. 1!) contains a brief manual of moral instruc
tion, perhaps the best representative of the ethics of
17 Chat) anc i ent Israel, opening and closing with the
formulas * ^ H ( 2 & 3^ 3?) observe also the
19 Moral uas H 2 & 3^ 3?)
. frequent recurrence of the phrase I am
Yahwe, or I am Yahwe your God, after
groups of commandments (3 4 10 12 14 16, etc.). Two
passages are obviously out of place in this chapter : 5-8,
by its subject and formulation is plainly connected
with 2229/7; 20, also, is foreign to the context;
it has been thought that its appropriate place would be
after 20 10 (Dillm.), but the case is clearly one of tort,
and the formulation corresponds rather to 24 15-21
another misplaced fragment; 2 i/ is a late addition to
20 (cp(>6/.). The rest of the chapter is made up of
old toroth, probably compiled, or at least supplemented,
from more than one source, with occasional clauses
introduced by R H ( 9 aa I0 \ib i8 23*10. 29 30 [=2(J 2]
31^ 32^ 33/1), and probably the repeated I am Yahwe
though in this RH may have been anticipated by the
toroth themselves.
The first group of commandments (}/.) is in some sort
a counterpart to the first table of the decalogue; u-i8
similarly remind us of the second table. 3 In general
the chapter is to be compared with Ex. 20 -z/. 22 18-22 28/1
23 1-19, and parts of Dt. 22-25, in which many parallels
will be found. These do not justify us, however, in
regarding Lev. 19 as based upon the Decalogue, the
Covenant Book, and Deuteronomy ; 4 actual coincidences
in formulation or in order are singularly few, and ap
pear to be sometimes the result of textual contamina
tion. Rather Lev. 19 is another of the epitomes of
good morals, of which there were doubtless many in
ancient Israel.
The original law against the sacrifice of children in
18 Chan 20- t le Molech cult (20 22) 5 has received
T repeated additions, 3 disclosing the hand
-LIlCcHL CvC. r 1-1 / _i j i c r- i\ i
of RH (additions of Rp in 30), ib a
gloss, and +/. a variation on 26 3 intended to supplant 3.
1 Kayser, I orexilisches Buck, t>qff. ; JPT wff. (1881):
Wellh. C//( 2 ) 152^.; Horst, 14 ff., cp 4,*ff. : Dillm. ( 3 > 584^;
Kue. Hex. 15. n. 5; Baentsch, 137?! See below, 28.
2 On the question whether this redactor was RH, *ee 28.
s Bertheau, Sieben Gruppen, 205; We. CH(-) issf. ,
Baentsch, 81.
4 So Kayser, Baentsch, and others.
8 See MOLECH.
2784
LEVITICUS
The law against witchcraft (6) seems to have displaced
the more original torah which is preserved in 27.
Verses -jf. belong to the paraenetic framework of RH,
perhaps only accidentally brought together in subsequent
redaction ; the corresponding close is 22-24.
Verse 9 has nothing to do with the subject of the following
laws; it seems rather to be connected with 2415-22 (cp 209
with 24 15) ; it is not improbable that 24 15-22, which are
altogether out of place where they stand, with 2H 9 ( ? 10) 27, and
perhaps 2, are scattered fragments of a chapter on capital
offences the greater part of which was omitted by the final
redactor.
In ii -2i follow laws against incest, sodomy, and
commerce with a woman during menstruation, against
all of which the death penalty is denounced. These
laws are from a collection independent of 18 (Graf,
Wellh., Dillm. etc.). 1 There has been some contamina
tion from 18 (see, e.g., 20 19), and the clauses prescribing
the penalty have been glossed and recast.
22-24 is the work of RH. Verses ^sf- deal not with the sub
ject of -ill but with clean and unclean animals ( ! 1 ) , and 2560. 2&
are actually found in 1 1 43a 45^. It is possible that fragments
of the missing introduction to 11 are also preserved in 211 25^".,
and that the latter verses mark the place where 11 once stood in
H (see 24).
Chaps. 21 f. present the same phenomena which
we have observed in 17 ff. ; old toroth concerning the
1Q Ph priesthood have been glossed, revised,
91 f "R 1 and su PP emente d by successive editors.
. Some of the glosses were probably made
lor priests. U p 0n tne toroth themselves before they
were incorporated in H ; many additions were made by
RH or by later editors in imitation of him ; others,
finally, by R P and scribes of that school. It is not
possible in all cases exactly to distinguish these various
hands ; but in considerable part it can be done.
In 21 1-9 the original rules are found in ibfi (beginning lost),
an (2^3 have more exact definition), 5 -ja; - RM in 6 76 8: Rp
the fire-offerings of Yahwe, in 6; 9 is not strictly in place. In
10-15 the old law is ioaa ( the priest who is greater than his
brethren ), b n 13 14*; RH 1215; Rp i. In 16-24 P ar t of
the torak is repeated in slightly variant forms (17 21) with
glosses by Rp; to the old rule belong, further, 2-26 2-$a (also
glossed by Rp) ; 18^-20 is an (?old) specification of blemishes
(cp22 22-24) : RH in 23^: 24 (Rp) is a fragment.
The beginning of 22 1-16 is in disorder: zafib is RH, but
lacking its antecedents, showing traces of more than one hand,
and separating the first words of i (Rp) from their sequel (3);
4<z is the old rule ( of the seed of Aaron, Rp) , and fragments of
a following rule may be recognised in parts of 6/., the rest
being supplanted by Rp, to whom most of 4^-7 are to be
ascribed; 8 may have been included in H, though it is not in a
very appropriate place; 9 is RH, perhaps more than one hand
(cp HI 30 and 21 8) ; 10-13 are substantially old toroth with some
glosses; 14 (cpois) may be a later addition; 15^ RH. In
17-25 the old rules in i8 19 21 have received many glosses
(Rp), as also the following catalogue of defects (22-24, C P
21 17-20) ; 25 is RH ( because their corruption is in them, Rp).
Verses 27-30, again, are old laws, followed by the closing ex
hortations of RH (31-33)1 > n which 32 seems to intrude between
31 and 33.
Chap. 23 contains the annual round of sacred seasons,
derived in part from a priestly calendar, in part from
fc >rmer element is easily
90 Ph 2
a P a
recognised by its rigid scheme (see,
e -g-> 5 8 34^-36) the exact regulation
of the date and duration of the festival, the days of
holy convocation (Nu. 28/i) observed as the strictest
of sabbaths, and the fire-offerings to Yahwe. The
characteristics of H are equally unmistakable in other
parts of the chapter, though, as elsewhere, the original
text of H has been heavily glossed by priestly editors
and scribes. To the calendar of P belong 4-8 (Passover
and Unleavened Bread; 2 /., Rp), 21 (fragment of the
law for Pentecost), 24 f. (Feast of Trumpets), 27-32
(Day of Atonement), 34^-36 (Tabernacles); 37 f., is the
subscription, which 44 was meant to follow. The law
for the Day of Atonement shows some repetitions, and
has perhaps been amplified by later editors ; cp 16 29-34.
1 Not from the same source, affixing the penalty to the
offences defined in 1^ (Keil, Knobel, etc.); nor an editorial
commentary (RH), Paton, Hebraica, 10 111-121.
a Verse 4 is a corrupt frayment,
* George, Festf, izoff. ; Kayser, Vorexilisches Buck, T$ff. ,
We. CH("-) \b\ff.\ Horst. 2 4 ^f.; Baentsch, 44^.
LEVITICUS
P s law for Pentecost has been supplanted by a long
passage from H (9-20), in which the old tor ah, the
setting of RH, and the additions of Rp, may be dis
tinguished. It begins with the waving of the first sheaf
of barley from the new harvest. The introduction is
by RH (totf) ; the law probably began, When ye reap
your harvest. To the original law belong iob na*
i4a*; the various offerings come from Rp (not all from
one hand). This is followed by the prescription of
two wave loaves at Pentecost (15-20), 150, fifty days in
16^, in 17 Ye shall bring as wave loaves two cakes ; ye
shall bake it leavened as first fruits for Yahwe, 20*; the
rest is Rp. V. 22 is out of place here ; cp 19 9 f.
The laws from H for the observance of Tabernacles
stand in 39-43, as a supplement to those of P in 34^-36,
with a brief introduction by Rp (39^0) ; 39123 and 4 2
unquestionably belong to the original torak ; perhaps
4oa* also (cp Neh. 8 14^.) ; the rest must be attributed
to various stages of the redaction ( 42 43 ?4o, RH).
Chap. 24, w. 1-4, on the lamps in the tabernacle, and
5-9, on the shew-bread, are supplements respectively to
21 Chan 24 i Ex 25 3I " 4 (cp 27 20 ^ Nu 8 4)l and
Ex. 25 30, and belong to the secondary
stratum of P ; how they got into this place it is not
easy to guess.- The rest of the chapter deals with the
punishment of blasphemy, and with manslaughter,
mayhem, and killing or maiming cattle. The nucleus
is a group of old toroth, with a closing formula of RH
(15^-22), and glosses by R P , especially in 16 ; on the
original position of these laws see above, 17 (on 20 9).
The punishment of blasphemy is illustrated by an
example, 10-14 23, by a late priestly hand ; cp. Nu.
15 32-36.
In chap. 25 the law of the sabbatical year (1-7) is
from H. 3-50 is the old torak (with glosses emphasising
_ the sabbatical character of the year) ;
, a j? , cp Ex. 23io/; the introduction (2)
babbaucai and ^ are the work of RH The
year and se q ue i to this appears to be i8/ 20-22,
Jubilee. a , so RH _ verses 8-17 23-34 have to do
with the reversion of alienated land to its owners in the
fiftieth year and with the right of redemption in land
and houses. 3 The greater part of 8-17 is from H;
11-13 s an addition of Rp conforming the jubilee year
to the septennial land sabbath; 9 also seems to be
late ; clauses from an older law are incorporated in ioa
( ye shall proclaim an emancipation ; cp Ezek. 46 i6/)
and b ( and shall return, every man to his estate );
ii,a 15 are of the same origin; i6/., of which 23 is the
sequel, together with the introduction (8 ioaa) and
several clauses in the intervening verses, are by Rp.
The following 24-34 is a " fr m l ^ e school of P, but
probably not all of the same age ; 24-28 is an addition
of Rp to the preceding law; 29-31 apparently a novel
to 24-28 ; the exception in favour of the Levites (32-34) 4
depends on Nu. . 5f> 1-8, itself among the youngest
additions to P ; the language of 24-34 is Iate -
The prohibition of usury (35-38) is from H ; cp Ezek.
188 13 17 22 12. In the following laws on the treatment
of slaves (39-46) the charitable motives of H have prob
ably been amplified by imitative hands, and there are
extensive interpolations by Rp, especially in 44-46 (per
haps all Rp) and in 49-52.
Chap. 2(5 i /, laws forbidding various species of
idolatry and commanding the observance of the sabbath,
set in phrases of RH, are strangely out of place here;
i is parallel to 19 4, 2 identical with 19 30 (cp 19 3 ),
and the verses are fragments from a collection similar
to 19.
Chap. 26 contains promises of prosperity to obedience
1 Popper, Stiftshutte, voqf.
* See We. CV/( ! > 166; Baentsch, 51.
IK)
2785
Ex. Lev.( 3 ), 658^ See also JUBILEE, YEAR OF.
* Levites are nowhere mentioned in H.
2786
LEVITICUS
(3-13) and threatened judgments on disobedience (14-45),
23 Chat) w t 1 a su b scr P non to the Holiness
9K , PrnmiBB Law-Book ( 4& ). The whole is spoken
8e in the person of Yahwe to the Israelites
warning. (p, ural( throughout), and corresponds
in character and in its relation to the preceding laws to Ex.
2320^. and Dt. 28. To the last mentioned chapter Lev.
26 has much resemblance, not only in its general tenor
but also in particular turns of thought and expression ;
but these coincidences are not of such a nature as to
imply literary dependence ; the total impression, on the
contrary, is distinctly of originality on both sides.
The disposition is different : Dt. i^ has an antithetic series of
blessings and curses (2-14 i^Jf.} to which there is no counterpart
in Lev. 2ti; Ley. 2I> is climactic (14-1718-2021^ 23-2627^.);
note also that in Lev. Yahwe himself speaks (I), in Dt. the
divine promises and warnings are in the third person (Yahwe) ;
in Lev. the address to the Israelites is plural (ye, you), in Dt.
singular (thou, thee).
Innumerable threads connect Lev. 26 with those parts
of the foregoing chapters which are ascribed to RH ; *
there is every reason to believe that it is by the same
author who compiled the law-book H and attached to
the toroth which he incorporated his characteristic
motives.^ The difference in situation, which Baentsch
urges as the strongest argument for attributing 26 to a
different author, is easily exaggerated (in 18-25 the
entrance into Canaan is still future 18 3 24 19 23 20 22-24,
cp 23 10 25 2 whilst in 26 it is an accomplished fact) ; it
would be more just to say that the situation is not con
sistently maintained (see on the one hand 18 25 27, on
the other 26 n). The relation is in this respect the
same as that of Dt. 28 to Dt. 12-26; in the prophetic
peroration the author s real present almost inevitably
shows through.
Dillmann and Baentsch have rightly observed that Lev. 26,
like Ex. i A 10 ft. and Dt. 2*, has not escaped additions and
glosses by later hands, which the resemblance of some parts to
Ezekiel peculiarly invited: 8 is a later doublet to 7; 10 is per
haps a gloss to 4_/. ; 17 would be in place rather with 23-26; 30
is probably a gloss to 31 derived from Ezek. 63-5 ; 34 f. a late
interpolation (Rp) cognate to 2 Ch. 8li 21 ; 37 is also questioned;
39-43 is a late addition, 39 sets in at the same point as 36, the
phraseology reminds us of Ezek. (cp 4 17 24 23 3 10) ; the fol
lowing verses U-43. 3 r d pers. throughout) are very clumsily
written; 44^, also, are secondary.
It has been observed above ( 14) that Lev. 17-26 is
not a complete law-book; some laws may have been
94 Oth omitted by the redactor because the
. . 3 subject was treated elsewhere; others
remains oi n. mav nave been removed to a new con
nection. The question thus arises whether any portions
of H can be recognised in other parts of the Pentateuch.
One such has been noticed above ( 8), the food laws
in Lev. 11, with the characteristic colophon of RH (45) ;
cp 2025 ( 17 end). A considerable number of other
passages in Ex., Lev., Nu. have been thought by dif
ferent critics to be derived from H some in their
present form, others much altered by later redaction. 4
It is obvious that the characteristic expressions and
motives of RH are the only criterion by which we can
recognise fragments of H ; resemblance in the subject
or formulation of laws to toroth incorporated in H may
point to a relation to the sources of H, but is not
evidence that these laws were ever included in that
collection. 5 Further, the test of diction must not be
applied mechanically; not all the sections in which the
words I am Yahwe occur are, on that ground alone,
to be ascribed to H : familiarity with H and Ezekiel
1 See Baentsch, 44/1
2 Not an independent prophetic sermon (Ew., Nold. : cp
Baentsch), nor the close of a different collection of laws (May-
baum, Pritsterthum, 74/7".).
3 See Klostermann, ZLTSRjOaf. (?Tj}=Pentateuch, 377 f.\
Del. ZKIV 1622; Kayser, JPf 7 650 ( 81); Horst, 35 / ;
Kue. Hex. 15, n. 5; Dillm. Num. Dent. Jos. 640; Wurster,
-Z.4rW4i2 3 /f. ( 84); Holzinger, Hex. 410 ; Baentsch, bjf. ;
Carpenter ana Harford-Battersby, 2 145.
4 The list includes Ex. U 6-8 12 12 f. 29 38-46 31 i 3 /. Lev. 5 1-6
2i-2 4 a [lia-sa] in io/. 11 (in part), 12 13 1-46 14 i-8a 15 Nu.
811-13 - r > 1 1-31 62-8 10 i)/. 1538-41 19 1 1/.
6 See below, 25.
LEVITICUS
may have suggested the formula to later authors or
editors ; or, on the other hand, it may have been used
by others before RH. In the greater part of the passages
wtiich have been claimed for H, the evidence is for
one or the other of the reasons indicated insufficient;
Nu. 1537-41 is perhaps the only one about which there
is no dispute, though in some other cases a probability
may be admitted.
The analysis of Lev. 17-26 shows that the laws in H
were not conceived and expressed by the author of that
25 Sources bookp but were taken by him from P re "
of H ceding collections in a form already fixed;
even where the share of RH is largest, as
in the provisions for the jubilee year ( Jo %ff.), there is a
basis of older law. It would be too much to affirm
that RH made no material changes in these laws; but
in general his work was selection and redaction, putting
the existing laws under his own point of view and
attaching to them certain distinctive motives. The
differences of formulation in the laws themselves,
especially in the laws on the same or kindred subjects
(as in 18 and 20), prove that they are not all of the
same origin ; the presumption is that they were taken
from more than one collection, made at different times
or places, or in different priestly families or guilds. In
other parts of Lev. and Num. we find groups of laws,
not belonging to the main stem of P, which are cognate
in subject and formulation to those in H, but show no
traces of the hand of RH ; it is probable that these are
derived from the same collections on which RH drew. 1
The laws in these collections, like those in H, bear, in
general, all the marks of genuine tbrbth, representing
and regulating the actual practice of the period of the
kingdom. 2 They know nothing of a central sanctuary
or of a sacerdotal caste ; the priest is simply the
priest, Levites are not mentioned, the priest who is
greater than his brethren," upon whom greater restric
tions are laid (21 10), is a very different thing from the
Aaronite high priest of P (see 30) ; the occasional
references to Aaron and his sons, the tabernacle, and
the camp are demonstrably interpolations by a redactor
(Rp), who thus superficially accommodated the old laws
to the History of the Sacred Institutions (HISTORICAL
LITERATURE, 9).
The representation of the author (RH) of the history
agrees with that of the older historians and the prophets :
26. Character ^ Isr * el te * . dwe Jl in ^i? 1 (18 ^
* TT 3 thence Yahw& has brought them out to
give them the land of Canaan (25 38) ;
he is going to expel the peoples of the land before
Israel (18 24 20 22 /.) ; 4 the laws are given to the Israel
ites before their entrance into the land ; 5 they are to go
into operation after the settlement (18324 18232022-24
23 10 25 2). There is no archaistic attempt to simulate
the situation in the desert (the camp, etc.) ; the place
of worship is not the Tent of Meeting, but simply the
Sanctuary (mikdaS, holy place, 20 3 21 12) 6 or the
abode of Yahwe (mitkan, dwelling-place, 17 4 if the
word is really from RH 26 n, cp Ezek. 37 27).
The readers are repeatedly exhorted to observe
(Samar, 18 4 5 26 30 19 19 37 20 8 22 22 31 25 18 26 3, etc.)
the laws of Yahwe (hukkoth umiSpatjm, statutes and
judgments, 18 5 26 19 37 20 22 25 18; miswoth, com
mandments, 2231 263 14 15, etc.; never tora/i); they
shall not conform to the customs or rites of the
Egyptians or Canaanites (183 2023) ; Yahwe has sepa-
1 See 24, and below, 32.
2 See further below, 30.
3 See Baentsch, \T,\ ff.
4 The verses in which it appears that this has already been
accomplished (1*25 IT/.), if not simply a lapse of the writer,
may be secondary.
6 The subscription, 2fi 46, according to which the laws were
revealed on Mt. Sinai, is probably not by RH: 25 i certainly is
not.
B In If* 30 2fi 2 read my holiness."
7 In the toroth neither word occurs; the rites take place in
the presence of Yahwe.
2788
LEVITICUS
rated Israel from the nations (20 24 26^). Many offences
are condemned as defilement (fame, torn ah, 18 20 23^
19 31 22 8 21 i, etc. ; cp 18 25 27 20 3) ; 1 the synonymous
expressions in 18 20 are in part, at least, from later
hands.
Israelites are warned not to profane (hi lie I) holy things, such
as the name of God (is 21 19 ia 21 6 203 21 3 39), sacrifices (19 8
i> 2 2_/. 15), the sanctuary ( 21 12 23), priesthood ( 2 2 9 19 29 21 15).
The people of Yahwe must hallow themselves, and be holy,
because he is holy (1!) 2 2117 26, cp 11 44_/.) ; his holiness is to
be revered (19 30 2(> 2) ; Yahwe hallows his people ( 208 2 2 32) ;
priests, particularly, are holy ( 21 6, cp 8) ; the sacrifices of the
Israelites are their holy things (2 2 2 15, cp 19 8).
Holiness is thus the dominant element in the author s
idea of religion ; sin is profanation and pollution, loath
some and abominable; and he uses these conceptions
as religious motives.
Besides the explicit appeals to this motive, we find
an implicit appeal in the recurring I am Yahwe, or
I am Yahwe your God," often strengthened by a re
minder of the great deliverance, who brought you
forth out of the land of Egypt (1^36, cp 25384255
26 13), to be a God to you (22 33 2645, cp 25 3 8).
The Israelites shall fear Yahwe their God (19 32 25 17),
or his holiness i.e., his Godhead (1930 2(i 2 read so !).
Motives of humanity and charity are represented not
only by particular injunctions such as 19 \6f. 19 10 ( =
23 22) , 25 6, but also by such institutions as the sabbatical
and jubilee years, and the mitigation of slavery, on
which the author lays especial emphasis. These pre
cepts of humanity include the foreign resident (ger),
who is not to be oppressed (1933), but to share the
charity shown the Israelite poor (19 10 = 2822 256), and
to be treated like a native thou shalt love him as
thyself (19 34) ; he is subject to the same civil law
(2422), and worships at the same altars (17 8 10 is). 2
Part of these commandments come from the old laws;
but RH has emphasised them strongly.
In some places the admonitory motives of RH seem
to be overloaded (see 20 7 / 22 31 33 ) ; in a few
27 Unitv of tnere s an apparent conflict (esp. 18 24
redaction vv i tn 25-28). It would be strange if these
exhortations had not, like those of the
deuteronomistic writers, been expanded and heightened
by succeeding editors ; in other cases contamination of
parallel passages is probable. These phenomena do
not overcome the impression of unity which the redac
tion of the whole produces, 3 nor sustain the hypothesis
of Baentsch that the chapters come from three or more
different hands. 4
The question has to do, not with the age of the
torofft, 5 but with the date of the redaction of the Holi-
28 Aee of H - ness Law-Book. The whole character
TT o^j TYf of this work discloses affinity to the
u ana. u\i. .., , ,
literature of the close of the seventh
and the sixth century Deuteronomy^ Jeremiah, and
especially Ezekiel. The first question that is likely to
be asked about a writing of this period is its relation
to the deuteronomic reform suppressing sacrifice at all
altars save that in Jerusalem (621 B.C.)." The only
passage in H which appears to restrict sacrifice to a
single sanctuary is 174; 8 any Israelite who slaughters
a bullock, sheep, or goat, and does not bring it before
the abode (miSkan) of Yahwe, shall be regarded as hav
ing eaten blood. It is generally agreed that the word
1 The term was probably used in the laws themselves.
- See Bertholet, Stelliing der Israeliten und der Juden zu
den Fremden, no f. 152 /. (1896).
3 On Dillmann s hypothesis of old Sinai laws in two recen
sions by P and J respectively (Exod. Lev.W 5837!; cp NDJ
637 ^), see Horst, $/.; Kayser, JPT 7 6 4 8^f. (1881) ; Kue.
fttx. 15. n. 6; Holzinger, Hex. 408.
4 Htiligkeits^ttett, 34 ^f. ; cp 69^".
See above, 25.
15 With Dt. compare the emphasis on love to the fellow-
Israelite and the stranger (lit \j f. 33 f.; cp DEUTERONOMY,
32), and the laws in part Utopian in the interest of the
poor ( 25, cp Dt. 15).
7 Dt. 1-2 2 K. 2-2 /
8 If we eliminate additions of Rp. See 15.
2789
LEVITICUS
mftkan was inserted by a redactor ; the old law said
merely before Yahwe i.e., to a local altar or stand
ing stone.
If this redactor was RH, then H would appear to represent
the extreme consequence of the deuteronomic reform, 1 leaving
no place for the slaughter of animals for food without sacrificial
rites, for which Dt. makes express provision (1 2 \<-,f. 2o-2s). 2 It
is possible, however, that the word was introduced by a priestly
editor later than RH (of course not the same as the editor who
brought in the tent of meeting ); 3 cp Nu. -i 38 It may
reasonably be urged that if RH adopted the principle of cen
tralisation here so uncompromisingly, he would hardly have
failed to show elsewhere some symptom of zeal for the reform
or hostility to the local cults contrast Dt., Jer., Ezek. 4
It is unsafe, therefore, to use 17 4 to fix the date
of H.
It has been argued that H is younger than Dt. because
some of its laws indicate a more advanced development,
especially those relating to the priesthood (Lev. 21), the
feasts (23 9-20 39-43) , and the sabbatical year (25 1-7 18-
22; cp Dt. 15 1-6), also Lev. 18 16 20 21 as compared
with Dt. 25 5-10 (levirate marriage) ; 5 but the argument
is not conclusive. Even less convincing is Baentsch s
effort to prove that H abounds in reminiscences and
even direct borrowings from Dt. 6
In H and Dt., both of which drew their material largely
from older collections of toroth, there are many laws on the
same subject, in which the same terms naturally occur; but
such coincidences cannot prove the dependence of H on Dt.
The mutual independence of the two is rather to be argued from
the absence of laws identically formulated, the lack of agree
ment in order either in the whole or in smaller portions, and the
fact that of the peculiar motives and phrases of RD there is no
trace in H (Lev. 2H 40 is almost solitary). 7 It is an unwarranted
assumption that all the fragments of Israelite legislation which
have been preserved lie in one serial development.
If a literary connection between H and Dt. is not
demonstrable, the case is otherwise with Ezekiel. The
__ ,, , coincidences are here so many and so
T? v^TK striking as to have led some critics to
Ezekiel. regarc i tne prophet as the author of H ; 9
and although even more decisive differences make this
hypothesis untenable, 10 a direct connection between the
two is indubitable. In the chapters in which Ezekiel
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
afterthought.
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
n6/
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.
7 See DEUTERONOMY, $f.
8 For literature, see 33, 2, and the next note below.
SoGnt,GetcA.SScAet-,Bijff .; Bertheau,7/?m 155(1866);
Kayser, Vorexilisches Buck, 176^. (1874); ? PT 7 548 ff.
(1881): Horst, Lev. xvii.-xxvi. n. Hezekiel, 697?". (i88i),etc.
10 Noldeke, Untersuch. 6jj?~. : Kuenen, Godsdicnst, 2 95^ ;
Hex. 15, n. 10; Klost. Pentateuch, 379^"., esp. 404^".;
Smend, Ezech., p. xxvii.
11 Cp especially Ezek. 18 20 22 33 with Lev. 18-20.
12 See above, 26.
13 See Smend, Ezech. xxv/ ; Horst, 727?".; Kue. Hex. 15,
n. 10; Dr. Introd.W 49 /. 1457^; Baentsch, 81 ff.\ Paton,
Pres. Ref. Rev. 7 98 ff. (1896); Carpenter and Harford-Bat-
tersby, Hex. 1 I47./T 150 f.
2790
LEVITICUS
The question thus arises : Was Ezekiel acquainted
with H, 1 or did the author of H (RH) write under the
influence of the thought and language of Ezekiel ?
The grounds on which the acquaintance of RH with
Ezekiel has been held by many critics 2 are not con
clusive. The strongest argument is the fact that Lev. 20
supposes full experience of exile and dispersion, and
closes with promises of restoration. We have seen
above ($ 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
answering.
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-
2791
LEVITICUS
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
unknown.
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
Pentateuch.
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
doubt.
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
tailed.
2792
LEVY
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 .
See LEBANON.
LIBATION (cnoNA[e]iON), Ecclus.50i S RV m s-.
See SACRIFICE.
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.
2793
LIBYA
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
plain.
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,
WILDERNESS OF.
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.
2794
LICE
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]).
LIEUTENANTS, i. RV SATRAI-S (C
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.
2795
LIGHT
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.
2796
LIGHTNING
LILY
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
him.
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.
LIGHTNING. See THUNDER.
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
Lilith.
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.
2797
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.
2798
LIMB
LINEN, FINE LINEN
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.
LINEN, FINE LINEN, and LINEN GARMENTS
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-
2799
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.).
2800
LINEN, FINE LINEN
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&&lt;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).
_
2801
LION
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
CHEPHIRAH.
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),
2802
LION
LITTER
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
SNOW.
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- , , . .
hunting.
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.
2803
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.).
2804
LITTLE ONES
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.
LITURGY. See PSALMS, HYMNS, SACRIFICE.
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.
2805
LIZARD
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 <&&gt; 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.
LIVING CREATURES. See CHERUB i., i.
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.
2806
LOAF
3. nS), koah (ib., RV LAND-CROCODILE), AV CHAMELEON
[?.- .]."
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/j.id,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.
2807
LOCUST
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
unknown.
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.
2808
LOCUST
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
names HAGAU, HAGABAH.
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.
2809
LODGE
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
eaten.
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
INN.
2810
LOFT
LOFT (nS_V), i K. 1719. See CHAMBER, 6.
LOG (3?; KOTyAH ; sextarium), Lev. 14 10. See
WEIGHTS AND MKASUKES.
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/
2811
LOOKING-GLASS
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
word.
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
Christianity.
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,
RV MIRROR.
2812
LOOM
LOOM
), 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
words.
(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
churches.
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).
2813
LORD S DAY
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
tion.
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.
2814
LORDS DAY
LORD S PRAYER
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, Ka.ro. Kvpiaxriv 6e Kupiov <Tvva\8ei>Te<; K\d<ra.re 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.
2815
. ,. ,
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/u.ai 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.
2816
LORD S PRAYER
(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).
LORD S PRAYER
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>iffj.fi> 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
will.
(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 6vraju.is (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$6? rjfia.<; fi<revx9r\va.i, a dogmatic alteration, which (inde
pendently, it would seem) appears also in Latin in Cyprian (De
Or.c. 25), in Latin MSS of the Gospels (see Chase, p. 62 jf.),
and in several settings of the Liturgy, as suffer us not to be led
or let us not be led into temptation. 2
91
2817
1 In German, zuunskomme dein Reich, or zukomme uns
dein Reich. In the so-called Bishops Book, thy kingdom
come unto us.
2 See Chase, who quotes (he so-called King s Book of 1593,
and W. H. Frere, Edwardine Vernacular Services, in Journ.
Th. Studies, Jan. 1900, p. 242.
2818
LORD S PRAYER
In a passage like the Lord s Prayer, every minute
3. Numbering detail such as numberi "g and arrange-
* ment and even orthography deserves
arrangement care ^ ul attention.
Augustine (Enchirid. 116) remarks
Lucas in oratione doniinica petitiones non sepiem sed
quinque complexus est. The number seven became
thenceforth traditional in the Roman Catholic and the
Lutheran Church. But the same Augustine argued :
quod ille (Mt. ) in ultima posuit : libera nos a malo, iste
(Lk. ) non posuit, ut intelligeremus ad illud superius
quod de tentatione dictum est pertinere. In accordance
with this view, Origen and Chrysostom counted six
petitions ; they are followed by the reformed churches.
WH print the Lord s Prayer in Mt. in 2 x 3 stichi, in
Lk. without strophic arrangement. Wordsworth- White
make, in their Latin NT, of Pater-nomen titum one
stichus, of et ne inducas and sed libera two. Hetze-
nauer s reprint of the Vulgate puts a full stop after every
petition, therefore also: lentationem. Sed. In the
Greek text Weiss places a colon only after 77;$, 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 $&&gt;/.).
2819
LORD S PRAYER
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
en-iouerioy.
(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
attention.
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
hodie.
2820
LORD S PRAYER
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
j
(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.
LORD S PRAYER
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
parallels.
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,
2821:
LORD S SUPPER
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 "
LORD S SUPPER. Sec EUCHARIST.
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.).
EPHOD, UKIM AND THUMMIM.
2823
LOT
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
2824
LOTAN
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.
LOTS, FEAST OF. See PURIM.
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.
LOVE FEASTS (AI-ATTAI), Jude v. 12 RV ; AV
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.
LOVINGKINDNESS
5. i K. 2031, The kings of the house of Israel are kindly
kings."
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
2825
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
statutes.
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.
2826
LOZON
LUCIUS
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.
LOW COUNTRY, LOWLAND. See SHEPHELAH.
LOZON (AozooN [BA]), i Esd. 5 33 = Ezra 2 56,
DARRON.
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.
2827
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.
Bib.
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.
2828
LUD, LUDIM
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
2829
LUKE
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.
2830
LUKE
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.
2831
LUKE
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
Cyrene.
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).
2832
6. Name.
LUNATIC
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. ]
2833
LYCAONIA
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,
2834
LYCAONIA
LYCAONIA
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.
2835
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
time.
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
Asiana.
3 [See, however, GALATIA, 9-14.]
2836
LYCIA
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,
GALATIA.
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
population.
[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.
2837
LYDDA
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
cessors.
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
learning.
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
LYDIA
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.
2839
LYSANIAS
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
DELPHIA, SARDIS, SMYRNA, THYATIRA.
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.]
2840
LYSANIAS
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-
chonitis.
(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,
39)-
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
Avaaviov).
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
2841
LYSANIAS
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
missible.
(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
source.
(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.
2842
2. Titles.
LYSANIAS
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
Lysanias.
2843
LYSTRA
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.
LYSIMACHUS (AyciMAXOC [BXAV]).
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
ISMACHIAH, SEMACHIAH). See generally ONIAS.
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).
2844
LYSTRA
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
2845
LYSTRA
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
population.
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.
2846
MAACAH
MAASEAS
M
MAACAH (so 2 S. 1068) or Maachah (PDtfO;
AAAXATCI [B], MAXAGi [AF], MAXA66I [L] ; other
readings MAX6I, AXA66I, OMAXAGei [ = O MAX-, C P Ij ]
NU>XA.0ei, MOXATCI, AAAXAXAAXCI [B] ; MOXATI [N],
MAXATI, MAXATAI, MAXAflGei, MAXA0A, MU)6ATei,
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]).
See GKSHUR 2, TALMAI.
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/
2847
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]).
Cp MAAZIAH, MOADIAH.
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. ).
MAANI. i. (MANCI [B], MAANI [A], AAOONGIM
[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).
MAAREH-GEBA. See GEBA.
MAASAI, AV Maasiai (b r), iCh.9
11 13, AMASHAI (q. -:}.
MAASEAS (Bar. 1 1 RV). See MAASEIAH i.
2848
MAASBIAH
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
MAASIAS, RV MAASEAS.
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 ;
MAACAIA[C], MAACIA[C] [BNQ], MAACIA[C] [L], AAA-
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
[L]).
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 Omao-tr.ua [B], -tr.as [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
MAASEIAH i.
[BA]), i Esd. 8 43 RV=
MAASMAS
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.).]
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
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
227, MICHMAS. See MICHMASH.
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
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.
2872).
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);
92
2849
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.
2850
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
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.
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
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
SAODUCEES.]
2852
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
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)
I
Aristobulus I. (104) Alexander Jannaeus (78) = Salome Alex-
| [andra (69)
Hyrcanus II. (40)
Aristobulus II. (63)
_
I
Antigonus (37)
Alexandra = Alexander [did not reign] (49)
_J
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
him.
2853
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
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.
928-31).
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.
2854
.
5
MAOCABEE3 (FAMILY)
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.
ET1245/:
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).
2855
MACCABEES (FAMILY;
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/)-
2856
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
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
Sadducees (see SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, SADDUCEES,
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.
MACCABEES (BOOKS)
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 geogr.de 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.
MACCABEES (BOOKS)
CONTENTS
FIRST MACCABEES.
Title, Contents ( i f., col.
28577:)-
Language ( 3, col. 28587:).
Author, Dated 4/-, col. 28597:).
Literary character ( 6, col.
2861).
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).
SECOND MACCABEES.
Contents ( i, col. 2869).
Sources ( 2, col. 28697:)-
Historicity ( 3, col. 2870-2).
Literary character ( 4, col.
28727:).
Religious character ( 5. col.
28737:).
Author, Date( 6, col. 28747:).
Prefixed letters ( jo. jl>, col.
2875-8).
Attestation, Text ( 8, col.
28787:).
Bibliography ( 9, col. 2879).
FIRST MACCABEES
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 .
THIRD MACCABEES.
Title ( i, col. 2879).
Contents ( 2, col. 2879).
Beginning lost ( 3, col.
28797:).
Language, Style ( 4, col.
2880).
Historicity ( 5, col. 28807:).
Author, Date ( 6, col. 2881).
Attestation ( 7, col. 2881).
Bibliography ( 8, col. 2881).
FOURTH MACCABEES.
Title ( i, col. 2882).
Contents ( 2, col. 2882).
Integrity ($ 3, col. 28827:).
Author, Date ( 4, col.
28837:).
Literary character
5. coL
2SB 4 ).
Language, Style ( 6. col.
28847:).
Thought ( 7, col. 28857:).
Attestation, Text ( 8, coL
2886).
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
Language.
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),
2858
MACCABEES (FIRST BOOK)
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.
2859
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.
2860
MACCABEES (FIRST BOOK)
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].
2861
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).
2862
MACCABEES ( FIRST BOOK^
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
recorded*
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
nature.*
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
s
(>) 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.
- - . .- . -- -
MACCABEES (FIRST BOOK)
It is generally assumed that this alleged Homan edict is
identic ;il with ili.it 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
Demetrius.
((/) 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
question.
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
2865
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
histories.
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.
2866
MACCABEES (FIRST BOOK)
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).
2867
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
received.
[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.
2868
MACCABEES (SECOND BOOK)
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.
SECOND MACCABEES
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.
2869
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
sources.
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.
2870
MACCABEES (SECOND BOOK)
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/
2871
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.
2872
MACCABEES (SECOND BOOK)
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
character
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.
2873
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).
2874
MACCABEES (SECOND BOOK)
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.
2875
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>-
a.fj.fv) 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
event.
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.
2876
MACCABEES (SECOND BOOK)
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
authenticity.
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.
2877
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
reconstruction.
2878
MACCABEES (THIRD BOOK)
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.
THIRD MACCABEES
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.
2879
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
probability.
2 See, in defence of the version given by Josephus, Whiston,
Authentick Records, Pt. i., vooff.
2880
MACCABEES (FOURTH BOOK)
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
peatedly.
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
Apocrypha.
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.
93
2881
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.
FOURTH MACCABEES
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
substituted
2882
MACCABEES (FOURTH BOOK)
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.
2883
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.).
MACCABEES (FOURTH BOOK)
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^
288?
(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 $i /3Ao? Trepi TOU auroKparopa eli/ai
Ttav TraOtav TOV \oyt<rfj.bv (f>i\ocro<j)OV(ra. In Photius Kpitome of
Philostorgius, chap. 1, occur the words : TO /uei> TtYapTOi/ TO>I
MaKKa/BaiKwc /3i/3At oi> VTCO IwarJTrou yeypatpSai (cat atiTOS
[Philostorgius] <rui 0^oAo yu/ oi^ MTTOptai /uoAAoi TJ tyK<ufjiLOi>
flvaC <t>ir]cri. TO Trepi TOJ> EAea^ apoi /cat TOU? CTTTO. Tratfiay TOVS
Majc/caj3ai ov Sojyov ju.ei oi .
The book appears as 4 Mace. (see i) in the list of the Cod.
Claromontanus (original of the third century V), the Catalogue
of the sixty Canonical Books, and the so-called Synopsis of
Athanasius (see above, col. 2881, 7), and is contained in the
Greek uncials N, A, and V.
For information regarding the MSS containing the book
MSS both of the LXX and of Josephus works see Grimm,
2f)$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.
5 MACCABEES. See i MACCABEES, n.
c. c. T.
2886
MACEDONIA
MACHI
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.
2887
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/ Na.za.ra, ~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).
2888
MACHIR
[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.
2889
MACHPELAH
reason, however, to suspect that the text of both
passages has been so seriously corrupted that no reliance
can be placed on these inferences. See SAUL, 6, and
cp MAHANAIM, MEPHIBOSHETH. T. K. c.
MACHMAS (i 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. va5a.fj.ov [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
patriarchs.
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).
2890
MACHPELAH
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
marble.
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-
2891
MADNESS
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],
MAA&i [AL]). See GEOGRAPHY, 19 ; ELAM ; PERSIA.
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.
MADIABUN (RV EMADABUN, HAAAA&BOYN [BA]),
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
MEKONAH.
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.
MADMENAH (HJOIP; MA^eBHNA [BNAQ]), a
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.
MADNESS (IWJIL ), MADMAN (
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 ).
2892
MADNESS
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
References.
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
unhistorical.
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).]
2893
MAGDALA
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
BF see SHIMRON).
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 ,
MlJAMIN 2.
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
2894
MAGDALENE
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,
26.
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
MAGIC, STARS. See also ZOROASTRIANISM, SIMON
MAGUS, JANNES AND JAMBRES.
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
MAGIC
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
2895
MAGIC
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
books.
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.
2896
MAGIC
MAGIC
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
mentator.
2897
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
DEMONS).
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
victims.
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).
2898
MAGIC
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 (ba.ru) 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).
2899
3. OT Terms.
MAGIC
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 magician utters his
incantations in such a suppressed tone. Smith, however, con
nects the Syriac word with the rare Arabic term Aurs and hursa
= a kind of food given to women in child-bearing, which was a
drug, thus agreeing exactly Avifh <j>dpiJ.aKa.
3. LdAaf(jyn^), enchantment (cp Is. 83, cmV jiaJ, RV
a skilful enchanter ) is used more specifically of serpent-
charming (Jer. 817 Eccles. 10 n ; cp c nSp Ps. 58 5 [6]
charmer ), and hence of any charm which could be
worn, cp Is. 820 (o rnS RV amulets ). 2
The primary meaning of the word may perhaps be seen in
2 S. 12 19 Ps. 41 7 [S], not however in Is. 2(5 16 (see SHOT). It
has been thought that lakaS (jprh) and nahas (sj-m) may have a
kindred origin, and it is at any rate singular that the Arabic
equivalents of both 3 are used in the sense of unlucky.
4. Heber (13n), found only in pi. (Is. 47 9 12 enchantments )
or in connection with hober, "Uh (Dt. 18 n Ps. 58 5 [6],
charmer ), is explained by Ges. (Thes. 1441) to mean binding
or tying i.e., of magical knots. 4 Similarly Smith, who says it
is used to denote the tying together of words in order to con
stitute an incantation. He (followed by Ges.(l 3 )-BuhU 2 l, and
Sieg.-St., also by Stade, GF/1 505, and Dr. Dcut., ad loc.)y,ot<*
back to the Jewish tradition which sees in the word some kind
of snake-charming. Note the parallelism in Ps. 58 5 [6].
Here we may refer to the Rabbinical ki ml" (JTCp), amulet,
from Jjcpi to bind. Most likely it signifies something bound to
a person, with no reference therefore to magical tying. It is the
1 Cp also Ar. kdsif, unlucky (of days). Note that Fleischer
(Levy, NIfW%4y)<i) takes Ar. kasafa in the derived sense of
speaking in a low, murmuring tone.
2 Similarly C ; S: Jjl3 (/.), AV tablets, RV perfume boxes,"
is taken by Smith to be a kind of amulet.
3 Lahasa (as liihus, unlucky ) and nahasa (na/ts, unlucky ).
Cp SERPENT, i [3].
4 Cp Ar. habar, a narrative i.e., a series of words bound to
gether. Or we may argue for a derivation from Itabara, to be
beautiful, from an (assumed) earlier, but lost meaning to
weave, bind. So "Oi"I> haber, a companion, one that is bound
(to an individual or society), cp T. W. Davies, Magic etc., $$/
2900
4. In NT.
MAGISTRATE
Rabbinical term for phylacteries ; see FRONTLETS. It is not at
all impossible that Jesus words in Mt. 10 19 IS 18 were suggested
by this magical practice, known in his time and in his country as
in all times and lands. See BINDING AND LOOSING.
5. Sak(k)lr(^s\tf)ia Is. 47 n, is explained by the great majority
of critics (Hi. Ew. Di. etc.) to charm (away), or the like (so
RVmg.). This can he well defended (see the Comm.) ; but the
absence of any analogy in Heb. and Aram, favours the view
that the text is corrupt.!
Among the ancients the employment of certain formulas
was considered efficacious in proportion to the number
of repetitions. In India to-day if an ascetic
says in one month the name of Radha,
Krishna, or Rom 100,000 times, he cannot fail to
obtain what he wants ; and it is in the same spirit that
Moslem dervishes renew their shrieks or whirlings.
Similarly, the prophets of Baal called upon their god
from morning until night, saying Baal, hear us, 1
j K. 1826.
The words of Jesus say not the same thing over and
over again (Mt. 67/^7 pa.TTo\oyya-r)Te 2 ) have reference
to the same superstition.
In 2 Tim. 813 7617x6? (from 7000;, to sigh, to utter
low moaning tones ) is used of a class of magicians who
uttered certain magical formulae in a low deep voice.
They were to be found, according to Herodotus, in
Egypt (33) and elsewhere (4ios 7igi) I they are
mentioned also by Euripides and Plato.
Paul, in addressing the Galatians (620), names among
the works of the flesh tpapnaKfia [EV sorcery ] ; Syr.
harrdshutha ; Heb. versions of Salk. and Del. D BE>3
T :
\kishaphtm\, which is closely connected with idolatry
by being placed next after it. It is not possible here to
do more than mention Simon Magus (Acts 89/1) and
Bar-jesus, the sorcerer whom Lk. calls also Elymas
(Acts 138). This name the writer explains by /j.dyos ;
it is really the Arabic ( Alim), learned, which is much
the same in sense as (tdyos (cp SIMON MAGUS, ELYMAS).
Cp EXORCISTS. T. w. D.
F. B. Jevons, Introd. to Hist, of Re?., 1896; A. C. Lyall,
Asiatic Studies, chap. 4 ; E. B. Tylor, art. Magic, EBW;
Frazer, Golden Bought 1 7-128 ; W. R.
6. Bibliography. Smith s articles in /. Phil. (18273-288
14113-128) treat ably on the principal
biblical terms. Cp also Rel. Sent. 246 427, et passim ; Driver
on Deut. 18 10 /f EV ; T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divina
tion, and Demonology among the Hebrews and related
peoples (1898); Sc\io\2.,Gotzendienst und Zauberwesen bci den
Hebrciern, 1877 (uncritical); D. Joel, Der Aberg laitbe und aie
Stellung des Judentlnuiis zu demselbcn (1881-83).
On the Bab. Magic, cp the work of Lenormant now of course
somewhat antiquated (La magie chez les Chaldeens et les origines
Accadiennes, 1874 I Chaldean RIagic, its origin and develop
ment, trans, with add. by the author, 1877 ; Die Magie und
Wahrsage-Kunst der Chaldiier, 1878). Lenormant is to be sup
plemented by reference to the various works cited in 2 b ; see
also the relative sections in Tiele s HAG, 1886 ; and Gesch. der Rel.
im Alterthum, 1895 ; in A. H. Sayce s Origin and Growth of
Rel. (Hibiert Lectures), 1888 ; in Rommel s Die Sem. Vtilker
. Sprachen, 1888 ; (by F. Jeremias) in Chantepie de la Saus-
saye s Lehrb. der Rel.-gesch.(-), 1897; and in Jastrow, Rel. of
Bab. and Ass., 1898; L. W. King, Babylonian Magic and
Sorcery (1896); Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der bab. Re
ligion in Assyriolog. Bibliothek., Bd. xii., with L. W. King s
review in AJSL 13 142^ H. Z. , 2 b ; T. W. D.
MAGISTRATE. See generally GOVERNMENT, LAW
AND JUSTICE.
The terms to be enumerated are five
1. ESir Sophet (Dt. 16 18 etc.). See JUDGE, i.
2. "I!J? V~?., yores V^>-(Judg. 187 t) RV possessing authority
(mg. power of restraint"), an impossible rendering (Moore).
The text is very corrupt. In connection with other emendations,
and parallel cases of misunderstood references to the N. Arabian
Musri (see MIZRAIM, zb), it may be best to regard both (TV
1 Ges.a3)-Bu.(2) (followed by Che. Isaiah, SBOT, Heb.)
most felicitously reads for ninB* in fTiray- Render : There
shall come upon thee an evil which thou art not able to prevent
by payment. Note the use of the verb in Job 022, and the
parallelism of 1B3 and ~\n& in Prov. 6 35.
2 From Battus, a stuttering Greek poet (see Herod. 1 155). Cp
Ecclus. 7 14 Repeat not thy words in thy prayer (/j.rj SevTepiuoTjs
\6yov tv irpoa-fvxfj <rov). For references relating to battology
among Moslems and others, see Lange in Herzog, 18 396.
2901
MAHANAIM
and -|<jy as corruptions of a dittographed 1^0 (i.e., Missur =
Musri); [-1x3, in the land (of ) precedes. The city conquered
by the Danites was apparently in the far south (see MICAH i.,
2 ; ZIKLAG), not in the far north.
3. apxn, Lk. 12 1 1 AV ; cp 20 20.
4. ap^taif, Lk. 1258 ; cp RULER.
5. erTpa-rrryos : () Acts 16 20-38; cp PR^TOR, PHILIPPI ; (8)
Lk. 224 etc., see ARMY, 6. 7. K. C.
MAGOG. See GOG AND MAGOG.
MAGOR-MISSABIB. See PASHHUR (i).
MAGPIASH (E tt SJp, cp MAGBISH?), signatory to
the covenant (see EZRA i.,7); Neh. 102o[2i] (B&r"6."
4>HC [BN], MAIA. [A], MrMAC [L]).
MAGUS (Acts 1368 RV m s-). See BAR-JESUS, MAGIC.
4-
MAHALAH. See MAHLAH.
MAHALALEEL, RV Mahalalel (^N^np, 34,
as if praise of God ; but < BAEL , M&AeAenA, suggests
7i|p?rUp, praiser of God [Gray, HPN 201, with Reds-
lob and Nestle] ; but see below).
1. Fourth in descent from Seth, Gen. 5 nf. ; i Ch. 1 2f
(Bk. Jubilees, Malalel). Cp CAINITES, MEHUJAEL.
2. One of the bne Judah in a post-exilic list, Neh.
11 4t (fJ.a\f\r,fj. [BN]). See PEREZ.
The Judahite name, if not also the Sethite, is probably to
be explained, like JF.HALLELEL, as one of the many popular
corruptions of the tribal name Jerahmeel. Cp j3fAfAer;A, "
i Ch. 8 i, a fuller form of the Benjamite name Bela, which, like
Balaam, seems also to come from Jerahmeel. See also MAGDIEU
, T. K. C.
MAHALATH (D?np, 74,78 ; also as a proper name
in Talm. Bab. Pes. 1 12 a. The name possibly comes from
rrVNcrry, Jerahme elith = awoman of Jerahmeel [Che.]).
1. Esau s Ishmaelite wife: Gen. 28g [P] (MAeAe9
[ADEL]), called BASHEMATH (q.v.) in chap. 36. For
an explanation of the double name see SALMAH.
2. Daughter of Jerimoth b. David, and wife of Reho-
boam : 2 Chr. 11 18 ([j.o\[\]a.O [BA], jttaeXXetf [L]).
MAHALATH upon [AV], or set to [RV] (rhr\V~hv.
yrrep M<\eAee [BXART] ; erri xPei<* [Aq-], ^i<*
\Opoy [Sym.], YTTep THC xopei&c [Theod., Quinta] ;
pro choro, per chorum [Jer. ]), Ps. 53, 88 (headings).
Ibn Ezra suggested that Mahalath was the first word of
a song, to the tune of which these two psalms were set.
Ewald and Wellhausen adopt this view ; the sickness
might be that of God s people. Rashi , however, thought
that the flute, Gesenius and Lagarde that the cithara or
cithern, was meant. Jerome and the Greek versions
except LXX imply the pointing rfbho, meholoth, dances :
cp heading of Ps. 88, where Leannoth ( perhaps for
singing ) follows. None of these views has much plausi
bility or is free from objection. A musical note which
occurs in only two psalm-headings, and has no clear
meaning, is probably corrupt. As Gratz has seen, a
better reading is almost certainly upon ALAMOTH
[^. .] LEANNOTH (niayV ; rov a.TroKpi.6rivai [<5] ; rod
^dpxav [Aq.]; ad respondendum [Jer.]) is also prob
ably a mis-written rithy, originally intended as a correc
tion of nSna; see PSALMS [BOOK], 120 (on Alamoth ).
T. K. C.
MAHALI. See MAHLI.
MAHANAIM (D^TO, encampment, cpcas/ra). 1 A
city on the E. of Jordan, placed by P on
front ; er O f Q ac j anc i M ana sseh (Josh.
182630), and mentioned by him again
as a city of refuge together with Ramoth in Gilead
1 [That the form is not really dual, is maintained elsewhere (see
NAMES, 107). We. (CH 46) would take n:ns (mahdne) in Gen.
32 22 [21] as a proper name, parallel and equivalent to Maha-
naim ; but Mahane does not occur elsewhere, and Ball (SBOT)
therefore reads QjnO- There may, however, have been a form
Mahanath (see MINNITH). Note the sporadic 110.0.1*0.16 in i Ch.
680 (B), as well as the cases where renders by the sing. TJ
Trape/ujSoATJ. See ad fin. s - A - c -l
2902
_ T
1. O.I.
!CSl
MAHANAIM
Heshbon, and Jaazer (ib. 2l38[ 3 6], cp i Ch. 68ot6 5 ]).
There was doubtless an ancient sanctuary there, for
Jacob, so E represents, when he came to the place
after parting from Laban, met there a host (mahdneh)
of divine ones : a skilful application of the obvious
etymology. Some find a second reference to the ety
mology in Gen. 32? (J), where two hosts (mahanoth)
are spoken of ; but there are difficulties in supposing
that the scene of Gen. 324/1 (J) is N. of the jabbok,
where E rightly, of course, places Mahanaim (see
Holzinger, ad loc., and GlLEAD, 4). On two great
occasions the security of the position of Mahanaim
seems to have led royal personages to make it their
residence. I shbosheth resided there during his short
reign (28. 2812), and David retired thither in his flight
from Absalom (2 S. 172 4 2 7 ; cp 1932 i K. 28). Under
Solomon, Mahanaim was the administrative centre of a
department (iK. 4 14); see AHINADAB. The name
occurs in the list of Palestinian cities taken by Shishak
(Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, 773), and is finally
met with (if the article prefixed to D :no is no objection)
in Cant. 613 [7i], where the Shulammite is somehow
brought into connection with the dance of Mahanaim
(Xpoi ruv 7T<xpe/u/3o\u>c, AV, company of two armies ) ;
criticism, however, throws much doubt upon the text *
(see CANTICLES, 9 ; DANCE, 7).
Reference is probably made to a re-conquest of Mahanaim in
Am. 6 13 ; for Q j-p read Q jnOi a "d render, Have we not, by
our strength, taken Mahanaim ? The name of the other town
was hardly Lo-debar, but Jabesh-gilead (of which the MT x 1 ?
13T is a corruption). See MEPHIBOSHETH ; SAUL, 6.
The exact site of Mahanaim is uncertain. Conder s
reasons for placing it to the east of es-Salt, 2 beyond
~ TJ x-c the round basin of the Bukei will
2. Identifica
tion.
hardly bear examination. The critical
analysis of Gen. 32 seems to show that
Mahanaim lay N. of the Jabbok, but where, is disputed.
Merrill (East of the Jordan, 437) thinks of the ruin
called Suleikhat, 300 ft. above the Jordan valley, in
the Wady Ajlun. Robinson, van Kasteren (ZDPV
13*205/), and Buhl (Pal. 257), however, urge the claims
of Mihne or Mahne in the Jebel Ajlun, a little to the
NE. of the town of Ajlun, whilst Porter and, according
to Gautier, Germer-Durand, suggest that Gerasa rose
on the ruins of Mahanaim.
In 28. 229, Abner and his men, on leaving Gibeon, are said
to have passed over Jordan, and gone through all Hithron, and
so come to Mahanaim. Prof. H. P. Smith explains pinan, as
doubtless, the proper name of one of the side valleys up which
Mahanaim was situated. This is correct, except that all
Bithron is corrupt ; the real proper name of the side valley was
probably the valley of Pistachio trees 3 (C^tjari ?n3). Accord
ing to 2 S. 18 6 the battle between the army of David and that of
Absalom took place in the wood of Ephraim. For Ephraim
an early authority reads Mahanaim ; but probably Ephraim
should rather be Rephaim (see EPHRAIM, WOOD OF). At any
rate, it was clearly in the vicinity of Mahanaim, and the nearest
way from this wood or copse-land to the city was by the "\33
(EV plain ), or rather, since no satisfactory explanation of this
reading (v. 23) has been offered, 4 by the 7PU that is to say, the
eager Ahimaaz ran along in the wady in which, at some little
distance, Mahanaim lay.
From a critical glance at the OT passages it is evident
that Mahanaim was a strong city ; we have to look for
one of the very best sites for such a city in N. Gilead.
It must also, as Gen. 32 shows, have been easily acces-
1 Plausible as the sword-dance theory may be, there is so
much corruption in the context that we may suggest an emenda
tion akin to that proposed for Cant. 611 (see TIRZAH). Read,
What do you see in the Shulammite? A narcissus of the valleys
(D pSJM nSinn). This is grammatically easier and suits the
context.
2 Heth andMoab, ISO/
3 Pistachio-trees are found in Gilead (Post, PEFQ, 1888, p.
200 ; Tristram, NHB 367). The current explanation of Bithron
as ravine will hardly bear examination (cp BKTHER). Cp
D 333 (EV Betonim), a place in Gad, mentioned beside Maha
naim, Josh. 13 26.
* See, e.g., Lohr, ad loc.
2903
MAHAVITB
sible from Mizpah, which we have elsewhere provision
ally identified with Suf. Putting all this together, we
may plausibly identify Mahanaim with Ajlun, so
finely situated at a point where valleys meet, with
abundant wood in its neighbourhood (GILEAD, 7), and
with an unequalled site for a fortress not far off, which
is still occupied by the imposing Kal at er-Rabad. At
some distance to the N. is still found the name of Mihne
or Mahne, and some of the liest geographers (Robinson,
van Kasteren, 1 and Buhl) would therefore place Maha
naim there. It seems better, however, to suppose that
the wood of Mahanaim extended as far as Mihne, and
that the name of Mihne is really an abbreviation of that
ancient phrase.
Here, as elsewhere, geographical results are dependent on
critical exegesis. The idea that Ajlun might be Mahanaim has
also occurred to Prof. G. A. Smith (IfG 587 ; cp 335 n., 586);
but he did not recognise that it was almost forced upon us by
the biblical data, rightly viewed. Miihlau (Riehm< 2 ), 954) feels
a similar hesitation ; he thinks that Mihne is not near enough to
the Jabbok and the Jordan Valley.
Readings : Josh. 13 26/Uoai [B], fj.aav [Bah], ^avaj.ft. [A], paav.
[L] ; v. 30 ij.aava [B], AL as above. Jos. 21 38 [36] Ka^eiv [B],
juai/ju [L], A as above, i Ch. 680 [65] fj.aava.id [B], -ai/x [A],
/Sai/afl [ L], vWy [ Pesh. ]. 2 S. 2 8 <e rVjs 7rapt/u/3oAVj [ B AL],
B add eis fifii-affj., cp We. ad loc. ; v. 12 \j.ava.t\.\i. [A], trapefi^oAirjs
[L], lost in B ; z>. 29 (rt\v) Trape/u./SoATJi [BA], 7rape^/3oAas fj.aSi.au
[L] ; Jos. (Ant. vii. 1 3) Mai/aAcs. 2 S. 17 24 ^ai/aeifx. [B], -v [A],
7rape/u/3oAas [L] ; v. 27 fj-aavaeifj. [BA], L as before ; 19 32 fiacaei/x
[BA], L as before, i K. 28 n-ape^/SoAas [BAL] ; 4 14 paai/amoi
[B], fj.aavai.fi. [A], fiaxeiAaji [L]. The ethnic is perhaps to be
found in i Ch. 11 46 (crit. emend.). See MAHAVITE ; also JEPH-
THAH, 3, n. 4. T. K. C.
MAHANEH-DAN or Dan s camp (
GMBoAH AAN [BAL]), a place behind i.e. , W. of
Kirjath-jearim, where the 600 Danites from Zorah and
Eshtaol encamped in the course of their advance north
wards (Jud. 1812). The explanation of the name is
questionable, and a different localisation of Mahaneh-
Dan is given in Judg. 1825 viz., between Zorah and
Eshtaol. It was there that the spirit of Yahwe first
stirred up Samson. The explanation of this discrepancy
is to be found in i Ch. 25254, at least if we may read
jT-nmo instead of p-njro. The Manahethites were partly
sons of Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim, and partly
connected with the Zorites (of Zorah). See MANA
HETHITES. s. A. c.
MAHARAI (nn, cp Ph. ^imnQ?), a Neto-
phathite [of the Zerahites], one of David s heroes (2 S.
2328, Noepe [B]. MAep&ei [A], MAARNAN [o TOY
qbeATiA] [L], iCh.H 3 o, N eepe [BK, i.e., nnj],
MOOP& [A], MAppI [L]; 27i3. M6HpA. [B], MOOP<M
[A], MA&PI [L])-
MAHATH (nnp, cp Ahimiti, son of Azuri king of
Ashdod, temp. Sargon, see below ; M&A.6 [BAL]).
1. b. Amasai, in the genealogy of the Kohathite Samuel ; i Ch.
635 [20] (fifS [B], ani<oO [L]) apparently = AHIMOTH (y.v.) in
v. 25 [10] (where L has afata6 as here); perhaps derived from
Mahath b. Amasai in 2 Ch. 29 12 (niaefl [A]). Cp JAHATH, 2,
GENEALOGIES i., 7, iii. c. Mahath, Amasai, Azariah are all
Kohathite (i.e., S. Palestinian) names. Amasai probably comes
from Ishma ell (Ishmaelite, cp i Ch. 2 17), Azariah from Asshuri
(cp ASSHURIM); Mahath or Ahimoth is presumably also an ethnic,
and perhaps (like Ahitub?), comes from Rehobothi. A Reho-
bothite king of Ashdod, and a Levite connected with Rehoboth
are very possible.
2. A temple officer temp. Hezekiah (2 Ch. 31 13 ; Oavai [B ; see
NAHATH, 3], aa$ [L]), perhaps the same as i. T. K. C.
MAHAVITE. Eliel the Mahavite is the EV render
ing of the MT D^HSn ^N^N (i Ch. 11 46 . . . o Mii
[BN], o MACOGIN [A], o M&C06I [L]). a rendering
which cannot be legitimately obtained from the present
state of the text.
Read O inan (cp Vg., Mahumites), a man of Bahurim. Eliel
and Bahurim are both probably Jerahmeelite names (Che.).
Be. (CAro.)and Barnes (Cam6. BiMe) would read jnen, an
inhabitant of MAHANAIM (q.v. ). Pesh. presents a form yv die )
2904
MAHAZIOTH
MAHAZIOTH (niK^nO, visions, cp NAMES, 23),
according to the Chronicler a son of Heman (i Ch.
26430, MeAzu)6 v. 4, MAzco6 v. 30 [B], MAAZICOG
[AL], mahazioth [Vg. ]), see HEMAN.
MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ (T3 K : n fytf 1HD,
23; oiEetoc rrpoNOMHN TTOIHCAI CKyAtoN
and TAxeooc CKyAeycoN, oSecoc npONOMeycoN
[BNAQl 1 ]), the name given by Isaiah to his son (Is. 813).
Like SHEAR-JASHUB (q.v. ) this name is intended as
an omen (cp Che. Is. I 3 , ad loc.). The name means
swiftly cometh spoil, speedily hasteneth prey" or, to
keep closer to the abruptness of the Hebrew, hasten
booty, speed spoil. See ISAIAH i. , 4.
MAKTESH
MAHLAH (PDnO ; M &A* [BAL], MAAAA [F]), a
daughter of ZELOPHEHAD [^.^.] (Nu. 2633 [37]; 27 1
[L om. all the names of the daughters] ; 36 n MAAAA
[B], MAAAA [ALJ; Josh. 17 3 MAAAA [BL]). In RV
of i Ch. 7 18 Mahlah (AV MAHALAH) is one of the sons
of HAMMOLEKETH \_q.v.~], Machir s sister (/j.ae\a [B],
fj.oo\a [A], /u.aa\a.0 [L]).
All these names are corrupt ; but the true readings can prob
ably be recovered. Zelophehad springs from Salhad ; Hammo-
leketh from Salecah (another name of the same place). Mahlah
may come from [AbelJ-meholah ; there was possibly a second
place of this name, which ultimately comes from Jerahmeel.
Note that Gideon, who has been fused with Jerubbaal, is an
Abiezrite, and that Abiezer in i Ch. 7 18 is a brother of Mahlah.
T. K. C.
MAHLI (^TBJ, 74 : MOoA[e]i [BAL]), a Levitical
subdivision which appears as a distinct family in Nu.
2658 (@ I!AFL om. ), but is elsewhere associated with the
division MERAKI. These names seem to appear inde
pendently in EzraSiS/. (see SHEREBIAH) i Esd. 847
(/nooXXet [L]) ; more commonly, however, they are
brought into relationship. Thus Mahli is either made
the son of Merari (and brother of MUSHI) in Ex. 619
(AV MAHALI) Nu. 820 i Ch. 619 [4] (/uooXXi [L]) 29 [14]
(om. B) 2821 (/J.OT)\ [B in t>]) 2426, or becomes the son
of Mushi and grandson of Merari, as in i Ch. 632 [47]
(/*ooXAi[L]), cp232 3 24 3 o( / uooXXet[B]). See, generally,
GENEALOGIES i. , 7.
The gentilic Mahlites ( Snarl) occurs only in Nu. 3 33
(6 moAei [B], o jU.ooA[e]i [BabAFL]) 26 58 (see above).
The name is possibly derived from MAHALATH (f.v.) ; but may
come straight from Jerahme eli (Che.) ; note that one of Mahli s
descendants is named Jerahmeel (cp i Ch. 23 21 24 2%f.), and see
MOLID.
MARLON. See CHILION, and cp RUTH (BOOK).
MAHOL (biniD, 74 ; M AA [B], MAOyA [A], MAAAA
[L]), the father of Heman, Calcol, and Darda, three
(foreign) wise men who, together with Ethan the Ezra-
hite, were surpassed in wisdom by Solomon (i K.43i
[5n]). These names can all be accounted for on the
assumption that the wisdom of the Edomites is referred
to. Ethan and Heman both seem to be corrupt forms
of TEMAN {q.v. ] ; Calcol (SsVj) is probably a corruption
of Caleb (3*73), and Darda (y-m) of AROER (ijny).
EZRAHITE is certainly another form of Zarhite, and
Zerah in Gen. 36 13 17 is an Edomite clan. Lastly,
Mahol, like HAMUL, comes from JERAHMEEL (Snom ).
It was really, perhaps, only Aroer that was a son of
Jerahmeel ; <S BL give uWs or vibv, not viovs in i K. I.e.
The enthusiastic remark of i K. 431 [5u] now becomes
more striking, for the wisdom of the Edomites (with
whom the Jerahmeelites were connected) was proverbial
(cp Obad. 8), and when we take into consideration that
in v. 30 we should almost certainly read c/T) :3 (a cor
ruption of ^NorrV Ja, sons of Jerahmeel ) for MT s
mp 33, and that Job was also greater than all the
Jerahmeelites (read cpn 33 Job 1 3), the view here offered
becomes in the highest degree probable. See EAST
(CHILDREN OF), JERAHMEEL, MAHALATH.
Klo. s ingenious theory (see his notes on i K. I.e.) that there
was a poetic dialogue, like our Job, in which Ethan and the
other sages took part, is baseless ; *?inD cannot mean a round
2905
of alternate speeches. 1 Lag. (Or. 225) more plausibly thought
that *?inO 33 meant dancers (and singers); cp Ti^n rma,
Eccles. 124. T K C
MAHSEIAH (
MAASEIAH i.
RV, Jer.32i 2 51 59. See
MAIANEAS, RV Maiannas (MAIANNAC [BA]),
i Esd. 948 = Neh. 87, MAASEIAH ii., 16.
MAID, MAIDEN (TO^, almah, Ex. 28, etc.;
H/in?, bZthuldh, Lam. 5n, etc.). See IMMANUEL,
r, FAMILY, 4.
MAKAZ (fi?; MAXCMAC [B], MAXMAC [A],
MAfXAC [L]), mentioned first among the cities of
the second of the prefectures of the land of Israel, i K.
4 9. The next three places named being among those
reckoned to Dan (Josh. 1941-43), it would seem that
Makaz should be a corruption of one of the other
names of Danite towns. ME-JARKON (q.v.) suggests
itself as probable. If the site proposed for this place is
correct, Me-jarkon well deserved to be so prominently
mentioned. 1 Makkus, a little to the NE. of Ascalon,
once proposed by Conder, is neither in an important
position, nor would the site be Danite. T. K. c.
MAKED (MAKeA [ANV] ; Vg. Magetk), an unknown
place in Gilead, mentioned in i Mace. 526 (MAKeB [A])
cp 36 (where AV MAGED) along with Bosora and
Carnaim.
MAKHELOTH (nnp ; MAKHAoo9 [BAF], MA-
KHAcoG [L]), a place named in Nu. 332s/, probably
identical with KEHELATHAH ; cp also MIKLOTH.
All these forms are almost certainly corruptions of Jerah
meel. P s list of stations is artificial ; the substratum, how
ever, consists of place-names belonging to the Jerahmeelite
region, S. of Palestine.
See WANDERINGS. T. K. c.
MAKKEDAH (nn|?p; MAKHAAN, MAKHAA ; Jos.
Anf.v. li? MAKXlAA, v.i MAKKHAA , Pesh. makdr,
but in 1641 nakdd), a royal Canaanite city (Josh. 12 16 ;
om. [?] B) in the lowland of Judah (154i), mentioned
at the end of a group of cities together with Beth-dagon
and Naamah. It was in the cave at Makkedah that
the five kings of the Amorites, who had sought refuge
there after the battle of Beth-horon (10ioi6), were
taken and slain. Makkedah itself was captured after
wards (102i). Eusebius places Makkedah 8 R. m. E.
from Eleutheropolis (052/890; cp 1388). This is
clearly impossible. Nor is it at all certain (the name
having disappeared) whether the site proposed by
Warren at el-Mughar ( the cave ), SW. of Ekron,
5 m. E. of Nd anek (perhaps the Naamah of Josh. ),
and some 25 m. from Gibeon, is the right one. There
are, indeed, signs that an ancient town stood here, and
Conder says that this is the only site in the plain where
caves are to be found. The Wady es-Sardr has, in
fact, made a way here through a bar of soft sandy stone,
and the precipitous cliffs are pierced by caverns of
various sizes (PEF Mem. 2411). The narrative in Josh.
points to a single specially large cave (mjra-i) which was
outside of the town. The name may seem to suggest a
sheep-breeding region (cp ipj and Dr. on Am. li).
It may, however, have suffered changes, and the original
name may possibly have had the same origin as ME-
GIDDO [q.v. ]. It has not been traced with certainty
in the Egyptian name-lists. T. K. c.
MAKTESH (^rOn ; THN KATAKeKOMMersiHN
[BNAQ] ; eiC TON oA/v\ON [Aq.], TOON oA/v\coN
[Symm.], gN TOO BA0ei [Theod.]), usually supposed
to be the name of a quarter of Jerusalem where mer
chants and dealers resided (Zeph. In), and to be so
called because in configuration it resembled a mortar
(RV m s-, the mortar ); cp Judg. 15ig the mortar
(EV hollow place ) that is in Lehi. See MORTAR.
1 In the main as Klost., who reads the name Me-rakkon.
MALACHI
The Tg. thinks of the Valley of the Kidron, most
moderns of the Tyropoeon (see JERUSALEM, 23).
The name, however, which is both odd in itself and
nowhere else found, is not improbably corrupt. It is
best to read rnwsrr-n (2 K. 2813), or rather c v inne 8n"in
(see DESTRUCTION, MOUNT OF) ; the locality meant
is the Mount of Olives. Observe that the gates and
the hills are mentioned just before.
This may be illustrated by Neh. 13 15, where we read, accord
ing to a probable critical emendation of a corrupt text, that sellers
of agricultural produce brought their goods into Jerusalem by
the ascent of those who worship (Q lrWCJSn nSyC2 for D1 3 VJ,W
TX DTDO)- Probably there were houses or shelters on the
Mount of Olives for those sellers who could not return home in
the day. Possibly, too, the phrase D lnnBJSrt n^D is the
original name of the c n in *1H (Zech.14.4): i.e., DTI t (olives)
may be a corruption of Q lnDB D ( those who worship ). In
2 S. 15 30 we find the phrase QTI in H^yo ( he ascent of the
olives ), for which we should perhaps read (cp v. 32) nSj?D
Cp OLIVES, MOUNT OF. T. K. c.
MALACHI. According to the title (Mai. 1 1), the last
book of the Minor Prophets contains the word of
j, Yahwe to Israel by Malachi. It would
1. ame. seem t jj at a p r0 p er nam e is intended here,
but the difficulty of understanding the word malachi
("ON?!?, my messenger ) 1 in this way has been felt
since the earliest times. Even B K A Q has iv x tL P^
dyyt\ov avrov, by his messenger ; a translation which
(whether from ^x^O or ISK^D) would hardly have been
possible at a time when the existence of a prophet
Malachi was generally recognised. In fact, the prevail
ing tradition among the Jews for some time after Christ
continued to reject the proper name.
The Jon. Targ. (Mai. 1 i) declares this messenger to have
been no other than Ezra the scribe, and Jerome adopts this
view. Cp also Talm. Megilt. i$a. The earliest Church Fathers
generally regard the word as an appellative (see Reinke,
Malachi, 6-9; Kohler, Nachexil. Proph.l^f.; Nestle, Sept.
Stud. 3 13, and cp 4 Esd. 1 40). In any case, it is hardly to be
doubted that the superscription is the work of a later hand.-
When, finally, it is observed how the phrase my
messenger is employed in 3i, at the beginning of the
most striking passage in the book, the conclusion seems
imperative that the proper name Malachi originated
in a misinterpretation of this word, aided perhaps by
Hag. 1 13 as well as Mai. 2 7.
The book falls into two main divisions : (a) a rebuke
addressed to the priests (l6-2g) ; (A) a series of oracles
_ addressed to all the people (2 10-821 [4s]).
2. contents. ^ Thg theme of the brief introduction
(12-5), Israel God s peculiar people, plays a very im
portant part in the book from beginning to end. See
16 2 10 36/1, and cp 2 5 /. That the prophet should
choose here as his sole illustration of this truth a refer
ence to calamities that have recently come upon Edom,
Israel s brother nation, is characteristic of the time at
which he wrote (see below, 6).
Of the charges brought against the priests, the fore
most is one of gross misconduct in their performance of
the temple service (16-13). They treat the sacred rites
with indifference, and bring the most worthless offerings
as good enough for the worship of Yahwe. They are
further accused of betraying their trust as the official
guides of the people in religious matters (24-9). As
members of the priestly tribe, they are the bearers of the
torah (mm) or (oral) teaching concerning the religion
and worship of Yahwe. They have broken their covenant,
however, and turned aside from the path ; their teaching
has become a stumbling-block to the people. In v. gb,
if the text is correct, still another accusation is unex
pectedly introduced, namely that of partiality in the
1 So far as the form is concerned, 3K^O rnight be a con-
traction of n SX^D or irPDxSs, messenger of Yahwe. But the
name is not a likely one, and there is no evidence of the occur
rence of the longer form in any Hebrew text (to appeal to the
later Greek superscription, MaAaxw, is absurd).
2 Cp especially Zech. 9 i (text incomplete) J2 i.
2907
MALACHI
use of the teaching. The meaning of the charge is
not quite clear, and it is decidedly out of place as it
stands.
(6) In the passage 2io-i6, with which the second
main division of the book begins, nearly all interpreters
since Jerome have seen the prophet s rebuke of two
evils marriage with heathen women, and divorce (so
also Targ., though with a noteworthy variation in v. 16.
due to the corrupt state of the Hebrew original ; see
also EZRA i. , 5). This interpretation fails to meet the
requirements of the text (see below, 4). The rebuke
is rather directed against the encroachment of foreign
worship in Israel (so <5, Pesh. ). Judah has dealt
falsely with the wife of his youth, the covenant religion,
and is wedding a strange cult. The people lament
because their offerings fail to bring a blessing, and are
strangely unable to see why ill-fortune has come upon
them (w. 13 14^).
The two sections 2 17-8 5 and 3 13-21 [4 3] are very much
alike in character and contents. In each, the assertion
of some of the people that Yahwe does not concern
himself with human affairs is answered by the prophet s
assurance that the great and terrible day will soon
come, when the good shall be separated from the evil
and the righteous shall finally triumph. These oracles
are interrupted by a characteristic passage (86-12) in
which the people are censured for neglecting to pay
their tithes. The passage was begun in a quite different
strain (see esp. v. 7), suggested by the catalogue of sins
in v. 5. The way in which the prophet seizes upon this
particular delinquency as it occurs to him, abandoning
the main line of his reasoning altogether, illustrates
both the hasty looseness of style into which he some
times falls, and his present interest in matters connected
with the public worship.
1 1 is probable that 3 22-24 [4 4-6] is a later appendix to the book. !
It has no natural connection with the preceding, but has all the
appearance of an addition by another hand, having for its chief
object the providing of an impressive close for the collection of
the prophetic writings. It is hardly by accident that Moses and
Elijah, the two great representatives of Israel s golden age,
appear together in these isolated verses at the end of the last
of all the prophets.
The most interesting passage in the book from the
theological point of view is In, with its assertion that
all sincere worship of the one God, even
3 Heathen
. . among the heathen, is accepted by
worsmp. Yahwe, whose name is truly honoured
(cp in the NT Rom. 1 1 9 /. [cp 2io/. ; Wisd. 186-9] ;
Acts lOss). This interpretation, which is now adopted
by most OT scholars, is the one required by both the
language and the context of the verse. See esp.
Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures (1882), p. i8o/. ; GASm.
The Twelve Prophets (1898), p. 358 /. But the passage
stands alone in the OT. In Ps. 65 3 [2], which is perhaps
the nearest approach to a parallel, the language is much
less definite. Still, remarkable as the expression is, the
idea was certainly not foreign to Judaism it is quite in
the spirit of the Wisdom literature, for example nor
can it be said to be out of keeping with the character of
this prophet as it appears in the rest of the book.
It has been remarked above that the current inter
pretation of 2io-i6 is untenable. The text of the
_. ,. passage is, unfortunately, corrupt ; 2 but
it is not difficult to recognise the nature
interpretation of thg charge brought by the prophet
01 divorce. a g a j ns t his fellow-countrymen. The
sin which he is attacking is one of unfaithfulness, of
false dealing (verb bdgad}. The accusation is stated
definitely in v. ufr : Judah has profaned the sanctuary
of Yahwe, which he loves, and has espoused a bath el
nekar (n33 *?K m. daughter of a foreign god ). A few
verses farther on (w. 14 / ) the charge is made : Thou
hast dealt falsely with the wife of thy youth, the wife of
1 [The phraseological evidence for this view has been collected
by Bohme, /.A TM 1 210^ ED.]
2 No one of the attempts to emend e?>. 150; i6a can be called
even partially successful.
MALACHI
MALCHIJAH
thy covenant. To treat these expressions literally, as
referring to actual marriage and divorce, 1 involves us in
insuperable difficulties. To assume, in the first place,
that divorce of Israelitish wives stood in any necessary
or even probable connection with the wedding of women
from other nations is unreasonable. Many modern
commentators, in the desire to avoid this difficulty,
suppose a change of subject, from intermarriage with
Gentiles to divorce in general (Kohler, Orelli, Wellh. ,
etc. ). It is not possible, however, thus to separate w.
13-16 from vv. 10-12. The phrase wife of thy covenant-
religion (that eseth blrithlkd [-JVQ ns^x] cannot mean
wife of thy marriage vows, Kraetzschmar, Bundes-
vorstellung, 240 f. has shown conclusively) is plainly
contrasted with daughter of a foreign god ; with
whom thou hast falsely dealt (v. 14) refers to the
charge made with the same word in v. n ; blrith in
v. 14 is repeated from v. 10. Better evidence of con
tinuity could hardly be desired. 2 Another attempt to
remove the apparent incongruities of the passage is that
of G. A. Smith ( The Twelve Prophets, 2340 365), who
proposes to strike out vv. n and 12 a desperate ex
pedient. There is one, and but one, admissible inter
pretation, namely, that which recognises the use of
figurative language here. Wedding a foreign cult
necessarily involved divorce from the covenant religion.
The figure employed by the prophet is very natural and
effective, certainly better suited to his time than that
introduced by Hosea.
The book of Malachi gives us in small compass a
many-sided view of the religious conditions in which the
_, ,.,. writer lived. Israel was beginning to
S feel the effects of her more intimate
acquaintance with the great nations round about. The
world had grown larger, and the perspective had
changed. A new type of free thinkers had arisen
(2i7 813^); a class too numerous, and perhaps too
sincere, to be ignored. The feeling was gaining ground
that the old beliefs and rites were outgrown. Hence
the shameful conduct of some of the priests, and the
readiness of many influential men among the people to
betray the nation (as the prophet insists, 2io) by
openly espousing foreign cults. On the other hand, the
orthodox, the God-fearing, formed a sort of church or
party by themselves (3i6) in opposition to these tend
encies. The situation closely resembles that which pro
duced the two parties of the Pharisees and the Sadducees
at a later day. The prophet s own position is that of
one who can welcome the broader view, while remaining
thoroughly loyal to the national religion. He declares
without hesitation that heathen worship is accepted by
Van we, but in the next breath appeals to the patriotism
of his hearers, and to their hope of a Messianic time.
As for the date of Malachi, it was certainly written in
the Persian period (allusion to the governor in 18)
. _. , after the completion of the temple (3io).
Regarding the other criteria it may be said
that they all point distinctly to a late rather than an
early date. 3 The remarkable passage 12-5 (Edom the
1 [The latest advocacy of the literal interpretation is to be
found in Nowack s Kl. Proph. 389 410^, and Che. Jew. Rel.
L.ife(f)a). The most plausible reconstruction of the whole back
ground of the passage (Mai. 2io-i6) on the same view is that of
Stade ((7K/2 136^), who remarks, The connection shows that
the writer has to do in the first place with matrimonial alliances
which respected members of the community, who were already
of a certain age, had contracted with rich and influential families
of the peoples of the land. These persons were already married,
and their non-Jewish fathers-in-law were able, in consequence
of their social position, to make the new marriage conditional
on a preceding divorce of the Jewish wife. Against this, how
ever, see Winckler, AOF1=,Tf,jff. ED.]
2 [It is, of course, v. 16 which may appear to break the con
tinuity nf Mai. 2 10-16. For I hate dismissal (of a wife), says
Yah we, may seem too general and far-reaching to serve as an
argument in this special case. But it is urged that reformers
often do not see all that follows from the general principles
which they invoke, which explains some of the strange incon
sistencies in the later OT literature. ED.]
* It has been customary, chiefly because of the traditional
2909
arch enemy of Israel) is to be classed with Am. 9 12 and
Ob. 21 ; l the apocalyptic passages 3i/: 19 (4 \)ff., with
their conception of the day of judgment as the day when
1 the wicked (o J/Bn) shall be destroyed out of Israel,
remind us of the Psalms (Wellh.); the theological
development presupposed by the book finds its nearest
parallels in the Psalter and the Wisdom literature ; and
finally, the position of Mai. at the end of the collection
of the Prophets may be adduced, though the argument
is not weighty. We may, therefore, assign the book
with some confidence to the first half of the fourth century.
To argue from the fact that Mai. calls the priests sons of
Levi, that he was not acquainted with the priestly law-book
(Wellh. on Mai. 822(44] ; cp Now. 391) is hardly permissible. It
is evident, from all parts of the book, that the writer (like many
of the latest OT writers) is strongly influenced by Dt. Nothing
could be more natural than that he should use its familiar
phraseology. The same may be said of 3 22 (4 4] (probably by a
later hand ; see above) with its mention of Horeb instead of
Sinai. Such expressions as the laws and statutes which were
enjoined by Moses upon all Israel were, of course, associated
with the name Horeb (see, e.g., Dt. 5 i.yi). Cp also Ecclus.
48 7 Ps. 10*3 19. From 3 10 (cp Nu. IS viff.) it is natural to sup
pose that the priestly law of tithes was already codified, as it
certainly was recognised.
The diction of Mai. is pure, the style vigorous, though
often prosaic and sometimes awkward. In more than
_ _, . one place, the meaning is seriously obscured
^ by an abrupt transition, due apparently to
the writer s impulsive haste. A personal peculiarity of
his style is seen in his favourite way of opening an
argument, by introducing the supposed objections of his
hearers, which he then refutes (12^ 6 ff. 2 17 87^
I 3^)- 2 Originality and earnestness are marked char
acteristics of the book in all its parts. The estimate
that pronounces it a monument of the degeneracy of
Hebrew prophecy, the product of an age whose religious
teachers could only imitate, but not attain to, the
spiritual fervour of the old prophets (so esp. Duhm,
Reuss) is decidedly unjust.
Among the special comms. on Mai. those of Edward Pococke,
1677 ((-), 1692), Reinke, 1856, Kohler, 1865,
8. Literature, may be mentioned. Cp also Stade, Gesch.
Isr. 2 128-138 ; and JBL 17 1-15, where the
views expressed in this article, as now revised, are more fully
set forth. [See also W. Bohme, ZATIV 7 (1887) 210^!: Wi.
.} W. K. S. C. C. T.
MALCHAM, RV Malcam (D|).
1. b. SHAHARAIM [q.v], in the genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v.,
9, ii. ft), i Ch. 8 9 t ( M eA X s IBJ. /* [AJ, -OM [L]).
2. In Zeph. Is (TOU /WiAe ws O.VTWV [BNAQ], juoAox [Q m e-])
RVmj;. has their king, as in 2 S. 1230 RV m g- has MALCAM for
EV s their king. See MILCOM.
MALCHIAH. See MALCHIJAH.
MALCHIEL (^2>/>, God is King (or my king) 1
24, 36 ; on early history of name see MALCHIJAH ;
MAx(e)lHA [ADFL] ; but in Nu. MeAAmA [B*], in Ch.
MeAAeiH [B]), an Asherite family, Gen. 46i? Nu.
26 4 s (where also ^N 3 1 ?!?, MalcMelite,A\eAAiHAi [B].
MeA X (e)lHA(e)l [B ab AFL]) i Ch.7 3 i- The same
name is prominent in the correspondence of the
Amarna tablets. Milkil ( = Malchiel) was one of the
chief enemies of the governor of Jerusalem (cp Jastrow,
JBL\\ 120 ; Sayce, Pat. Pal. 135, etc. ). See ASHER i. ,
I-
MALCHIJAH (Pwfy?, irpata as if Yahwe is my
king ; 36); but possibly the original name was a
exegesis of 2 \aff., and the fact that mixed marriages are assailed
in Ezra-Neh., to assign Mai. to the middle of the fifth century.
[The precise position of the book in relation to Nehemiah and
Ezra is a matter of controversy. Stade places it before the
arrival of Ezra ; Driver during the absence of Nehemiah at the
Persian Court ; Che. (Jew. Rel. Life) shortly before the arrival
of Nehemiah, and consequently before that of Ezra. The ques
tion has passed into a new phase in consequence of recent
critical study of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. ED.]
* See/.SZ. 17 16-20 ; also EUOM, 9.
2 It is a curious fact that many scholars, following Ewald,
have seen in this (in itself by no means remarkable) habit of
style a mark of the transition to the dialectic manner of the
Jewish schools, although dating Mai. in the fifth century.
2910
MALCHIRAM
MAMMON
corruption of Jerahme el ; Hammelech and Harim
(24-6) seem to be corruptions of Jerahme el. Note
also Malchijah the Rechabite (7, 8) ; cp MALCHIEL.
That nos. 4-6, 7 and 8, and 9-11 represent only three
individuals is highly probable. /u.f\x[e]ta [BNA], /j.e\-
Xtas [L].
1. Father of PASHHUK, q.v. ; Jer. 21 1 MELCHIAH [AV],
MALCHIAH [RV] (nifA X tou [BNAQ]), Jer. 38 1 EV MALCHIAH
BNA om., MfAxiou ([Aq., Theod., in Q B-]).
2. b. Hammelech (RV the king s son, but see above), into
whose dungeon Jeremiah was cast; Jer. 336 EV MALCHIAH
(MeA x [e].ov [BNAQ]).
3. Ancestor of Adaiah the priest ; i Ch. 9 12 (naA X ei.a [B],
fieAxiow [A]); Neh. 11 i2, AV MALCHIAH; probably to be
identified with the Malchijah who gave his name to one of the
twenty-four priestly lots; i Ch. 249 (M e A\ti)A [L]) ; cp the
occurrence of the name in the Asaphite genealogy in i Ch.
640 [25], AV MALCHIAH (^A X ta [L]).
4. 5, 6. (AV MALCHIAH) b. Parosh, b. Parosh secundus, and
(AV MALCHIAH) b. Harim, laymen in list of those with foreign
wives (see EZRA i., 5 end) ; Ezra 1025 [Ms], 10 31 (UNA om.
the second Malchijah in 10 25 and add crajSia [K], a<ra/3ia[A], etc.,
see ASIUIAS; L for the first reads /uixaias. In i Esd. i) 26 32
MELCHIAS). Malchijah b. Harim was one of the repairers of
the wall ; Neh. 3n ( M eA x eia? [HA]).
7, 8. (AV MALCHIAH) b. Rechab, ruler of the district of Beth-
haccherem, Neh. 3 14 ; and one of the goldsmiths," Neh. . {31,
both repairers. If Ben-rechab, the designation of the former,
means Rechabite, it shows that the Kenites still lived
among the representatives of the old people of Israel.
Cp Be.-Rys. ad loc. ; E. Meyer, Entst. 167. And certainly
Rechabite is the meaning, if, in accordance with parallels
almost innumerable, flixrrp (fiurifex) is a corruption of -p
nD":s> ; son of a Zarephathite. Observe that in Neh. 3 32 (by
a necessary emendation) the Zarephathites (n riEnxn) ar >d the
Jerahmeelites (o ^HBrrVJl f r D Ssin) are mentioned as co
operating in the repairs. See ZAREPHATH.
9, 10, n. A supporter of Ezra at the reading of the law (see
EZRA ii., 13 / ; cp i. 8, ii., 16 [5], ii. 15 [i] c), Neh. 8 4
(ju.eA X etas [BNA]), cp i Esd. 944 MELCHIAS; priestly signatory
to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7), Neh. 10 3 [4] ; and a priest in
procession at dedication of wall (see EzKAii., 13^) Neh. 1242
0A X eias [N c a mg ; BNA om.]). T. K. C.
MALCHIRAM (DTS^D, 41, my king is exalted ;
perhaps an adaptation of a name corrupted (cp HAMME
LE 
