Skip to main content

Full text of "Encyclopædia biblica; a critical dictionary of the literary, political and religious history, the archæology, geography, and natural history of the Bible;"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 




Digitized by LiOOQIC 








H[nTp.S3S: perhaps abbrev. from nT5^(( 
luo ay'; cp Eladak), a Judohiie; i Ch.431 (u«j«# 
&> |AI, Aa&|> [LI). Fur a pn^ble ululion of ihE pro- 
r'Laodali.'Ke Lecah. 

h). I Ch. 7-S 23? J. 28ji AV. RV 

LAUAH (f.t.)' 

I*ABAM {\yb: AaBan [ADEL]). son of Nahor 
(Gen. 2*5 J; cp24*7. "here ■ Bethuel, son of,' should 
be omitied u an inierpolation ). ' He was also broiher 
tif Rcbekah {2itg), and became father of Leah and 
Rachel (chap. 29). and of seieral sons (3O3S 31 1 ) ; he 
was tbetefore UDcle and father-in-law of Jacob. Accord- 
ing to P (25so) he was. like Bethuel, ' an Aramaan ' 
(•BTM. EV ■ a Syrian ') ; bul P does not mean lo deny 
thai he was a Nahorile ; ' Milcah ' and ■ Aram ' are both 
probably corruptions of ' Jerahineel,' and the rvonhem 
jerahmcvUles dwelt at 'the city td Nahor.' It is in 
tact here that the tradition given by J places the home 
of t^ban {24 102743): the Godof Ljibon. too, is called 
by E the 'God of Nahor' (31 jj). Elsewhere (see 
Nahor) it is suggested that ' Nahor' Is most probably 
niiswriiien for ' Hauran ' : very possibly J and E had 
before them corrupt versions of the tradilional narrative. 

It would be unfair to criticise the character of Laban 
as if he were a historical individual ; we can only ven- 
ture lo infer that the later Israelites criticised the char- 
acter of the Aranueans very unfavournbly. It is 
essential, however, to notice the religious diflerence 
between Laban antl Jacob ; note especially the incident 
with llie teraphim (Geti. Sljs; cp 35>. and see Teka- 
PHIM). Since Laban — i.e., the Laban-lribe —resides 
In or near a city of Hnuran it is archrajlogically 
important to try to clear up the name. A very simiUv 
name, LtBNl y.v.). is given in Ex. 617 Nu. SiB to a 
son of (Jershon. son of Levi ; in i Ch.6ij, however, 
Libni's father is called Ger^hoin. Now, Gershom 
[ = Gershon) is a ' Jerahmeeliie ' name. Gershom in 
Ei 2h is the son of Moshe (Moses), who was the son 
of Amram{EK.6». 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 (LtAH) as a fragment of a feminine form of 
Jerahmeel The natural inference, it these data be 
granted, is that Laban and Libni are both connected 
with I.eah and Levi : jj}}, Labtui, may be from p'?, and 
Ubni may be a further detelopmeni of p^. 

the Jacoh-lritK, though tStcxwantt il hid in accepl an inferior, 
dependent poution. It Ihut bKomci unneccnaiy u combina 
Lihan wilt an Auyrian god fjihan (cp [ijit] hoitti, 'fiod of 

to be vitwccfu inierpolaliani. S« Mm, GtKh.d.Sl.HarraK, 
nff.'niTHXroian'tGimtii. In Gen.23B-i3(J)lh« lilt should 
fod with 'uidLAban And Rebekah.' 

hy Dtlilscfa Uld Satc* 

/___,._t._. Htlbon) 

inidly ■ 

, T. K. C. 

UBAN(t?7: hoSoN [BAFL]). an unknown locality 
(; perhaps the same as Libhah {3, f.v.). Cp 

;/2s;). G 
nyiholo^ i 

Larcinlui moan-sDd (Schr. KATflon Ge 
1^, p. 19B ; cp Ooldiilier, //li. JUylA. i 
inkel (f^fr, a^s) fiodi the Lftbui lei^nd '" 

i, 81- 
LABAHA (AABiLNA [BA]), 1 Esd.6>9 = Neh.74«. 

LABOUB(rJ;,Gen. Sl4>: ^, Dt.267). Lkboimr 

(eprATHC.Ml.937). SeeSi.AVEBv. The use of ' labour ' 
for ■ fruit of labour ' {i.g. . Hah. 8 17) is one of the most 
questionable Hebraisms of the EV. 

I1ACED2IIONIAK8 (A&keA&imonioi [AV], A«.- 
KM. [A]; see Swete, ad loe. and App, ), mentioned 
only in a Maec. 69; elsewhere always 'Spartans' 
(cn«ipTiATAi) is used. See Jason, a (end). Sparta. 

"The Jews clAimed liinship with the LuKdmnonilini (lee 
SpAirrA for diptoputic rcUiioni between the iwu pcoplri aIdoui 
goo B.C. And 14s B.C.). Forlhe presence of Jcwa in SputA, we 
niAV compAJe 1 Macc. 15 9j, And m the Peloponneie gcnetAlly, 
Phik.. Ltg. aj Cai. 36. 

tACHMH (t?'?^; A&XeiC [BAL.eic.]). A city in 
the Shephaah (Josh. I6», moXIJI [B*A]. \a. [B^super- 
1 HiatoT* '"^* ^^'' '" ''ins. ''''h f""' other Amorite 

«"■"*»■ kings, was defeated by Joshua at Gibeoa 
(Josh. lOs-.s; cp GiBEON, % 1, MakkeDaH) ; on the 
fate of the city and its population, see Josh. lOji/. It 
seems 10 have been a ' chariot-city ' (Mic 1 13 ; cp 1 K. 
e 19 and Beth-marc A both). The Chronicler speaks of 
its fortification by Rehoboam (9 Ch. 11 9). Amaiiah fled 
thither from a conspiracy (3 K. I419 : see Ama£IAH, 
1). Sennacherib besieged and look the place on his 
expedition against Egypt, and sei.t the Rabshakeh 
thence to Jerusalem (s K. I814. 17. cp 1»S ; ls.aSi 
Xa[xh< [F], cp 37 a [om, NAOgj). Uchish was one of 
the two last ' fenced cities' 10 be captured by Nebuchad- 
reiiar's army (Jer. 3l7)- " i» mentioned in a list of 
cities in Nehemiah (lljo) ; bul on critical grounds we 
cannot assume that Jews really dwelt (here in the period 
referred lo (see EZR A [i., g 5, n. 3). Prof. Petrie's infer- 

— vii. , that. ' after the return of the Jews Lachish appears 
10 have been hardly reoccupied ' ( 7Wi ft-Hisy. ag). 

In Mic. 1 13 Lachish Ls called ' ihe Uginning of sin for Ihe 
dAuahler (f.^., people) of Zion.' Po^iibly some heathen Philii. 
tine rites (cp Is. 'i6) had been introduced al Lachish, and 
ipreod (hence lo Jerunlem. The play on Ihe name of LKhiih 
il obKuit. Read peibipi D'3n[l] n;3-)^ -prri, ' Make reaUy 
eharioihorvB';' cp As>. narioMtt ra!n.». '' charioi-hQn es,' 

1 See Gei..Buhl, 1.1-. ffn;' and, for iho reu, Che. JQR 
1057«y; IiS9«l. MTiinnderedinRV.-Biadlhechuiadotbt 

y Google 


IM.Aa. ^WSej.jrAHi.nd «*«* product Ml asKinanct 
The people of LachiAh have good caiue lo flee, for they ue 
puln^lTthe lim of Jciu^eih. 

The antiquity of Laehish is proved by ihe references 
to it in some of Ihe Aniamn tablets ( i jth cenL B. c. ). 
Zimiida (cp ZtMRl) was prince of Ihe city under (be 
Egyptian liing Amen-hotep IV. EITons were made lo 
shake his allegiance lo Kgypt : bul he handed over the 
man who had tried lo seduce him lo an Egyptian official. 
Soon flfler. however, Laehish rebelled against him ; the 
fate of Zimrida remains uncertain. 

See Am. T»b. a.j, "9. •&'. ""<1 ftis". OLZ, islh Jan. 1899. 
H» Holler, however (.OLZ, ijth March iSgol tinds vme 
difficuUieiinlheHUation luppiKed byPeilet. No. 319 ii the 
bmoiia ublec found at Tell el-Heivfiee below, I aland included 
br Winckkr in bit tdilion of the Anuina fableli. 

Then Ii al» in the Biiiiih Muieum a ba^elief (found at 
Kuyui^iV) wiih Ihi> iiBeiiolion, according 10 Wincklei, ' Sen- 

the Ih^ine, and the ap^w'frarn LachiJh"!narched up'tefue 
him' ^ iTtj-liw*. ifi. Thi> conlinni the inference from a K. 

Eusebius and Jerome place Ihe sileof Laehish 7 R.m. 
S. of Eleulheropolis, towards tlte tHrOm [OS 274 9 

3.Slta 13513}. This does not ^ree with the 
position of Umm Lakis, which mosi recent 
scholars have identitied wiih Laehish, this place being 
W. , not S. , of Eleulheropolis. In fact, its sole re- 
commendatiorks consist in a very slight resemblance 
of its name to that of Laehish {k, not k, is Ihe second 
consonant).* and in its being only Ihree-quarteis of an 
hour from 'AjlSn (Eglon) ; cp Josh. lOjt. It presents, 
as Conder states, 'only a few [races of ruins, two 
masonry cislema. and a small, low mound' {PEFQ, iSjB, 
p. 3o). On the ground of this apparent insigniticance. 
Robinson long ago rejected it (BR-2iSg}. adding thai Ihe 
mound of Tell el-Hesy must certainly represent some 
Important cily : ' a finer position could hardly be 
imagined.' It was left for Conder, however, to point 
out that Laehish ought 10 be, and for Peine vitlually 
(o prove that it was. the cily which Tell el-Hesy repre- 
sents. ITie work of excavation was begun by Flinders 
Petrie in April 1690. A study of Ibe walls and of the 
pottery of different levels led him lo Ihe conclusion that 
■ Ihe eariiesl dwellings are not later than the seventeenth 
century B.C. , and the latest belong 10 the fifth century 
B.C.' 'The great walls below Ihc level of the ash-bed 
belong to Ihe pre-Israetitish or Amorile times. The 
stones below Ihe bed of ashes belong to the rude period 
of Ihe Judges. The ashes repiesenl a desolaiion when 
the tell was used by alkali-burners. [Bliss accounts for 
the great bed of ashes differenlly. ] The buildings 
above Ihe ashes represent Ihe cities of the various Jewish 
kings to Ihe time of Ihe Captivity.' Il was in Ihe third 
dly, in the stratum overspread by the ash-bed, Ihal the 
cuneiform tablet was found ; other tablets must or may 
have been carried off by foes. 



t Lichlih 

responds suflicicntly * 

Eleulheropolis Ihan Eiu 


1 the geographical deter- 

swift tieed '; but the Gni word (orn) ii, itridly, unltantlalable, 
>Ad tiy\ can hardly bo osvd of a chariol-bane faee HoRSB, 
H 1, 4). The order of [he words 'chariot' and 'swift aleed' 
■■■lio lOKcelynMible ; to alter il In the Iraiulaiion (G. A. Smith) 
i* arUiralr. liF, however, Prof. Snilh'i rendering mliht gland, 
hie eiplanalion would be al leail plaoiihle. He sets an alloiion 
to the Siyplian lubtidiei of hoiaei and charieti fin which the 
paliiiciani put (heir iruu), which would be received ai Lacfaiih, 
as being Ihe bit Judtean euiptm towards Egypt. 

'Came foninrdJntahiipRte«w-(M'Oinh, KM. P"^- 

bl4>7). Cp Hdnbold, JtaiM h. 
adopu Wi.'s liaulalian of /aOU matmrlm itik. Benid, 
--'""" "-"aAinIi-; and 

ttiXBItiA renders ' received (he spml of Lai 

Del ■ brought up Wore him«lr(r.«.,t 

spoil of Ladiish^ (Aa. H^B luaV 

(■89fl), w)l< 
•ih- Benld. 

the tbrLune& of [he site whjch agrees will 

F. J. Bliu took up PetTie'i work in Man 

conclusion agrrei wiih thai of his predeceswr : the unpoitance 

of [he Hie 11 &uch [hat hardly any other identiftcatioa appears 


Whether Umm Lakis is really the site of a Jewish 
settlement which took Ihe place of Ihe old Laehish, is 
less certain. G. A. Smith {Twtlvi Prapkefs. 2 Bo/) 
has suggested thai Unim Lakis may represent the 
ancient Eikoi, which, according 10 Epiphanius, was 
'beyond lift Gabri-. of the tribe of Simeon' (cp 
E1.KOSHITE, c). The consonants are suitable ; bul 
we should not have expected Ihe vocalisation L&kis. 
Conder has identified Umm L&kis with the Malagues of 
Ihe Crusaders. To ihe present writer Ihe site of 
Laehish appears to be identified with virtual certainty by 
Petries btilliani Investigalion. Cp Bron^ie, Honbv. 
POTTBRV ; and, on Ihe strategical importance of Laehish, 
see GASm. HCa^f, 

■. PMiie 




Bli», ^ Mmnd ^ Mony Cilitt ; or Till ll-Mlsy ... 
(iSoB). For a fresti tranibtion of the Laehish tablet se> 
OLZ. ijth Jan. iSoo, an) cp WMM, OLZ. islh Mar. 
W. Mai Mliller adheres 10 Umm LIljis (in spile of the I 
tile of Laehish. He thinks thr letter was addressed, nc 
Egyptian giand viiier, but to a neighbour of Zimrida 

LADAH {\yh. S 38 ; AftiAN [BL]). 

I. An Ephiaimite, ■ Oi.TkS RV AV Laadan (Xatlu [B], 
««>»' lAfi; whose name appears in «. » as Ei^dah (j.p.). 
See Eran, EzKRii., j and cp Ki'Hraih i., | 11. 

a. RV,AV Laadan. aGershoniiename. I Ch.IS7-o(<«ar[Bl. 
A»*.r [Al, W. [LDMji tuaW [B once), Arf. twice A«U [A], 
AutarlLl). SeeLlBM, 1. 

3.iEsd.a];AV, RVDalah. See Dei.aiah, 4. 

LASANUX (Q\ I6t. CT&KTM [ADEFL], resima). 
GeD.37ast{RV'"i!- Myrrh) 43ti+ (EV Mvrrh), is the 
name of a resin called by Ihe Arabs lidhan or lidan > 
which was yielded by some species of Cislus. Il was 
known lo Ihe Greeks as early as the limis of Herodolus 
and Tbeophraslus by the names XqSoi', XilSaror. and 
\-ffia,yor. which are very closely allied to Ihe AralHC 

in mcdern (imes < ^tt^^, 1 «X lu 
of the mode of obtaining iaaamaii 

ed by Kenxiotut (Sua) as part 

"^ ™ * "'(i.«T"t™ 

kind of Hi 


> with 

loaded with thi 


flagrant and uicky resin, the^ are scraped 
the substance is then rolled mto a mass. 

The UilamuH which i< used in Europe is collected 
,e Greek isles, and .' ■ ' '" 

_ , _, . .. (especially bv C. 

ertlin.) which are known in this counliy by ihe name of Rock 
Rose ; (hey are natives of the S. of Europe, the Mediterranean 
islandl, and the N. of Africa. According to TiiHram (FFP 
ayi) Pakslinian ladanum it derived from Ciitm villaiui, L., 
W. of JonJan/ _and is 

_ .'ihTnlcsilf^lieOlrH 

labii/aliiii, which ii nlsa dentiful on Carmel, fbr the ladanum ; 
bul H. Chti« (ZDPP-eif. [iSwl) questions ihiiidenliiicaiiDn.f 
Ladanum is said by Pliny, as it was long before said by 
Herodolus, 10 be a product of Arabia, though this has not 
been proved to Ik Ihe case in modem limes. Enough, 
however, has been adduced to show Ihal ladanant was 
known to, and esleemed by, Ihe ancients ; and. as ii is 

1 According to Moidlmann and Mttlter (Sat. Dt-O. S4) the 
lUdkai is the proper Arabic form derived from Persian. 

> Specimens of Ihe implement can be seen ui Ihe Museum a[ 
Kew (Crete and Cypius), 


y Google 

n Aisyrinn in the list of objecu received as tribute from 
Damajciisbj;Tiglalh-Pileserlll.(A'^7'«i5i,i8). The 
biblical narrative (J) shows thai dS v,-as some precious 
gnm produced in Canaan or at least in Uilead, 

S« Royle'i unitle ' Loi ' in Kitio't Bii/. C^l,. on whkh ihi» 
artidc ii quinly bued, U- M, — W. T, T,-D, 

LAODERID^: KAiM&I)Gen.28i>t. The render- 
ing ' lidda ■ i* unfominaie : a * Highi of rtepfl ' is mejtnt sccord- 
ing to miHi KhoUn, Cp Bethel, | >. Probab^, howcvcrT 
;tS^, *ucvnl' isihc ligbl reiding (adapl luffixei accordingiy), 
cpNeh,gi;i:]7(BT;><i<un='rn^VC)- SoChe. SccStairs,,. 

Thedassicaluseof theterm 'ladder' in topography {cp 
Paus. vilLe^and see Fraier's note} is exemplified in Tha 
Ladder of Tynu, RV . . . opTi-he (kAim4KOC TYPoy 
{AMV]), I Mace lls9. the northern limit of the region 
ovo' which SimOD the Maccabee was made commandant 
(ffTponrYii) by Antiochus VI. , son of Balas, Josephus 
{BJ'u. 10 1) defines it as a high mountain loo stadia N. 
from Ptolemais. It is the sleep and lolly headland now 
known as the Ras en-Nikurah — ■ the natural barrier 
between Phcenicia and Palestine' (Stanley). True, we 
ihould hare expected the title to have be«i rather given 
to Ibe Rdi tl-abyad. the Promoalorium album of Pliny. 
Regarded from the S., hosvever, the RSs en-NSI<Orah, 
which Neubauer {^Giagr. 39) identifies with the koVid 
1)1 Sr of the Talmud, may have presented itself as the 
end of the Lebanon and the barrier of Tyre. 

I.AEL(^k';, §§23, 37,1 -[belonging] to God-; or, 
the form having no sure parallel in Hebrew, read ' Joel.' 
see GbnealogiesI., S 7. coL 1664, no. 3), a Gershon- 
he. Nil 3j, UahA [BAF]. iftovHA [L]). 

Gny (tf/'A'ii>7)qu«cs »K piTKllcl of Lemuel in Prav.BI 1, 
and, as idor Rntolely uukigQus, BRsaoBiAK uid pouibly 
BezALBEL- All these rumes, bovcvei, aie liable 10 fnve aiu. 
mcion. NSIdike, indml, hu shown that ibcte wen >uch 
Semitic nirniH u Lad (in ktei limesl), bui not that MT is 

DOri?). h. Jahath(j.i'., i), a clan of Judah, 
iCh.<,t (Aiae [B]. A*[A}i [AL]J, Jerabmeelite, lo 
jtidge from the names (Che.). 

L&HAI-KOI rtn *r>^ Ptt?]). Gen.Z46i 26ii AV, 


LAHMAB (Otpn^ : Mftxec [B], AA«ftc [A], Aam- 
MftC [L]). Josli- 15«. RV-«-. or, according to many 
MSS. Lalnuun (QIfr6). as in EV. A town in the low- 
land of Judah. perhaps the modem tl-Lahm, a} m. 5. 
from Eleutheropolis (B« Jibrin). 

LAHMI Cixf> : cAgmec [BJ, Aecaaci [A], \oomi 
[L]), ■brothetofGoliath'{iCh.20}t)- See Elhanan, 

LAISH. I. (1^: AaiC&[BAL]), the original name 
of the northern fronlier-dly DAN (f.i'.), Judg.187 it 
■7 »9 <{OYA«MkiC [B], &AeiC [A]). Another form 
(probably) is Lesham (see Leshbm). In the list of 
Tholmes III. it pertiaps appears as Liusa (Moriette, 
ftugsch. etc. ). On the narrative in Judg. 18 see JUtiGBS 
(Book), % la. 

Wincliler((7/t63^)endeaviiun ta show Ibit the fbundalion 
of Dan ii lelaHd nol only in Josh. 10 41 and Judg, 1 B, but also 
b Judg. Ih-m. The dty ' in the buul of the UittiiB- called 
Liu ('unto Ihii da>- ') imui have been Din : the slaiEmenl that 

Lii2)arHl ihit of lh< city. W^ckln also suggests Ihat Laith 
and Lcshem really mean ' there is not ' and ' nameless ' reipeC' 


t Cp Neld., ' VerwandbcbafiBnamen ala Pel 


a. Is. 10 JO. Sec Laishah. t. K, C. 

LAMH(E^^, asif 'lion.geS; in a S. 8.5 n^ Kt.). 
evidently a short form of Laishah (Shalishah). See 
LAtiiHAH. PaLTI. The name occurs in iS. 26m (some 
MSS have Kl. chV : a;uii [B], Xut [A], tvxit [L]) : and 
in 3 S. 3 IS (ircXXiTt [B], Aiuii [AJ. tnXAci^ [L, [or which. 
see Baklikiu, n. i]). 

is a corruption : Aeic [Thcod.], AaiC [Symm. el forte 
Aq.]}, a place in Benjamin near Gallim (?) and Anathoili 
(Is. IO30+ RV. AV -unto Laish '). According to Conder 
(PEFQ. 1875, p. 183) and Van Kasleren (ZDFV 
ISioo/f it is the modem el-hdwlyeh. 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 'AnAia. The site still shows 
traces of high antiquity (Gu*rin, /udie. 3Bo/ : Gray 
Hill, PEFQ. 1899, pp. 45-47). It is doubtful, however, 
whether we can trust the name Laishah any more than 
GaLliU [p-v.]. Both ' Laishah' and ■ Laish' are pro- 
bably distortions of Shalishah [g.v.^ the name of 
the district in which ' Gibeah of Sha'QI ' (rather ' Gibeah 
of Shalishah '), mentioned just bef'jre (see v. K)). was 
situated. For another possible corruption of the 
same name see Merab, Mbphibosheth. Cp further 

Grove (Smith, DBA), i.e.) suspects the identity of Laishah 
and the E]e»» of 1 Mace «; (aXam (A), .A. \»\\t, where Ve. 
gives /.*>», while Haltvy(AVii>r Mim. SrmilitSt„d,r,, M'/i 
ideniiAei Laishah wiib CHEFHiaAH If.v.]. both nanus, accord- 

LAKim. RV Uklnun (Mp^ ; AwiiM [B], AKpoy 
[AJ, Amcoym [L]). an unidentified town in Naphtali 
(Josh. 1» 33). 

LA]IB(n^, »4, Gen.2 
i3S etc; b'JJ, iOtl, Lev.H 
Cattle, | a. 

For Gen. U 19 (n^-bj), AV>n>. ' lainb 1, le 


LAHENTATIOIT. Lamentations for great calamities, 
especially for deaths, held an important plnc« among the 
of the Israelites, We may 

SeeCAlNlTES, gS/, 

1. Chaimctw. 

aspects, act 

ding as they a 

igin 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 ciy was a necessary accom- 
paniment — such a cry as the prolonged afli. ■ woe is 
nte,' still customary in Syria, with which 'Ji /I, hdi 
dhl, A3i idiH, 'ah, me,' 'ah, my brother,' 'ah, lord,' 
in 9 K. 937 (tf*-), I K. 1330 Jer.22iS 34; may be 
compared. Tliis is what is primarily meant by the 
niki (■:!;; cp njWa, and see BDB)--i.*., 'wailing' 
(EV)— of Jer.Bio M iB-k [.7-19] 81 .5 Am, 6.6 Mic. 
2*'t- The heart-rending ti^/i. however, is not the only 
expression of woe -. songs in measured verse and with 
musical accompaniment are dianted by the professional 
mourning women of Syria, and so il was in Palestine 
of old (cp MouHNiNO Customs, f i). We may pre- 
sume that public lamentations were on the same model. 
Pinches* (Smith's DB2^i) 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 
con go to the twelfth tablet of the Gilgamei epic, where 
we find the lament of Gilgamei over the dead hero 
Eabani (cp Creation, g ao. n. 4 : Job. 3 4), 

1 The term is used hen rather widely. 

« Cp BOR, Dec. 1886. pp. ,1/ ; Halevy. RF 11 lia ll has 
alaobeen compaied witb Pi.TDfCbe. 113). 



earth. The wife Ihi 

: tiM^ hm ■ ID Itae aiseinbly Ihey 
' tlruchu Ihy foenian dad on Ihe 

: Ihcc 

,1 Ihoa 

O tiuiuMHs, Dor] 

The result of the crying and lamenting of GilgameS 
vi,is that Ea-bani's spirit, after holding intercourse with 
Ciilgamei, was transferred from the dark world of the 
shades to Ihe land of the l^essed. Wailing, it would 
seem, had an object, apari from ihal of relieving ihe 
feelings of the moutners, and in (his case il was to effect 
an improvement in Ihe lot of the dead. Perhaps, how- 
ever, it may ouce 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 
10 Ihe dead, ' Depart not' At Ihe same lime there is 
a considerable mass of evidence thai suggests a very 
dri\-e away the spirits of the 

3uld h] 

,e living; 

The most iruslworlhy specimen of an ancieni Hebrew 

dirge is David's lament over Abner (aS. Sjj/: see 

__ Abner). Whether the reponedlamen- 

a-.^™™. "'io" """^ -^"' """^ Jonathan (a S, 1 .j- 

whether ii is not rather a literary product of Ihe post- 
exiljc age, is becoming somewhat doubtful (see Jashgr. 
Book of. g a). At any rate, in Am. 5i we have a 
beautiful specimen of a new class of elegy — the pro- 

Then Ok lin iIiHched on tht ground : | no one rsiss her up. 
Jeremiah (3Sn| represents the women of Ihe house of 
Ihe king of Judah (Zedckiah) as singing a dirge contain- 
ing these words. 

Milled thou wast and overpowered I by thy bosom fiiendg ; 

Ttiy feel Hiik in die miiE, | but ihoie remjiiiied behind. 
Other specimens of prophetic dirge-poetry will be found 
in Jer. 9 19 >i >i {iS 10 31]. The prophet, however, who. 
more than any other, delights in elegy, is Eiekiel (see 
Eiek. IS 23 1; 27i 31 28ii 329 cpalso32ie). and among 
Ihe many passages of ' lim[Hng verse ' in the later por- 
tions of IsaLih there are some (e./.. Is.l44^-ii) that 
bear an elegiac character. 

The little elegy in Am, 5i helps us to understand 
the Lamenlations wrongly ascribed to Jeremiah. The 
death which Ihe singers of these poems lamented was 
lhal of the Jewish nation (cp Jer. 9 19 [iS] Ezek. IS), and 
as early as the lime 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 dealh-wail sung by "cunning women" (Jer.Si?) 
and by poets "skilful of lamentation " (Am. Gi6j at the 
wake (Sji«) of the illustrious dead. ' * 

The researches of Btidde leave no doubt that one 
of the metres specially used in dirges was that of 

, jl- . 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 hmping metre.'* 

In the Psalter the 'limping verse' is often found: 
but there is only a ^ngle passage in which, Budde 
thinks, it is used for Ihe purpose of lamentation. This 
is Ps.l374-«; but it is questionable whether Budde's 


1 Haupt' 

German version by Ra^^ 

P J"« 

tiduAtr- NitHrod, 

9 Cp Frey, Ted. Steltnrliaiit „•«/ Stelmhilr, 55. 
» Cp WKS Xt/. Sim,<b. too, n. J ; Grflneisen. A^tntrn 

KtEc killed that Ihni lowing mighi add to the noise 


use of what this able critic calls the elegiac metre cao 
be taken to prove Ihe early exilic date of this remark- 
able song (sec Psalms, § aS, ix,). 

The term KinSh-metre for the so-called 'limping verse' 
is convenient We cannot, however, regard the theory 
Ihal il is primarily el^iac as proved. Uudde's attempt 
to explain why il is not used in David's famous elegy 
l2ATWSti)—vii., 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 ■ Kinflh metre,' the metre 
must therefore have been reserved originally for elegiac 
poetry. See Mino^chi. Le Lamtafaiiimi, 36. 

SluJicn, 1 iji. Cp (uniier FaETlcAL Lit'ekatuke. 


External .^h.n.<:<eci.i:cs (I .1. Chap, 1 (I J) ; it! (Utt 1 8). 
Chap. I (I =) ; iu date (| .4 Chap. 5 (» 6); it> dale <| j). 
Chap. 3 (I 3) ; it'; i'l' <l 9). Traditional aulhor^ip(| ij). 
Chap. 8 (I ,S ; its date (I 11). Bibliography (| 13). 

In Hebrew Bibles the Book of Lamentations bears 
the superscription ilJ'S. 'Ah howl' (cp li 2i 4i). 

1 rw»..i Th= Talmud, however, and Jewish 

ai^S-. ™ ;- «""- "" " "!■'■ f f" 

(i.*. , 'elegies or 'dii^es ). which is 
the Hebrew tillo known to Jerome in his Prologus 
Galeatus [Irrtmias cum Cinalh. id at. Lameniationihui 
suis). flj's title is Op^tei. A fuller title, assigning Ihe 
book 10 Jeremiah, is found in Pesh. and in some MriS 
of B—t.g.. in &•». but not in A and B*— and in S 
and Pesh. Lamenlations is attached to the Book of 
Jeremiah (Bariich inlervening in the former version). 
At Ihe same lime BS have Ihe iiitrodtictory verse assign- 
ing at any rate chap. 1 to Jeremiah. Il is a mistake 
to suppose that this arrangement of Lamenlations is 
original, the scheme which accommodates the number 
of the sacred books to the number of Ihe twenty-two 
Hebrew letters bang self-evidenlly 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 ft, which agrees pretty 
closely with our Hebrew text, cannot be by ihe same 
hand as Ihe translation of Ihe Book of Jeremiah. 

The poems which make up the book are five, and 
the first four are alphabetical acrostics — successive 
stancas (each consisting, in chap. 3. of three verses. 
elsewhere of one verse) beeinninE ""ith successive letters 
of the alphabet. The last poem (chap. S) has twenty- 
two stanzas, like chaps. 1-4. but is not an acrostic. 

In chaps. 2-4, however, by an imgularily. the c-stanra 
precedes the ^-ttania. The sense shows that this is nol due lo 
a (ranHptmtioD of the original ordef of the stands, whilst the 
tact that the same irrvKularity occurs three times makes it plain 
that the deviation from the comnian order rests on a variation in 
ihe order of Ihe alphabet as used by Ihe author {cp Writikc). 
According to Bickell, Chcyne, and Duhm. the same irregularity 
occurs in the Inie teit of Ps. 0-10{an acrostic poem), and nol a lew 
ciiiks (Including Bickell, Baeihgtn, KOnig, and Ihihm) find it in 
that of Pi. 81. It is perhaps better. bawevtTi to prefix D'p^'n to 
e. iB (ai Street long aao luggcsiA]), and to omit .ivi' (Che. 




Ijun-SicK in B. n.xi inw. is/ 1 m Lam.S neithenrK "or 
p; in Lam. 4 aiid 6 onlr e (4gBl!). The oleeivalion it 
Konig's i£mi. 4»). 

The meire of the first four poems differs from that of 
the fifUi. Tbe metre of the fifth poem consists of 
ordinary Ihree-loned lines ; the metre of the first four 
poems is in the sO'CalleU ' limping verse,' which, being 
specially, though not ejiclusively, used for el^ies, is 
commonly called the t^inflh metre (first fully made out 
by Budde'). To speak of_^i« Lamcntalions isincorrecl. 
Il is only chaps. 1 i and 4 thai are properly dirges, as 
referring to a death — 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 Uturgically in the 
lifUi month (.Ab) in Zechariah's time IZech. 7 s). and of 
course earlier, 10 commemorate the fall of the temple.' 
To suppose that our /CInilk were already composed 
when Zechariah gave his decision to the deputation 
jZech. 73) is hardly consistent with the evidence. Let 

■ The first elegy commences with a picture of the 
distress of Zion during and after the sii>ge (]i-it); 
_ , . Jerusalem, or the people of Judah, being 
«. Lun. 1. (ig„^ ^ ^ 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 Vahw^'s anger. 
and invokes retribution on her enemies.' In a carefully 
restored teit. it is seen to be a beautiful, though 
monotonous, composition in elegiac metre. 

In r. « MT it coiT«I. By luming b-Vii. 'h»r«.' into 
tt\'H, • nuiu,' • ipoili tbc figure. Veru 7 i> giievouily cor- 
nipi both [n MT ind in «. Rod in the firtt iikhui, 'n< 'r 
rT'3NlD^3 ; between *D* aiuj Dip la ■ collection of varianla, 
all cotnjpiions of 'as-Ss. In tbe last hemislicb read, "TW^ 
•her desolation.' In u. 10 MT ii rough; rend 'Zion (Ji-») 
ipiEOdeih forth her handi becaux of her pleasant Ihlngi' 
<B>ckellX Inr. .4,fgriplpir««np}r:;in!iflie»d ■irjpri DT^ 
On c. (9 Kc Budde. 

' In the second chapter the desolation of the city and 
the horrors of the siege are again rehearsed and made 
. - _ _ more bitter by allusion 10 the joy of the 
S. Lam. 3. ■„ f ,' .1 T-t. „' 'r ,h. 

enemies of Israel- Ihe 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 Vahw^ for Ihe terrible fate of his 
people. ' The structure is the same as in chap. 1 . 
except (hat g introduces the 16th. p the 17th verse as 
ia chaps. 3 and 4. There is more vivid presentation, 
more dramatic life, more connection and progress of 
thought ; but the religions element is less pervasive, 
Theac are among the blemishes which need removal. In Ihe 


ponible word (note Pasel; after ^BKI). Probably we should 
read F'Tt, ' put to ihame ' ; p and e are easily confounded. 
In r-. 3l> bcKti AV and RV oretlook the metrical slroclute. The 
rendering of MT should be ' He bath brought to the ground. 
bath pro&ned the kingdom, and its priTices.' The fint verb, 
however, is unsuitable, and tbe combination ' kingdom and 
princes ' u unnaluial. Read n}^ "ni. ' the royal crown ' (cp 
msSo -mi E-iIh.lii, eic.X and all become* plain. Vtrj« 
4 « 7 S have given much trouble, but are not incurable. Read 

proof are alike imponible. 

trnagoEue. See Mai. SMirHm, 
If uDer^ edition (187BX 

Ftoof and dis- 
telebraled by the 

i luthbrough 

He hath delivered ir 

\m he hand from annihiLiiing tail 
ihiuted bulwark and wall, | tc«elhei 

thE foe I all her prec 

in VahwS'j house.' 

' precious things of Zion, 

.n^hlLilingiall Tier palace, 

(according to K 
epeekally, not 

Give thyself no pause, | let not the a[^le of Ihine eye cease, 

' The third el^ry [if we may call it such] lakes a 

personal turn, and describes the affliction of the 

. individual Israelite, or of the nation under 

*"" the type of a single individual, under the 

tense of Yahw^'s just but terrible indignation. But 

!ven this afRiction is a wholesome discipline. It draws 

the heart of the singer nearer to his God in penitent 

failing mercy, which shows itself in Ihe continued 
preservation of his people through all their woes. 
From the lowest pit the voice of (aith calls to the 
Redeemer, and hears a voice that says, "Fear not." 
Yahwi 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. 


As in the case of so many of the psalms and ii 
the Songs of the Servant of Yabwt (see SERVANT OP 
THE L<ird). the speaker is the company of the humble- 
minded righteous who form Ihe kernel of the Jewish com- 
munity. Hence it is easy for the imagined speaker to 
pass from the 1st person singular to the 1st person plural, 
and to say in v. 48 that he weeps unceasingly for the 
disaster of his country-people {'ay nf). The vehemence 
of the imprecations at the close of the elegy is most easily 
intelligible if Ihe offences referred to haic been committed 
against the Jewish people, not against an individual 
{'■g-. Jeremiah), imagined by Ihe poet. This is the 
view of Hupfeld (on Ps. 38), Reuss, Cheyne, LBbr, 
and especially Smend (ZyiT'Il' 86»/[ie8a}). It is 
opposed especially by Slade ((7(7 yor) and Budde, 
mainly (see the latter) on two grounds : (1) Ihe occurrence 
of cerlam expressions in w. 1 and tj (Oettli wrongly 
adds V. 14), and (a) the inconsistency of personifyitig 
tbe 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 indevd 
Lam. 3 appears to some to be marred) by Ihe assumption 
of an individualising reference, (*) the possibilily of 
interpreting i/v. i and a?, as Smend has done, of ihe 
people conscious of its solidarity (n3jn) and looking 
forward to an eilended future (i-nj-ia?), and {«) the 
probability, admitted by Budde, that Lam. 3 is the 
latest of the five poems— il is. in fact, rather a poetic 
monologue of Israel than an elegy. On w. ja-jg 
Budde remarks. ■ Abruptly the poet ttirns to his own 
sufferings. ... To regard the community as the 
subject is possible (cp Ps. 6. etc, ), bul more probably it 
arises from the inconsiderate use of Ihe ps.ilms which 
served as models.' It is surely not right to assume 
inconslderaleness, when such a highly characteristic 


iil«i as the solidarity of all good Israelites is in question 
the idea was one which had incorporated itself in th 
Jewish system of Ihoi^ht. 

explain, 'I Bin the man,' ai *1 am Iht peoptv ' ; and Ih 

Bui IIm closing wordi'hythenid of hii fury' Of^lTV B}V3)u 

nor will it be (ill v. ta. Ii li probable ihu ihi nii is coiiupi 
In p. 14 a douljt is bardly possible; ^, 'my people,' shouli 
be Oiep, 'peopla' In v. 97 ^~njn3, 'in his youth,' inlrsduee 

In p. t tad perhaps '■l^irS; ll^n 'I'lll. ' ii is the Lord who 
visits mim iniquity,' and in n. 27 nin' mjii dVm Klf' 'i sSll, 
' it is good that he bear mutely the rebuke of Vibwt.* 

The wiant mvio is thus accounted for. 1V>Q in Pi.SSis 
requires a similar correction. A few other blemishes may be 
mentioned. 'Uall and Invall'^. ;)iluiuldbe ' my head (-^ih) 
with travail' (P^toIiu^ ZATIVUjii tiS^;)). In •>. lu the 

Ibrmer; rr- i«^ Is, on linguistic grounds, hardly less improbable. 
The reading we propose uas simple and appro p riate as powible. 
' And I girded sackloih on my fledi : I roll<?my«]f in ashes ' (see 
Cril. Bid.). In 0. ]« ' a living man ' cannot be right ; 'n DIM 
should be q\7Sk- Not improlably we should read^ 'Why do we 
muimur Bgamal God, (againsl)himwhD visits our smsT' Cpp. 1 

■ In the fourth acrostic ihe bitter sorrow ^ain barsts 
forth in passionnte wailing. The images of horror 
H T.«wi 4. imprinted on the poet's soul during the last 
i*"™'*- months of Jenisaleni's dealh-struggle and 
in Ihe flight (hat foUowol are painted with more ghastly 
detail than iti the previous chapters, and (he climax is 
reached when the singer describes the capture of the 
king, "the breath of our nostrils, (he anointed of 
Vahwi, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall 
live amotig the nations." The cup of Israel's sorrow 
is filled up. The very completeness of Ihe calamity is 
a proof (hat (he iniquity of Zion has met with full 
recompense. The day of captivity is over, and the 
wrath of Yabwt is now ready to pass from his 
people to visit the sins of Edom, the most merciless of 
its foes.' At any rale, evea if the fourth acrostic is not 
(he work of an eye-witness, the poet stands near enough 
(□ (he horrors of the siege of Jerusalem to be able (o 
describe (hem, and there has been trouble enough 
since then to awaken his imaginative faculty. Il must 
be admitted, however, that through literary remini- 

falls short in simplicity and naturalness of description. 
It is also certain that corruption of Ihe lei( has here 
and there marred the picture. Happily the faults can 
often be cured. Verses 1/., for instance, should run 
Ihus. — 
How il Sheba's (old polluted— ] the choke gold ! 

The sons ofZion-so precious— ? loU^aluS S'lh fine gold- 
How arc (hey csEeenied as earthen ptcbers, | the handiwork of 

It Ih< 

piece of rhetoric All (be 
i>d few have done complete 

, ncTis tSe lirsl slichus"f 

of God in ihe persons of slaughtered ciiiiens of Zion (hat caMs 
forth the ns'M C^il^s, how !') of the elegy. (For "at every 
Slrcel^orner ' cp 2 19, aiKl the imerpolaled pasugc la. b\ ao.) 
Reading MW; for CP', makes MTs phrase. ' sacced siones,' 
r'. 3 the ^ iwi . monsters ' should probably rathe 

Verse t is in a verv bad Male: Ihefcirin-- '■'- 


Those thi 


Tish in the s 

rriler. Read Q-ini the Aramaic ending 1^ may be p 


The delicate, (he possciuort of halls, I embrace ash-mounds. 
t'ersergainsnot (ssbycriiicalKeaimeni. 'Hei NaiiKies' 
-CH) should be 'her dignitaries' <^'J11); tbt absurdities ol 
: second part of die verse in MT aA removed elsewhere (see 
fphire). Verses n/. in MT (and iheiefore also in EV) an 
nais of inconsistencies, li can hardly be doubled thai the 

id (hey ate nor able to find | for Ehemsclves a resting-place, 
f he iSiiuka ^ff ;^^'- -!^-^^- -"-"-°-''™-''"''^ -"^^■ 


. 14.^« 

•' o^v.; 

. The 

' The fifth chapter, which [in v, 
form of a prayer, [is not on acros(ic, and] does not 
, Tjj- K follow the scheme common to the three 
foregoing sections. The elegy proper must 
begin with the utterance of grief for its own sake. Here 
on the contrary the first words are a petition, and the 
picture of Israel's woes comes in to support the prayer. 
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 afflic(ed 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 stale of bondage to the 
servants of the foreign tyrant (v. e). and a continued 
series of insults and miseries. And with this goes a 

sinned, and are not ; and we have borne their in- 
iquities" {v. r: cp, and similar complaints 
in very late psalms).' 

The contents of chapter 6 are stKh thai we are com- 
pelled to enter immediately on the question of its date. 
_ •i-iy. _* The author of the poem endeavours, it is 
y*"Z . true, to express the feelings of an earlier 
' ' generation ; he indites a complaint of 
Ihe sad lot of those who have nol only survived Ihe 
gieal 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 Ihe counlry-dislricis— especially perhaps in 
the wilderness of Judah (see Budde on v. 9)— partly as 
if some ol (hose lor whom he speaks were settled in or 
near Jerusalemandtheciliesof Judah (f. 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 presendy). This is a malter 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 w. 6, 8. 9, 10, it, of the first (our of which we give 
a rendering based on a critically emended text. (The 
MT of V. 6 has caused hopeless perplexity. ) 
6 We ha^e sunendered to the Misrites, 
We hate become sub)ect to the Ishmaeliies. 

9 We bring in our com (UOnS) with peril of our lives 

Because o7 (he terror of famine. 
The lerms 'Misrites' (see MlXRAlM, %3i) and ' Ish- 
maelites' are conventional archaisms, many parallels for 
which use are probably lo be foimd in the Psalter (see 

' fttfria iWj] I nliT*3 n'Tt' IP) 

Bf?)^ t"7> 1 *"? '^='' "^ 
i^rj-ip-^K mo I mo 0^ iH-ig mo 
■mS itoS- t(^ I JPirip wso: liS 1 

H Loh'r partly sees aright. buVunfongnalely creat« a 




Psalms [Book]}, and. so far as ' Misrites' is coaceraed. in 
therouithelegy{Lain,4ii; seebelow.gB). Tbeenemiea 
intended arc the Edomites who had probably joined in 
the Babylonian invasion, and had occupied Ihesoulhem 
part of the old teintory of Judah, uid perhaps, loo, ihs 
Nabalann Arabs, one of whom was the Geshem or 
Gashmu of whom Nehemiah spealia' (Neh. 219; cp 4j, 
• the Arabians ' ). The trouble from these foes (at any rale 
from the Edomiles) no doubl iKgan early ; but it also 
continued very long (see Eixiu, § 9 ; NekbmiAH, 9 3). 
Their dangeroiisness was particularly fell al harvest- 

iration is fiimished by Is. 628 (age of Nehemiah), where 

Sunly 1 will no mm give thy what j to be food for lEy foa. 
Tbe trouble from insufficient agricultural labour and 
from the general economic disturbance doubllesa 
continued, and il is diFhculi not to iUustiate v. 10 
(according to the (eit rendered above) by the thrilling 
account which Nehemiah gives {Neh. fii-ij) of the 
sufTrrings of the poorer Jews, and of the selling of their 
children into slavery. Once more, it is not denied 
thai there are features in the description in Lam. 5 
whicb suggest an earlio- period : but we cannot shut 
our ejes to the accordance of other features with 
the circumstances of tbe Nehemian age. Nehemiah 
certainly has not yet come ; mount Zion is Still 
desolate {v. iS ; cp Neh. 1 j). 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 Yahw^ as ' forgetting ' his servants ' for ever.' 
and to express, in a subdued tone, the reluctant 
admission that it might not be Cod's will to grant the 
prayer fts the restoration of Israel as of old, — 
Unim Ihou bau utterly nj«cl<d ui. 



Still, though the situation of affairs is bod, a deliverer — 
Nehemiah — is at hand. The allusion in v, ui to 
Lev. 1939 (in the Holiness-law) suggests that the uriter 
is a member of that stricter religious parly among (he 
Jews, which presumably kept up relations with men 
like Nehemiah and Eira, and afterwards did their best 
to assist those great men. It does not seem necessary 
or natural to suppose widi Budde that w. 11/ an a 
later insertion {see his note) ; Budde's mistake is partly 
due to his following the corrupt reading of MT in v, im, 
which ought almost certainly to be read thus, 

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

W }<*• Cp r. ,^. Job M,. ; p. .». Job 199*. (*) 
Palm,. Cp<....P..«.3lMl,8»so/l5'/l;"->(?iD. 'W 
deliva-X Ps. 1M,4; p. ,0 rtrySt, Pi. lis ll»5j), bul n«e 
ihii in all dicH puuga 'Vt [> miiwiittm for rnxSf (Enk. T ». 
-K.): e. 11 CZion.' 'dliMof Judshi, Pm.»3i (341; V. 15. 
Pi. to It (ia)i V. I?*, Ps.«7 [eland (fbr use of ^n> W 34 
ijj; ". isdiViT), P..M7 81.. «c.;p. 19, P..«tl7l IWia: 
e. ao. P».l». UP* TO 80 4»U7l (DT?;lt*, P5.214[S1,«<:); 
■■. 71, P5.803jf4i). (c) 1 iimi 3 f""'*- ClOB^nnw), 
Il 005: D. 3 pK ]-irD-Q^n;X Is. U», the Jem no longer 'bni 
IsTSel': E. 7 (S^Q), Is. M.iTl f. II ('ZicKi,' 'cillei of 
ludoh'), Il ill^: V. il, 11. Mia[9l: r. iii, U. i7 it Mtl 

B mDy al» be thinking of -yyif 

1 In r. 9^, bcrwever, th 
19159 in Jn. 3 9. his 
HoKi (E 13) olU the king of Miifur an Aiabian (see Jareb). 

' iVp) enj^ [raf (cpLev. isjmX 

> (3 luiah 3 Isaiah, chan. U-M,) In thetelcclionof phni 
ologkal piiilleU Uhr'i very liill ublei (lee below, | 11) hi 
been of ibe greaieii lervice. A little ni«e cfiiicism oa Bis pi 


When we put all these data together, no earlier data 
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 barbailly of 
Anaxeries Ochus (359-338 B.C.). Then, we may be 
sure, the fasting for (he old calamities assumed a fresh 
vitality and intensity. It is al any rate difficult to place 
a king interval between Lam. 5 and Lam. 1-4. and 
Lam, 2-i 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. fi to be also the earliest There 
is only one point of contact between Lam. 6 and Lam. 
l-l — vii. in». 3,cpl I — and this is of no real significance. 
In Lain.G3. the ' mothers,' if the tent is right, are the 
cities of Judah (Ew. , Ldhr) ; more probably, however. 
we should read u-fijDlf .' "our citadels.' Those high, 
strong buildings, where formaly the winiois had held 
out so long against the foe. are now, complains the 
poet, untenanted and in ruins (cp Lam, 23). as helpless 
and incapable of helping as widows. Id Lain. 1 1 
Jerusalem itself is compared 10 a widow. 

We neil turn to Lam. 4, which, like Lam. 5, aeems 
to contain an archaising reference to Musri (cp Miz- 
S Itat*ot''*'"-8'"'t' l>y «hich the writer means the 
"■/j™ "* land adjoining the S. of Palestine occupied 

'"''■ by the Edomites after their displacement 
by the Nabatieans. Verse 91 should probably run — 
■ Rejoice and be glad. O people of Edom, thai dwellest 
in Missur'' (intca). Wae it not for the archalstic 
Missur (Musur). which may point to a later age when 
archaisms were fashionable, we might assign v. 11 to 
some eye-witness of the great catastrophe ; words quite 
as bitter are spoken against Edom by the prophet 
Etekiel (chap, 3S). 

Another sus|Mcious passage is v. » : 
TIm breath of «irnotliilt,lhe>noiiiled qf Yahwt, | wit »keo 

in their pit,> 
Of whom we uid. Under bii shadow | we shall live among the 

That tbe king intended is, not Josiah (so Targ.), but 
Zedekiah. is certain. But a wriler so fblly in accord 
with Jeremiah and Eiekiel (see w. 6 13) as the author 
of Lam. i 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 bul a symbol of the Davidic dynasty ; the manifold 
sulferings consequent on subjection to foreigners made 
even Zedekiah to be regretted.* Budde's view of this 
passage is hardly correct. The words • Under his 

hope of a feeble bul siill • 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 Ihe view that il is the work of one of the Jews left by 
Nebuchadreiiar in Jerusalem. How long after Lam. G 


Poinli of contact between Lani.4and olhti laK « 
Jut. 'Temii for gold ind pncious itonei in hf. 1 1 ; 
!8; f. 3 D-JP; (Ifr.). JobSBlj (cril. emend.; .eeOsTBI 

■ f'l 

I I S.Mig hardly juitifin ibe equation, 'mother = ciiy. 
Zion alone, in the poei'i time, could be called ' mother ' (cp Pl 
SJs, 0i The play on trtnaiwIA ind almtHclk ii 1 very 
Dituiii one. Budde would like 'fathci' iiul 'moiheis' liler- 
■11^ ; but ' father ' ihould be ' falhen ' ind ' u widows ' sbouM be 

s <(*]) jTKJ not onlymakei ihe second pirl of the 'limping 
vene' loo long, but alio nukei ihe poet guilty of in iniccuiacy 

9 Seinicke nves Ihe ilghl eaplinilion iCVl Sjo). SS, 
however eiplaini ■ anointed of Yihwt ' ai a pbnse for Ihe pioui 
kernel of lh< Jewiih people. 

* Rud D^f 3 (see Budde). 



{•rmhraci uh-moundj 7. M !4b', v. u, lob SOjcu : c. ti, 
J<.blBio<criL emmd.X (?) /-m/bb. K ji, Pj. JISt*; t. u 
(' tbe liingi or iht euih '), Pi. S J 74 11 ( 111, He; 'the inbabiutnu 
of ih< world,' MiMt M7; v. » (trf>9). t^lSji ISa g4ia: 
r. 11 (iTIfr wilh ns^ P(.tCli«[i;] ro4[il; I'D. 31^ (EdomX 
Pj.lSTj^CCbt/'j.WJ. MilKtiaA. |-.a,ls.51»{!> The 
phnue in li. is in inUnnluion (Bu., Che.). iJ) Dnltmumy 
(late pans). K B pl^J), Dl. 82 .7 ; e. 9 Hk- n^a'WX Dl. 8S ij I 
V. i»(I)pand D'M«(^ Dt.SSjo; r. 17 {' our eyei tuled . . ."), 
D«.a83);r.i9(iagle.),Di.M49. U-yEakUt. T. e (dry iree), 
E»k. 17n S047; "■ ■■ ("9? "JS), Etek.Sij 611 ISij; 
p. isfj-g M),EKk. Tit 2 nnd 4 are righily regarded by Ndldeke and 
Budde as twin poKms. They agree in pejeiical slniclure ; 

a n>» '*"'' '°° ^™ '''Shly dramatic. Boih 
LaBLfl. ^P^"^ °^ "'* strange reverses suffered by 
the leaders of the stale ; both, with much 
pathos, of the fate of young children. The reference 
to ' ihe law' {llrik') in v. g stamps Ihe writer as a 
legalist ; the idea.llsation of Jerusalem in 11. ij^ would 
incline us to make the poem nearly contemporary with 
Ps,18. 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 10 the resounding cries of (he 
worshippers in Ihe temple in 2;. The same dale must 
of course be given lo both the Iwin poems. They 
probably belong 10 the same age as the many ' per- 
Kculion psalms* in Ps. 1-72— i.e., to Ihe laller part of 
the Persian period (see, however. Psalms [Book]), 

PhraKoIocical puollelaj (o) Piatmi. V, i God's footstool 
in ZionX Pi. »5 1327; "■ > <3pWW(U>, Pj.S3a «4i3. 
etc. ; (j-iK^ Svn\. Ps. M40I <cp above, | j); t. 3 (™ jriA 
Pi.7Sio[iii;p.s<eorrected),Pi.71«(correel*d): p.j<n)T), Pi. 
Mi «9[iol. eic: w. uuigf-prt PtW J [3I TTjNI .tt; 
p.i6(l^E7?).P*-SS.6 8T.jii8To;r. i9(n?xfj),PfcM,li|; 
lis 4B{n^H),Ps. Well) I»4n«i4ai P>.ei9l cij'iXfi). 

(j) I Imiiik. y. 13 iyei^ and nibn), Ii. W j. 

(c) DntiTBtut«7 (hue parts). V. j (■]« "Va), Dt.Wij; 
v. 4 <n^3 !1?], of Cod), Dl 32 13 ; e.i (f*!, of God), Dl. 82 19. 

(dlEuikl. »'p.«i7«(!c!;ilSXEHk.5.. 74981195.0; 
f. « <on.; and J-w? n?)- E«l<- lSi4;i^B(^W.Hiphil),Eiek. 
81 is; Vairif however, ij not tirong enough; read ySaT (we 
above.lj); d. lo 0"» ■■''C^ Ezek.3730; (Q-^p ijri), E«k. 
TuSTj.; r. 14 (Kl^ -■lin),Eiek.l869=3 2l34(*ilh ^, .1 
here) 22h ; p. 14 (TS^X Eiek. 18 ioii 14 ij, and eipecially 
!««; p. .;(•?' n^-SliXEttl..lfl .428,,, and often ;^ 
(pIS^, Eielt.2736. 

Lam. 1, Budde fully admits, can hardly be the work 

of an eye-witness of tho fall of Jerusalem. Thai it is 

10 Dkta of """* '^'^ '" ""Sin l'*^'' Lam. 2 and 

Lm^ 4 seemsan unnecessary inference,' Here, 

**"'■ *■ aigain, the parallels are very important 

/■-«/&&. (fl)/Bi. C. B. Job Me7 (sense). 

W /•«;-«. V. 3 (0'T«f). Ps. 118 s (Hog.) 1 16 3 (plut.) ; ... 6. 
Pi.42t [i|, cp Job 1>» and(cri!. emend.) i3. The pursiied 

in liiaeof iTOuUe; n7('^^>V|-K), Ps.S0io[ii|M4[6lT!ia: 
(Vn^), Ps.S2a;|»]Uill0tD8eBlO73all9i(used inlhepou- 
e>ilie TiligiM >eii» ; see Asskmblv); r^. 1. / (03J wid. 
™t),Ps.M.7[.b1B0u(.s1H2,[s1;p... .a.Bpll«M).Pt82to 
M1711B] WHli?];"- >3(D^'<?^), Ps.1817, eic 

<0 aa*^3 /niioA. Fc. 4Jw{.-i:in).l(.M9j;cpJsb1«9; 
m. J 10 11 (D-^15), Is. *4 It [lol ; V 9 Cnp-in* vj), !•■ <r7 ; 
n iD(ain;OIDa,»tira^rortlt;[Grl.1),cpIs. »4Ti|tDl; v. 15 
<J11 lp3XI».«Si.^:cpJoel8H)i3:». io.;Ci;lri|).l»-03a: 
cp3Sll (v«y lale) Ps. list. 

ori^iiully preceded (he g sianra; Budde is of an opposite 


(rf) Diulinmmy (laie part.). C j (tflllS .1-|T), Dl 281344; 
R ao {n:M-p'«'). Dt-M'S. 

{t)^Mikitl. Vb. >i9 (3nM, In figurative Kose), Eiek-lS 
33311/ 235931; n. i (niro}, Eiek. 8414 (Ju) is (An); cr. 

The date of I^m. 3. relalively to Lam. 1 2 and 4, is 
very easily fixed. It shows a further development of 

11 Da.ta of '*"' "" "'^ acrostic poetry which reminds 
i^~^ us of I's. llfl. and its superabundant 
^^ literary tcniinisiences place it on a level 

wilh the poorest of [he canonical psalms. That, like 
some at least of those psalms, it is pervaded by a deep 
and lender religious feeling, may be most heartily ad- 
milled. Uudde (p. 77) is probably right in assigning 
Lam. 3 to tbe pre - Maccabaan portion of Ihe Greek 

ParalUh. (at Jit. 

J. Job 11 

8. Job: 

■so read n^Bo) " 
Ps.aeTi(i3|; buc inall three pauages.1j-]],'tmngedinuuc,' and 
in LBm.363 ru-UCl should be ni-»', 'a mockl; e. is(cp v. 
■9)."Job9i»; o. 17*, Joh7 7*: w- *»4'. JoblBio. 

{BiPialmt. V.^, Ps.»4jo[ail miio); p. * (Q-artiO), 
Ps.74ao8«sl7l»S3;{o^B'n5)P..l«ji [>. a (tn^ Pi. 83 14 
/; p. 17(1)1), Ps.88m1is1; r. » (rnB^), Ps. M^s [«]; ep 
«St; v. aj C'TOn), Ps.8».[a) 10743; "-■ iUafiei n-ipaS 
iusen ran)»3'*. PtSi.* I**! P.. ("..5 [i^i; v. a,. Pi. is, 

73 « 1 IB 57 l*a 5 HI ; B. =5, Ps. ST Tfl llH ,1 ; t. 3., Pt W 14 ; p. 
33(P-«'!?),Pt<i[3l«al3im9l»]; r. 37, Pi. 889; p. 41 

(TJ WE5),p..ss4[5i 11B41-, p.44(«nj[i),Pi.2a.3(.,i84..: 

c. 4fu. Pl 119 131 ; p. 49 C>J3), Pfc 77 s l3l ; P. so. Pi. 14 >, etc. ; 
P. 5i('blieal»Td'), Pi. 11 1 (iL if the text is sound; (Din -J^-iO 
P5.SS.9 0B4fsl('rt 1i)!D;p. sj.Pil<«4('™s. sopoinOPi. 
88.<(,7J1HI,39; P. S4. P»- «7 W Ma^: ; P. 55. P>- Melil; p. 
S7 (TK-ip" BT), Pt 6«9(.o], etc. ; P. 5S. Pt 110.54 ; p.« (Ji'p), 
- •" ■ ■ 64 (^f S'P?). Ps. M 



Ihal, according to 

>■ (3SS«a-»K), ilm 


L tradition only recenlly 
called in question, Ihe author of Lamentations is ihe 

was laken captive and Jerusalem laid waste. Jeremiah 
sat down and wept, and sang this elegy over Jerusalem,' 
and Ihe introduction of the Book in Ihe Targum runs, 
I ' Jeremiah the prophet and chief priest said thus.' 
There is also a passage in ihe Hebrew canon itself 
which was anclcnlly interpreted as connecting the name 
of Jeremiah with our book. In aCh.SSis we read, 
■And Jereniiab composed an elegy upon Josiah, and 
alt the singing men and singing women uttered a 
lamentation over Josiah imto this day ; and they made 
it (i.«. , the singing of such elegies) a slated usage in 
Israel : behold it is written in the I^rnenlations ' ; see 
Jeremiah ii., g 3 (t), ' Josephus says* that the dirge 
of Jeremiah on this occasion was eilani in his days 

Lamenlalions. Jerome on Zech. 12it understands Ihc 
but modem 
r book was 

passage i 

wrilers have generally a: 

certainly written after the laii oi Jerusalem, tne ou-gcs 

referred lo in Chronicles must be a se[>arate collection. 

This, however, is far from clear. 'The mj'p of Ihe 

Chronicler had. .according to his statement, acquired a 

fixed and siatulofy place in Israel, and vi-ere connected 

wilh the name of a prophet. In other words, tlicy 

were canonical as far as any book outside Ihe Penta- 

> ni'ua implies no affecuiion of onginali 
9 Read l^ia (i»le.the patallelismX 

* Tom, if wtiiien '□rrv. would ensily till out 
ITMl- in P. aJ. (So paijly Bu.) 

* This passage of his article in Exn. Bri. 
endorsed W^Kobemon Sniih in OTJcm iSi 
■a NflkJcke, Alllitl. Lit. (i8«eX 144. 

y (Bu.); 

y Google 


teuch could be so called in that age.' Il ihus seems 
highly probable Ihat in the third czntury B.C. (see 
Chronicles, § 3) ihe Book of Lamenlalions was used 
lilurgically by a guild or singers, and that a portion of 
il was ascribed to Jeremiah as its author. Even this 
evidence, hou-ever. is some three centuries later Ihan 

discrediled by its connection with an undoubted error 
of interpretation. The n:rerence in Lam. 4» to the 
last tspreseniative of the much- regretted Davidic (amily 
is couched in terms which (he Chronicler Tell unable to 
apply to any king later than Josiab : Lam. 4 therefore 
had 10 be a dirge on Josiah, and who could have written 
such a dirge but Jeremiah ? 

Though tttere is a considerable element in the 
vocabulary of Lflmenialions which can be paralleled 
in Jeremiah, there are also many important character- 
istic words not used by the prophet, and some dis- 
titictive Jereniianic ideas are wanting in those poems. 
And in spile of a certain psychological plausibility in 
Ihe traditional theory (cp Jer.8=3 [»i] 13t7 1* u) it 
must be admitted thai the circumstances and the 
general altitude of the prophet make it extremely diffi- 
cult 10 conceive his having written Ihese poems. From 
iS 39it it is plain that duiing the capture of the 

1 free 

of the ■ 

ould 11 

implied in the poems, for the poems are Ihe expn 
of unavailing but ardent palrioiiim, whereas Jen 
persistently counselled patient submission to the ti 
rule. The sense of guilt, ei Btidde remarks, is 
imperfectly developed in LamenU 

1 Ihe n 

hof Jere 


that in chap. 3. 
thought to lake a 
may be pictured 

ireclly against facts — e.g., 29 nni 

Il is at best a very incomplete answer 

ip. 3. where Ihe singer's conipkinl may be 

lake a more personal turn, Jeremiah himself 

I isolation from Israel at large. 

this imerpretalion rests on a single word in 3 14 — viz.. 
•pp. 'my people,' which, as we have seen, should rather 
be DUB. ' peoples,' so that the singer of chap. 3, as the 
general argument of the poem requires, is a represenla- 
tive of Israel among the heathen, not an isolated tigute 
among unsymp;idielic countrymen. 

in LamenlaUD 

ig problem it 
iniih. Drive 

u uid die Book of 
>= Book of Jen - 

..a of «. 


13. UtenttUie. of critical quen 
bercd that ih. 


the Pi.3lnit of Ihe 

.- /Wj/i L^ifft, 1B79: S. Oeilli, i 
"'in K'Sc"^Fa„/^f' 

BS7I iJi^-Cmelric, 

%f UtigUhfj. iBoS. K«en<ioas of lh« 
y G. Bickfll, Carmine l-T •niMci, 
! KM iUi^tiioiff,; C.i.KtW.PSBA 
; cp BudilE. Fg-fMit.. ;i, n. 1): 1 
1™ by J. DyMnnck^ Tk.T^ I189JI 


Mi-it*i V.'Maata.AlKdtiirUliv 

vi (tss 


cm (au) viff. ; SHdi, 

' Die KWelieder'^er..' in Bl 
lewi,h>; S. A. t,\,i, in Z. 
MaicilKaii works : Lam. l-« 


GVI (it»ii 7. 

, n. 1 ; Sttinthtl. 

, ZATWVi (,tg,) iio#:(ljim. * », 

l-« probably by feiemiih); M. Lchr, 

in ^,4 /•«' 14 (,8,.). 5.^ («r«B»J .0 ^,i«) ; .id rt. ,, JK 
(full itmiuical labkj on Ihe vocabuUuy of Lamrnwiront). 
Winckler (AOFCI.3M) rtftn Luneniiiioni 10 a paiiial de- 
siiuciion of JenuaJem in the tbne of Shcihbainir, in which, he 
thinks, die temple was not destroyed. S«, however, ObAtirAK. 

riHc/iH tnalmenl 10 die critical qiKsiions : but IMver'iii ruller. 
T. K. C. (with some passages by W. R, s. }. 

LAMP, LAMTEBV. Before we proceed to a con. 
sideraiion of Ihe use of artificial light among the early 
Hebrews there are eight Hebrew (including Aramaic) 
and Greek terms which have to be mentioned. 

Paising over jucb letms u Tin, ■^^^(0. Ti\iic ^, tMrtiift 

and the like, we have :— ' ■ ■ 

1. ■!!,■*»■, somolinKS rendered 'candle' in AVC/.f.,Jobl84 

ai ., » 1, etc.), and even in RV also Uer. M.o, 

1. TemU. Zeph. I i>), for which, a> Ihe Anier. Keviiers 

»oinRVofJob,'din^viU'ofE1.3Ti». Co^wwiih 

». TJ, irfr, uiedonlyinafipiradvesenie, AV'light-iniK. 
) 1 J6, 3 K. S 19, 1 Ch. n 7(mg. ' candle ■). hut BV ■ lamp ' <w al» 
In Prov. JU where AV ' plowing,' mg. 'liiihi,- RVmi- ' tillage- ; 
tee the Comm.), and AV also in 1K.1I4. Fiom ibe samt 

3. -1^^, laffUiiaii 


.-_, ,... ._.3 in Dan.lOsI^ai.), ihsuld 
as in RV, so Bl™dy AV in Nah. S, (si, Zecb. 
:red 'lighining' in Ex.SO.b EV. On lb« 
e im^B (N"h. a 3 Ul AV ' torches ') Ke I Kov', 


f Kiuasf-B. 

*. MfT?^ iMntI/4, in BibI 

1^ WX-wfin* 

6. Avx^^in • iw nMnfV.'iee i'at^vIiVc 
Ml. 1 1} Mk.4 31 U. S M 11 13 (RV -Mond '), ar 
Rev. ItjiijeitOnRev-, RVa«-. 'Ct. lamp-i ^ 

J. Aw»i(. 'limp'AV Rev. 4s 8.0, etc., and EVKIuSSt-B. 
properly ' torch ' (so EV in Jn, 19 3. RV in Rev. £c., and RV~«- 
in Ml. /.£.). The word was IramTerrcd from the torch 10 Ihe 

s!"5^, Jn. l^sTW' lantern ' (properly a toreh). 
The oldest form of artificial light was supplied by 
torches of rush, pine, or any other inftammablc wood. 

I II>lI«l>c^ti<». ?i"*"f.,:L'S s," '"" Hi"; 

,ji._._u. known, t-lassical tradition ascribed 
""^P"- lu Inwmlon ,o ih. Join, .Ito oT 
Vulcan, Minerva, and Prometheus, whilst Egypt, on the 
other hand, claimed the credit for herself. At all events, 
iiccording to Schliemann, lamps were unknown in Ihe 
Homeric age, and, on the authority of AiheniEus 
(I6700) were not in common use (in Greece) until ihe 
fourth century RC Wilhthe Romans, too, lhe<:ain/Wo 
is earlier than the luctma and Ihe caHdelatruia. and 
was used, even in later limes, by the poorer classes 
rather Ihan the more expensive lights requiring oil. 

The oldest kind of lamp is Ihe ^ell-shapcd clay 
vessel consisting of an open circular body with a pro- 
• n^orintiiui jcciing rim to present the oil from 

Cyprus from the eighth to ihe fourth cenlury B.C.,' and 
many Egyptian specimens, nscribed to Ihe middle of Ihe 
second millennium, were found al Tell el-Hesy.' These 
rude clay vessels have survived in the E. to Ihe present 
The earliest Greek and Ronutn lamps [lychni. 

ml 1 

1 Egypt and l^lestine. 

ng (o Haminel, SOJ-arab. Chni 


rrviKJ in HaL ,„ 

» Deriv. quite obscure; see the Le»». Accordi 
(ZA 3 117) the ■ is a nominal prelix. 

> UhneTalich'Richter, A'ffrei, 3^3, He.^ti, 4 

• Bliss, Mmnde/Many ailttUiOS), ,36, fig. o 
» Cesnola. Salaminia <.<iit), sjoj^ 



w even porcelain lamps do not seem 10 occur 
before the Roman and Bytanline periods respectively.' 

ip«"™n. oFXch w7re?ound by Pi'lc^ »l li^r.»S^Mm« 
pUin, 'sonwiimo blue eniinitlltd, »nd a tew in copper.' They 

Chniliim* <cp i>A/. Christ^ AhI. i. 'Lamps,' 91 g).' 

Generally speaking, therefore, the lamps or the 
Semites aiid Egyplians conirasied unfavourably with 
. B„i_ T._i.v '•'ose of Grecian or Roman manufac- 

"""P*- thai the Hebrew lamp underwent Utile 

improvement and elaboration previous, at all events, to 
the lime of Ihe Seleucida;. We may also infer, in- 
cidentnlly. thai there ore no grounds at present (at least) 
for supposing that P's lemple-candelabrum was marlied 
by any exceptional beauty — even in Samuel's liroe the 
sanctuary was lit only by a air (g 1. 1 above). 

In spite of the numerous references la the nlr 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 a K. 4io 
proves, a lamp of some kind formed a part of the 
furniture of every room, and the exceptional use of 
miiiiirdk suggests that already it was customary 
the lamp upon ' ' ' 

n NT til 

n elevated stand. This v 

candelabrum of the typical classical shape is 

*n this pre-exilic reference. The more usual 

IS to set the lamp upon a niche in the wall. 

■mfillM.n^^B, thaws, ih* wick was commonly of 

Flak It.v.]. Wlmher.'i.' In Egypt (cp Herod. »«j), ih. oil 

wu miied wilh ult (to purify the Bame) u unknown ; see OlL. 

The Oriental prefers to keep a light burning through- 
out the night * — a aistom not wholly due to fear of 

». Mltf.^ d.,k»=«_...d Ki„o (lit;. CM. ...-1 

iuai»|iuuiB. jjj ^^ familiar ' ou/er-darliness of the 
NT. Thecontrasi-impkedinlhe term 'outer' refers to 
' 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 evlinKUJthing of Kghi in the ceuaiioa of lite, Prov. 
!0»,cpProv. l3D34»JoblB« SliT »). Similar i> ihe uw 
of ii;>-<| 1, a abovel and the meuphoi ' quench (he coal ' in 1 S. 
14 ; (Coal. I 0- '"" I'll" ■"■y 'ypify 'he life of ihe individual, 
of the clan, or of Ihc nslion. Jn i; whete David i) Ihe 

A^ain we lind 1h« wideipread custom of Ihe ever-buming sacred 

cp Paul. i. S«ty:, viiLSBg.nndCJ;ui. Dkl., i.e. ' Prylaneum.' 
On Ihe association of the deity witb flame, see Fmi.* 

lighting (be sacred lamp before the imanEC of Hermei in the 
market-place of Phar« before approaching it for oracular 
purposei. Tbis nuy conceivably, ifluilnle I S. Bj where the 

light tKcn CKIinguished?^ 

From primitive cull to established cuslom is an 



Doughty found pa 
Cp 'he dee lake 


- ,- --—.-- ''«•" '=,"'1" 
^ A» ii i&Iandi Ibe jHuatEe i* 
— -■ -* mriy in the morning ^% 
Thii would be op 

to suppose, tberefore, 
only 10 P, bul'alia to 

easy step. On il 
(.Lamp, in ;5^ 

of torches and lamps on 
of marriage fesiiviiies see , 

Whether, as Bliss has 
lamps ever played a. pari 


ing of lamps before the dead i< 
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, 

LAKPSACnS, I Mace. IG.j EV°«- (after Vg. t^Mf- 
s^crs); EVSaupsames (?.».). 

LAHCE. For I^'l>3,«<iJii,Jer.604iAV,RV spear.' 
ieeJ«v«LiM,s,WEAPQM. For ngS, rti»MA, , K. 18 ss RV, AV 
'Unort,' Me Spkab, Wiupohs. 

ItAHD-OaOCODILE (nb). Lev. II30, RV, AV 
Ckahslhon, If.V.. I). 

LAKDIUBK (^3f ). Dt. IS14. «tc See Agbicul- 
TWB, g s- 

LAHD TEN UBS. See Law and Justice (§S 15, 

I>AHTEBN dttANOc). JnlSjt. See Laup. 

LiODICEA (AAOiiKIA tTi.WH) from tC every- 
where; in TR everywhere AftoiiKeiA. which is eer- 
lainly the eorreel Gk. form [Authors and inscrr.]. B 
has AftoiiKi&inCol.2. Rev.lw 3m; but A&oAiKEiA 
in Col. iijijTfi. Latin, Laodicea ; bul also Laodicia 
and other wrong forms are found. The ethnic is \\o- 
^IKEYC [I-at. Laodiccnsii], Laodicun, Col,4i6 [cp 
Coins]). The NT passages indicate the position of 
Laodiceia' as (i) in the Koman province of .Asia, and 
(2) in close proximity to Colosss and Hierapolis. A 
coin represents Ihe city as a woman wearing a lurreted 
crown, silting between <tiPYr<« ="■! "Api*- *hich are 
figured as standing females. This agrees with Ihe 
ancient authorities, who arc at variance whether Lao- 
diceia belongs 10 Caria or to Phrygia.* I1 was in fact 
close to Ihe fronlier, on the S. bank of Ihe Lycus, 6 m. 
& of Hierapolis and about 10 m. W. of Colossi (Col. i 
13 iS). In order to distinguish it from other towns of 
the same name, il was called Aa«U«ia 4 xpit (or iwi) 
Tif Aixif (Laodi(ta ad Lyctmt. Strabo. 578). 

Laodiceia probably owed its foundation to Antiochus 
n. (361-346 B.C.), and its name to his wife Laodice. 
The foundations of Ihe Greek kings in Asia Minor were 
intended as centres of Hellenic civilisation and of 
foreign domination. Ease of access and commercial 

strength. Hence they were generally placed on rising 
ground at the edge of the plains (Ramsay. Hill. Gei'gr. 
^ AM. Ss). Such is ihe situation of Laodiceia. 
backed by Ihe range of Ml. Salbacus l,Baia Dagh] and, 
to the SR., Mt. Cadmus [k'honas Dagh). Being a 
Seteucid foundation. Laodiceia contained a Jewish 
element in its population, either due to the founder or 
imported by .^ntiochus the Great alx 

In 6 

. Flac 

r of 


J Jos, AnI. % 


1 Jerusalem (Cic. Pro F!au 

\ by tl 


guaranteeing religious freedom for the Jewish colony). 

1 Also a clasiical cuatom. Prohahly the Aame wa.; orieinally 
regarded as a vlvUying and fettiliaine agent ; cp ei^pecially 
Fraaer GtldeH Bpu^, 3 joj. One remembers that Hymen u 
figured with a loFch, 
T 0>. HI. St. 

■ [Ai lea-x lii citien oT this name were founded or renovated in 
the later Hellenic period. CpLvcAONiA.l 

* C^arian. Pinl. and Steph. Byi. r.f. Aniiocheia ; Phr^'gian, 
Polyh. fi 57, Sliabo. 57*. 

• "•- '^ h, jHj.n „. Griiek.,. ,1 / , who denies the 



knot ID the imperial 

)fTaiii the SE., from Al 
< imponant road from S 

iDithcm Phrygia. The c 

meeliiiE'pluT of ihc CLbynlic cumrmtKi, and > bsioliing- 
(Cictira propDHS to cjuh ibeiv hi> [icaiury luJU of evchang 
fajK, S ;, ttiMnia qua tiiuilica fmHKlBlismt ilrltlU' 
id. AJ All.&zi). To Ihii financial tide of the dly'! 
reftis Rev. 3 IB (^ I counxl Ihrt to buy of nx gold Irwd 

The fine gkjMy black nati»t wool (of Ihr niloiir called m 
Sit. ^78) nA made into gamenU of variout diapes and I 
aod intackjpcti.1 A reference to thia trade it found in Ri 
(' I counsel thee to buy of me . . . white nimenl ' [tfiana 
— QOI the dajk gumcnU of native manufacluTeJX Th< 
Ihm lapidly ^ew rich. Although it was pasted ovei 

tfi^ mWuf). Hence the bout in R( 

Asklepios (iEsculapius) enjoyed great honcnir at 
Laodiceia. He is there (he Grecised form of the native 
deity, Mtn Karos, whose temple was at Atiouda, same 
13 m. to the West (cp Neocokos). It was connected 
with a great school of medicine. That Laodiceia 
identified itself v.-ilh this worship is clear from its coins, 
which under Augustus have the staff of Asklepios en- 
circled by serpents, with the legend ZtCfii or ZtCfit 
4>iXaXi)tfiih : Zeuiis and Alexander Philaleihes were two 
directors of the school. The expression in Rev, 8iB 
( ■ eye-salve to anoint thine eyes with, that thou mayesi 
see' RV) refers to the -Phrygian pov/Aia' {Tii/ipa *p<iyia) 
used to cure weak eyes. We may infer that this was mnde 
at Laodiceia. and that the Laodicean phpicians were 
skilfal oculists. Thus the three epithets ' poor and blind 
and naked ' in Rev. a 17, are carefully selected with refer- 
ence to three conspicuous feaiims in the life of the city. 

Of the history of Christianity in Laodiceia little is 
known. From Coi.2i ( '/w them at Laodicea, and /or 
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 [he expression ri inrrttnK^ Itiim. ' 'he upper coasts ' 
AV, 'the upper country' RV, see Galatia, % 7, eol, 
1596. and Phrvgia, %^\. The foundation of the Laodi- 
cean church must be traced to Paul's activity in Ephesus 
(Acisl8i9l9io, -so that all they which dweh in Asia 
beard the word ' ). The acwal founder of the church 
would appear 10 have been Epaphras (Col. I7 4ij/). 
From CoHiS we gather that Paul wrote also to 
Laodiceia when he wrote lo Colossi : but the Laodicean 
epistle is lost — unless we accept the view that it is the 
extant Epistle to the Ephesians (cp C01.OSSIANS. | 14I. 
The epistle, extant in 1-alin, entitled Efiilola ad 
Ijudicmsts. is a forgery.' The subscription 10 1 Tim. 
— 'The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea' 
AV— is also false. 

The site of Laodiceia (mod. Esii-Ilissar. the ■ Old 
Castle') is now quite deserted: the ruins are many 
but not striking. 'The old city has served as a quarry 
for Dmitti, a large Turkish town at the foot of the 
Bata Dagk. about 6 m. to the southward. 

Ranuay. in hb Cilia and BiJtatrict ^ Pkrygia, 1 yiff. 
Ml/ Siia M"#. ««-, gi™ ™"h »" d"' " '■"'"'" "f 
Laodiceia and (be Lycuf valley geiierally» 
Litaratnre. with map of Laodicda. Map of the Lycui 
valley in hisfiBmtntilf^OH. £«/.>«. 471. 
and Weber,/ni^. dltarth. /milittlll, 199S. W. J. W. 

' CaEdaln/DiBcl. rf, il\tptai,tfni''lnmri, AaJimir^p. 
> t\m nginn was noionously liable to such viulalions ; cp 
Stiabo, (JB, «i Vila Til aWij, i»i i Auluiia eSffiiorot. 
1 SeeP. W. ScbiDKdel la ErKband Cruber (iSasX and Paul, 

LAPmOTH, RV LAPPIDOTH (n'n'B^, as if 
•torches' or [cp DTS?, Ex.aOie] ■ lightning flashes' ; 
A4<t>[e]iiwe[BAL]), husband of DEBORAH (Judg.l4). 
There b 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. *. , 
Jcrahmeel ; see Saul, g i ), the latter of Paltiel, the 
origin of which was of course unknown when the 
Deborah legend was elaborated. The narratives in 
)udg. i and Josh. 11, and the song in Judg. fi, have in 
fact most probably undergone considerable tiansfonoa- 

LAPIS LAZULI (Rev. 21.9 RV-w), the name by 
nhich a well-known blue mineral (mainly silicate of 
aluminium, calcium, and sodium), the source of ultra- 
marine, has since the Arabian period been designated ; ' 
it is now brought chiefly from SW. Siberia, through 
Persia and Turkestan. To the Greeks it vras knovm as 
odri^dpiit, to the Hebrews as -i-bc sappSr (see Sap- 
phihe), to the Assyrians and Babylonians (most prob- 
ably) as the K*nfJ-stone, to the Egyptians as the ^pd. 
It was prized alike for personal ornaments and for archi- 
tectural decoration. A large number of Egyptian object* 
of luxury made from It have been preserved ; various 
Assyrian seal-cylinders, inscribed tablets, and the like, 
in tapis laiuli, are also known (1450 B.C. onwards). 
Rumaburiai of Babylonia sends lo Naphuria of Egypt 
(i,(., Amenhotep IV.) two minas of uinH-Hoae and a 
i»cklace of 104S gems and uli a- stones. There it 
frequent mention of Biaii in the ' Statistical ' Table 
of Tholmes lU. {/iP 2i»,^}. and Rameses IIL is so 
rich in B*nfi that be can offer pyramids of it in hia 
temple at Medlnel HabQ. 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 ii sometimes called 
vini-ladi (uknii of the mountains), and Esarhaddon 
specially mentions the mountains of Media and the 
neighbouring regions as soiu'cea of the ninif. The 
inscriptions at ed-Deir el-Behrl speak of it as brought 
from the land of Punt. 

See Am. Tab. B,d« ISiii A"«W jo; Del. Aa. HWB. 
i.D. 'uknO'l Wi. .4f;/-lisoiua7ii WMM, .4>. w. £»r. 379; 
OLZ.Ftb. i«»,p.39; Peters, M^Vi^.SijJus 19s "0J40. 

LAPWIHO (n^MI), Lev. 11 19 Dt, 14.8 AV. RV 
HoolHjE {g.v.). 

LASEA (Acts 278, noAiC Xac*i* [\ftC6ft WH. 
after B]: noAic &A&CC& [A], Xaccaia [***]. Aaicca 
[tf], X*Clft [minusc, ap. Ti,] ; Vg. THALA^SA [tol 
THALAssiA : codd. ap, Lachm, tha^lassa, or thaS- 
SAtA^ From Acts we learn that it was 'near' (i-fiU) 
Fair Havens, and the configuration of the coast there- 
abouu restricts us to (he N. or the £ There was prob- 
ably frequent communication between the town and 
frill's ship, which lay for ' much lime ' at Faih Havens 
(f,u,), TheruinsofLaseawerediscovered, apparently, 
by Captain Sprati, in 1853. They were first examined 
and described by the Rev. G, Brown in 1B56. The site 
lies aboula mile NE, of Cape Uon{d)a ( = A;wto), a. 
promontory resembling a lien couchani, 4 or 5 m. E. 
of Fair Havens, According lo Mr. Brown, the peas- 
ants still call the place Ijista. This position agrees 
with that given to a place called Lisia. which in the 
PtuHngtr Tahiti is staled to be 16 m. from (Jortyna 
(see Hoeck, A'rc/alni, but cp Winer*, g j, n. 55). 
The> true name, according to Bursian {6'n>fr. 2567), is 
Alassa, and the place is identical with the 'AXal of the 
Sladiaimus Med. jaa, and the A/f>! or Laaii of Pliny 
[HNiti); but Bursian is in error in identifying the 
remains near Cape Lesnda as those of Lcben, one of 
the ports of Goriyna (Sirabo 478), and in putting l.asea 
on (he islet now called Traphci which lies ciose to the 
coast a little to the NE. of Fair Havens. 


p. 9(7. For cain> wiih IcBcnd SaAi 

ly^.^ - w.j.w. 

LASHA (ir^^, pausal form ; Aic* [EL] ; i^C*. 
[A"), orraiher Lcsha, a frntiticr cily of Canaan ()'.*., on 
Ihe W. side of Ihe Jordan). Gen. 10 i»t- Jerome iQuirst. 
11 //*. (Tm.jand the Targum identify il wiih CaUirrhoe, 
aplace (amom foriu hot springs, near the Wddy Zirkd 
Mala, on the E. side of the Dead Sea (see Seetwn's 
account in Rider, Erdt«nde, 15;7S.^). The situation 
of Callirrhoe. howei'er. is unsuitable. Hal^y proposes 
to read [wS. IdHa, which is used in Josh. ISi of the 
southern end of the Dead Sea {Reihenkri hibligua. 8 164} ; 
but Itie article would in this case be indispensable. Scy- 
bold(Z/ir(r, 1896. p 318/1 actually identifies Lesha 
with Zoar (nEso called Bela), which, as the southern point 
of Ihe Pentapolis. seems to him 10 be naturally expected 
ID such a conleit. Wellhausen (C// 15) maintains that 
we should read ot'S l-eshoni ' the letters p and d have 
a close resemblance in their Palmyrene form. In this 
case, the ■ border of the Conaaniies ' is given thus— from 
Sidon 10 Gaia. from Gaia to the Dead Sea, and from 
the Dead Sea to Lesham— ».*.. Dan (cp Leshem). 
Most probably, however, the original leii referred to 
the Keniies or Kenniuiies (not to the Canaanites). and 
the ' border ' was drawn from Missur (not ' Zidon ' ) 10 
Gerar and Gaia (?). and in the direction of Sodom and 
Gamonah as far as Eshcol (?) — i.e., perhaps l;lalasah. 
.J T. K, C. 

LASHABOF, RV Uulunm (p-i^: thc api^k (?) 
[B], om. A. Xec^PUN [L]), a royal city of Cajiaan, 
mentioned with Aphek, Josh. 12i8 (EV). ^79, 'king 
(of).' before jiiy? is, however, probably an interpol.i- 
(ion ; it is not represented in S. Thus the true sense 
will be. ' Ihe king of A|Aek in Ihe (plain of) Sharon ' 
(see Aphek). Those who retain the MT suggest that 
Ijisharon may be the modem Sfiidni [SW. of Tiberias. 
Kautzsch, HS, renders MT 'the king of Sharon.' 
Observe, however (i) thai [^wS -]^ should mean gram- 
matically ' one of the kings of Sharon ' (see Ges. -Kau. 
g 139 c). and (3) that Sar5nA, as a place-name, is 
probably a lali echo of Ihe older name of a district 
(see Sharon, a). 9 in Josh. ISg-w- gives twenty-nine 
kings, MT thirty-one. It is more likely that the 
original writer made thirty.] w. r. s. 

LA8THEHES(A4c6eN[e]i dat. [AKV]. -mc CJ™]). 
the minister of Demetrius II. Nicator (see Demetrius, 
aj, 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., § j). and 
appears in i Mace. 11^/ in a form dosely nkin to that 
In Josephus Ant. xiii. 49 [§3 136-130]). ' From Josephus 
{Ant. liii. 43) it would seem that L.-isthenes vas a Cretan 
who had raiseda number of mercenaries (cp Crete, col. 
9SS) *i'h which Demetrius had been able 10 commence 
his conquest of Syria. The honorific titles bestowed 
upon him in i Macc.1131/, (ffi-rY«>4>, ■wa.ri^; see 
Cousin, Father) lestify to his high position, which 

Oelesyria, or grand viiier of Ihe kingdom (cp Camb. 
Bib. ad bx. }. Later, when quietness had been gained, 
the whole of the army of Demetrius was disbanded 
(probably at the instigation of Lasihenes) with Ihe 
exception of the ' foreign forces from the isles of the 
geniiles' (11 jS).» a circumstance which gave rise to 
widespread dissatisfaction ; see, further, 

■ The I 


- W"» 

iyJr "comfaied »ilh iht pitftiahle roii «>,■«. UfA [Jot. | iiS] 

«7rt Sr «r)p-- M« •nt^,^,i.v [Jo.. I Tjol-ih. 
rcflding of Mice- being apparently a doublet with i^nlDK read 
for l-nil<tb»(ii in 10 J. ["» M*cc.bebs, F.ust, | 3 end]). 
» J». I 119, no doubi cotrecily, » ■ , J» Krtr>«. 

See Roman Emi 

LA.TCHBT (1^7^, Is.e>7 : im&c, 

LATIN (pwM*iCTi) Jn. 19» 

LATTICE. Although the manufacture and use of 

glass (more particularly for ornamental purposes) was 

, y. known to the civilisations of the Knbi from 

ud form. "" '^'"'^ ""^ '^ *^''*^^- S ■ '■ "^ "'' 

w» iMoi. ^njioui evidence of the employment of 
glass-panes in the consliuclion of windows. Indeed, no 
openings such as windows were at any time common — 
3 fact which finds sufficient explanalbn in climatic con- 
siderations. In Assyria and Babylonia, to avoid open- 
ings of any kind in the outer walls, Ihe ancient architects 
used doorways reaching to ten or more feet in height, 
which were intended to light and ventilate the rooms as 
well as lo fiiciiitate the movements of their inhabitants 
(Hace, Niuive. Ijij, see Per.-Chip., Art in Chald. 
Itttiff.). In Egypt, again, the openings were small 
but admitted of being 'closed with folding ralves. 
secured . . . with a bolt or bar. and ornamented with 
can-ed panels or coloured dei'ices ' (Wilk. Anc. Hg. 1 jSj, 
cp illuslr. p. 3fia, fig. 133). Of the construction of ihe 
house among ihe ancient Hebrews we know but little 
(see HOCSB) ; the etymology, however, of some of the 
terms employed for cerlain parts ' suggests constiuelions 
of lattice work, such as have happily not yet disappeared. - 
At ihe present day Ihe windows looking out lownrds 
the street are small, closely barred, and al a consider- 
able height from Ihe ground. In the olden times 
these windows seem to have looked over the street, 
and in Ihe case of houses buill upon Ihe city-wall 
oifered an easy escape into the surrounding country (cp 
Josh. 2i5 3 Mace. S-g). Cp HOUSE, f a. 

The OT words coirectly rendered in EV ' lattice ' or ' window' 
t, 10 which nm^ mt^iak (EV light' 
ll£h(4penin^, window) in 1 K. It/. 
\Kt be ndded. or ibree other wards (not. s-;) 

(.) nan(t, 'inMak (cp Ar. ■««** 'to lie [a linoil'), EV 
' window/ used of the luiiced apeningi of a dovecote (I1.6OS 
ifiM'liK |BM.\,elc.n,orihei1ukeIorihe9ky(Gen.TiT,c1c, 
■ardMoHnrr tin Ik- ^4 is tfi^'cj), find mctJtphoEiciilly of Ihe e\'Fi 
(Ekd. 123 Imi). OdHol lS3(«e»>ti>xi|[Ag'll&>»>vw>'[lJ| 
eometfmm Mjktu* [CompL]— i.1., njTW; EV 'diinmey'X kc 
Coal, | j. 

(I) [i^ *-;/™, #1.^, EV 'window,' Gen. Ma Joih.eis 
Judg.5« Je,. K„ (where i«d v„Vn with Mich.. Hi..e.c.X 
no. necet«.ily > meie opening Vhn. 10 bore, perforate). sio« 
I iC. 13 17 Ahowi thai ir could be opened and shut, but prub:ihly 
on opening provided with a movable covering Ol 
(cp 3)^K,> ' laiiice,' Judg. 6 se^ Pi. T e Iwheie AV ' caiemeni ']). 
■nSn.X'S, ' I'-^l ■■ veiy probably the iti kUUnI, 'pbce oT 

by Saigon (A'<l0ri. t(>^f.,co'KBi^<ii ua W. Pale^iaii term 
for at gppdii (Me Fqhtuki, coL 1SJ7, and reference, in Mus*. 
P,m., Aa. HWB i.t,. xila^n- In i K, /.c, 'n ':] seenu to be 
idcnlisil with or po^bly a portion of the C?)H in v. 3, 

(3) D'Sin (pi.), kirakilM. Ct.l4.cp tlfin inTgg. for \-hn. 

(4) JtB {pLX *™m.Jfl, Dan. « 10 [.il Aramaic 
To thete AV add^ 

S. Heteew 


<i) ntftt* <pL), *- 


I^Mis; bu 

see Batti 


F0KTI.KS.S, col. ISS? 

(«) 15?, *♦,/*. 



p D-E^ (I4 

SX a difficu 

t Wil.d 

which «cn.< ratha 
beami-): and 
(7) 1.1S, fikar, G 


ean. (RVn.« 





on of the ar 


may be nearly richt 












r, A-lt. It^u 


• InJudg-KfK*F[Bl 



. 'buck.' It B doubtful, hovtra, whether thii 
a Icgitinule. (a) Tbc nuning of Ihe Htb. root 
diLne,' is -ell-e>tib1uhed. («) JeiuKn more ufely 
s. iStu with T>OX. ■QMl['{A'M«»ia8,n. i); Mid 

is silent about the wiodcw, ? ... ._. 

illy pasted ovei in ihe ncnuntiDf tbsirk c 

ouj dduge-leBaidi (xc DtLUHK, I », n. s), Ihouel. 
■. J inaJenljJly nrfcis to a 'windnw.'! For RVi 



. Cp /'JJ^ 28 14 

LATER.* Solomon's temple (see Temple), besides 
hs sea of broiue (see Sea. Molten), hud also ten 

1. InKliin. ^"^ ^'^ **"'■ *" ''°^- '"'* 'P 
^ Coals, g 3, Fohsace, 3 1 [i]; Xow^ 
9, but in Kinga x''''p4<lH'^*« [AL-«y] ; Vg. labrum? 
but four times /afrr, once Itba, and iwice concha ). The 
passage m 1 K. (73j'39)* is evidently in great confusion ; 
and but lillte help in the elucidation of the wholly inade- 
quate details in MTs desctiption can be obtained ather 
ftom e (7 iig. ) or from Joscphus (Anl. viii. 36). The 
figures in Stade (CK/l jjS 3*0/ ), Nowaok (HA 2*3/ ). 
and Beniinger ^HA 2s. / ; KSn. 49) may assist vague 
conjecture as to what may have been Ihe appearance of 
structures which obviously none of the dcscribers had 


of Nebuchadreuar (3 K. 2ST3i6=Jer, 52t;io;i cp Jer. 
2719). What iheir function was is not staled in MT. 
Josephus, who must at least have known the arrange- 
ments of the temple of his own day, says that the laven 
were 'for cleaning Ihe entrails of the animals sacrificed, 

On the probable mythologital signiiicance of the 
lavers. see Sea (Molten]. 

The laver (Jos. Ant, iii. 8j repi/ipOPrij/KOf) of Et. 
SOiS 18 3&16 38S 3939 407 11. Lev. 811 (all P) stood on 

a. to P. "^ ' ^"" ' *1^' * ^^'"^ ■''^ ''^'" ' *""• 

between the door of the tabernacle aivd the 

altar. The lavcr bdongs wholly to one of the later 

la of P. (See Dr. IntrodS'*, 38 ; Addis, Doc, Hex. 

I. etc.. and Ihe Oxf. Hex.) Its dimensions or shape 

made out of the mirrors of the women (a very late 
Haggndic addition, thinks Weilhausen). and its use waa 
for Aaron and his sons to wash their hands and feet 
therein when they entered the tabernacle. 

idletiiclE : perhBpB w( 
(S« dbncfibcb-kicbiu, Ky/nt, Taf. IM ; alw hi* noiei 01 


(1 Ki. 7^-39) by S» 
pp. MS-ISO^ miinly t 
Cyptui. The "iindii 

T, has been Ihroi 

in Ihe 1 

«<iuaie to Ihe eiplgiutio 

V of forty bflths (90,1 

if Ihe presenl mate 
ing •/two parallel 

old ii that they were of 
r, and that they had a 
iVic in., s> cubic ft.). 

(31s Eallons) mull have weighed 

.... , _ tctipiion. Each of ihein wu luurvw, jik 
ti lonf , lair(/o>., fire)cubili broad, and three (0, J. 

<»iJ?-.- «.?=> 

. Eachconsiatedofnruoo('™'W*^'*.* •vyiMinfe', 
•vy^.-aw.T.)and g-aVr (ffi««<" ; tf.^V"™): b«t ho*ihe« 

wilh AOme ^uuibilLty thai the ifiaiblm were the primaiy 
eUmenlt in the qiuuJTilaleral itructure, aikd the mii^rOA only 
KCDndary. The misglrBlk were dectmled with liont. Dicn, 
and cherubim. 

). Each baM reeled on lolid brazen wheels 1^ cubin In 
diameter; Iheaileiof iheuwheebinnTed in/il^<>'it—' hands 'or 

4. The ten lavers as described in Kings were ranged 
five on llie right side and five on the left side of the bouse 
facing eastward. According to a K. 18ij king Ahai 
(see Beniinger) cut up Ihe tulkinSlk and removed the 
mh^fmii, R^sumably if the laven 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 aimy 

1 In J the word! lor 'winil 
and !VX CcovninE'8ij)r< 

be made upon ibe tint, accor 
'i]i D-rn mf fl|. For the 
n, cp Jodi. 1 9« Ja. M Si E> 

and 'roof 'are ]h^ (Cen.S6) 
etively. Mr. S. A. Cook sug. 
■lemenl that opening! wen ID 

'..III. SeefunherS 


VrittenUw, («,«). 

Law is, originally, cu 

ihown under Govehnme 

Pt^niJiment (H ii-ij). 
Private law Ipropeily, etc 
Bibliogtaphy <| 19). 


r powr 

command were looked kipon 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 modem siKiely, To break loose 
from tribal custom was, practically, to renounce the 
family and trib.-il connection altogether ; any gross 
infraction of that custom was necessarily followed by 
expulsion from the tribe and deprivation of alt 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 Ihe same time a 
religious custom— i.r., compliance with it is looked 
upon as a duty to the divinity by whom the custom is 
upheld. This was fell perhaps more keenly in Israd, 
than amongst other peoples ; law and righteous- 
ness were Ihe special concern of Yahwi ; in his name 
justice was dispensed and 10 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 hi» 'decisions' (nViin, tdrilk), 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 Ihe tribal custom ; no dis- 
tinction between worship and other integral parts of tribal 

* Joeephus. however (.4iir. viii. Be, 1 8 j), makei lhera4CnblH 
I A.) in depth, and thui of much laiger capacity. 
' See foe eiample Vg. of P. »B / : 'et Ipsum opui bauuii 

d th.11 even before 




initat I 

S. dutnge 

from nomiid to 


Lg of legal judgmeniA, cut id tbe xjise toml aloDg 
wiiaa cDidmongOkd Li hajlacornmunLiyarcusIora and otfttMas 
in mUMn of law. Tb»ct>ininiinityafr«Uiiecuibi traced birk 
v«y lir ; ■iiii nol H done in Iimel,' and 'lolly in luael, which 

qmw ™lV limaiG^'w^J^. J ij"E(lg"l™/3™o"l. 18 .3" 
The settlement in Western Palestine, so important in 
all lespecls. was peculiarly important in its effect on the- 
development of law. From the 
alure of the case (be law had 10 
e greatly extended. The new cir- 
umsiances raised new legal problems. 
For one thing, the conception of private property has 
for peasants settled on tbe land a significance quite 
different from that which it possesses for nomads. 
Properly with the Bedouin is uncertain ; it may be gained 
and lost in a night ; for peasants a certain security of 
ownership is indispensable. Again, wilh (he settlement 
on the land a certain dillereniialion of ranks and classes 

To the Bedouin »ciil dlslinclioni In our sense of the wmd 
are unknown ; wiihin tbe tribe all arc ' brolhtn ' : no one ii 

bnnn wiih it great diHinctions. 'Kich'and 'poor' become 
'high' and 'low,' and tbe protection of (he poor uid of the alien 

To these considerations it has to be added that, by 
(he selllemenli [he bonds of clanship came (Q be 
gradually loosened, and their place (aii«i. so far, by 
local unions (see Government, § 15) ; upon this (here 
naturally followed a weakening of (he power which tribal 
custom had exercised through the family. The individual 
was not so dependent on the community ; he could wilh 
greater ease break loose from the restraints of custom. 
A certain relaxation of discipline began to make itself 
felL The laler 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 (he support of some external authority. 

The first step towards meeting this requiremen( was 
when, by (be settlement, the heads of clans and com- 
, ™^ muntttes (see Government. 9 16), giadu- 

au(hority which could be regarded as having 
been appointed by Yabwt and could thus come forward 
with a claim (o legal powers. Their judicial utterances 

behind them the weight of the whole community, which 
was interested in giving them effect. The dei'elopment 
of a kind of public law was thus possible. In one 
instance at all events this is plainly seen — vii.. in the 
case of (he penalty for manslaughter. Under (he (ribal 
system vengeance upon the raanslayer is purely (he 
aflair of tbe avenger of blood— i.f., the fomily : (he 
support of the tribe at large is involved only in cases 
where the slayer belotigs to another tribe. In settled 
communiliel, however, (he supreme authori(y mus(, 
from a very early date, have begun 10 recognise it as 
falling within its domain on the one band (0 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 ^yer. 

Tbii advance towards tbe fonnation of an outside authority 
wu at fini by no means an adntnaie subslicule for the un- 
qualified power of cuuom which it sought 10 displace, and 

There must be an ocganisaiion that would reiider possible or 

The monarchy provided a system of uniform common 
law by furnishing a regular tribunal and by supporting 
wilh iis autliority the ancient customs and legal practices. 
The king and his officials were no legislators ; in fact 
for a considerable (ime after (he establishment of the 
monarchy (here was no real law at all in (he modem 
sense. The judicial decisions of the king and bis 
officials were de(ermined simply by the ancient cus- 
tomary practice, and some time, it would seem, passed 



before even this law was codified, al[hough 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 foimd in what is lutown as (he Book of the 
Covenant, dating probably from tbe ninth century 
(Ex. 20i4<23i9; cp Hexateuch, g 14, Law Litbka- 


A single glance shows that the appearance of tbe 
Book of (he Covenant was not the introduclion of a new 
. T.„v «» t-t,. ^"^ '• *•" '*^'' *=* =■ setting down in 

~— "•■ n nowhere enunciates great legal prin- 
or attempts to * ' " " 

H-iih a 

s applici 

it is merely a colleclion of individual legal decisions. 
Its origin is clear. Either the frequent repetition 
of similar decisions had given rise (o an established 
precedent, or a single decision had been given by a 
divine TOrah — in either case with the same result, (hat 
a fixed rule was established. Hence is explained (he 
nature and scope of the contents of (he colleclion. 
It deals exclusively with (he circumstances and in- 
cidents of every-day life ; such matters as (he legal 
position of slaves, injuries to life or limb resulting 
from hostility or carelessness, damage to property, 
whether daugh[er or slave, cadle or crop. The ruling 
principle is still that of the Jus latioitis. Trade or 
commerce as yet (here is none — at least no laws are 
required for its regulation. That ordinances for (he 
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 alK>ve(g i). 
Still, a distinction is made between jus and fas at 
least in so far as the form of decree in the mUpdrm 
(ethical and legal) differs from (hat in the dibdiim 
(relating to religion and worship). 

The ol^ect of Ihis codification probably was (o 
secure a greater degree of uniformity in adjudication 
and punidiment. It is matter for surprise that we are 
nowhere informni 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 (aCh. I79I comes from a 
good source, it would be natural to think of him in (his 
connection (see Beniinger, Camm. on 3 Ch. \l<if.). 
On the other hand. i( is also equally possible that 
(he Book of (he Covenanl was never an official law- 
book (like D(.) at all, that it was simply a collection 
undertaken privaiely (perfiaps in priestly circles). As 
containing only ancient law and no new enactments, 
such a collection would need no kind of official intn 


Wilh (he law of D the case is differenl ; 
brought in as the law of the slate by a solemn 
6. Tha Uv of D. ' 

. 1 (6=1 B.C.), 

' when king and people made a solemn 
'covennnl' pledging themselves to its faithful observ- 
ance (see a K.2a..^). This accords well wilh Ibe fact 
that Dt, claims 10 be more Ihan a mere compilation of 
the ancienl laws ; i( comes before us as a new system. 
Tliough in form and in contents alike it connects itself 
very closely wilh the Book of the Covenant, its. literary 
dependence on il being unmistakable, it nevertheless. 
as a law-book, marks a great advance in comparison 
with the other, inasmuch as it embodies an attempt to 
systemaiise bolh the civil and (he ecclesiastical law 
under a single point of view, (ha( 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 



Ifae sphere of worslfip, indeed, the law-book has ex- 
pressly in new noihing less than a thorough -going 
lefonn. In spirii the legislation is chaiacierised by iu 
humanily ; humnniiarian ordinances of all sons, pro- 
Tuiotis for the poor and for servants, for ^vidows and 
oqibans, for leviles and strangers, have a large place. 

The priestly law in like manner, after the exile, was 
inDoduced much as D had been (Neh.S-10}. This 

L^^^ worship ; law and ethics in the broader 
sense are purposely left alone ; the 
constilution now given to the community everywhere 
presupposes a stale organisation and civil rights. It is 
only exceptionally thai 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 hierocralic system of P. 
Within P. the law of holiness {H) forms a separate cul- 
leclion (Lev. 17-28 and some other isolated precepts ; 

cp Hexateifck, S i6^. Law Literature, g i$, 
Leviticus, ^ 13-33). though it does not seem ever to 

into currency in conjuncuon with the Priestly Law as 
a whole As distinguished from P, H includes ethical 
and legal enactments (especially Lev. 19), which are 
' ■ ! holiness of the 

n Dl. ((he mild humanity of which il 

e which has 

people, i 

The tirdA, however, the written and official law, 
related only to a small pan of civil life. Alongside of 
_ — ■ -^ il was still left ample room for the play 

W™* l*w- of ancient consuetudinary law. Il is 
much to be regretted thai in the liii 
corae down to us we have no codilicalion of 
suemdinary law in the fcam into which it had developed 
Bl the lime of the introduction of (he Priestly Law. and 
in which it is presupposed by that law. For long 
afterwards il continued to be haitded down only by oral 
Hadilion. and even amongst the scribes of a later epoch 
there was still sirong reluctance to commit the Hildchah 
to writing, 

«nI4caniinu«d 10 bi die iminavabk found. 

„ - , -J rmbodied ... _- 

Misbna. Tfaii reiis, howEvet, on an oldnworii of the period of 
K. 'Akiba b. JoHph (cim ito-ds a.d.), uiHler whoM influence 
il ptobBbljF ns tb>t ihe katSdiSk hitbeno only orally handed 

II 1<«»1 c 


dui ■ 


ouM be hopeleu 

Hebrew kw a. ihi. e.ialed («y) in tbe PenLin or in ibe Gr«iim 
period.1 (Cp Law LiTBHATUitE, | »/) 

All jurisdiction was originally vested in the family. 
The fother of a family had unlimited powers of punish- 
8.J«did«T'r!"'<<^"-38="''P?^2nB/l. With 
«wti»r^ '*" coalescence of families into clans 
^3^" and tribes (see Government, g 4) a 
fiHiOT*. portion of the family jurisdiclion neces- 
sarily also passed over to Ihe larger group, and was 
thenceforth exercised by the heads of Ihe clan or 
tribe. The old tradition in Israel was that tbe elders 
acted also as judges. All three variants of the story 
of Ihe appointment of 'elders' as judges (Ex.lSi,^ 
Nu. 11 16^ Dl l.j/) have this feature in common 
that they place the elders alongside of Moses as his 
helpers in the government of the people — 1.^., in pro- 
nouncing judgments (in the gloss Dl 1 15 the word is 
quite correctly given as ' heads of tribes ' ). The lighter 
cases come up before the elders, whilst Moses reserves 
tbe graver ones for himself. This judicial activity of 
■ On ihe RabUiandifaeMiihniKeScliQr. GVtW., iij. 


the heads of tribes and clans we must, of course, r^^d. 
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 mailers, those namely 
with which human wisdom is unable to cope, come 
before God ; for Moses dispenses law aa the servant and 
the mouth of God — as a priest— upon the basis of divine 
decisions (see above, g i). The people come to him 
to inquire of God and he is their representative before 
God. to whose judgment he submits tbe case (Ex. 
13i;i9). The same conditions continued through 
the later period 1 alongside of the jurisdiction <A tbe 
tribal heads and of Ihe judiciary officers that of God as 

The entire position oiherwise accorded to the elders 
shows thai their judicial activity was nol the consequence 
mCTely of an office with which they bad been invested. 
Their authority as a whole, and in particular iheir 
judicial influence, was purely moral. In the main 
therefore we find the same conditions as ate even now 
found to prevail among the Bedouins, and so far as the 

avail ourselves of what we know of these last to supple- 
ment Ihe deficieocies of our information regarding 
ancient Israel 
AmonjFBi ibe Bedouins, also, Ihen, 



eA"lh^} kwnncs^iudi^i^i; 


judgment of God (cp Burckhudi, Btm. 93^} 

As already remarked (g a), after Ihe settlement these 
elders in their character as heads of ihe local commun- 
ities {liiae hd'tr. Tpu 'jpt) gradually acquired the powers 
ofa governing body (cp GOVERNMENT, g 16). So tax 
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 whal modificalions in detail, 
we do nol know. Stories like those of tbe wise woman 
of Tekoa (a S. \i^f.)xa.A of ihe trial of Naboth (i K. 
%\iff.) prove the tact, at least for Ihe period of the 
earlier monarchy. Dt. knows of the ' elders ' as an 
organised judicial inslitmion. From the manner in 
which the fiinciion of judging is assigned to Ihem in 
certain cases, it is clearly evident that the elders also had 
executive powers (cp esp. Dt. lSii21»^ 22isjK). In 
this executive capacity they act as representing Ihe 
entire body of ihe diizens ; this finds expression, m the 
case of death-penalty, in the fact that it is for ihe entire 
community to cany out the sentence (Dt. 17?}. A 
solitary exception is made in the punishment of murder ; 
even long after ihe unrestricted right of private revenge 
had been aboUshed, and trial of crimes against life had 
been brought within Ihe compelency of Ihe regular 
couris, there survived a relic of the aniieni deeply- 
rooted custom which gave the avenger of blood the 
right of personally carrying out Ihe death sentence on 
tlie murderer (Dl. ISii), 

(a) Eldtrs. — By inference fixim these facts we may 
safely conclude that the judges presupposed by ihe 
Book of the Covenant were in the first 
the elders of the different localities 
— all Ihe more so as the judicial competency of these 
dders must in the earlier limes have been still more 
than when the Book of the Covenant was 
Singularly enough, Ihe Book gives no sort of 
of the composition of the tribunal, the forms 

8. Jndgn. \ 

y Google 


of process, and so forth — in this case also merely laking 
« of long-established custom. 

with ihii 

(pvndenl relalioji 


As the passages cited above (J 8) show, Ihe juris- 
diction of Ihe elders continued lo subsist under the 

(^) Thi ATin^-.— Alongside of the jurisdiction of the 
eiders, however, and to some extent limiting it. there 
arose the jurisdiction of the king. The king was judge 
par txcellence (cp Government, g 19). He constituted 
a kind of supreme tribunal 10 which appeal could be 
made where the judgment of Ihe elders seemed faulty 
(3 S.144^). Moreover, it was also open to the litigant 
to resort to the king as first and only judge (aS. 16=^. 
a K. 15s}, especially in difficult eases (i K. 3i6/ 
Dl. 179, see below [7]). Of this piivilege of the king 
some portion passed over 10 his officers also, who 
administered the law in his name. Unformnalely we 
have nothing to show how the jurisdiction of these 
ofliccis stood related to that of the elders in its details, 
and whether (or liow 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 impoilant differ- 
ence between the two boolu is unmistakable. In 
the Book of the Covenant fEx. 22a [;]), as in the ancient 
consuetudinary law, what is contemplated in cases of 
special perplexity is a divine decision, a lorah of God 
to be obtained at the sanctuary : God was the judge. 

(7) Tin PrUsts.—Xa Dt. on Ihe other hand (I79/. 
19i5^j 'the priests, the leviies, ' as judicial officers con- 
slilute a sort of spiritual college of justice : the cause is 
not decided by means of an oracle or divine judgment ; 
Ihe priests carefully investigate Che case just like 
other judges. The studious care with which the 
sanctity of their judicial decisions is empha^sed (17 1°^) 
warrants the conjecture that the change is lo be at- 
tributed to U, especially as, throughout, we are left with 
the impression thai D has it in view to enlarge the juris- 
diction of Ihe priests as widely as possible, at the 
expense of Ihal of Ihe elders. The elders retain 
within ihrir competency only a limited class of offences. 

The olTcncea in queuion an mudy inch nnlten hi aflccl in 
the fint initancconly thelainily— a9aii'idiiabedicnce(21iai^), 
rinndcr spolten Mainst > wili (Mij^), dEclinatuii of a lenraie 
muriige i^Tff\ maiwliiughteT. and hlood-revcTige (.Miiff., 
11 tff^ Into the, lut-dled piui^ (!1 ;) 1 luir h:ind Km 

"for thmVahirt thy G<jd hi. ' ' 

to UcB in Ih 


1 thtii 

of lhi$ legklatioa and iti iubs«quenl devdopment. That this 
studious offoTt on th* one «d« was viewed on the other with 
link bvouT it ibown by the fut thai in the ctnlial ordinance 
fclaiing <o the iudicial ftuKlioo of p>iesti(17>.^>'thi: judn' 
if bynn inlvipoliitioa placed on a level wiih the prEeus. The 
■Emplnt explanation is that ii \% the king who u intended here 

as againtt the preteniioru qf the Jeniulem piicslhood (cp the 
quire anabgout inteipolation of the judges in Vix^/.\ 

The Chronicler carries back to Jdioshaphat Ihe 
establishment of a supreme court of justice in Jerusalem 
and Ihe appointtnenl of professional judges in all Ihe 
cities (a Ch. IS,...). 

Though not absolutely incTcdible, the statement u rendered 
(to say tlie least) lomewhat improbable by the fict thai in 
thu supiemc coun the hii^h priest is represented aa hav. 
inft the prqidency in oil ipinrual, and the ' prince of the house 
oTJudah ' in all secular, causes (see Beniiniier, Cfmm. on 1 Ch. 
VI 4 M). Apait fiom thi^ however, Dt. certainly >eein» 10 know 

Eiekiel and P continue to advance lexically along Ihe 
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 Ihe priests {Ezelt. 4414). That P also 


assigns the administration of Ihe law, not lo the secnlu 
authority but to the piiests, is clear from the representa- 
lion of Chronicles according to which even David had 
appointed 6000 levites as judges (i Ch. £84, 2fl>9}. 
This theory, however, was never fully carried out. 

in Etia's lime we meet, in the provincvil towns, with pn> 
fessionsl judees who ace drawn not (iom rbe priesthood but tnm 
the ranks oT the ciiy elden (Eita Tii, 10 14). lliere wen 
umilar local courts ihrouahoui (he counliv duiine iha Greek 
and Roman period! Uud»iiais*>e.; loi. BJ ii. 2* 1 ; SAM. 
■ltAlOt,Sd/al3,Sayik.U4; iBM1.ftaalO17Mk.lSgl it is ID 

minor imparlance it was certainly by the council of the elden 
(cp Lk.Ti). IhetfovAif, thai judkial funciionB «^re ejiercised (cp 
Jos-, J-c-)i in the large towns no doubt there may also have 

was that the smallesi local tribunal had seven mcmben (cp 
GovKRHMENT, | ji i «lw Schttrer, Cf'/aija/). In Intge 


«. in certain caKS (luch as aciioni for debt, theft, 

y, elc.)lhree judjtes formed a quorum ($»>,(. I I, 3. ^ 

rerlain cases priests had to be called in adjudges 

On Ihe great Sanhedrin and lit jurisdiciiod see 

10. Jndidal 

dingly simple, 
or under the 
ie judges toolc 

erected a ' porch,' or hall, of judgment, for his own 
royal court of justice (mjs,! b^h, i K.I?). Plainliff 
and defendant appeared personally, each for his own 
case (Dt. I7s 21 »o 25i); on a charge being made 
the juilge could call for Ihe appearance of the accused 
(Dt. 268). Such an institution as that of a public 
prosecutor was unknown ; the slate or Ihe 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, lo resort to the 
method of private arrangement, and refrain from coming 

end, for no one else had an interest in bringing it into 
coun. When there is no complainant there is no judge. 
The ■ daysman' is mentioned only in JobSjsln-^iD). 

The proceedings were as a nile by word of mouth, 
though in later times written accusations also seem to 
have been known (Job 31 3s/ ). 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. 2lia^); 
but in all other cases Ihe law invariably demanded the 
concurrent lestimony of at least two persons ; on Ihe 
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.s Nu. 8630 Mli.; 
Ml. 2660). According 10 Talmudic law {S/Wiudth 30a ; 
Biid A'ammd Bfla ; cp Jos. Aal. iv. 81s) 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 Ihe OT is silent 
on Ihe subjecL Whether the adjuration of witnesses 
which is alluded to in general lerms in P (Lev. 61) was 
an ancient practice, we cannot say- A false witness was 
punished, according to Ihe Jus tatimit. by the infliction 
of the precise kind of evil he had intended to bring 
upon his victim by his falsehood (Dl 19iB^), The 
warnings so frequently repealed (as in Ei!.23r 20i6), 
such stories as Ihal of Nabolh (i K- 21), and Ihe 
remonstrances of the prophets, show that the evil of false 

Where, from the i 



of the c 

specially obKure cases God was Looked . _ 
ifie guifiy party (Ei. 228(71 .S. "40X J. 

JhalousTtITiai. OFJis'lnthecaseofawi) 

l'!l^n« ™''low'' ..« ....-^..^ . ' ' 
emploj-edjieelj^-seem to have been Ihe iii 


Jutigmcnl, in the earlier limes pronounced orally, but 


later occasioiutlty given in wiiting (Job 13i«), was as a 
rule cairicd oui torthwiih in presence of the judge 
(Dt. S2iB 25^); in case of a capital sentence the 
witnesses were required to be the liisi to sel about iis 
eiecuiion. and tlte whole cotnmuoity was expected to 
lake an active part |Dt. 17?). 

Though in the paragraphs that fbllow. the various 
laws are arranged according to their substance, it must 
from the outset be clearly borne in mind that the 
ancient law of the Hebrews does not admii of close 

based on the Roman, and in particular Ihal the sharp 
distinction between penal and private law bj which 
these last were characleriied does not admit of being 
transferrol lo the former. One of the most striking 
iliustraiions 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 >jii 
talioais — 'ah eye for an eye, and a toolh for a tooth ' 

ll.PM«ItaW (E«-21'*)- To understand this 
BiniwiuouuuB. ^^,_ in the earliest stage of de- 
telopment which has been described above, a principle 
of this kind had its applicability not as a norm for 
penalties to be judicially inflicted, 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 (he most serious case of 
all. Ihal of murder, the blood -relation not only has ihe 
right, but is under the sacred duly, to avenge Ihe deed. 
In savage stages of society the demand for vengeance 
is held to be the most righteous and sacred of all 
feelings ; the man who does not exact vengeance is 

An unqualified /oi talimis makes endless every af&ir 
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 Ihe affair is held to concern private in- 
dividuals only, the injured party has also the right to 
oome to some other arrangement with the aggressor 
and accept compensation in the shape of money or its 
equivalent {cp the law of the Twelve Tables : it mtm- 
hrum mil. ni cam ™ faMt taliB «*). It was a great 
forward siep which Ihe Israelites made — doubtless 
before they look possession of western Palestine — when 
compensation of this kind was allowed lo lake the 
place of revenge pure and simple. In doing so 
they look (he most essential first step towards the 
substitution of public criminal law for private revenge. 
Compensalion cannot for long withdraw itself from the 
control of general custom, and then ihere gradually 
comes inio eiisience a certain definite scale in accord- 
ance with which such mallets are adjusted (cp Ex. 21 «)■ 
Al an early period Hebrew custom seems (o have 
demanded such a mode of setilemeni for eveiy kind of 
bodily injury (Eii.21i3) ; but Ihe earlier usage did not 
sanction Ihe acceptance of blood-wit, except in the one 
case of accidental homicide {Ei. 21 y=). 

Penal law. in Ihe strict sense of the expression, 
constitutes a third stage, its dblincll\'e feature being 
Ihal Ihc duty of revenge is taken over from the in- 
dividual by society al large. Revenge now becomes 
punishment, ihat which regulates ll is the general interest 
of the community al large. Custom, and afterwards 
ilatute, determine Ihe kind and measure of (he penalty ; 
Ihe leaders of the society, the constituted authorities, 
lake in hand the duly of seeing it carried out. 

In Ihe ancient Hebrew view of Ihe mailer, however, 
the object of punishment is not completely attained, 
even when the ideas of retribution and of compensalion 
have found eipression. Grave crimes, and specially 


defile ll 



; cpaS.21}. Evil has to be 



Ihe midsi 
19. 9 1. 

of the people by means of pu 



»f.«ciiDn whh the thought of the . 




idw which n,.kB=hiU™.ii, pu 



e ghndrtn along with ihiir falheri 
bfi^ ewnol Lybold on Iha mu. 




CM lay hold on hi< funilv, Tht cusiom i< ihe 

B«l™in> I 

liiis day. In legal praclicf it it 

«"3^isha till 


In Ihe 

law the only recognised for 

m of 


punishmeni is by stoning. In such 
U.M<U.Od.T ^""^ '" =S,1., aK.107.5 Jer.26„. 

panUIiiiuiK. "'^■' ''■'^ "!,"°L e *'"; P""'*"- 

' ments awarded by a court of law. In 

Ihe 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 ihe criminal was deprived of the 
privileges of burial (Lev.20i4 2I9 Dt,21ji ; cp Josh. 
7>s). Dt. bete again has a mitigating tendency, en- 
joining, as il does, the burial of the body thai has been 
' hanged.' before sundown. 

:l,oji^ = 


:y (Lev. 2 

t Nu. 


n.r.lly, 1 

scourging as a punishmeni occurs in Dt. (25i-3J ; but 
unfortunately we are not lold what were the cases m 
which the judge was permitted or required lo award il. 
except in the single instance described in Ut. 22i3^ 
(unjust charge against a newly-married btide). The 
manner of carrying il out is also described, ■ Ihe judge 
shall cause [ihe culprit] 10 lie down, and lo be beaten 
before his face' (Dl. 26»)-, not more than fony stripes 
may be given. The later interpreters of the law limited 
the number to ' forty save one" (a Cor. 1 In, Jos. AhI. 
iv.81.1]), doubtless so as lo avoid a breach of the law 
by an accidental error in reckoning, bul perhaps also 
because in the late period there was subsliluled for the 
rod a three-thonged scourge, with whkh thirteen strokes 

The money penalties known lo the law are really of 
the nature of compensations, not siriclly punishments 
(cp CuNPiSCATlONJ. On Ihe other hand, in a K. 12iS 
(i7]t we read of trespass money and sin money which 
belonged 10 Ihe priests ; but for what offences these 
probably they 

Of f 

, ofri 

upon freedom neither ancient 
consuetudinary law nor written slalule knows anything. 
On Ihe other hand, howeier, we have in the historical 
books frequent mention of imprisonment, stocks and 
■shackles,' or 'collars' (cp COLLAR. 3), as methods by 
which kings sought to discipline disobedient servants or 
dangerous persons like ihe prophets (Jer. 20 a 28 96 
aCh. 1B.o18js/); and imprisonment certainly appears 
in post-eiilic limes as a legal form of punishment to be 
awarded by the judge (E:ra7a6). See Prison. 

From ihc modern point of view il h ■ slrifcing tict that Ihe 
Hebrew legislation regHrdi no punishments as inv^ving dis- 
grace. In D(. tZ&3 the punithm«nt by beating h expreuly 

i» modert 

Ice Ihe n 

m Oriental, 

U enactments which have been pre- 
■eii are very meagre and defective. 

1, blood revenge was a sacred duly 
'Whoso sheddeih man's blood. 



by man shall his blood be shed' {Gen. 9 j/ ) was at all 
lime* regarded as a. divine principle ; the daly of 
blood revenge belongs lo ihe nearesi relaiion, the GoKi. 
{f.v. ). In principle Ihe right to such revenge is every- 
where recognised also by the law (Dl, 19i-i3 Nu. 
35i6-ii). Siill, the transition to a more sealed and 
orderly condition of society entailed the result (among 
others), thai Ihe superior authority, as soon as there 
began to be such an auiliorily, look blood vengeance also 
into its own hand, and thus converted ii inio a death 
penalty (a S, 144^), It would appear, however, that 
in pre-eidlic times it never succeeded in wholly sup- 
pressing privttle vengeance. The most important re- 
alriction of it lay in the distinction now made between 
murder and manslaughter. Even the Book of Ihe 
Covenant distinguished Ihe case in which a man ' came 
presumptuously upon his neighbour lo slay him with 
guile,' and ihat in which he ' lay not in wail but God 
did deliver him (his adversary} inlo his hand' (Ei. 
21 11^). It also reci^ised within certain limits the 
rights of an owner in defending his property (Ex. 23a/ 
[i/]). Similarly, in Dl. (ISn-ta). in a case of violent 
dealh a man's known hatred of his advenory is taken 
as evidence of murderous inlenlion. P gives the dis- 
tinctive features of murder with more precision and 
somewhat differently ; murder is presumed nol only 
where hatred and enmity, or lying in viail. can be 
proved, but also where a lethal weapon has been used 
with fatal effect. From Ihe dangerous character of the 
weapon, murderous inlenlion is inferred (Nu.35i6^). 
In ihe ease of murder all forms of Ihe law allow free 
course to blood-revenge, thai is to say, the death- 
penally is ordered, and thai with the express injunction 
Ihat a composition by payment of blood-wil is nol lo be 
permilled (Nu.BSjr). The manslayer, on the other 
hand, enjoys the right of asylum ; see AsvLiiM. 


. Tbcat 

in by D of 

of refuge, of which D nunes three for Jur 
PllHliiKindW. Palestine rei|>i!clively(Nu. 
In the earlier period the right of uylum be 
tiuriei bud ilonbtkn been unlinuted Siill, 
Covenant, and ifternunla D, auume, what r ei] 
(En. 11 14), Ihat inquiry ii to be made whether Ib< 

X for E. 


ly of refuge, he was at 

'S, E-iC 

lercy of Ihe avenger (Nu, 
5. also. Ihe law permil! 

Ihe application of lalia only where intenlioi 
presumed, in injuries inflicied in course of a quarrel, 
for example, the Book of the Covenant provides thai 
tbe aggressor shall only defray the expenses incurred 
and compensate Ihe injured person for his loss of time 
(Ex,21i3^). For another particular case of injury 
which may be met by a Rne, see Ex. 21 ». 

The enactments relating 10 certain gross offences 
against morality are chaiacteiislic (cp Marriage. § a). 
The penally is death (Lev. 20 10 ff. Ex. 22iB [»]) in each 
case, as also for the offence specified in Lev. 20 18. In 
cases of adultery the injured husband had al all times 
Ihe right to sby 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 (Dl. 


On Ihe Dlher hand Ihe leduciion of an unbelrolhed maid was 

Dl. 22 »/:). That Ihe fa--— ■ ■- '■■— 

1 legal ri^hH 

TU— ihai of deiuh— m il 

(Cp Mas 


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.SSiSic [1719]). In 
this respect Dt. is e«ception»lly strict ; even solicitation 
10 Ihe worship of strange gods is a capital offence 
(137-i6). Finally, P places eveiy deliberate transgression 
ofany religious ordinance, such as breach of the sabbath, 
or the like, on a level wiih the crime of blasphemy, 
which carries with it the penally of lieing ' cut od" from 
one's people (Lev.24is). 

To private law belong personal rights and Ihe laws 
affecting property, bonds and obligations, inheritance 
ia P»TMMi«l ""'^ ""'"'''"B*' Inheritance and marriage 
rt5[»; "* ^"^^ *'"> elsewhere (see Marri.^ge, 
"^ "■ S9 I. 7. and cp below, g 18). In liarmony 
wilh the unanimous view of the ancient world, only 
Ihe adult free male member of ihe community — capable 
therefore of bearing arms and of carrying out blood 
revenge— >was regarded as invested with full legal rights. 

(1) Sons and daughters. — The son not yel grown up 
and the unmarried daughter are completely under the 
power of Ihe father, as also are the married wonuin and 
the slave. Lists of fully qualilied citiiens appear 10 
have been drawn up from a tolerably early dale ; the 
image of the 'book of life.' already employol by J (Ex, 
S231 ; cp Is. 4j), would seem to be derived from ihis 
practice, though express evidence regarding il is not 
forthcoming till later (jer. 2230 Eiek. 13? Neh. 7s 64 
123> / |. The fact that at a later period the twentieth 
year was taken as Ihe age of majorily and fitness to 
bear arms (Nu.lj Lev. 21-if)- affords some ground 
for inferring thai a simibr rule held good for Ihe 
earlier limes also ; hut il must not be foi^ollen that 
under the patriarchal tribal conslitulion Ihe indepen- 
dence even of grown-up sons is only relative. The 
original significance of circumcision as an act denoting 
the attainment of the [sivileges of full age is treated of 
elsewhere (see CIRCUMCISION, g 5). Women appear 
to have been universally and in every respect regarded 
as minora so far as rights of property went ; at least, 
apart from female slaws, ihey hold no property that 
they can deal with as they pk-ase. They are incapable 
of bearing testimony before a court of justice (see above, 
g to). See further Family, Marriage, Slavery, 

(*) Slrangtrs and fortigners. — In the case of aliens 
dislinclion must be made between the ^r {-n) and the 
n<ikrl{-q^. (See Stranger and Sojourner.) The 
word itoirf denotes Ihe alien who stands in no relationship 
of protection towards any Israelite tribe. A person in 
this category would aa a rule make but a brief sojourn 
in Ihe land ; in cases when a longer residence was con- 
templated application would naturally be made for 
tribal proteclion. The nokrt in any case of course 
enjoyed the ordinary rights of hospitality, which means 
a great deal, great sanclily attaching to the rights of 
guests. Apart h-om this, however, he simply has no 
rights at oil (cp Gen.Slis Joblfti?) ; the very laws in 
the humane legislation of D which conleniplate the ca^ 
of the poor and the depressed in the social scale- ' 



e Ian 

usury, and Ihe like — never once have any application to 
him (Dt. IS3 23»[ii]). Il is quite otherwise, however, 
with tilt gft—i J., ihe alien to Ihe people or to the tribe 
(for the older period what applies to Ihe people applies 

protec led person. Sucha_ 
of the Irital god. and enjoyed 
indeed the full privileges of a 

:, and acquired the si 

t. in comparison 
peoples, a high 
degree of imniunily and proleciion. In particular his 
position had Ihis advantage. Ihal il greatly prepared 



the vaj tor complete incorporation with tbe tribe. In 
tbe older lime be bad the right of connubium ; it was 
ID this way that the Canaanilis were gradually absorbed 
(see Marriace. % s). 







rf"c^™ f"*^ 







ordgns who Hill 




u followed 

Tvriiiii iJlhoiaEh 


was rtKard«l u 


»: >h 

had fallowed her husband lo 


elsiHl a 

lit proiKlion of 





ml chifacin («. 


1 »}; 





Ed, from 

un.« to tin. 

c by her huibuid ; 






From what has been said as to the meaning of dr- 
cumdsioD (see Circumcision, S 5) it seems doubtful 
wbetber oncinninicised girim also had the right of 
conrubiiun. In general, the Book of (he Covenant 
CDJiHned that the g/r was not to be trea.ted with violence 
(Ex. 22 II [»] 239), and, as we gather from the conleil, 
was al»ve all to be secured, without any partiality, in 
bis full rights as a protected stranger before the courts 
of law. On the other hand the gir — apart from the 
Canaanites. who naturally formed an exception here — 
was roajiiteslly excluded from the right of acquiring 
heritable property within the territory of the tribes of 
Israel (cp Mic2] Is.22i« Eiek.47ii, where the per- 
mission to do so is brought in as an innovation). 

D renews in a great variety of forms tl 
to treat tbe stranger (who is placed upon 
Ibe Lerile. the widow, and the orphan) ' 
kindly (10 tS Htg2iiii9jf.), to admit him to participa- 
boain tbe general gladness at festal times {Sm ISii^), 
and not to pervert his right (3*ij 27i9)- Just because 
tbe stranger, as such, occupies an inferior position he 
has a double need for love {10ig26i-ii). On the other 
hand his position in D is altered for the worse in this 
TEspeci that the right of connubium is taken away (Dl. 
^tf. 233 [4]/: Ex- 34 is/!, ind undeniably for D the 
gir and stilt more the leiri occupy a lower position 
in the scale of humanity (cp Dt. I491)' In all this it is 
rqarded as a matter of course that the glr shall in a 
ctTtaiD sense at least accommodate himself to the religion 
of his protectors (£1. 2Si3 20ia DlSu Itiiff. 26 ii 
SI 13), Still, even in this respect the older times 
demanded but little : he might even keep tip his own 
sacra (cp i K. 11;/ ISji); moreover, he need not 
observe the rule with regard lo clean and unclean meats 

P carries its demands upon tbe 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 ilefile tbe Israelite (Lev. I7B loX '9 
18i6 20>Nu.I&io-ia; epDt.l4ai). 
Xoc only ]■ he obliged (o obKTve (he sabbath and permitted 

le frut of the in 

Itself he b precliK 

On tbe other hand the gir enjoys the fullest protection 

e law; 


junctions of D renewed (Lev. 19^/ cp 23aj 266). but 
also equal rig;hls before the judgment seat are expressly 
secured 10 him (Lev.2*ia Nu.35ij). an essential 
advance on the mere appeal to humanity contained in 
the older laws. The points in which his privileges still 
bR short of those of the full citizen are mainly two ; he 
is excluded from the worship properly so-called — t.g. , 
from tbe Passover (Ex. I247/.}, perhaps also from (he 

le coromom™!*' of l»n«l"(Ei, IS 47°/ Vu! 9™ _ _,^ 

urther, Ihe mcquisition of landed propeny is rendered imposaiblt 
I him by the operation of the law of trie < 
ilow.lTs). Fi^^«npwn3.nlsra 

red impossible 
if iubiUe (see 


mofdebi, tl 

the relMions of the deblu 

treated as on a complete 

RUin 11 ill limei the ii| 

Thus the gir is by 
equality with the Israeuie. 

The laws concerning property, so far as they have 
come down to us. relate to the disposal of rsil and 
movable esta.te, borrowing and lending, bonds and 

Buying aid iriling in ancient Israel were transacted 
in very simple fashion, and the various questions arising 

"' 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 thnt the purchase should take place 
in tbe presence of witnesses (cp Gen. 28;-3o), Trans- 
actions of this kind (as of every other kind) might be 
further ratified by oath and gift. 

Tbe fint mention of a formal dred of sale occurs in the tine 
of Jeremiah [JeT.A26^); According 10 the simplest interpreta- 
tion of the passage it was executed In duplicate, one copy being 
sealed «nd the other open, boih co|»e9 oein^ handed over for 
preservatioD to the custody of a third party (ocherwise Stade in 
ZATtViiTiUitib. In the case of such a documeui wilnessei 
and signatures would of course not be lacking. From Jer. 8244 
we can see that In the time of Jeremiah the execution of a 

Another ancient custom is met with in the Book of 
Ruth (4?) ; tbe seller gave his shoe 10 the buyer in 
token of bis 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 IOS9 [id]), 
where 'casting one's shoe' over a thing signifies the 
act of taking piossession (see Shoes, % 4). 

The same syoilioliial action came into use jDl. SS9) in cue* 
equivalent ID Tenunciition of right of inheritance. The original 

(he wrilerof Rulh knows it only as an'archieologicalTacI. 

A limit was set to the free disposal of property by 
the duties of piety which a person owed to bis ancestors. 
To ancestral land the Israelite— like any other peasant 
proprietor — felt himself bound by the closest lies. 
The paternal properly was sacred ; there, oflen. the 
bther was buried, and children and children's children 
were expected also to be laid there (i K.213). It 
is in this fact that we are to seek (he explanation of 
Ihe provisions regarding the right of redemption thai 
acted as a check upon Ihe right of free sale. Ancient 
custom from an early date had giien the kinsman 
(lawful heir ?) a right of pre-emption and also of buy- 
ing back (Jer. 32 6^). A legal enactment on this 
subject, it is true, does not occur earlier than in P 
(Lev. 26^5/). It is open to question whether the right 
of repurchase (here conferred upon the proprietor himself 
rests upon ancient legal custom ; Ihe enaclment 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 coiuse of a year (Lev. 25i9/. ). This 
also may well have been in accordance with the ancient 
practice. On the other hand, the regulation according 
to which all real properly which has been sold (houses 
in towns altme excepted) shall revert again 10 the old 
proprietor at the year of jubilee occurring every fiftieth 
year (see Jubilee), and without compensation (Lev. 
26i3^), belongs to the theory peculiar to P. The 



effect (if course is lo convert every purchase into a lease 

Bornno'mg and lending. — Here also down to the 
po5i-exilic period the provisions of the law Indicate 
1.. B.rro.1.11! EU"l''i'*J;„„"" e^^"™ o^' 

indlvlcluBl poverty ; li knows nothing of any kind of 
crejit system such as necessarily springs up with the 
development of commerce. This fact must never be 
lost sight or. if ute are lo understand the old Ie 

[ admit . 

■ applia 

id of which the manifest object is simply 
to protect ihe poor debtor against the oppression of a 
tyrannical creditor {cp Pi^dge). 

The old consuetudinary law look for granted that the 
creditor would seek security by exacting a pledge. 
In this case he w.-is prohibited by ancient custom from 
detaining the outer garment of the needy debtor after 
sundown, this garment being practically his only 
covering (Ex. 22a6 [is]). Moreover, propriety forbade 
the exaction of usury from a fellow Israelite {nothing, 
however, is said as lo any distinction between legitimate 
and usurious interest [Ex. 22 is (94)]; the clause, 'ye 
shall exact no usury of blm ' is a Inter gloss in the sense 
ot D; cp We. CWga). The debtor who was unable 
to meet his obligations was liable not only to the 
utmoil limit of his property, but also in his ovm person 
and in the persons of his family ; the creditor t»uld sell 
them as slaves (3 K,4i Neh.5s6 Is.SOi)- IntheBook 
of the Covenant, however, it is already provided that 
an enslaved debtor and his belongings shall be released 
in the seventh year of his ensbivemeni — a provision that 
amounts ton remission of the remaining debt (Ei, 21 3;). 

That these humane regulations were unsuccessful in 
Ihe 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. 

TIk pTdhibiiion agftimt taking the mantle in pledge wav «■ 


make Kleclion of Ihe jdediEe ihu auili 
debtor; he mnii tdu th* pledge the 
The prohibition of umry ii h extend 

of any kind. So far « fclkw-IsraeliK 

no distinction between usury and inlerest <Dl. aSlBfaol/, q> 
E«k. IS isjfT). In Ihe oueoflhe foreigneT, on the other hand, 
the taking of uiury a al loved. 

The law rdaling lo releasing enslaved debtors was 
extended by D so as to enjoin the remission of every 
debt in the seventh year (Dt. IGi^ ; cp especially 

Di,] as meaning merely that repayment of the debt is 
postponed for a year). That the law was thoroughly 
unpraclii:al indeed, and that, strictly carried out. it 
would put a speedy end 10 all lending whatever, the 
framer himself shows that he is more or less aware ; 
hence his urgent appeal to Ihe 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. g, cp the cold 
comfort of v. n). With these e-hortalions Eaek. I85/ 
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 Jcr. 848^). The Jews 
of Liter times understood vny well how lo evade them; 
the famous Hillel is credited with the invention of the 
frosbal—'ra. . a proviso set forth in presence of the 
judge whereby the creililor secured the right of demand- 
ing repayment at any time irrespective of the occurrence 
of the year if remission. 

The regulations of the Priestly code were, broadly 
(peaking, as unpractical as those we have been con- 



The prohibition of usury remains in force <Lev. !1 JJ lK>. 
The selling of Jht debtor into slavery is peroiitied, but mitigated 

fret laboiin'tbrwaRes.' The'eiMncipaiion T^ longer^d 
for the seventh year of sbvcry. but, in corropondence with the 
whole Kheme of P, is postponed lo the vear of jubilee, Tecurrinj 
eveiy filly years. In Ihii year alu all real property ihal hu 

belon^i^. This on the one hand guards againtl Ihe unfortunate 
possibtlity of the libeialed slave finding himself in a stale of 


>hich n< 

17. DamsEes. ' 

of the enslaved aie conoetned. 

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 againsl it (Prov. 

CompensaliQn for damage lo propfrly. — In the Bmk 
of the Covenant the ruling principle for this is that 
liability attaches only 10 Ihe parly whose 
culpability (whelh«- intentional or un- 
intentional) can be proved, or legally presumed. Such 
culpability attnches, to begin with, very cleaily in cases 
ot deliberate injury, especially in that of ihcfL If it is 
sought to apply to Hebrew law the distinction made in 
Ihe Civil Law between private law and penal law, theft 
falls under Ihe former category ; this appears from tbe 
fact that it establishes a claim to compensation only, 
and is not liable 10 punishment as a crime. At most. 
Ihe compensation exacted assumed a penal characler 
only in so far as by ancient consuetudinary law its 
amount had to exceed Ihe value of what had been stolen 
(double, for money ; fourfold for sheep, fivefold foe 
cattle; see Ex,2l3T [22.] 223M6r5]). 

If the thief cannoi be detected with CBTiainty the party 
found ^Ifuihy <ltl cases where two Islaeliles are concerned) after 

S.W<[7j^)L Inc. 


igible * 


'here a wPter-jnl had been 

ighbout's beast had fallen inlo il (Ex. 21 jA 

v4 wjKiv uiLUB ivK Bt ktige luid wroughi havoc in a cuhivated 

6eld (Ex. VS s [4I), or where a coring ox had tione any mischieir 

'" ■" "^ when cattle had been stolen from a careleis 

lilioD: cpon the Olher band KTilirll see 

instances aregiven in Fji^6[s| mLiI-. On 

haJf b^n'^snTinSi^'lvi "uS^KJnMlx. M? wX.'whe« ■ 
domestic animal has been torn by wild bessis {irfiol?!/ ijliaj); 
cp alwaa 14(131 with 23 If (i.lSlis with ai 56. Oniheiepainli 

The occasional references in P are in agreement with 
the mildness of the ancient law. Whoever has em- 
bellied, or stolen, or appropriated lost properly is 
mililly dealt wiih 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 line 
(Lev.24.8a. 6«-,4[e.-5])- 

The right of inheritance among the Israelites belonged 
only to agnates — the only relations in the strict sense 
la TnkHii. "f '1'* word— the wife's relations belong 

Only sons, not daughters, still 

fell te 



IS the property ot th 

hold ( 

Mohammed's lime (cp a S. 18«/ i K. Hij^ a S, 87/ : 
also Gen. 493/ cp36»; the whole inslilution of levirale 
marriages probably finds its explanation here) : cp 
MARRtAGF.. § 7, Kinship, % 10. The law of inherit- 
ance, as just stated, appears to have been common to 
all the Semites (WKS, Kin. 54. 364). in this respect 
differing in an impoi tant 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 (CC/];^/:) 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 Ihe 



person from 


I. It seems preferable. 

elweeii inheriiance and 
Among other Semitic 

dulj of blood rev 
peoples all on whom this outy lay naa aiso, otigmniiy. 
the right of inherilanee. In OM German law likewise 
ihe two were intimately connected. 

Among the sons, ancient custom gave to the firstborn 
(/.*., to the eldest son of the faiher) a double portion 
(I>l21i7: cp FiKSTBORN). It was indeed always 
possible for ihe father to deprive the eldeji son of this 
Wrthright and besiow it upon a younger son (op Gen. 
49321. # 1 K.l..-,3). and (he favourite wife (as 
mighi be e«pecl«3) seems frequently to have contrived 
this for Ihe benefit of her own eldest son. Cuslom, how- 
ever, did not approve of this passing by of [he eldest 
son. and D, in agreenwnt with Ihe ancient usage, posi- 
tively forbade it (21 ij-ir). 

the more probable view i^ (bat it fell undivided to the lirtlbom. 
who had 10 m^ike some kind of proviaion for the orbvri- The 

II least— rhil of mainlaininc the female memheni of the &mil)r 
vho remained nnmanied; by the death of ibe ^her the finl- 
b«n became at any rate head of Ihe family. 

The sons of concubinei had also a right of inheritance 
(Gen, 21 to/ ), but whether on an equality with the other 
sons we do not know. Ii must be remembered that 
Hetirew antiquity did not recognise a distinction between 
k^iliinate arid illt^timale unions in the setise of Ihe 
Gr;eco- Roman jurisprudence (see Family. § 8). 
Much, however, depended, il would seem, on the 
goodwill of Ihe father and of the brother, and no ftied 
legal custom eslablished itself. By adoption of course 
full right of inheritance was conferred. 

When a man died without leaving sons, ihe nearest 
agnate inherited ; but along with the inheriiance he look 
over Ihe duly of marT)'ing Ihe widow of Ihe deceased 
(see M.iRBiAGE. 9 7/). If ihis was not done, the 
childless widow returned to her own father's house, 
whence she was free to marry a second time (Gen. 38 11 
Lev.22n Ruth 16/). 

The later law eihibits a change only with respect 10 
the inheritance of daughters, conferring upon these 
the right to inherit, in ihe absence of sons. Il is 
slill onlr by exceplional fovour that the daughters in- 
herit along wilh Ihe sons (Job 42 is). The express 
object of Ihe alteration of the law is staled to be to 
prevent a man's name being lost 10 his family (Nu. 27*). 
Ai the same lime, however. Ihe inheriting daughters are 
enjoined to marry only within their father's tribe, so thai 
the bmily estate may not pass to an outside family (Nu. 
36i'i>). As has been pointed out by Slade (G 1-7 1 »0p 
it is not improbable thai in this we have a compromise 
wilh ihe older view according lo which, strictly, (he 
nearest agnate ought to inherit, undertaking al the same 
lime the duty of leviiale marriage (see Family, § S), 
jusi as wai ihe 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 thai 
event Ihe relations of the husband and not those of 
the »ife were to inherit (Nu.275-ti). 

Dal Mtiaiulu Rrckl ttcbil Jtn ptrirSiam/irtiu/fti Tal- 

GmtJillrBtJ^rrriM/titSi}): iheHdnwAnJiiealogiesofDe 
Weiie, Ewald, Keil, ScbeeE. Beniinger, Nowu:k ; ulicln in thg 
~' ' 'eiafHein]|t,Winei Schenkel.Bnd^RIefam; Kuenen, 

• Rickt (1 

., , acknftd. 

humiui^y. Diesiel. 'Diereli^ORn Delicte in Liraelil. 
Tht-in/ZTSjoj/K; A. r. Missell, The Lm„>/ Aiflvm 
al (itffi*); Wild^boei, 'De Penlateucfakiink en bet 


MoiaiKhe StiiUrecht' in Tijd- f- Slr^tckt, * »5^ 


Tewijb Iheoty<| iX Ki»oiical periods 

Written lawi (III 1. Before Joiia 

WhywiiltenKlj). 1. Ageofjgsm 

Circulation (I,). 3. F.,i1ic perioc 

;. Laic pa4l-«viui. vT-A 
6. RabbKic(|«/), 

vtm . 

In the present article v 
origin, the history, and the general character isiics c 
those pans of the OT which are immediately con 
necied with Hebrew law. In Ihe main these are li 
be found in the Pentateuch ; outside the Pentaieud 
the most important piece of Law Literature is Ih 
closing section of Eiekiel (40-48). The mai; 
elemenls in this literature consist of (a) actual laws 
decisions in written form. (J) legal theory, includin, 

i lite 

in post. 

, „ ^ Mishiui), ideal systi 
Ezek. 40-48; see below, % 14) and theories of the 
origin of institutions (these especially in P : see below, 
817/.), (f) eihtHiaiions lo obey Ihe laws (very character- 
istic of H and D : sceg9i3-i5|. 

According to Hebrew or Jewish theory. Yahw* is 
the source of all law (Law and Justjce, § i ). Moses ' 
, . ,_. — , the medium through whom il was 

tion with the various orders of law we find such forniulie 
as ■ And Yahw^ said unio Moses, Thus shalt thou s.iy 
untoihechildrenof Israel' (Ex. 20 m. cp 20>i, and also 
34tr, concluding laws of 3414-36 fcp i>. 10] J); 'and 
Yahwi spake unto Moses, saying. Speak unto the children 
of Israel' (Ex. 25 1, and so, or similarly, repeatedly in 
P) ; cp further Dl. 4i/ s 384. At a later period Ihe 
Jews (ormiilated Ihe theoiy thai Ihe oral law or Irndilion 
(subsequently written down in Ibe Mishna and other 
halachic colicclions), as well as the wrillen law or scrip- 
the tirsl instance communicated to Moses — 

d the 

oued to Mose» oraHy, a 

Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders 
10 me prophets, and the prophets to Ihe men of the 
great synagogue ' ( Pirl^ Ahhilh, 1 1 ). 
From Ihe Jewish point of view iherefijre Law Literature Choth 

*^tf^vWp»r of the N'T— was aubtcquently wiitten down. It 
is alwa^ the oriKin of law, bDwcvcr. nther than erf the vrrilmf 
down of the law that was of primuy inleren and inporunce 
lo the Jews. Moses aiands preeminent afl Ihe hunun DiediuDk 
through which Ihe Law came to Israel ; thouEb in the writii^ 
down of the Law Esa'" pan is, accordlne to lewisb ttadilioo- 
at least a> iniportani ai that of Moses (Canon, I T7>. 

For presenl purposes it is unnecessary to discuss al 

consequcnily, ai least indirectly, their 
:o Moses. We need only refer 10 (a) an 
exceplion and {b) a consequence. 

(fl) The prophets also were regarded as media of 
Krilh — i.t,, instructions, laws — and Ihe priests al 
various periods delivered ' instructions.' * The pro- 
phetic inslrucliona. however, scarcely ct)rrespond lo 
what we generally understand by law, and Ihe priestly 
instructions are explanations of ihe law or laws of 
Yahwt with which Ihe priests were entrusted (Hos. 46, 
Jer. 2a 18ia) in reference to specific circumstances (r.f.. 
Hag. 2..).» 


1 Lev. IDs) A 

■• •>/ llll Jm-lifl Falluri, Eki 



(*) The conseqii 
law is that Ihe Hel 
plicitJy record ihe introduction ot a new law. We are 
Ihus 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 (he change of law at a definite dale is 
tumished by Eiekiel in his ide^ sketch of a future 
Jewish constitution {Eiek. 40-48) : in this, old customs 
which had Ihe sanction of earlier law are condemned 

which subsequently gained validity. These changes 
are directly revealed by Yahwi to Ihe propbeu In D 
also, the i^te of which has been determijied by crilinsm 
within sufficiently narrow limits, older laws are abrogated 
in favour of new ones ; but here the laws arc traced to 
Moses, and aie not, therefore, as in Eiekiel. directly 
represented as new, though indireclly the sense uf 
novelty is here also clearly fell (cp below, % 13). 

Before proceeding 10 a synthetic history of Hebrew 
Law Literature based on Ihe criticism of Ihe several 
» •n_>^ _ bodies of law. we may notice the exiemal 
SJ?^ „a.»»,-m,f,.,.n.»ly tor tl» «■!!» 
period very scanty — of the existence 
and ditTusion o( such a literature among the Hebrews. 
Law. but not necessarily Ihe individual written laws or 
Ihe entire literature of law, was. as we have seen, 
allributed to Moses. In the main the hrsl four books of 
the Pentateuch merely relate oral communications which 
were to be orally communicated to ihe people. Ei. 
34»t/ U), however, records that Moses wrote the short 

the covenant between Yahwfi and Israel ; a similar 
statement is found in 244, but Ihe precise limits of the 
* words of Yahwi ' there said to have been writlen down 
and the source of the statement (whether J or E) are 
uncertain.' Traditions were also current among the 
Hebrews that Ihe dccalc^ue was written by the finger 
of God on slone tables (Ex.Sl.B 32.6 E, Dt.S.o)- 
Again Hos. Sti implies Ihe existence in the N. kingdom 
of written laws, which Ryle {Canen, 33). however, 
inclines to regard as prophetic leaching ; if the text be 
sound (which is doubtful), the number of these written 
laws must hare been large. We have, thus, altogether, 
sufficiently good and complete evidence thai written 
laws existed at least as early as the eighth or ninth 
centuries B.C. in both kingdoms.* The context of the 
passage in Hosea (cp Jer. 7"/.) implies that these bws 
had regard rather to social and moral life than to 
cultus.' Such is the character of Ihe major port of Ihe 
laws in Ex. 21-23, On the other hand the laws of Ex. 
S4ii->6, said by J to have been wfiiien by Moses, are 
for the mosi part concerned with Ihe cultus. 

For whom, then, we may ask. were these law* 
written? Who were to read them? In what sense 

tainly ; but it seems likely that such collections ot 
written laws were io the first instance intended for 
the priests whose duly it was lo give decisions (cp Law 
AND Justice, % 3, end). When (some of) the laws 
of Ex. 21-23 became incorporated (probably about 
the middle of the eighth century} in E, and those of 
Ex. 34 11-16 (somewhat earlier) in J (see EXODU.S, 
§§ 3vi.-ix. 4). they became Ihe possession ot a brger 
circle. To all appearance both these sets of laws 
codify existing practices, and do not introduce changes. 

gardcd. The code may 1 

It oetn a coiiecilon of rules re: 

=. S« below, |,/ 

1 ihe relation of thcK coda to ib 

3sii,. Havi./, 4. 

( farltaerXue. //ix. ET mfil 

I 4 6 in the light of the coDtcii a 


I long eiisting 
s J and E, see 


There was no need, therefore, for their publication 
merely as laws. Their appearance in Hebrew literature 
is raiher due to the growth of an historical literature 
(yet see Kue, Htx. % is, ET 37a). 

The publication of Dl' in the seventh century 
marks an imporlani stage in Ihe history of Law 
4. dMoUUOiL t^-f"'"™' Dt. was tbe library em- 
bodimeni of a rehgious reformation, 
the principles of which affecied many established 
customs. Its publication therefore was necessary : il 
was essential (hat the people at large should know what 
was required of them by the new law. There are in the 
book passages which clearly imply (hat such publica- 
tion was contemplated by its authors, and we leam from 
a K. 22/ that they saw their designs carried out. E\ea 
so. however, we musi not Ihink of the book ns having a 
large circulation among many classes of readers. Most 
of (he people were to become acquainted with it by hear- 
ing it read to them period! callj by the priests and elders* 
|Dt. 3I»-i3, cpa K.23it), just OS according 10 the theory 
of the book il was in Ihe first instance read to ihem by 
Moses (285861; cp I5 3I14 2»»o SOio); Ihe only 
copies of which we actually hear, in addition to the 
original which was to be kept in Ihe temple (31 1«), ate 
Ihe copy which was to be made for Ihe king (H'S) and 
the copy engraved on stones, referred to in Dt. 27 2/- ! 
(on which see Driver, and, on the text and tradition 

n thd hands of JiuiraclDn of die people. 

«11iy hie, 'r^' Che. T™*'^' '■ " 

he very limi"-" -=—■'-»- -' "^ 


leen modified or expanded. 

keleh of^'^f™" " 

< been inferr 

I even of Dl. ii 

snile were probably 

iy marked by much le^l tiiidy 


I 16/}. The >>me may be uid of thecal 

Certainly, from (he time of Dt. onwards, references 
to written law become frequent. Life is no longer 
ordered merely or even mainly by long-established and 
am. and in cases of doubt by the oral 

in the (book of the] 

Uw of 


' (EiraS) 


Neh, 13. J. Josh. 83 

D [cp 



a K 


D, a Ch.23.B 264 



m law 

are P>ra76 



Most significani also 


words ' book of ' before ' ihe i 


en 1 


implied. TordA, orig 

nally denoting a 



delivered, becomes a 

term for 

a body 

of ar 




Of course long afie 



e a 


recognised instilulion. many still depended for thdr 
knowledge of it on hearing it read to them (see Neh. 
8 13i-3). The circulation of copies, however, must have 
become increasingly large ; Ihis is in pari indicated by 
(he existence of (he class of scribes. The number of 
people who possessed and read the law was certainly 
considerable in the second centiuy &c, (i Mace. ] j6/). 
Later Ihe rrnding of Ihe law was widely practised ; 
it formed the staple ot Education {f.v. § 3/.; cp 
SchUrer, Oyy», II3S4. ET ii. 2so). 

,U Jew, 

« Cai 

ION |«);bi.llhi>i»™ly 
ipd by (he f peaGcally legal 1 

™?y'*e« (^lut I ™i^ 

' For Ihe extern of Ihe book at first pul 
of in origin, see Deutebonomv Ot ^jf.). 

IQ beoitained" ii 

priesK and elders) 
Dr. W /«. 
n(by Ihe dead, and 



ic law, the people of the boi 

S. Blx FoiocU. ! 

Jrniih) the penile 

The history ot Hebrew and Jewish Lnw Uteralure 
may be divided into six periods — vii. (i)lhe pre-Josianio 
, (SS6-9): (a) 'he Josianie (§§ .0-13) ; 
•■ (3) the esilic m "4-'6) 1 U) 'he «rlier 
post-exilic (S§ 17-19}: (St the Uler post-exilic (g ao/); 
and (6) the Rabbinic (§g aa/.J. From what has been 
said already (^ 9-4). it will be easy to understand thai 
a hleralun of Law in any very precise sense o( the 
lerni begins only with the second (Josianic) of these 
periods ; in the ^rst we have to do with the formulation 

with the puUication. for general penisal or recitation, 
of any legal work. 

I. Pn-Jmianic Period. — Wrillen laws were, as we 
have seen (§ 3). known in Israel 
S. BaCon 

Joriah. _ 

essential features unrecognisable, in the Pentateuch — 
in particular in Ex.20-24 34: see also Ex. 13}-i«. 
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 let^ to later sections. We will confine our 
attention for the present to the laus which are clusely 
connected with the prophetic narratives ot the Hexa- 
teach. and (on this ground and on others} may be re- 
garded with greatest probability as represenling early 

the eighth century B.C. 

If this be the Q 

Certainly d 

u^ly argue merely from their ff. 
it oodei had been colkcled ('■ b 


■ilt«,ffrm u e>rly u 
jfublCf ftnd fiaentscb 

[be compiler of IE— 10 the complex prophetic lource Ihe 
pilalkon of which mu^t be placed at the cIdh of ibe K 

ihar tliesclsm 
J or E. (!) 

catd Ok place iTi 1 
: compiler of J 

code* (a)Tbecoi.»helberLncDri 

in thr .inxen lawi of Viifawi lo whicn noKB maxei lel 
.logue of Ex. 10, Ihe older dmlogue of Ei. 


tbe code of £ 


js thai thoH older 

fluch expanstoQS can for the moai par 
here - detaila muat be lougbl elsewberc 
dale in delcrmiiKd by the one fact tha 
leukd agiicullunl incieiy. See ExoD 

refeired to 
ird limit ol 

1 "The Inlioductkin of the law, Snl of Deuleronoiny, then 
nltheeiilin Pcnlaleuch, wu in fad the decinveaiep by which 
ibe •nillen word (iA> StkriM look Ibe place of Ihe spoken word 
(d[v Rtdt^ and the people of the wnd beatme a peopk of Ihe 
bi»k'(We. /'ni/.<<l, tis> 'Ai the kiiiorical and pro^elical 

!» (rf« Gttrlz\ 

eX HeverdJeleK 

e book of ibe commun 

A Sf 

ned'lhc tame aiTcidenlally in coniequence uf being Bllncbed 

.n Ex. Lev. in HK:\ 

that the juilemc 
lobe denned. 


These remnanu of [»e-Josianic Hebrew law fall into 
diflerenl classes when r^arded in respect of their form. 
1 'Wnwl.'.™! *« fi"'' (0 absolute commands in 

'^^J^ Ex.20,-., (the Decalogue). Ex. 

J™**"^** 34,o-a6i (Ihe s<^callcd 'oldet deca- 
logue'), and Ex. 20>3->*' (21 15-17) 22.«-aug-3i 23i-j 
6-19 : deuleronomic expansions often accompany these 
ancienl commandments in their present selling — see 
especiiilty Ex.204-6 i^ •>/■ "* 17 22ji-j*s7 23 io 11*; 
(a) hypothetical instructions based presumably on 
precedent— a codification of consuetudinary law — in 
Ex. 21.-1, .8-j6 22.-17 =5/ 234/ 

jf Words (on 3i> ; s- -■ ' "- ' '■' 

t« (Ex.lO) w 

Decalogue (E, 
poHd thai ihe . 

en lermed (Di. S « 4i, lOA a< al» 

-alogue- (Ex. M 17) ; and unie have >up- 

InEi. 14148. On the other hand ibehypo- 
a of Ex. i\ i-i4, eic, appear 10 have been 
tpeciAcally leimed judgmenis <o<cSpc)— see Ex. 21 1 and per- 
haps 11 3 1 and cp Nu. is M (rcfemng 10 vc. 16-13X 

Ultimately, it need not be doubted, these two distinct 
types of laws had ditferent origins. The main religious 
B Thrir '*'"'" "">" "' " comparatively early date 
O^ta^ have been throi»-n into a scheme of ten 
''"*"^ commands ; later, under the influence of 
the prophetic leaching, and perhaps as a sel-off fcp Ihe 

ritual decalogues, other schemes of ten words mainly 
inculcating moral duties may have been framed. An 
ancient rilual decalogue seems to underlie Ex. S4ii-a6 
{Decalogue, % 5) : individual commands of this kind 
appear elsewhere — e.g.. in Ex. 23 iB ( = 343s)- 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 I.AW and Justice, 
1 4). These judgments, again, need not all have 
originated at the same lime or place ; Ihey may very 
welt as they stand represent a selection from the 

and U 

this may be due the differences of form noticeable 

Whilst, however, such differences are certainly re- 
markable, and seem best accounted for by dilTcrence 
of origin, we have not sufficient data to enable us to 
determine in more than a quile general way what ihose 
differences of origin — whether of time or place— actually 
were. In particular it seems a fruitless task to allempl 
to reacb an actual earlier form of the ' Book of the 
Covenant ' by a series of transformations, such as Roth- 
[Bundeibuck, 18B7) has pi 


_ ... history of both the 'words' and Ihe 

Mrt^T^ 'judgments.' The decali^ue of Ex.84 
*™'^- certainly seems lo have formed pari of 
the main prophetic source J (Exootjs, g 3, vii.|; Ihe 
Decalogue, generally so-called {Ex.20), pan of the 
prophetic source E, though whelher in an earlier (E,) 
or a laler {E,) form is disputed. The 'Book of the 
Covenant,' again (Ei.20j»-'23i9), is also by most re- 
garded as having formed part of E, though, as we have 
seen (§ 6),Baentsch thinks ibat il was iirsi incorporated 
by JE. However Ihal may be, further allernative) 
arise. Had the Book of the Covenant an independent 
existence in writing before it came 10 form part of E or 
JE, or was il the compiler of one of those works who 
first brought logeiher from different wrillen or oral 
sources the 'words' and Ihe 'judgments'? These 
questions also musl be left undecided.* 

One point further only needs lo be emphasised here. 
Neither J nor E nor JE came, by the incorporation of 

le the c 

td references 10 lileimlure 



thcM colleclions of law lo be a law-book. The laws 
torm but a small pain of (he whole and are incorporated 
nol with a view to gain recognition For Ibem ; for (hey 
were based on long-eslablishcd precedents, or (as in 
the case of the Decalogue of Ex. 20) Ihey embodied 
some of the moral dulies on which prophetic teaching 
naturally laid sires; : (hey owe (heir place lo a bistori- 
ml motive — ihey are specimens of those customs, enjoy- 
ing the sanction of Yahwi's favour, which were observed 
Id Israel 

3. Tlu Jmianie Period. — The second period brings 
us to the first specimen of Lai ' ' 

10. Time of 

intended for publicity 

The historical cause of (his new depar(ure was the 
religious reformation cirried out under Josiah, and 
the leading doctrinal motive of the reformadon was 
(he unity of Yahwi ; the main reform aimed at in 
practice, (he B.boli[ion of local sanctuarie and the 
centralisa(ion of worship at JerusEtlem. This one main 
reform, howei'er. involved mnny important changes, 
especially in the sacrificial customs, (he sui(us of the 
pnests, the right of asylum (see SACIlFICIf ; PRiESr. 


1. § 3l- 

: find 1 

<f the e. 

ii. u«aMr«iomy ^^ .^, ,^^ ^f Deuteronomy which 
UbutOV^Uon. „i,« i^ f„^d elsewhere (DEUTiCB- 
ONOur, ^ ^ff.) it will suffice (o 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 bu( little, if at 
all. modified (3 la); {b) regulations for carrying into 
effect the contemplated reforms {9 >3} ; (f) exhortations, 
accompanied by ihreats and promises and illustrated by 
historical retrospects, to cany out the inj(mction5 of the 
book (§ 13). The first element is common to Deuter- 
onomy and the historical works of the preceding period 
which embody laws (g 6), The second anil third ele- 
ments entirely difTerentiate the new from the older litetary 
form. The purpose of tbe earlier historical works was 
to record aiid glorify the existing order of things : the 
purpose of Deuteronomy was to condemn and displace 
(ha( order. In the earlier period laws owed their 
position in Uterature lo 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 (g 17). 

We (um now to a fuller survey of the various ele- 
menis. and of the history (so far as it can be discoveml 
(H- surmised) of the fusion of them as seen in the existing 
book of Deuieronomy. 

(a) PrtvioMtly txating iava.—\\. has long been 
recognised that Deuteronomy is in large part based on 
,_ . the taws now found embodied in (he 

utiunr ■Pf°P*"=''<=' '>!"Ta'i''e= of our Hexateuch. 
The extent of this common mailer may be 
Men Bl a glance by consulting the comparaliv'e table in 
Driver's Deut. (iv, -vii. ) ; see also Deutbronomv. g 9 ; 
EXOOLTS ii.. % 4. The close relation between the two 
bodies of legislation, often extending to •verbal caincid- 
tnces,' is (hus summed up by Driver (8) : ■ Nearly (he 
whole ground covered by Ex.20»-233) is included in it 
[(be deuteronomic legisladon]. almost the only exception 
being the special compensations to be paid for various 
injuries (Ex. 21 iS-22i6). which would be less necessary 
in a manual intended for the people. In a few dses 
the law is repealed veria/im, or nearly so ; elsewhere 
only particular clauses ; in other cases the older law is 
expanded, fresh definitions being added, or lis principle 
extended, or parenthetic comments attached, or the 
law is virtually recast in the deuteronomic phraseology.' 

(Yet see Deuteronomy, % 9.) 


In addition 10 this legal matter found in the extani 
earlier codes, we have much similar matter not found 
(here, I( is reasonable lo suppose that this also was 
derived, though by no means always without editorial 

(S 7|, whether oral or wriiien. Down lo a period 
much Ia(er than that now under considera(ion (he 
priests gave, oral decisions, to which cm 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 com[riler of H ; below, % 15) may well 
have drawn. Particularly noticeable among this legal 
matter peculiar to Deuteronomy are the laws relative 

% 10) and the laws of chaps. 21 to-25i6 (of which only 
seven out of a (otal of thirty-five are found in the 
legislation of JE ; DeutekoSuMV. S g} which in their 
greater terseness contrasi with the generally diffuse 
slylc of even the distinctly legal parts of Dt. and are on 
this account with probability regarded as drawn more 
directly and with 1^ modification from existing collec- 
of laws.' 

The I 

ifiht K 

iMiy the e 

^ lite 

id pi. for the p«rsDni uldrew^d. 

indin theltcidjlionof JE 
iun of the siriclly Icijislalin 


ther groupt of 

.. _ _ , whoduCA iuch 

i.j.l»i.dMbltioYaliwf(iij«nrpS3''naVn'3)- Kv«i, 
!r, if wc shonld panl Ihal the cnlETis luiGce to eUaldiih 

Klriipresilr discards the idto that such sources nnd tier bave 

vfciy more IhAQ this— that ihinc laws, w sharply disiini^i^Kd 

for ejmmpit as cfaapi. 12/ IT t^J. IS ij^ SO .-9). muB bin 
had pievi^uily same ^if J form. The arcumenls adduced bv 
Dillmann ((V/>/ loi/: 340604/606; cp Rue. /fti. ET, aj6l 
Graf, Cud. Baiktr, 35.37) ru show that they must have been 

Dul whatever conclusions we may draw in detail, there 

of u 

•I'^ratlii ^"' '*" '"fl"™™ <rf 'f"'* "n* ne* ''gal 
]>L ^'*"""" i> powerful, clearly felt, and far- 

reaching. Take, for example, the law 
of sacrifice (chap. 12). Much is assumed as known, 
for instance (he mode of sacrifice ; but in respect 10 
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 tbe mere fact of being such : no longer ' as 
at this tlay' (138) is sacrifice to be offered wherever 
one pleases, but at one definite place only (ISij/.). 
Worship must be nmtralised ; the unity of Yahwi vin- 
dicated and outwardly symbolised. What bos been 
legitimate ceases (0 be so. while some things tha[ had 
been illegitimate now become legitimate (ISij). 

If (he law-book, instead of merely glorifying the 
existing order of things, ain)e<l at changing it and thus 
seriously aflecling the life of the people, it needed a 

arousing enthusiasm to carry (hem into effect. Hence 
the change is represented as long overdue ; it should 
have been made when Yahwi took up his abode in 
Jerusalem. Hence also the promises and threats with 
iheir appeal to the hopes and fears of the people ; tbe 

I See more fully Graf, C«c*. B^krr, 1,/ 



iniisWncF oa prophelic principles ; the didactic historical 

Thai the main clemenls Just noted characierised ' the 
book (aund in the temple ' (a K. 2'iS) is plainly indicated 
by the nairaiive of a K. 22/. The legal element is 
clear from the title — ' the book of ihe liraA ' — by which 
it is there referred to, and from the correspondence of 
■he anions of Josiah to the demands of the law ; the 
sense of change, Ihe newness of the demands, is seen in 

law (a K. 2a 13); and ihe hortatory 


produced in (he king on hearing tl 

When this is said it siili remains uncertam precisely 
how niiich of the preseri book constituted the book 
found in ihe temple. The critical study of Deuteronomy 
leads to the conclusion thai Ihe original book was 
amplified bolh in its legal and in its hortatory pans, and 
that the present work has resulted from the fusion of 
two different editions, so to speak, of Ihe work dis- 
tinguished from one another more particularly by ditferent 
hislorical introduciions ( Del'teKoNomt, ^ 4-7): the 
limited circulation of books (above, % 4) rendered such 
growth of a book easy. 

These processes of expansion in large part are lo be 
placed in the period between the Reformation (631 B.C. } 
and the fall of Jerusalem (586 B,c.) and represenl the 
continuous lito'ary activity of the reforming party. 

Two characteriiiics of this great product of the 
Josianic period must be referred lo before we pass to the 
neil period. { 1 ) 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 
appreclale Ihe eflect of Ihe contemplated changes ; if 
their priocipte involved the cenlralisation of worship. 
they see the necesaiiy and make provision for the de- 
sanctification of ordinary flesh meals : if they rob Ihe 
J priests of their custom at the local shrines, they 


D the CI 

Jenisalero ; if they 
the numerous asyla oflered by the altars there, they 
institute 'cities of refuge' — civil asyla. (a) This practical 
character of the work defines its limitations. It is an 
appeal 10 the people : prophetic principles are enforced 
and illustrated in detail by the redlal of moral and civil 
laws and of ritual law so far as it aRecied the people. 
On the other hand, Ihe details of ritual, the functions 
of Ihe priests, receive no attention : these were sufli- 
cienlly 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 

, , — „ , circumstances of the people. The national 

1*. EnUaL ,y.^ ^^ ,^^^^ . jj jj „^^ ^^^ij, ji^ 

subject of memory, the subject of hope. Hence the 
literary activity of the period shows itself mainly in Ihe 
production of theoretical works, the framing of a con- 

of the regulations of the life that has ceased to be. 

The theoretical element is most markedly present in 
EH^iel. In his sketch of the ideal constitution > of the 
new slate he borrows, needless to say, largely from 
ancient practice : as a priest, he was familiar with the 
duties of the priest and Ihe priestly ritual, and he draws 
on this knowledge. As contrasted wllh the Isoianic It is 
a priestly conception of holiness that dominates him, 
leaiding him to give the central significance which he 
does lo the holy city and especially to Ihe temple ( Eiek. 
40-4317). This accounts for the almost exclusively 
ritual and prieslly character of the laws which the 
F^ophet incorporates in his sketch. 

may approuch 
Aciilicial flc^ {48 19.11 



m^l)' in coniiKlion wLlh ihc wcr'ifices (tS 1J.17 
the distribution of iht land («&;/, Wie.ilX \ 

aSmaa the only rdcrcncc 

Doubtless It was ni 

« to opprna (f.j., tie), 
lending juil wci^hti and 

! Jerusalem 

pared with Deuteronomy, Ejwkiel increases Ihe prieslly 
dues and by depriving the local priests — priests who 
were not descended from Zadok — of their prieslly 
position, makes of the priests of his ideal constilution a 
compact and corporate body. In his priestly constitu- 
tion Ezekiel. moreover, most clearly appears as an 
innovator. He is well aware Ihal the ptiesis of Ihe 
future will not be as those of the pasi with which he had 
been familiar. In the post, which was the present of 
Di. . all Leviles had exercised prieslly functions : in the 

will be degraded in 

words a 

the Jerusalen 

order : the Zadokiles alone will remain genuine priests. 

Eieklel's remoteness from the actualities of life 
(contrast Deuteronomy) comes out particularly in his 
division of the counlty. which he regards as an exact 

A particular value, historically and critically, attaches 
to the legal section of the book of E^iekiel. 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 (be transition from Ihe literary 
activity, which had been mainly prophetic, lo ihe literary 
activity of ihe post-exilic period, which became increas- 
ingly priestly and legal. 

Criticism has shown that Erekiel's was not the only 
mind working, in Ihe way just described, and that nol lo 
him alone do we owe legal literature of the exilic age. 

The most important of the remaining legal works Ihe 
exilic origin of which has been generally admitted (yet 
,. .,^_^ seeLEvmcus,838/)istheUwofHoli- 

Lh™- "™ (Leviticus, gj .3-30). Though in 

BOIinw*. j^ present form Incomplete and frequently 
modified by the editor who Incorporaied it with the 
larger posl-eiilic prieslly work, it is nol difiicult to see 
the general character and motive of the work of ihe 
exilic compiler or editor. Like Deuteronomy it is based 
on earlier legislation.' is partenetic in character (Ihis 
feature being specially prominent in the closing sect}on \ 
Lev. 26). and is characterised by its humanity (cp. t.g.. 
Lev. IB,/). Like E«kiel (40-48) it hasasir ' ' 
note ' holiness.* and appears lo have liad as ils air 
regulation of the restored community. 

" ' ' ' '■ ■ ■ chuacteriulcft » ml 




91 Ihe aulhor of H (C 

- jV«r i^, H(l*v.»55« 

.in PILev.lSiD) Uh Day of Alommenl) 
-' " - -ainil Enkiel : iliu> the pilesu are 

If we 

^Ih P uainil I 
jf Zadok (u in 

it Ihe present 


book (H) began, like the „ . . 

23 16). with the regulation of sacrifice ( Lev. 17} 
sumes (Lev. Ma 26ii ]9jo 20j 21 ■!-» 2fla Ji 
than demands (like Dt. ) thai there musi be but 01 
of sacrifice. Like Eiekiel. the Law of Hollnc 
much attention lo the priests and the riiual (eh 

" Cp, * 

■ «/. 

with E> Ml. Lev. SJsj 

[.ev.25..7 with li 
!i would be unrcs» 

y Google 


30-24) 1 bul il regulMes also with considerable fulneai 
family and social life {eap. diaps. lS-30 2B).< 

Furpioufofibedateiuideiieiiiiir H, uid foe vaiiout viewi 
■1 to detnils, Rfenoce miui be iride lo Lbvitkus. 1 i sjT:, and 
Ok liieimiun ihm died, but m, eHKciilly. Baenlsch,7/riVi>- 
ilitigarti. Baaiucb'i toncLusions (on which cp Dr, titlnii.m 
p. 149 1.) moy be BummaiLsed u follo« ;— " Belween Ihe veais 
63T and 501, mid probably within m year or Iwo of the Latter 
(eiai,ii wnier(H)inadeacQUeciion of ptevioiKh eiisting laws, 

troand of ihe wandeiint; in the wiMemesi. Thii collection 
urvivet in Lev. IS 20 ^9-11 1^-17 lu 19^ 10 11 !4 i;-n ii 1-7 

^JkK^her wmer (H^alin nuicJ^olie^ of'|ivioi.jly 
eiixing iawi. Theie are mainly concerned with the piieus and 
the oAeringi, and are pro»ided by their tdiioi with a dagmatti 
wk. Quiieatthe 

doH of the captivity l. — -, , . 

nunliy ihouM be regulated atiahl, united Hi 
chap. 17 (H^ and conchidcd ^ whole with i 

d Hi, 

Insproplietic'dijcoutKiLev.aijjK). 10 which ^ made various 
>ilcliiiwns(M'. 10 ij [»l. M 35 39'4i)appropri'"e to hU immediaie 
purpose." The details ■oftne foreicoiiig tlHoryand iheaiuly&u 

//f j/^K of the code seems certain (if only on the irround of Ihe 
pnwicc r>r both chap, lA and chap- M), and that more than one 
ciLlig prDce&s is here represented is hiBhIy probable. 
Possibly we should refer to Ihe eiiie alw the wiitine down 
colkclion of muchof iheprLesily 11 

1«. OUiar 

asis of a large ,... 
ndicaicd in Carptnier 

mchinj that I 
1 of LeviliciJ 

llersby. ; 

^ nets y ui arts. 

le dale of 
pp. iia /, and Haiford- 
. '^Numben- in Hastings' 

We find then Ihal in Ihe 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 Ihe second destructioa of Ihe 
temple and the permanent cessation of sacrifice in 70 
A.D. the rabbinic study of matters conneclrtd with the 
temple cimtinued with great if not increased ardour 
lse« S 83). 

4. Early Post-Exilic Ptriod. — The actiyily of this 
period resulted in (a) the legal and quasi -historical 
IT O («■ work known as the Priestly Code ( P). and 
«h.™^ (') ">= f"""" ""h "'=' *°''< of °^^" 
"'***"'*"■ histories (JE) and of Ihe law-book D, 
producing a work substantially the same as our Penta- 
teuch (on * see 8 ao/ ). 

Towards the end of the sixlh or at the heginnmg 
of the fifth century B.C., probably in Babylon,' a 
great work, historical in form, legal or institutional In 
motive, saw the light.* lis evident purpose is Ihe vindi- 
cation of the divine origin of Jewish institutions and 
Htual law. Terse to a degree in its treatment of history 
generally, reducing the biographies of Ihe hi 

pnst to little m 
it expands it ' 

e than 


ilness where the origin or purpose of 
on msiiiuiioD can be illuslraled, as for example in the 
bisloiy of creation leading up to the Sabbath, that of 
the Deli^e 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 
ti^nution from Egypt to Canaan deals fully only with 
the establishment of the central place of wonhip — the 
tabernacle — ajid of the sacred clisses (the priesis and 
Leviles) to whose care and service it was confided. 
Eiekiel in Ihe exile with prophetic freedom legislates 
afresh ; and. with a full sense of Ihe novelty of some 

I Kiclmive of those pi 

' Cp ErraTljK. and Kue. Htx, 

tflJU //«i"^*,™u'i!'"si^ al 
Balleishy. On Ihe originof P ■*■ 


I". II I3-30 



which h< 

features in ihe ei 
it under the form 
author of the great priestly history casts his ideal back 
into Ihe past ; what ought to be. was ; what ought to 
be done now, was done by the true Jew of the past ; 
earlier histories represented Ihe patriarchs sacrificing in 
various spots ; to P sacrifice apart from the tabernacle 
was profanity ; hence in his history the patriarchs never 
sacrifice. Ps tabernacle ilself is anterior to the temple 
only in Ihe imagination not in history. Theenlire work 
is legal or ritual fact and theory presented under ihe 
form of history. 

Now, what is the literary inter-relation between the 
various parts of the work ? P consists of two main 
IB e>. »•« elements; Ihe history of Jewish institu- 
.1™™^ '*°"= "!'«''>' described, and masses of 
•iNMnta. laws mainly concerned with ritual mailers. 
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 oblainable. Certain 
points, however, are clear, and the complexity of P is 

[a) The masses of laws in P are in part earlier (for 
an example see % 15— the Ijw of Holiness), in part 
later (see below, g 31) than the priestly history. in 
1,-u^ part, however, it Is difficult to decide with cer- 
tainty whether Ihe laws had or had not a separate 
literary, as distinct from a fixed oral, existence before 
Ihey were united with this history. 

Two thirgs however, mun be observed: (1) For the nKot 
pan the masses of law have no organic connection with ihe 
priestly history. This is ciuc, for example, of the ineai mass 
coniained in tev. 1-7 (Leviticus. | ,), and again such laws a* 
those of Ihe NBairile(Nu.«), of the onleal of Jealousy (Mu. 
S ,,.,0, and those contained in Nu. 161«. 6> The laws are not 
homogeneouv Talcing aRaln as an eiample Lev. 1-7, we find lb* 
(amc subjects tiealcdmote than once and in a diflereni manner: 

of the various forms of ofienngs— and ihe subscription in T is/- 


me. the place of 



fined. At limes { 

.,.. Lev. 



bidden to do m 

ybe tak 



quite general i 




of ihe 


(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 law* 
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 Ihe 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 Ihe 
period in which they originated are in Ihe history merely 
a little less explicit. They are there. Laws and history 
alike presuppose, for examine, the single place of 
sacrifice, the distinction between priesis and Leviles. 
In subsidiary matters loo, the tie is equally close ; 
both alike, for example, use a number to define the 
month, and bolfa are generally marked by Ihe same 
Striking linguistic peculiarities. 

The production then of this complex work was one 


forlunaiely ihal e 
It. Tba TQr&b !! 
of Hah. 8-10. Z 


ies with regard to the stages in its growth ia 
a with the other Hchievemenl of the period — 
of this complei whole or o( its various parts 

e external evidence. Un- 


uch divided in their iDIerpretation 
The evidence consists of the 

nt of Ihe acceptance of ' the law 
of God which was given by Moses the servant of God ' 
(Neh. 10j9) contained in Neh. 8-10 — chapters derived 
from the memoirs of Eira but worked over to some 
degree by Ihe excerplor (see Ezra ii. , g s)- 'Savi Ihe 
law to which the people bound themselves on the a^Ih 
day of the 7th month of the year 444 was, at leas! pre- 
eminently. Ihe law of P. 

Il is quite clearly Pt bw of the fca!t of bonllu [hit is found 
wrktsnin theUv<N<h.Si4/>: for ihc f«lival [untight dliyi 
(Neh. S la) in accortUnce vriih Lev. S3 36 (cp 3 Cli. 7 9/.), not 
leven ai conimandnl in Dl. la 13 (cp ■ K.Su Enk. M i] Lev. 
M^i, H). Then Qjmpare funhtf i 

h. 103.-3 


ih the i< 

reUuioo of 10 31 to Ei.BO 13/ q 

rsinP— f 


Was. then, the ' law of God.' read by Eaa and inter- 
preted by the priests and Levites to the people, simply 
the historico- legal work contained in P, or was il ^is 
work already combined with JED and therefore sub- 
stantially the Pentateuch in its present form? The 
fonrner alternative certainly seems more probable on the 
face of il. Would a self-contradictory work like the 
Pentateuch in its present form have produced the desired 

The new that Eira'i law coniisted of P alone ha> been held 
and defended, inttr aim, by Kiy>er (ZJ« ™-i,riifn-*i Bnck, 

ff>95/), Keutt {GiKk. d. luilirtn Sc/lri/IIH dtl AT», 
X,jf.\, Kuenen {,H,x. jojl. Hj-inge, \£inl. 438/). In 

The oppodite viev— rhai 


Ibrbiddea im in P b< 

5. Later Post- Exilic (fost-EEnin) Period— On the 
answer lo Ihe questions raised at the end of ihe tasi section 

_j, . ,^ must largely turn our view of post-Emm 

befc«c ihe period of Eira, if the view ihal Ihe bw read 
by him was (substantially) Ihe whole Pentateuch be 
adopted : and some of Ihe processes may in any case 
have fallen ratber in Ihe previous period ; a further 
prdimmary remark needing to be made is Ihis, thai 
any strict chronological sequence of Ihe processes now 
to be mentioned cannot be established. Various hypo- 

eiiher lo invalidate 1 
meotary la 

confirm. With these precautions 
editorial and supple- 

tolerably certain 
undenook them were successors of ELira. 

(d) The union of P wilh JED. This must have 
occurred, if not before (see preceding seciion}. within 
a generation or two afler, Eira ; otherwise it would be 
difficult to account for the practical identity of the Jewish 
and Samaritan Pentaleuchs (see C.^HON, g 34/). The 
result of the union was important ; ihe pre-eminently 
historico- prophetic character of JED becomes in the 
whole complex work entirely subordinate lo the legal 
and priestly diaracter of Ihe later work with which 
it is incorporated which now gives ils dominant note 

The earlier fbRunes of JE bR for considetadon almost 
eniiiotr under hHlwical literature ; later they are lost in Ihoce 
of tbc X'eai legal work which hencefotwatd is the normative 
inHixaice alike over liictainte (cp Chronicles) and over liie. 


[i) Removal of Joshua. — The process jusi mentioned 
was doubtless associated with another. The history of 
P extended lo the conquest ot Canaan (cp Joshua ii. , 
H 5, la). This last part of the work, dealing with 
events subsequent to the <lealh of Moses, no longer 
forms pari of ' the law,' Whether this truncation of P 
took place at Ihe aclu.-U lime of the union wilh JED 
or subsequently may be left undecided : but the date 
of Ihe process, like thai of the union of P and JED, 
hangs on the date of Ihe 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 

_. uji tnusl here draw more special altenlion 

^Jt%. •°«.»<!™.'.'«- '" .«'■ ■"I ■?» » 

P, which do not appear to have formed 
part of it originally and cerlainly may be of post- 
Eiran origin. The determination of the secondary 
or primary character of many particular sections 
of pricsily character must often remain inconclusite. 
for il frequently turns on general considerations which 
will weigh differently wilh different minds.' If it is 
unlikely Ihat Ihe law Eira read was encumbered with 
the irrelevant histories of J E and the irreconcilable 
laws of the earlier legislation and Ut, , il is scarcely less 
unlikely thai it contained Ihe self-conlradictoiy laws to 
be found within P or the diflerenl representations of Ihe 
tabernacle and ils appurtenances lhat underlie Ex. 26-31 
■s well as many of the laws. On the other hand some 
laws nol immediately and conspicuously connected wilh 
the history {e.g., those of Lev. 23) must already have 
been united with the priestly history (% iS/). Still, Ihe 
account in Neh. S-10 fails lo cany us far in actually 
determining Ihe extent of legal mailer contained in 
Eira's law-book. As illuslralions of the lype of expan- 
sions to which P was subject Ihe ToUowing may be cited, 
(a) Laws representing and enforcing actual modifica- 
tions of praxis. In one or two cases it is tolerably 
certajn that these are not only secondary but also 

I. IIi4:cp Schar. 
il that the law 

For example, the temple lax in Ihe lime of Ens ' 
Ihiid of a shekel (Neh. lOji), and, apparently, a nov> 
lav ofEi. SOii.16 (cp iCh. »«-ia)damiinds half a iht 

C/'?m!'sM).''^e 'miBi'^llIlal milclurii ' "'' 
^Ex.SOii-isis inupaniionof P(w)iicta i 
by iti prcfuppoaing Nv. 1) nibscquenl to the lime ol ILira. 
Affain. the iiifae on caille payable to the Letite* Bccording to 
Lev.2T30-»and referr«i loin >Ch.Sl6 teems lo be u lulle 
recogniKd in NilISji Neh. Mw-ji l3)-3j) as in Dl.H«.>g 
W ii-i J. Once igam, Ihe kiw ui Lev. 2T 30-J3 seems to belonE 10 
the post -Emn period; bul in this case it must be placed eatliet 

(^) Another lype of expansions is perhaps lo be found 
in laws embodying practice sutficiciitly ancient and even 
primitive, but sanctioned only as 
ular feeling by the scribal class. 

stand isdaied and 

le of the priestly w 

:laled (t 

■chc^; bu 

bul thty 

" IbVOay "dI* Alonemenl (Lev. IS) ; see 
JUAIH., 1 4 ; /iwi» ml. Lift, thf- 

{1) A Ihird type of expansions consists of additions 
to Ihe more historical or quasi ■ historical maleiial. 
Most notable is the repetition (Ex. 36-40}— in ihe form 
of a detailed account of carrying these into effect — of the 
directions 10 build the tabernacle. 

Here the relation of MT and • renders It probable Ihal we 
have to do with lolenUj late eipansions. Whclher or nol 

depends largely on Ihe assuiswe wiih wliich we are prepared 
to judge the posulnliiies of the original writer's piolixiiy. 
For details see Exodus, | j, Leviticus, H ■'ff■^ Numbers, 

(8) Another set of expansions of Ihe primaiy work 






is indicated by references to (he • altar of incense ' or 
the ' golden aLiBr.' This is unknovin lo Ex. 25-29, and 
firsi appears in the supplemental seclioo Elx.30i-io. 
The original piieslly narrative knows only a singla altar, 
teimed simply 'the altar,' and dislinguished by (he 
later writers from ' the altar of incense* as (he aUar of 
butnt-offering. Cp further Wellhausen, CH«'. tyiff. 

sioti of the law after it had become lixed as to lis main 
form. By degrees the reverence for (he letter, which a 
few centuries laier we know to have been intense, must 
have rendered it difficult lo 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 wrsions, especially 6. 

6. Rabbinic PiHod, — .\s there had been laws before 
there was any legal literalurefg 7).so there was much legal 

KihK^.I '" ''" O''' Testament was complete. To 
rf^ some extent this later activity found a 
P*"'*'- literary outlet in some of the Apocalyptic 
Literature (Apocalyptic Literaturk, S3 a, 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 (he contents of another 
great U(erature— (he Rabbinic) was largely casuistical ; 
it concerned cases (hat might arise at least as much aa 
cases that had arisen. The law of God was no longer 
established custom ; its principles were contained in (he 
written law and were cap.ible of being applied to the 
minutest circumstances of life. It is with this minute 
application, with (his working ou( of the older law, (hat 
the ' iradiUons of (he falhers ' which constitute the 
Mishna are concerned 

As (he firs[ fall of Jerusalem (5S6 B.C.) gave a 
stimulus to (he fixing of much of previously existing law 
ag w !• ^'"' '^ '''' consideration of (he law of 
Tim»4 ito. "" ^"""^ (8S<4-i6), so the second fall 
Taimud, ate. ^^ j^u^ie^ ^^^ a.d.). and the final 
dispersion of (he Jews from their religious centre, added 
zest to the pursuit of the law and to the sysiemalisation 
of the legal discussions of the Rabbis. It is the dis- 
cussions of the RablMs who lived between 70 A.D. and 
about 300 A.D. that chiefly constitute the Mishna. 
Eailier Rabbis are mentioned comparatively speaking 

: generally assumed 


either (hat 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 
(he Palestinian and the Babylonian schools. This 
discussion is known as the GfmSri.' Mishna and 
Gemira together constitute the Talmud or radicr the 
TalmudS. The result of the Palestinian discussions on 
the Mishna was (he Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud, 
completed towards the end of the fourth century or 
during the fifth century A. D. ; the resuU 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 


ir only 

For example, untler the title of Tonphli vie still 

uvlniEi of older doclon not coi 
like ike Mishiu in Hebrew 


oni of the Ainaralm 
ruM the miin bod^ 
iniic. IheGimaraconr 
annlinthcMiihiu, bu 
Tlie« are lunled [ 

position. Another branch of (his literature consists of 
commentaries (.I/i'^/ujA/m) on the sacred (eit. Here 
of course (he arrangement is not according to subject ; 

from the T 

of (he cose i 


(he a 


this kind, belonging in their original form to the second 

in contents with the Mishna, are Mlihilli (on p.irl of 
Exodus). Sifira (on Leviticus), and Siphri (on 
Numbers and Deu(. ). Any discussion of the 

T.ilmud and the Mishnic literature falls outside the limits 
of this article and must be sought for elsewhere. ' ll has 
been necessary, however, to refer to it. The movement 
begun by E>eutcronomy does not close within the period 
of the OT ; its goal is (he Talmud ; its course covers 
more than a (housand 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 (he history of 
the increasing supremacy of rules based on (he past 
over the living spirit of (he presen(. Eiekiel indeed 
questions and displaces deuieronomic laws ; (he Priestly 
(iode 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 □. h. c 

LAWYER (nomikoc). Mt.223S, etc. Tit. 813, See 
Law and Jl-stice, and cp Scribes. 

' Lii»>*<r ' i' »■"> iiven in RV°>c. u a renderineof iheobicii 

in Dan. 9 


LAZAB H01TSE (n'^DTiri n>3). aK. 15sRV°V'. 
EV 'several house.' See LEPRosr. col. 3767. n. i. 

LA2AKUS(Aftia.p0c[TiWH]|. The name, which 

is a contraction of Ei.bazae' (f.j..)— i.e. 'God has 

1 Hama helped'— was specially appropriate for the 

■■'■"■ central figure in any story illustrating the 

help of God. 

For OT eiamplw Me Ex. IB. » S. 2*9/ In Ih* period of 
Judaism we may efpecl to find the divine help more diitinclly 
TecogtilKd. Cp P>.tei 111 'a very pre«nt iitf in irouble': 
70t (si ■ 1 "n poor md needy ; mikt haMe unlo nw. O (iod : 
thou an my itlt and my deliverer.' Wtain poverty and piely 
were tynonvmoui it wai ruiuint to fovour such umn « Eleaiar 
■nd Eiierer. Eleaiar ii the name given lo (j Mace. « 19.31) the 
•ciibe calkd by Cbiyi«iDni (iisSVthe foundaiion of mtnyr- 
dom,' a type of lho« who U Mace. T 10) ' believe thai, to God, 
M17 Jl •atdii ■ (and lee 3 Mace « t/.\ 

la Lk. IS 19-31 Laiarusis introduced thus : •. . . and 

he that marries one that is put away . . commits 

1. nillqn *''°""'- JV«.'«;^-,.. ,.««,-. 

. J T»- run man . . . ana a terrain M^ar 

■•^^ ^ "^ namtd lji,„rm a«r laid at hi, gaU 
full of seris'^ It is not surprising thai 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.* Certainly if the story is one 
1 Sttaek,^(V.yi.Aii7'a/<inrfW,i«94:Schnr.G/r«lM-iis. 

> //w. HthT-. on Lk. lOjD (and cp ib. on Jn. I] 1) quotes 
jKkadn: ' Every R. Eltuar is wriiien wiltaout an n '-i-'-, R- 

I n'and S>T. Sin. om. ■now.' 

• The Arabic Dlalfu. (ed. Hogg) allet 
tbm {Lk.lH)i '(15) Veare Ibey tKi iu«i 
Ihe thing thai iilofiy before ' 

«ify yourwtvei 
» belore Uod, 



of Jesus' parables, i( is difficult to see why. contrary lo 
usage, the principal characler in it receives a name. 
Tailing this mention of a Dame togciher with other 
unique fenlures of the slory (the elaboiale details about 
Hades, and ihe technical use of the phrase 'Abrahain's 
bosom'}, may we not conjeclure thai we have in Lit. 
16 19-31. not Ihe eiact words of Jesus, bul an evangelic 
discourse upon his words (placed just before it bj 
the Arabic Dialessaron) — ' that which is exalted among 
men is an abomination in the sight of God'? If so, 
the insertion of the nanie Laznras ( = Elieicr) will be 
parallel 10 the insertions of names {t.g,. Longinus) in 
Ihe Acta Pilali; Ihe typical character of Ihe name has 
been indicated already (see above, § i|. The final 
words of Ihe slory (-neither will they be persuaded' 
etc. ) seem more like an evangelic comment after Christ's 
lesurrection than like a prediction of Christ before il. 

The narrative in Jn. 11 opens thus, ' Now {ii\ ihere 
was a ceruin man sick. Laiarus of (ixb) Belhany from 
S nnlona nu '''' "* ""^*^ °^ """^ "^ Martha 
—is??- ^ ^^ sister.' Now («) Mary was she 
ntif.illJlL u„, a^imed .he Lord with oinlmeni 
and wiped his feci with hci hair : and it was her brother 
Ihai {fy i iSiX^i was sick. The sblets, therefore. 
sent to him, saying. Lord, he whom thoulovest is sick.'' 
Laiarus is here referred 10 as one who required an 
introduction. This view is confirmed by Ihe fact thai 

Lk. 1619-31, Ihe historical character of which is very 
justly disputed. The ^ters of Laiarus too are not 
named at all by Ihe fiisl two evangelbls. Yel Ihe 
■ante of this Lazarus, about whom Ihe Synoptists are 
silenl. is connected by Jn. with the greaifst of the 
miracles: for it appears from Jn, II39 thai Ijiiarus, 
when Jesus aiHved. had been fc 

1 diffen 

I Nain 

W.vl I 

ftom Ihe 
ikes it Ihe 
.e synoptic 

silence has never been explained. 

To leourii that lor the Jews and fbr Ihe evanr 
.__. ._. ^---" (ll4,X ««J.n« 

Jd. Aiid ihii wu because In. wishes to represent Ihe l^uiseei 
as being uupendouily blind, li wai plainly not one of ' many 

Ibem ihai such 4 -^-. — -.,,.- - 
The Acra Pitali repmenta the 

Sill Ihe Diber evidence of lesu 
Ihe climai. Ihe railing of Urii 

heard Ihil, 
'The blind r 

lud been four dayl 

The dislinctioti drawn above between the Fourth 
Evangelist and ihe tiynoplisis unfairly discredits the 
latter. We must not maintain, without any evidence 
bul their silence, that the Synoptists were as stupid or 
as perverse as Christ's most Ingoled and vindictive 

The common-sense view of Ihe Synoptic omission of 

t Cp the prepcmi 

leiaciparaflelin Ji>.ieii. Such 'cluisei 
me frequent in Jn. (/.f.,7 jQ.anJ cp 1*30 
rn before, or, by nigfal 'X They keep before 
nalily of Ihe person de^cribea and prepare 

) and°^p nl^Hd^.^m In.llj* 'For 

ie'w>*"Bnl when il^^hal d^i^or 




from the 1 
HHd Lanr 

dby "^me, tho"gV)*lSMl il^ Mmlln 
iuc, and others, *a muiiiiude both of men and 
Vu he snppoMd to be in biding, or deadt A 


this miracle is like the common-sense view of the 
omission in Ihe book of Kings of the slatcment m.ide in 
the parallel passages of Chronicles — that Uod ansuered 
David and Solomon by fire from heaven. The earlier 
author omilted Ihe tradition because he did not accept 
il and probably had never heard il. It was a later 

Is then the record of ihe Raising of Laiarus a fiction ? 
Not a fiction, for it is a development. But it is non- 
historical, like the Histor}- of the Crea- 
tion in Genesis, and like Ihe records o( 
the other miracles in Ihe Fourth Gospel ; 
of which an poetic developmen 

traditloiu ii 
Uw Mconnt 


npls t 


the many ' mighty works ' of Jesus recorded by ihe 
Synoptists in seven typical 'signs' expressing his work 
before the Resurr^tion ). I'he words of Jesus ihe 
Fourth Ei-angelist has obviously not altempial lo pre- 
sent in Ihe form and style assigned to them by his 
predecessors, and Ihe same slatemeni 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 caji see a connection between the healing 
of Ihe man born blind and the Synoptic accounts 
of Ihe healing of blindness ; and in Jn.'s account of the 
miraculous draught of fishes after the Resuirection we 
perceive clear traces of Lk. '5 account of a similar event 
placed al an early period. So in the present case, if we 
are lo study the Raising of Lararus, in which a very 
large part is assigned lo Ihe intercession of Martha and 
Mary, the firsi 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 Ihe reader of the influence exerted by names anil 
■ <-.(..»(«. sometimes by corriiplions of names on 
\^^^ the development of Iradilions.* Th« 
In BetbMiy- ^^^ent of ihe evangelic iradition* is 
repeatedly called upon lo apply this key. and wc shall 
have to do so in studying the parallel narratives of the 
anointing of Jesus in Bethany given by Mk.. Mt, and 
Jn. mpectively. Mk.'s preface is (Mk.143) 'And 
while be was in Bethany in Ihe house of Simon the 
leper, while he was silling down to meat ' (ir rj oJtif 
£l(Uii>01 Tov XnrpiiO naTaKtinirov a&ml}. Ml. 266 has 
simply Toii W 'Iijffw ytrotifreii ir B. 4r elxi^ Z. to6 
\trpoS. Now. Ir rj Utlif in Mk.9,13, lO" means -in 
Ihe house,' — i.t., 'indoors.' no name of owner being 
added. Hence Mk. is capable of being rendered, 
'While he was in Bethany in the house. Simon fir leprr 
himul/lalio] Htting doum.' The parallel in Jn. is (Jn. 
12i-i) 'Jesus therefore . . . came to Bethany where 
was (ivoii J}i>) Lazarus ... So they made him a 
supper there, and Martha was serving, but Latarui leai 
one of Ihtm that sal al mtat vHlh him (i li A. (It i^ it 
rCiy d>««iM^™>i aiv ofrri?).' which certainly suggests, 
though not definitely staling, that ihe house belonged to 
Lazarus. II has been pointed out elsewhere, however. 
(Gospels, % 10). that ' belonging to the leper' might 
easily have been confused with ' Lazaius.' so thai Ihe 
name may have sprung from a corruption of Ihe phrase. 
As regards Ihe dropping of the name ' Simon.' an 
analogy is afforded by Ecclus. SOijii. where, according 
lo the editors of the recovered Hebrew text,' il is prob- 
I See Ihe writer's Cmr/iMwa (187.9) for an ei^inilion of 

is almoil iSenlical in form with the word meaning ' fiie.' 
" For OT in«ance» nee the anihor's DIatiis-rica (<6-m)- 
■ See their note ad lac. Il lieenu worth while, however, to 
add ihai B, while dropping 'for Simon' (pvcr^), adds 
'lapOffoAv^'in}? (n* ha* i'^i'f A leAivirinj?)- May^ not the 

in Htbrew, niighl easily be inwried or omillod in iransljting 
from Hebrew. See note an Lk. 7 » below. 



s. 'Th« lopw,' 


mble Ihal the ' sod of ^rach ' wu or^nally called 
'Simon son of Jesus,' bul that 'Simon son of was 

But at this point, if we are to understand [he steps 
by which Jn. was led to his conclusions concerning 
l^iarus. it is necessary to realise the obscurity thai he 
must have found hanging over the story of the anointing 
of Jesus in the house of 'Simon the Leper,' where 
Laiarus seemed to him to have been present. 

Such a surname as 'the leper' is antecedently im- 
probable,' and it is omitted by Jn.; but its difficulty 

n but a corruption, possibly a con- 
flation of the name of the place 
1 Bethany. Jn. alone appears to call 
this (Jn.lli) 'a village'; and be places it (ij. 18) 
15 furlongs, which is exactly two Talmudic miles* — 
I. e. , a ^bbalh day's journey with return — from 
Jerusalem. This fixed the position, of course, for the 
first Christian [Hlgrims, 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, 
bat tl-Aiarlyih. This fact, and Lie's comparative 
silence.* atid the total silence of Josephus (ex-en in the 
details of the siege), and the Talmudic variations of 
spelling and of statement (connecting it with 'unripe 
ligs' and 'shops'), and Mlt.'s description of Bethany 
as apparently nearer to Jerusalem than Bethphage 
(Mtlli. '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 gimt northern suburb minutely described by 

This suburb is casually mentioned as (Jos. BJ a. I94) 
■ what is familiarly-called both Battha and Tki-New- 

Mi^M «^'^'Kani(T(At»).'« Then, describing 
'Baaatfa.' ''* B'^'*''*' growth, and its subsequent 

JMMUia. enclosure in a wall by Agrippa, the 
historian speaks of [ib.y.ii) 'the hill (\60w) that is 
called (naXcrroi) Bnelhana (so Big. and Voss., but 
Ruf Ztbithana. Huds. BaithaY \ and he goes on to 
say \ib. ) ' But by the people of the place the new. built 
portion was called Betrtlm {ixX^^ f 4rix'ipiuf Bcf(0d 
ri mtiTTiffT-or uipn],' perhaps meaning that the citizens 
contracted 'Beieihana' to ' Beietha,' but more prob- 
ably that the name, in Ixith forms, was vernacular and 
difficult to represent exactly in Greek. He does not 
directly and straightforwardly say that ' Bezetha' meani 
■new city.' but that {it.) 'being interpreted, il toauU 
tttatUd in llu Grttk longui new city ('EXXdSi yXiiirirg 
nuH) Wrtur' jtr raXtf).' 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 

. eiact Synopticname om (LV. W w) 
r^) StltaH}.,' in connection Kiih Oh 
im which is dHcnbrd u (Aculii) 


return ft 

bItnJing of iht noiionj -t ... _. „. 

Strictfy Bpeaking, it ought to Iw r^y B. ri, not fi|v t« B. But 
the Irr^cniHrily might eaaity be paralleled from Thucydides. 

In every inac Bi{Mer, it might ouily be conupled into BtCtfi, 
being wri.itnB.irfi The-- '- '-- '- '- 

temple (*yii.lS5) 'through whll 
Bcft*., Bthfi, Ztttf., 'A^<r?i#it. 


briefly translated : ' and this >'>e* 's co nfi i u ied by the 
fact that he never inlrodueea the name without a sort of 
apok^y (' the people call it,' etc.). 

That there was such a vernacular name appears from 
four parallel versions of a Jewish tradition given by 
Giats {GficA. 77*/:). to the efl'ect that Jerusalem had 
as a suburb ■ two Slices.' ' a lower (no doubt corre- 
sponding to the ' loH-er Kainopolis' r:if 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 
' Belie' or ' Beie,' which, with the addition of the word 
' lower,' might easily correspond to Josephus' ' Beie- 
thana.'' 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 bow 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,'* Lastly, il may throw light on the parallel 
tradition in Ut. (7 36) about a Pharisee asking Jesus lo 
eat (bread).* 

1 That Josephus never dmntcd of id«itifying Betetha with 
the H«rJ«oiilhim-f.»., (Z«:h.l4j) Ml. o( Olives-is clf»r 

b;hi-i." Le4"(C*^"3?".)'dM nol m^'rlon 'Beth-™i"him. 
HoUK of Oi'vH,' M one of the nimei by which (he Ml. of 
Olivei was oiled. It seems to have been legulirly called the 
Ml., orHiU, ofOliva, ortheMl. ofOil 

^ 'Slice' IS intended (o express the vemHCular use of the 
word, and also the fact that the word is especially applied, in 
New Heb„ to the 'breaking of inad'; cp Levy (C*aJrf. Lr.x. 
I loe*) [-pwa, ' Brouiacke.' Grilu renders il here ' Parcellen,' 

> Thai Josephm should tnuislilerale the Heb. i if) by Iht 
Gk. f<() can exdle no sorprise ; He regularly does " 
riame 'Zoar,' for example. Also rho inlerdungc oi t ana X 
(as in 1-m) is frequent (Buhl, m)i). ' Lowei ' is, in Grill's 
extiacit. .-ninrin, la^iena*. Levy (^f/fwa) git-es yi^ as 
synonymout with pia, and with ija. ' Be(lheillia ' (wil-M. 
Levy, C»m/J. Lti. 1 109 a) is ihe late Heb. foi ' the Kpsrale 
place' ( 11-15) ™ 1^ temple', but aa reirards wrtirf^ 
(suggested in Huttings, S su) the fonra of Ih 

booty.' 'plunder.' Il is perhaps worth addin 
placc-nmne in OT beginning wiib 13. Josh. II 
irt'rMTaX' i" read hy • ,nmi3, lit. ' her daughlen 
and is conflated accordingly, u nufiMt ovnay 



Cp Mk. 11 10, 'And when h was evening Ihey uied 10 go 
h tMliiA rlu ci/^: Ml. 21 1; ' he came fonh mliiWt lit nlr 
K«*av,- Lk. il 17 ' raining forth he u«d to lodge in rii 
»Hl Ikat it calUdillu muKnfS of Olivtt: The divergences 
perhaps be best explained as springing from an original 
Beiellu(naX' paraphrased by Mil., conllaled by Ml. with 
>- ' --•-- byLk. as'Plucepf Olives.' Ilsho-'^'-- 

f ./Or 


''" (3) Jrrmaiim: and the founh 'tiin.' The third seems 
likely to have preserved Ihe original, which perhaps meant 

■ Re«iing j'n3 " fJIIO (a coiruplion very frequeni in «) 

* Not only is pa, 'slice,' or 'rt»gnient,''lhe tegular N. Heb. 
word for ' breaking bread,' hut also r^2% was a lumc given 
(Levy 4 1^3 4.^ to a class of hypocrites thai aped Ihe practices 

name, represents Jesus as atidressing htm by 


nsiead of at the c 

More probably the original had ' Hmrkm itTVx'i or htar. 
/0 nvf (tjycic),' arid Lk. mistook this for jiycr, 'Simon.' It 1 
alio be of use 10 point out that in Jn. ISi 'ut^nTvoi I.aia 

was' by the I 
little from qv 
-A' Jer.lO* 

or 'home 

'' -A' • 

But this 





is enential (or the reader lo keep steadily in view 
aoa of abacarilj in the eartiest Chrislian traditions 
t be tntj untlmland Jn.'s 
altitude Unnrdt tbem. Jo. is lo be re- 
garded Ddther as a fallacious bistoiian nor 
as a poet putting aside history, but as a behever, so 
peneliaied with the sense of the power of Christ's 
s|Hri(. and at (he same time so conscious of the 
obscurity. tuKcrtainty, and inadequacy of the extant 
bistorical records of Christ, that he fell impelled lowartls 
a Dew representation both of his vmnls and of hit 
deeds. To descrilie the latter, he remoulded the 
gospel, fusing old traditions and new, written and oral, 
inlying, amplifying, spiritualising, but nol inventing. 

If. therefore, Jn. was led to believe that a man named 
Lazarus owned the house in which the anointing 
occuired. what inferences would he naturally malie in 
accordance with his principle of blending scailered tradi- 
tioDS ? He found in Lk. 0''<°) ^n account of a supper 
made for Jesus where Martha ' was cumbered about 
much serving.' while Maiy sal at his feel and heard his 
discourse; and this be might identify with the meal at 
which the anointing took place. Martha, however 
fwitbout name of husband or fothci of the house), was 
mentioned by Lk. as the hostess.' It followed that the 
boose must have belonged in some sense lo her as well 
as to Laiaius, and consequently that Laiarus must have 
been a youngo- broibo-. Hence would arise Jn.'s de- 
scription of Lazarus as the brother of Mary and Martha ; 
for indeed it was iu this inferenlia) way thai Jn. had 
reasoned otu the existence of a Laiania. 

The next sl^ was to connect the name with Lk.'s 
Lantras irfio was raised from the dead. The last words 
of Lk.'s Laianis-narrative are, 'Neither 
*" tuill tMty bttirve tMovgh one vxnl io Ihtm 
from the dead,' which might become the 
basis of a tradition that ■ the Lord said concerning a man 
named Lazaius, who died and was bimed. that Ihe Jews 
amid Hot btlicoe (i.e. . reused la believt) though one vunt 
to thtm front tkt dtad, ' But if this Laiarus who sal al 
meal when Martha served and Mary aooinled 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 Laiarus's house was there. Yel Jesus 
could Dot have been at Bethany when Lazarus died — so 
the Emngelisi would argue— for how could be remain 
and look an. and permit the death and burial ? Jesus 
must tl>erefore have been at a distance. In that case. 
Martha and Mary must surely have sent to him. Yel 
be most have known even at a distance what was 
happening ; and if be 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 ihe two sisters sent, 
and what they said when Jesus came, and how he 
ajiswered their intercession — ihe result being the raising 
of Lazarus, the climax of Jesus' ' signs.' 

Some commentators maintain thai the grajdiic style 
of the evangelist proves thai be had seen or heard 
>r discourses he describes. 
'' Among his most graphic passages, 
with Nicodemus and wilh the 
rcr of which was he present. 

•.Dnvlop- " 

10. Tha motiTa. ) 

tt. 334, coniauiuu in6tn lo paw 
Ibe passibDiiy of a csnlitiiiii ir 



The fact is, thai Jn. writes is a-mystical poet, im- 
bued wilh Jewish traditions from Egypt as well as from 
Palestine, with a keen eye for human charaderistics, 
bot with a still deeper insight into the unfathomable 
love and spritiud power of Jesus, and with a desire lo 
subordinate every word of bis Gospel to the purpose of 
manifesting that love and Ihat power lo mankind.' 

(i.) The book called Sohar. /^4iir(Sch6tlgen on Mt. 
2iB). represents the Messiah as weeping when Rachel 
wept for her children. By Justin 
Martyr (Tryph. 134) and Irenceus 
(49t) Rachel was recognised as Ihe type 
of the Christian Church, and Justin saw in Leah the 
type of the Synagogue, (ii.) The ApostolicConslilulions 
(7 8) mention Laiarus wilh Job, apparently recognising 
<l Lazarus a fulRlmenl of the famous 

U Symbolioal ^ 



about Rachel and Job, as well as Ihe Philonian 
explanation of Elieier,' may very well have been in Ihe 
evangelist's mind when he described the inlercession of 
the two sisters and put into the moulb of Martha the 
words 'by this time he slinkelh.' Nor is it farfetched 
to see a contrast between Latatus — leaving the tomb 
still bound wiib grave-clothes and with the napkin round 
his head — and Jesus who, when he rose, left ' the linen 
cloths lying ' and ' Ihe napkin . . . rolled up in a place 
by itself,' 

The Creek allunons are of a different kind. 

cpll}a,^ainnj>fa'>cln hin.Klf.^ In Mk. I.3 Mi.Vjo ihc 
_ _ . word Jii(toi(ii«(uu u applied lo Jmu» mWiTOing. 
13. QrMk K.eiiillyra Icpc and two blind niEK. Probibry 
•ilVllona. Ji. tviiha 10 diipel the imprcHion ihii ih« half- 
-ipprea«d exclamj-^' — -' ~^-" ' 

d J«u,' 

ifficiinc TCiardHl 
Its u probably an allusion 

u E-il-« 

(ii.) II 33, 'he troubled hiir 
both 10 tf) Ihe r»fiain in P. 

and why doM (hou rrTaMr-i>i(-m'M''(i Diyse'lfl {/nrr^fim 

pusage. The Grvck ' ejicccdina'iorrDwfur (v*piAtr««) ii 
in Ihe LXX (>« Cincord.\ In NT the void ouun in 

£344) an account ^ dirin ' rngpt^ in m etiffiiil ior, amii' 
The problem of avoiding a word Ihal mighl be a ilumblini 

block, becatue it ligniiica'g^"'"" "' — "" — "" ~~ 

isponding to th 
rr half of Ihe 1 

™" 1^ f^ 

ejnraordinar/ expretuoB he indirectly nsecti an 
... . . mull have occurred 10 the many Ihousandt of 
Grtekt and Romani who weie fiuniliar with the fundan 
■- ' 'BelteefrDi 

Ihe FaVh^i 

t from liouble.' In. leaches Ihat 

lis children, induding ih* giriiuil 

he does ; and what he does, the Logo* docs. Therefore lh« 
Logn, here 'iroubled Aimii/f fjLttw the Lago> will be 
(l!i7) 'troubled n um/,' and hiil of all, by Ihe ueacheiy of 
Juda! (IBji), 'ir oubled w<^ > iV.' 
> Regarded UB nannliveofbcl lhisiiOTy,Klieoihera in In,, 

10 Bcll^n7occu»^'diR<dayi'(^r'l!u<>»), 'a^iaday" 
(W«tc. «rf/«.). 
t Grip. Comni. on JiL 1; ^. Huet, vol. iL, p. 4 E) U..Un 

b^n dead four diyt. . . . when the dead nlan had hli blood cor- 

maw loTScihj'h^ued' wilh^M^acd i> by iMlf iL^ie to ^edy 
quickened 'wilh a nlal spark^ihi providence of (^(O/. 

• In a paiiage quoted by Euiebiiis (HE vAto} from a leiitr 
from rbechurchesDr Lyons, JfHtlfh teems (0 nwan ' loudly eurhing' 
(not ' muCietm^ curses 'X Lucian uha it Id nn esa the deep 

S5I|o~n, iiB'prB^.l). Cp E?cf,a5.7s'3,' 'l^e'??ch o^™« y™ 
and ^ilovt at Vftt ^}e»Kles <iFpomf0pi^,}rjBTD>. Celaus |Orig. 

occuions, and complains <k Juuj' uying ' woe unio you.' In. 
never ui« Ihe word ' woe.' Il if hardly iSkely Ihal the diflKully; Ml.93i> would haveeKaped edu<:aied auailanuof 
the Goftpcb al the beginning of the lecond century. 



To enter Tully into the allusions with which this 
nairalive teems would be to write a commeniary on it. 
Without some insight into a few of Ihem, however, no 
reader can dispassionately judge what is meiuH by Iho 
Johatinine name ' Laiarus ' or the poem of which il is 
the centre. E, A. A. 

LEACH. See Horseleech, Lilith. 

LEAD {tr\p)l. 'Sphtrelh [see note below] ; moAiBOC, 
MOAyBOC [iWOAlBiOC. MoArBiOC]; plumbum). 
Though lead was doubtless well-known lo the Hebrews 
from an early period, its applications were comparatively 
unimportant, and the OT references lo it are not many. 
M lltweighlisalludFd loinEx.lStafcpAcDSrH), Hnd tlis 
nu-wn's and carpenter'^ plummcl was no doubl a?i oFltn made of 
l«ad as or tin. though Ih« luicf happens id be the material men- 
tin (see Tin) was in early day. but imperfectly realiied. 

m Btrote Ihe uk of quSdculver Wame known, lead tna 
emptoyed far the purpoK of purifying lilver, and separaiinB it 
fiom other minenl lubuanco (Plin. ffNKzt). To Ihii 

1 :_L .., .j._ ...*..__ Lg figuratively dwriHs Ihe ccnrupt 

:n iheir lite the leul ii coniunHid (ui 

crucible): the (nit-.u.. c i.. .. 
™ied-U=r.fl>9>. EiekSl{*S.S.«) 
for Ihe ume durum, but amplifies 
- Compare also MaTsiX 
Iflij/^ Wkitisc. : 


n, widi the » 
{. 13 1 1. 


Opj,; cp the Arabic word lor lead) occurs in Amoi Vj/l 

0) The employment of lead for Ihe conveyance pi water- 
Romans— may perhaps have been re-toned to by the Israelites, 
but does not icera lo be alluded to in OT. 

LEAH {ry^ ; A[€l.ft [BADEFL]) ; some scholars 
compare Ar. lay. • wild cow ' ; so Del. Pral. 8o, WRS 
A^ij.. i9S,ai9, and doubtfully No. 2OJ/C40i6) [1886]; 
P. Haupc compares Ass. ii'a/, ' mistress ' ; but on the 
possible analogy of Rachel [nee Jacob, S 3l ''ve may still 
more plausibly suspect Leah [Leah?] lo be a fragment 
of Jerahme'el[Chc,]). The mother of the non-Josephite 
tribes of Israel. It was in Ihe house of Joseph that 
the truest stock of Israel historically lay ; in fact it 
was. according lo E. onl 
Ihe part of the Aramicai 
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 (he ori^n of Jose[rii {Gen, 3O14). See also 
Rachel. Tribe. 

LEAHMOTH (rfJV^i toy 4.noKpieHNii [BKA]) 
Ps. 88 lille, RV^- ' for singing ' (so Baethgen). Haupl 
i/SL, tgoo, p. 70} explains, 'to cause to respond' — 
1. 1. , 10 cnuse God to grant the prayer — which is al any 
rate not unsuitable 10 the contents. The analogy of 
the corrupt Tilni" and tdS'j, however (38 70 60. in 
titles), suggests a different solution, nuy^ is an easy 
corruption of roH". which Ihe scribe wrote as a correc- 
tion of the corrupt n^riD- On ' Alamoih ' see PSALMS, 

LEATHER. Although the word 'leather' (or 
'leathern') occurs only three limes in EV, once of the 
girdle of Elijah (a K. 18 -rtji -^ik. fiinj 5ti»uiTlrT]) and 
twice of (hat of John the Baptist (Mk. 16 RV, AV - a 
girdle of a skin ' : Ml 84), on boih which see Girdle, 
I . and the word ' tanner ' is met with only in Acts 9 43 
106 ji. there can be no doubt that the Hebrews were 
fiunijiar with the use of leather and the art of preparing 
it from the earliest times. Cp Skin, PARCHMENT. 

ir analoEies in 
ou*ly rendered 

itMrii). Doth wor 

and Tabal ; cp DsLAnTf/WB^^ 

The ■ leathern vessels ' f-fian 'Vi), 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 -littings, sandals and shoes (cp 
SHUts), The ICgyptian monuments illustrate very 
graphically various stages in Ihe working of leather 
(see, e.g.. Wilk. ^nc. Eg. I131 2187 /|. though it 
would be haiardous to use Ihis as an argument for the 
acquaintance of the Israelites with the higher branches 
of the an in the 'Mosaic age' (Ex. 265. P). of which 
we have no contemporary records. 

LEAVEIT is a general term for whatever is capable 
of generaiing Ihe process of fermentation in a mass of 
1 Luvan douEh(panar7fermentalion}. Varioussub- 
T-^^J^ stances were known in ancient times to 
•ipiauiMi. pojsess this property.' The locus classicus 
for the leavens of NT times is Pliny. HN\%A. accord- 
ing to which Ihe mosi highly priied leaven was made 
in the vintage season by kneading millet or fine bran of. 
wheat with must. In most coses, howe\'er. according 
to the same authority, the leaven employed was the 
same as Ihat vfhich alone is mentioned in OT or NT 
(see Bkead, g i), namely a piece of fully fermented 
dough retained for the purpose from the preiious 
day's baking ('tanlum pridie adservata materie utun- 
lur'). Such a piece might either be broken down in 
water in a basin before the fresh flour was added 
(MiKdhelhii end) or il might be 'hid' in the flour 
(Ml13j3), and kneaded along with IL The Hebre«-s 
named this piece of fermented dough -»'e. f'or — so 
always in MT, in the Mishna nitrb. iliin. "^atb and iIh-o 
— LXX and NT fti^iij (Ex. 12ij 19 13j Lev. 2.i Dt. I64 
MLI833. "c-)- 
nitb is derived from an unused root ^Klr akin (according to 


ttlum from /rr^'ia ; alw leaven (mi J. Lai 
" "[Vp'A-iano. 



The mass of flour, water, and salt, in Ihe kneading- 
trough, mi7'/rrM(nTHiro)*— with or without lenven— after 
being kneaded was termed *flrf^(p||), dough or 'sponge' 
(Ex.I234J9aS. l88HQs.74jer.7i8); » ffroli. .rria., or 
artap, NT ifiApaiia ; In Ihe Mishna most frequently ,ib>jp 
(from oov to squeeze, knead [not as Levy from .Tp-ip])! 
If Ihe dough contained no leaven and was b.iked before 
spontaneous fermentation had set in, Ihe result was 
nto. masjdh (foretymoli^y seeGes.-Bu.l"', s.v. jto), — 
more fully njo ortS, unleavened l^ead (Jfi^iet [jprot]), 
but most frequently in OT in Ihe plur. ;\<itg, maifilll. 
unleavened cakes. Dough Ihat had thoroughly risen 
under Ihe action of leaven or by sponLineous fermenla- 
tion(.1/ArdWrt6i) was lemied y:^. ^dmis. -leavened' 
(from j-pn. Arab. iamuJa, to be sharp or som- ; cp (5er. 
'Saueneig.' Eng, ' sotu- dough'), and bread made 
therefrom, (^p onV, leavened bread (Lev. 7 ij). In all 
other passages, however, jw) is used substantively, as 
synonymous with n^re' (Ei,12i9/.), that which is 
leavened.* For the two words s''iir and Admit are 
not synonymous, as has been asserted, but related as 

1 See Blflmner, Ttchiitltgit, etc., drr Gmrrhi hii Gritckn 
unii Rimtm, 1 58/ 

« Thii word should probably be poinled miltrtlk (nTwtC), from 

dough C^ujwius). 

>Mr. James Death has d< 
BiUt, ont n/ Ihi laJinBBM 1 

* In half the passages hAn 

iok. TIh Bar ^ tie 

ij Dl 111 3) incorrectly by (li^n. 



e and effect (cp ihe Vg. renderings/i*™iMJ 

kaven ; the verb ^;h. lo eat, is tierer applied to it. but 
\a idmii (hence we read, Talm. Pisd^tm $a. u-k^ -niw 
r/riith ntn. leaven which is not fit for eating). 
In ilMlanrKchnwoftheMidui:!, however, this diiiinclion 

(osuAlly r^X Thus, in Ihc inlercsling pasnge. r/si^. S^ in 

(ermenution is (o be rtcogniwd in the dough (^H'BO. Iwo replies 
ue (ivin : ' Whin Ihc nirfaiic of the dough shows tnull cracks. 

The leaven ofOT and NT. then, is ejciusively a piece 
of sour dough. In the warm climate of Palestine, 
fermeiilation is more rapid than with us, and it is said 
thai 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 improbsble. that the Jews 
also used the lees of wine as yeast : but the passages 
ciicd by Hamburger (vii. . P/sd^im 3 • and Nallah 1 ;) 

The use of leaven being a later refinement in the 
preparation of bread (see Bread, g i), it may be re- 
_ , _ , garded as c«1ain thai offerings of bread 

';h^IS., '" 'he deity were from the first un- 
Uw cultM. leavened. The cakes of the she«-- 
bread. according lo Ihe unanimous testimony of Philo, 
Josephus, Talmud, and Midrash (see relT. under 
ShkwbheAIi), remained unleavened to the end. in 
all cereal offerings, any portion of which was de- 
stined to be burnt on the altar, Ihe use of leaven, 
as of hooey, was excluded (Uv.S,!! 7" 8a Nu. 
6isl;' though where Ihe offering was not lo be 
placed upon the altar, but lo be eaten by the priests. 
it might contain bread that was leavened (Lev. 7i3 23i7 
[Pentecoslal loaves]; cp Am, 4s (cakes of thank-offer- 
ing],' also .\/inakdlh 5i jf-). The antiquity of this 
enclusion of fermenl from the cullus of Yahwi is vouched 
for by the early enactment Ex. 34 3511 1 from J's decalogue), 
and its parallel 23ia (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 itaiielh. unleavened cakes (as the name 
denotes), dsewhere named the 'bread of afHiction' 
(Dl IS)), were alone permitted. According lo laler 
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- 
str<^-ed ty burning (/Vj(iA.lii fordetails see Passover). 
It is important to note the precise ritual definition of 
the leaven (i'cr) to be destroyed. Under j''Jr, 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, wheal, barley, and the less common spelt, 
■ foK-ear ' and tkiphdn (see Food, g 3) which had lieen 
kneaded with cold water, and (z) 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 (1) the same cereals 

t.g., the juice of the grape or other fruit [ti\i-9 "B ; cp 
the passage from Cap. 23} quoted by BlUmner. Techna- 
Ugie. etc. 1». n. 5, on the use of grape juice as a 
I The fbnns wl 

. Besides 1 

d with watt 

oil, ft 

Hrcn|iih oT Ihii p 
uiion of laven fi 

t. HA ivn /.):_] 


liquids were not held capable of setting up the prohibited 
fermentation, and (9) the meal of other plants, such as 

water (see piidilm Stff., with the commentaries; 
Maimonides. niDi fnn hiaSn). 

'Ilie raiisn d'ilrt of this exclusion of leaven from Ihe 
cullus is noi far 10 seek. In the view of all antiquity, 
Semitic and non-)^mitic. panary fermentation repre- 
sented a process of corruption and putrefaction in Ihe 
mass of the dough. The fact that Eiekiel makes no 
provision for wine in his programme of the restored 
cultus (40 X) is probably due 10 his extending this 
conception lo alcoholic fermentation as well. Plutarch's 
■»-otA3 {Quasi. 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 mined' (^ Si flt^q Kalyiyonr ix ^Bopas airii 
tal <W«ip«i ri ipipaiut luyrvfiir-^). Further, as has been 
pointed out by Robertson Smith {Ptl Stm.l'lxoj. Waao), 
the prohibition of leaven Is closely associated with the rule 
thaithefaland the flesh mustnot remain over till themorn- 
ing (Ei, 23.6 34=s|. He points also to certain Saracenic 
sacrifices, akin to the Passover, that had to be entirely 
consumed before the sun rose. The idea u-os that the 
efficacy lay in the living flesh and blood of Ihe victim ; 
everything of the nature of putrefaction was therefore 
to be avoided. The ' llamen dialis.' or chief priest of 
Jupiter at Rome, was forbidden the use of leaven 
{firntiTi/ala /ariaa. Aul, GelL, 10 .5) on the grounds 
suggested, no doubt rightly, by Plutarch (/.<,). At 
certain religious ceremonies of the phratiia of the 
Lalyadffi, according lo an inscription recently unearthed 
at Delphi, iapdnu (unleavened cakes, according to 
Alhenaiis and Hesychius) played an important part.' 
llie Roman satirist Persius, finally, employs the word 
/irmmlum (leaven) in the sense of moral corruption 

In the NT leaven supplies two sets of figures, one 
token from Ihe mode, the other from Ihe result, of 
• n.~_*t— 'l>° process of fermentation. Thus 
IJm^^ Jesus likened the silent but effective 

hm ot iM-na. ^^^^^ ^^ ,^^ , ^jng^^^ . ;„ ^ ^^^ ^ 
humanity to Ihe hidden but pervasive action of leaven 
in Ihe midst of the dough (Ml. 13 33). The secoitd 
figure, however, is Ihe more frequent, and is based on 
the association, above elucidated, of panary fermenta- 
tion with material and moral corruption (cp Btihr. 
SymbQiik d. moi. Kullus, 2i-a). Thus Ihe disciples 
are warned against Ihe leaven of the Pharisees (Mt. 
186^ Mk.8ijLk.l2r^), of the Sadducees (Mt. i*.), 
and of Herod (Mk. i^.). See Hekodians. Paul, 
again, twice quotes the popular saying, 'a little leaven 
leavens the whole lump' (i Cor. 56 Gal. 69), as a warn- 
ing against moral corruption. The true followers of 
Christ are already 'unleavened' (afVjuM i Cor.67). and 
must therefore "keep the feast,' that is, must live the 
Christian life ' in Ihe unleavened bread of sincerity and 
truth' (58). 

noiure'aj laTven," 'fhuj in Talin™*fXW«* Ija it is said : 
' Rabin AlExonder, when he had linishal his puyeii, Bid : 
Lord of the univene, ii ii clearly manifest befbie lh« that il 
\i our will 10 do ihy will ; what hinders ihsl we do nai ihj will T 
The leaven which is in llie dough ' {,1^-JP]|> I^M^, cp Cm. 
Baita, I n, died by Levy, i.e. "^NbX enplained by a glois u 
'the evil impulK (pvi ir) which is in the beml.' (For this 
Talmudicdodrineuf 'originaliin' see Hamburger, Krattneyt-L 
Siijo^; and in general ihe works o( Ughtfooi (onMi, lUcl, 
Schoetlgen [on i Cor. bi] ami MeuKheu.) A, R. S. K. 

LEBANA [Va^. % 69 ; UBan& [BNA]. \oBn«. 
[LJl. a family of Nethinim (y.f.) in the great post- 
exilic lUt (see Ezra ii., % 9), Neh,7tS=Ezia24S 

1 MS note by Dr. J. G. Fiaier. 




'■white'? XiBANW [aA]) = iEsd. 
Gt^, Labana. 

LEBANON. The name {p^h. A.Banoc ; once 
[I>1.3as] j:??. antiAiBanOC [also in Deut.l7 3.s 
ll»Jos.l4Bi, cp Judilhlj]; Phcen, ]33^ ; Ass. 

„ , labadna. Id pcose the arlicle is pre- 

VaioiL. p^j^ ,hp ^jjge ^3ri„j^ ^hich comes 
from ihe Semitic root laban. -lobe while, orwhilish,' 
probably refers, not lo ihe perpelual snow, but loihe bare 
while walls of chalk or limestone which form the charac- 
tErisIic feature of Ihe whole range, Syria is Iraversed 
by a branch thrown off almost at right angles from Mt. 
Tauius in Asia Minor, and Lebanon is the name of the 
central mountain mass of Syria, extending for about 
loo m, from NNE. to SSW. It is bounded W. by 
the sea, N. by the plain JQn 'Akkir, beyond which rise 
the mountains of the Nusairfyeh. and E. by the inland 
plateau of Syria, mainly sleppe-land. To the S. 
Lebanon ends about the point where the river LlianI 
I. and at B^niSs. A valley narrowing 

towards its si 

juthem end. 

now ci 

lied el-Buka- 

divides Ihe moi 

vo great pans 

That lying to l 

lie W. is still 

kA Libnan : the 

greater part of I 

he eastern ma. 

.5 now be 

«r^ the name o 

the V 

1 range i 
The s. 

a (el-Jebelesh-Sharki). In 
of Anti 

Ml. Hetmi 

{see Hkrmok, Senih). Kor map see I'MCENICTA. 

Lebanon and Amilibanus have many features in 
common ; in both the southern portion is less arid and 
a nu»^.. ban™ than the Dorthern, the western 
S. Dwcripttoa. ^j,||gj.^ i^„„ ^,^^ „„<, „^ fj^ig 

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 udes. 

The l^bojion strata are generally inclined, bent, and 
twisted, often vertical, seldom quite horizontal Like 
■ n«I«,. ^'1 '*>= ■«' "' Sy"^' ">* Lebanon region 
a. umuogj. ^1^ -^ traversed by faults, at which the 
different tracts of country have pressed against and 
crumpled one another. The iakd' 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— vit, from SSW. to N.NE. 

The range is made up of upper oolite, upper creta- 
ceous, eocene, miocene, and diluvium. 

The oMnc utala in LehsiKin iucif. Forming the deepen pin 
of tome of Ihe valleys (Silima, %il[b), ait of CUnduia line. 

dermj, etc. (the beat-knoin fisiili being CW««» gianda-ia 
and 7>rri™(«/a(diveiie Ipeciell, found in the Salimavaliey near 
Beymut). By in foHili ihii limaione belin>g> to the Oxford 
(roup. Undar Ihit llneHoie uUl older sinra of the Kelloway 
Mt (bund only In the Antilibanui, on Mt. Hemion, 
Above the upper oolin fallow, in concordant order, ilraia of 

pretence ofeasl, dyiodile, amberlike reun, and umini (?). vitb in- 
prrMJons of piRnt Jeavea, To the period of the fomarion of ihis 

and also coploui eruption* of ashes, whkh are now met with is 
tufa in the neighbourhood of the igneoui roclii. The« eiuplive 

ence upon Ihe superficial UF^I oS ihe country, havmg become 

can guber. In its upper beds ibe sandstone aliemaies with 

■ So with n- in Neh. uc to Ba«, CL 

village of 'AWhJuiany 

of guleropods and bivalves and C'^pccully of Tngem 
I u lypicBl fossils. 1^ second subdivision ofti 

WIS foimalion consists of beds of marl and limestone wii 

n.™™»r,Yon BucliV wbicbs 
c1uilkinar{(CenoinanHn). Th 

of Lebanon is composed, t 

le, marble, or dolon 


iween Ibc LI|Sni and lordan vail 

: formation) occurs only very spoiadi- 
ly in tbe BukA', but prodonunates in 

irarively ur 

Jebel Terbol nor fai^bului. 

ponaiLi palches (new ZAh1eh)of fresh-water limestone, deposited 
from small take basins and containing fresJi-waier snait (Hy. 
drobia. BilhyniaX To this pliocene period belong 
coniideialile eruptions of basalt In the N. of Lebanon, 

£oms Not till after these leneitijal pliocenes had 
poiiied did Ihe great mo-emenis to which Ihe country 

4. V«Eet>tlon. jj 

n cedar grove of Pahre1-K:a4ib. 

>f the Mediterranean caist ; but the eastern 
ion belongs 10 the poorer region of 
sieppes, and [he Medilerranean 
species are met with only sporadically along the water- 
courses. Forest and poslure-land in our sense of tbe 
word are not found ; Ihe place of Ihe forest is for the most 
part taken by a low brushwood ; grass is not plentiful, 
and the higher ridges maintain a growth of alfunc plants 
only so long as patches of snow continue to lie. The 
tock walls harbour some rock plants ; but there are 
many absolutely barren wildernesses of stone. 

(ij On the western versant, us we ascend, we have 
first, to a height of i6ooft., the coast region, similar 
to that of Syria in general and of the south of Asia 



mews. The 

admixture of foreign and pattuilly subiropjod el 

great maa of the vegetation, however, is of thi 

type fnuuuii or garrlgut of the weslem Medilet 

■mall and stiff leaves, frequently Ihomy and an».,....»., » .» 


Ca/K*to<«, eic. 

(i) Nest comes, from i6oo lo 6500 ft., the moun- 
tain region, which may also be called the forest n^ion, 
still eihibiling sparse woods and isolated irees wherever 
shelter, moisture, and the bad husbandry of ihe inhabi- 
tants have permitted their growth. 

Fiom 1600 to 3300 ft, is a lone of dwarf hnrd.leaved aaki, 
amongst which occur the Orienial forms Foilaniiia fUll/- 
r^oidtt, AemyrutCKm, and the beautiful red-stemnKd .^'i^'sv 
Andmcknt. Higher up, between 3700 ft. and 4900 ft., a tall 

6300 ft. is the r^lon of the two most inieresiing forest Ires of 
Lfhanon, the C}-press and the cedar. The cj-press slltl grows 
thickly, especially in the valley of Ihe Ifndisha ; Ihe hoiiionlal 
is the prevailing variety. In the upper Kadrsha valley ihere is 
a cedar grove of about Ihree hundred trees, amnngsl which five 

■,/. tt^tata, and, with Ihiit aa larfc as phims, 

I. The chief omamenl of Lebanon, however, i> the 
mpentieum, with hstarilliant purple flower dusters ; 
ergrecn, I'iiirti iibanatica, ako adds beauty 10 tlul 



(3) Into tbe alpine region (6300 to 
trate a few very ilunled oaks (Oi 
Koischy). the juniper* already 
berty {BerberU tretica), which sometimes spreads inio 
dose thickets. Then follow the low. dense, prone, 
pillow-like dwarf bushes, thomy and gray, common to 
the Oriental highlands — Astragalus and the peculiar 
AcaHlAolimoH. Tbey are found up (o within 300 ft. of 
the highest summits. Upon the eiposed mountain 
slopes rhubarb {KMmm Siies) is noticeable, and also a 
vetch ( Ficia tanticens. Lab. ) excellent for sheep. The 
spring v^etation, which lasts until July, appears to be 
rich, especially as regards coroHa-bearing pjants, such 
as Cerydaiis, Orgta, Bultillaria. Celchicum, Pusch- 
kinia, Gtranium. OmithegalMm. etc. 

The alpine flora of Lebanon connects itself directly 
wiih the Orienial flora of lower aUitudes. and is unre- 
lated 10 the glacial flora of Europe and northern Asia- 

Tbe flcjra of the high«t ridges, along The ed«« of the inow 
paEcb»j eMbjbiu no forms telaled lo out jionhetn alpine flora ; but 

Upon 'tt 

T, only in lo 

r Si/im a 

EafittrUa. Ailratalt 

lium, Alfitait/i<u, A/liMm, , 

0>. Zoology. 

the margiru of die snow-fields, a 

There is nothing of special interest about the fauna 
of Lebanon. Bears are no longer abundant ; the 
, panther and the ounce are met with ; 
"i hog, hyiena, wolf, and foi are 
by no means tare ; jackals and gaielles are very common. 
The polecat and the hedgehog also occur. As a rule there 
■ic not many birds ; but the eagle and the vulture ma^ 
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 
■( bouts in breadth, slopes 


and 1c 


e Medite 


its clif& and the lofty summits behind. Most of the 
mountain spurs run from EL to W. ; but in northern 
Lebanon the [wevailing direction of the valleys is north- 
westerly, and in the S. some ridges also run parallel 
with tbe principal chain. The valleys have for the 
most part been deeply excavated 1^ the mpid mountain 
streams which traverse them ; the apparently inaccessible 
heights are crowned by villages, castles, or cloisters 
embosomed among trees. 

Of llie slrennn "hich are perennial, the mtat worthy of nole, 
bepnnini from the N., an the Nahr 'Akkar, N. -Arkil, N. el- 
Btrid, H. Kadisha. ; th< holy river ' (the valley of which begins 

and npidly descends in 

series of greol bends ti 

"-■ !i-jro.<fidr ■ 


mflt (ancient Tamyias),. 

— ._ JUS, which In the upper 

bythcNshier^tilk). The'Auwaly 
' ■ iresms ihu ail to 

«sof the grear 

Sli^K'ciiiJ.'Nahr ^ 
» at BcyroutX Nahr 1 

-^is'-ted"?'"" """ 

mly other nrei 

...,.._ . NE. loSW., i.. 
ctHuequence or the inl«rpoiiiion 01 a ndge luboidinale and 

On tbe N.. where the mountain bears the special 
Dame of Jebel 'Akkar. the main ridge of Lebanon rises 
gradually from the pbiin. Valleys run to the N, 
and NE.. among which must be mentioned that of 
the Nahr el-Kebir. the Eleulheras of the ancients, 
which takes its rise in the Jebel el-Abyad on the 
easton slope of Lebanon, and afterwards, skirling 
the district, flows westward 10 the sea. To the S. of 
Jebel el-Abyad, beneath the main ridge, which as a 
a? 57 


rule falls away suddenly towards the £ , occur several 
small elevalod terraces having a southward slope ; 
aniong these the W5di en-NusQr ('vale of eagles'), 
and the basin of the lake Yammiina. with its intermittent 
spring Neb' el-Arbain, deserve special mention. Of 
the streams which descend into the Bukfl', only the 
Berdoni need be named ; it rises in Jebel Sunnin, and 
enters the plain by a deep and picturesque tnountain 
cleft at Zahleh. 

The most 'elevated summits occur in the N. ; but eien 
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 ofa 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 'UyQn Urghush, Makntal, 
Muskiyi. (or Neb' esh-Shemaila), and Ras pafir el- 
Kadib ; fronting the sea are Kam Sauda, Kumm el- 
Miiab, and Dahr el-Kandil. Tbe height of Makmal by 
the most recent barometric measurement is 10.307 ^^ '■ 
that of (he others is somewhat less. S. from them is 
the pass (8S31 ft.) which leads from Baalbek to 
Tripoli ; the great mountain amphitheatre on the W. 
side of its summit Is remajkabk. Farther to the S 
is a second group of lofty summits- 
Chief amonE ihem ii the snow-capped ^nnin, visible frooi 
Beyrout ; its neigbt is ess4 ft., or. according to other Jiccounts- 

Kuneiuh (about 6700 ft.) lie» the pau (470a ft.) now tnverHd 
by the Prvnch put rood between Beyroui and Damavus. 
Among tbe otfaei twre Himmits still fallhet S. are the lone 
ridge of Jebel el-Btrflk (about 7000 ft.X'hc J'bcl NT^wilE 
tbeTam^I Nthl (about 6Toofi-X near which is a pass lo Sldon- 
and Ibe Jebel Sfhll. <ab«.t moo ft.). 

The Buka,', Ibe broad valley whkh 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 sepamled only by a short mile. 
The river flowing northwards, EI-'Asy, is the ancient 
Oronles : the other is the LltAnl. In ttie lower part 
of its course the LilSnt has scooped out for itself a deep 
and narrow rocky bed ; at Burghus 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 Kafat esh-Shakif, near 
one of the passes to Sidon. In its lower part the LllAnl 
bears the name of Nahr el ■ KSsimlyeh. Neither tbe 
Oronles nor the Liianl has any important affluent. 

The BukS used' to be known as CcEt-KsKHiA (?.».) ; 
iployed by the ancients bad a mucli 

■■ applies 

It the full_ nante ii 
ailbekX^TSTvon " 

■ el--A 

i (the il< 



lentH, thel^er of which skin the billa, 
sting of mud hovels, startd upon dwarf 

Antilibanus is mentiotted only once, in Judith 1; 
(ci>TiXi|9aroi). where ' Libanus and Antilibantis ' means 
the land between the parallel ranges— i.f.. Coelesyria. 
The Antilibanus chain has in many respects been 
much less fully explored than of Lebanon. Apart 
- « ^ from its southern offshoots it is 67 m. 

.°fr* i™b. «wi« lu "■>"■ ■■"= ''«" ■» •« 

01 tD4 1 T, _:_„ frrtm f hit nlain r,t Hnin*; 

Anuiib..^. ;;*t u, ™h;ri».'toi,T,li;TS 

and barren. The range has not so many oRshcots as 
occur on the W. side of l.<banon ; under its precipitous 
slopes stretch tnble.lands and broad plateaus, which, 
especially on the E. side looking towards the steppe. 

eadily in 



nus stretches tbe Kb 

n lined 

vilh juniper trees— a sii 



crests and ridges, bri 


rock and erag thai shdter lutts of vegetation, and are 
divided by a succession of grassy ravines. On (he 
eastern side (he parallel valley of 'As3l el-Ward deserves 
special nien(ii>n ; the descent towards (he plain 

.t Ma'Lii 

first a spacious amphitheatre and then two deep verjr 
narrow gorges. The nerennial streams (hat take their 
riie in Antllibanus ars not nt.iti7. 

One of the finisi and Iwii walciEd vslkys ii Ihil oT HelbDn 
(m Helboh). The highest poinu of ihe range, reckoned 
(lom the N., are Halimat el-JJabfl (&,„ Si.), which hu a 
iplendid vie»: the Faily block, inclnding Ti^'al Mnsl (B^jj 
ft.j und Ihe ndjoining Jebel Nebi Bamh {7900 ft. [Tl); and a 

BMShuJifAk™«r.«ndAbu']-Hm(83Afi-[tO- " "" 

Of the valleys descending westward (he firsi to claim 
mention is the Wildy Yahltlfa ; a little farther to (he S., 
lying N. and S.. is the rich upland valley of Zebedftni. 
where the Barada has its highest sources. Pursuing an 
easterly course of several hours, this slnsim receives 
the waters of the romantic 'Ain Fijeh ( which doubles its 
volume), and bursts out by a rocky gateway upon (he 
plain of Damascus. llisthe.,\manah (RV°"i)of aK. 5i.; 
the portion of Antilibanus traversed by it was also called 
by the same name {Cant. 4 e). See Amana. The 
French post road after leaving the BukA' first enters 
a little valley running N. and S. , where a projecting 
ridge of Antilibanos bears (he ruins of Ihe ancient cities 
Chalcis and Cerrha- It next traverses (he gorge of 
Wady el-Harlr, the level upland Sahlet Judeideh. the 
ravine of W&dy el-Katn, (he ridge of 'Ai(aba( et-Tin. 
(he descent I>aurat el-Bill&n, and finally the unpeopled 
plain of DimSs, from which it enters (he valley of 
Baradft. This route marks (he southern boundary of 
Antilibanus proper, where the Hermon group begins. 
Prom the point where this continuation of An(illt^nus 
begins (o take a more westerly direction, a low ridge 
shoots out towards (he SW. . trending farther and 
farther away from the eastern chain and narrowing the 
Buka' ; upon (he eastern side of this ridge lies the 
elevated valley or hilly stretch known as Wady et-Teim. 
In the N. , beside 'Ain F4luj. i( is connected by a low 
watershed with the Bulls' : from the gorge of the LltSnl 
it is separated by (he ridge of Jebel ed-Dahr. At its 
southern end it contracts and merges into the plain of 
BaniSs, thus enclosing Mount Hermon on its NW. and 
W. sides ; eastward from (he Hft^bSny branch of the 
Jordan lies the meadow-land Merj 'Ayiln (see ljo\). 

The inhabitants of Lebanon have at no time played 
a con^icuou* part in his(oiy. There are remains of 
, p.ltti--i prehistoric occupation ; but we do not 
fci.I™,Tri '"^ l"""* what races dwelt there in the 
^*^ "* historical period of antiquity. Probably 
popoUiaoiL jji^j, [jgiong^ partly to the Canaanite but 
chieHy lo the Aramxan group of nationalities ; editorial 
notices in the narralive books of Ihe OT mention 
Hivi(eE (Judg. Sj. where, however, we should probably 
read 'Hittites') and Giblites (Josh. 135 : see. however. 
GEBAL. 1). A portion of Ihe western coast land was 
always. 1( may be assumed, in the hands of the Phoe- 
nician stales, and it is possible (hat once and again 
(heir sovereign(y may have extended even into Ihe 
Buka'. Lebanon was also included within (he ideal 
boundaries of (he land of Israel (Josh. 13; [D,]). and 
the whole region was well known to the Hebrews, by 
whose poets its many excellencies are often praised — 
see. r..f„ Is. 37.4 BO.j Hos.Hs-; Ps. 72.6 Cani.4.T; 
but note thai the phrase "the wine of Lebanon' (Hos. 
lie) is doubtful : see Wing. Jeremiah finds no better 
image for the honour put by Yahwi on the house of 
David than -the top of Lebanon' (Jcr.22«). The 
cedars of Lebanon supplied limber for Solomon's 
temple and palace (i K. (>e 3Ch.2S), and at the re- 
building of the temple cedar timber was again brought 
from the Lebanon (EiraSr ; cp Joppa). Ttvese noble 
trees were not less valued by the Assyrians ; (he in- 
scriptions of the Assyrian kings repeatedly mention 

mins of Ihe Ru 
'e especially in 

y early obtained a fooling in Lelunon. the pAgan 
even human sacrifice, stitvived for a long lime, euh 
^le valley. uchasAflia. The present inhabilTn 

Burlon and C. F. fyn 

« (1856). and Phfiicat Giipfrafk* 
Holy ZaW (London. 1665): R. F. 
litl l>ralie, UmxtUtd Syria {1873): 
* Lt^im (i87«); Porter. Handhtah 
jtr iraviiiiri in ^yna and Palrtl'ia (l8s8.("t iSjs); Socin- 
BeniinHr. ralalini and SyriaVt in Baedeker's ieries of hasul- 
booki Tor .raveller. (ET, 1898): GASm. HC. ti"ff. (ifiw; 

V.n"dev'elde'*Wa/'v^*oV^j'iI«™(Goiha, '1858; {^rm! ed., 

liigadi lnfiOK'a/'hlgiir du mrft ixffdiliennairt dt Syrir n 
l86ci-«T, prepared at die French War Office (1S61). A. S. 

LEBAOTH (MSjS). Josh. 15 ja. See Beth-leba- 
OTK. and note thai '■ Lebaolh ' and 'Bealolh' (Josh. 
15ii) are probably the same name. Cp Baalath- 

LEBRKUB (\eBBftioc or A€B*iOC IKL]) occurs in 
AV (cp TR| of Mt. lOj as the name of the apoMle who 
was ■sum.imed' (o eniKAHaeic) THADliJ.tis [q.v.\ 
The conflate reading of TR is from (he ■ Syrian ' text ; 
X(33' ■* ■ strongly but insufficiently supported Western 
reading, adopted by Tischendorf in M(. IO3. bu( not 
in Mk,3i8. If ViS^aioi = -aS, we may with Dalman 
iFal. Gram. 14a, n. i ; cp Worli Jtsu. 40) compare 
the Phien. asS and Sin. •k3^. It is possible, however, 
according to WH. that the reading Xe?^. is due to nn 
early attempt to Iwing Levi (X(u«t) the publican (Lk. 
617) within the number of the Twelve. Cp Lkvi. 
Older views (see Keim, Jesu km Natara. 2310; ET 
3jSo} are very improbable. 

LEB-KAMAI ("fji^n^. Mhe heart [r.^., centre) of 
my adversaries' ; cp Aq. A\'}. usually taken to be a 
cypher-form of Kasdim(a"l*;;'?), -Chaldasa' ; 6""*". 
however, has xiAiAloyC. or -ieoYC (Jer.Sli). and 

tainly, I^b-kamai might be the trifling of a very tale 
scribe, a specimen of the so-called Athbash-wiiting (on 
which see SheshACH). It is possible, however, that 
it is a corruption of Skdht (Jerahmcel). and that Jer. 
fiOjt is directed against the much-haled Kdomites or 
Jerahmeelites. as well as against the Chald.'Pans. i>o 
Cheyne in Cril. Bib. See MebathAIM, PekoD. 
Other cyphers were knowr ' ' ' 

p, Heb. ai 



AeBuNA [B], TOY 


example of Ih, __ . 

LEBONAE (n}'n^; 
B*NOY THC AeB. [AL]). I , 
cense,' was not a Jewish product) Lebanah or Libn-ih, 
a place to the N. of Shiloh {Judg. 31 19), identified by 
Maundrell (1697) with Ihe modem cl-I.uhban. a poor 
village on the slope of a hill 3 m. WNW. from Siitin 
(Shiloh). with many old rock tombs in the neigh- 
bourhood. The story in Judges mentions Lebonah in 
connection with 3 vintage- festival a( Shiloh. This 
suggests to Ncubauer {Gtigr. 83) (hat ' Beth-Iaban in the 
mountains' (cp NazakeTh) from which wine of the 
second quality was brought for (he drink offerings 
in the temple \MlnahSlh^-)\ may be our Lebanah 
( Lebonah). 


y Google 


LECAH (.15^; Ahx* [B]. -ftA [A], Aah* [L]). 
apparently the name of a place in the lerrilory of 
Judah, descended from Er b. Shelah. i Ch. 4ii. If 
so. it is perhaps an error for Lachish (Meyer, Enlsl. 
164). More probably, however, .tivVi n37 'an U a cor- 
niption {with some dittogra[rtiy) of hvorri: and Ihe 
meaning is that Mareshah {q.v. ) was of mixed Judahite 
luul Jerahmeeiite origin- T. K- c 

LEI>aE& For DiSr, maiMm {Uom 3W; cpSyr.. 
of Ibc nine: oFa ladder : i^r J{<x<v>i»') 1 K. T M/l; t« Laver. 

Fo. tfrf,,JlJM, {ifX^ x"l^y IBAl, RV ' jl^y,'), , K.T 3S/, 
■ccLatsb. For iilf,iarUHItixip»^lBfkflm Ei.lT;), 
<n£^ Ei. !T J SS 4I,' R V (AV ■ compui "X s« At.T«R, 1 9 a. 

For nvV:,'dt^r4l>i,'EKk.^nt7 3o(i»j''rnji't<»-)tiig(Up6r), 
KV<*g. ''lidgt/ EV 'KHie,' tp Altak, I « i o1«> Mkrcv Skat. 

LEEE8. The word Tin. Jidilr. which usually 
means 'grass' (see Grass), is in N11.H5 rendered 
* leeks' by all the ancient versions. Although Ihe 
conEciness of this inlerpretalion 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. BN, xlx. 33 no) : and i-jn is used 
in this sense at least once in the Talmud (LOw, 
938), The garden leek {AUium Pomm) a only a 
cnlltvated form eA Allium Ampeteprasum. L.. which is 
a native of Syria and Egypt- N. M. — W. T. T.-D. 

LEQION (AeriWN ITLWH]). Mk.B9"s Lk-Sjo. 
See Armv, S to ; Gospels, % 16. 

LEHABIH (D'nn^). one of the -sons' of Miiraim, 
Gen. 10.3 (Ai-BieiM [AEL]) = . Ch. 1 1.+ (Aa^BeiN 
[A], A&BiEiM [!-]), eitho- a by-fonn or a corruption of 
LUBIH (f.t.j. 

AiwihR pouible view ii Ihu D'^nS comes froin D'[n^P3o 
°'['!'}?^ Baalah was in the S. of Judah lowaidl Edoi^ Qc^. 
1519). This standi in cannection wilh a hypWheoii mpeciing 
the rumc comnKintv nad Mitrajm vhich explain! a croup of 
difficult problemi, but deabi Cmly with MX. See MlzUAitl ; 

cm. Bif. 

LEHI (79, i.A, "jawbone" ; in Judg. IS9 AetCe]! 
[BA]. A€X€i [L]. and in Judg. Ifii^ en TH CI&rONI 
[Bl THC Ct&rONOC [AL], in Judg.]6i4. CiftfONOC 
[BAL]) or. more fully \v. .;). RamaTh-LEHI ('H^ np^. 
i.e., "the hill of the jawbone,' S"*"-, &NMpECIC 
CI&rONOC ,- riDl is surely not an explanatory gloss 
[Doominck]). the scene of one of Samson's exploits 
{Judg. I69 M '7 -s). 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 
wil based a k-gend. The explanation of Beer-lahai-roi 
proposed elsewhere (Jerahmsel, S 4 [c]). however, sug- 
gests the conjecture that Lehi and Ramalh-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. 

Mom Mchnlars Knee Bocharl (lo Diiver'> list add now Bu. and 
H. P. Smilhjtiave found areferencetothe same place in 3^.^11 
(reading 'were gaihered logclhcr to Lehi,' n;n^ (J*l sia^^ra, 
L ; tU -lino «»7^M, J«. AhI. vii. 12 3I inxead of n;nS \m 
*VU. BAD- The omiwion, howtver, in I Ch. 11 13' ihows 
(hai the same words 'aid ihe PhiMnines were Kalhered tD|;ether 
to battle ' occurred in the Chronicler'* tejtl of the najraiive of 
zSam., bolh in i.. 9 snd in v. m. .th^, iherefore, muK be a 
ftagment of .-I^SpS, 'id battle '(KI0.). The scene of iheeiploit 
wai probably'ihe vnlley of Rephaiui (read with Chr. Oi lESKl, 
'were gathered together there,' referitng back tor/. 9 (see Pas- 

As to the site i>f the Lehi ctf Judges, we know from 
Judg. 15e-ij. that it lay above Etam(?. 11.). and Schick* 
identifies it with a bill (with rains) called ef-^iyydgh 

1 ZDFV\9t^ff. The name Siaehnh ii attached to the 
duukter of the nuunlain above 'AyHn Miba, called Icbel Nehll 
ifEFQ, Oct- 1888, p. iB,). Cp PiscAK. 

Conder (Tinhvori. 1 gjfi), has a still more far-fetched 
identification. See En'-hakkore. and. on Ihe legend 
and its explanation, see, further, Jawbone, Ass's. 

LEMECH ("ilpV)' Gen. 4ie5asAV'"ii-, EV Lamec" 
LEHUEL (SnID^. ^tttoS, '[belonging] to God"? 
see Names, JS aa, 37) the 'name of a youthful king, 
mentioned, if the icxl is correct, in Ptov.Bli4.' 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 mtici ylrahml'il. ' a king of Jerahmeel.' 
The following word maiii can mean neither 'poem' 
nor a supposed Arabian kingdom ; it should rather be 
mdUl {GiAtz, Bickcll). Bickell. however, thinks that 
^KD^, in V. ,, has arisen out of So^ in o'jSn'' (written 
O-SkSdV. as in 2 S. Hi).' Smo Was then supposed to be 
a personal name, hence the repetition of o'a^irSli after 
iL From 11. 4 'S 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 ACUH, Provkrbs. also 
Bickell {ZKMbi^) ; Del. and Toy, arf /«.; Cheyne, 
/ai and Salomon, 154. 171. T, K, C. 

LEND (ni^n, Ex.22=4[=5]: iiLNiieiN Lk.634t. 
and Borrow (TK^, Ei.Su; A^MiCAceoi, Mt.Sii). 
See Law and Justice, g 16; Trade and Cou- 

LEHTILES, RV 'leniils'— i.e., Ervum km. L. 
{□•EH^. 'iddSiM; (jMiKOC; Gen. 2534 a S. 17.B 23ii 
Ezek. 49+ ; cp also Mish. Shaii. 74 often), rightly so 
rendered by all the ancient versions, as is shown by Ihe 
use of the Ar. 'adai for the same plant to this day 
(BR\ul)). The pottage [I'u] whidi Esau obtained 
from Jacob be called 'dm (q-ik)- As lentil .pottage, 
which is one of the commonest among simple people 
at the present day, is of a peculiar brownish green,* 
MT must be wrong in vocalising 'dm in f. 30, i,iim, 
■red.' Read A/Jw = Arab. iddm, 'a by-dish' (cp col. 
1333, n. 9): 'Feed me with some of the M^, thaxidam.' 
The nutritive properties of lentils are well known. 
According 10 De Candolle (Origine. 357/) W. Asia 
was probably the earliest home of Ihe lentil, and It 
has been cultivated in thai region since the dnwn of 
history. Cp Food, % 4. i, col. 1541, and for another 
conjectured reference to lentils (38.019 ^ Ch. 163) see 
i'svn, § s, a. 

LEOPARD (TDJ, Aram. Tpj ; TTipiaAic : Is. 116 
Hos.l37jer.56 13a3 H.ib 18 Cant. 48 Dan. 76 Ecclus. 
28t3 Rev. ISit). A wild beast, noted for its fierceness, 
lis swiftness (Hab. IS), and its spoiled skin (Jer. ISij). 
Its name (mimer) also occurs in place-names (Beth- 
NIMRAK, NiMK]M[;y.i'.]|, which suggests an interesting 
enquiry (see below). On the expression ■ the monnlaina 
of the leopards' (Cant. le || 'the lions' dens ') see Cak-, § ij, col. 693, lofi. Apart from Ihe textual 
phenomena, it is true, we should not be suspicious at 
the mention of leopards in Lebanon and Hermon. 

1 Sbma has in D. I for ^Ss Wd^ ■yf^ « iiun Myei Atairm 
Inri ««ii) ^oiriA&v; and in v. 4 for W\aS D'3^dS htf, furl 

« The scribe began lo write O'anSoS. but wro« by accident 
SkdS- A» inual, he left the error uncancelled and wrole 
straight on correctly. This is no doubt ihe meaning of Kickell'l 

"1 Thn t^n"^la^r ii the colour of the poluge. The raw 
hu^ks are brown and the law grain, sttippcd of its covciing, red. 



to'™My'L"r.™for bl^r ll 'bin iht hlbTS'^nXg 
iMlfiiiviiLliandsilht tn>ninc« of vilUgn(J»-^eX lyins >■> 
wail for iti prcvi upon which U will wnug from ■ mat 
distance ; il ba& an appeiile for dogt, but dwd are seMcm 
atiBcUed. ^, f^rtiur haa a wide distnouiion, avlouline a1in«t 

it a atw found jn many of ih« lat^r Ejut Indian islands, F- 
JHialM (Ihc Cheua) it scaiccr i it can be Ibund in the voodcd 
bilLi of Ualitec, and in (he neighbourhood of Tabor. Id diS' 
pOHTion LI is much less lieice than F- pardv and is com- 
pafaliveiy easily tanwd ; in India it b trained for bjnting 
anldopei. elc. (cp Thomson's statemeni respecling the panlhel. 
in I^lestine, LB [iS£ol, p. 444X I< has almost u mide a 

The Sittaitic Arabs relaie lliat the leopard wiis once 

names namir, dimia. nomair. pL aamar, and also ihe 
Sab, D-ON, laken in connection with Ihe above story, 
seems to point to a primitive belief in a supposed 
kinship with the panther, and il is probable that 
the clan wbieh first called itself after (he 'leopard' 
believed itself to be of one kin with it {cp also the 
leopard-skin worn, as is well known, by a certain claM 
of priests in their official duties).' We may funher 
(»mpnre the occurrence of the place-names Beth- 
NIMRAM. NIMRCH (ff.i'.). and the fact that four 
similarly formed names are said to be found in Ihe 
Ijlaurln (cp ZDMCit^y,). A place-name gtM also 
occurs in ^baian inscriptions. Finally. Jacob of Senigh 
mentions bar luiHri, ' son of panthers, ' as Ihe name of 
a false deiiy of Haran (ZDMGWhb: cp WRS, /. 
Phil. Bm ; Kin. 30i).« A. E. E — S. A. C 

LEPE087, LEPER. The word n(ni. fdrd'alA. 

occurs some (wenly.eighl limes In Lev. 13/:, sl'io in I>t.24B 
iK.tjsyiar aCh.!0i9, and is invariably inuitLiied U>)>.in 
S, !tfra in Vg. The tool ii jn j, meaning originally (probably) 
'to smile'i Uw putidple fnt, firea\ b met wiih in L«v. 
^**f. H3 tl4 No.ta (Anptt; ltprvtia\ a»] V*^ ?^, 
mifSnr, in Lev.Hi Nu.lSio >S.a» I'lCSrirn 
T JB lis I Ch. M»/ sj, NT ha. W.|« in Mk. I 4a Lk. 5 n /, 
Xiapif inMi.Si 10BlljSasMk.l4olt3 U,l>;7» ITia. 
wbewAV^hM'slcicke"-"" P"""™" """ •'"" '=P'™™. 

The word \4wpa,. in Hippocrates and olhers, meant 
tome scaly disease of the skin, quite different from A/ftat 

1. MMUiur In ~ A<*«.n-i«<, ; of the two Upr« 
ia».ir .^A rSti- corresponds on the whole with fion- 

common or tubercular leprosy. It is prol>able that in<S Ihe 
word Itpra was meant to be generic, or to incluilt 

*; ifsc 

t rendering of Ihe generic H< 
flaga. plague). The *^i-« ofthe Vg., however, became 
specially joined in mediiBval medical uTiiings to what is 
technically known as leprosy, so that Itfra Araium 
meant exactly the same as eltphaHliash drirtamm. 
Thenceforward, consequently, alt that was said in the 
OT of sdril'a/A was laken as said of leprosy, which 
thus derived its qualities, and more especi.illy its con- 
tagiousness, not so much from clinical observniion as 
from verbal interpretation. This confusion belongs not 
to the Hebrew text, but to translations and to medieval 
and modern glosses. 
Sogenericailyia the Hebrew word used, that two of Ihe 

*;}fF^.''' things— lii., clothes or leather work 

, (Lev. 1347-99), and the walls of houses 

Jj-sj). Theconjectureofsome, that 

the leprosy of the garment was a defilement of garments 

■ See Wilk. Ww. £r.liB4. fig. 11, and cp Dkkss, I «; 

Eh^u. The origin of the hanging of the leopard's skin in the 

^ Among Ihe tdolalrons ob>«u destroyed by Hetekiah 

<MT, C-1|^N, a-fn). To the llanslaiors of Ihe Pesh., at any 
mle. images of leopards were apparently not unknown. 
* In Ar, the cognate word is used vspeci^ly of efulep^c fits 


worn by Ihe leprous, is against the sense of Ihe text, to 
say nothing of Ihe silence of Ihe context on so essential 
a poinL Again, the suggestion of Michaelis that the 
leprosy of the walls of a house was the peculiar nitrous 
exudation or crusl that sometimes appears, like a scabby 
state of Ihe skin, on newly plastered walls, would imply 
thai 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 btJIs and leprotiv 
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 thai ihey were parasitic invasions of 
vegetable moulds or of the eggs of insects. 

(a) The description of Ihe house-leprosy (greenish or 
reddish patches, lower than, or penetrating beneath the 
surface of, the inner wall. Lei-. H37) does not enactly 
identify Ihe condition : but the steps taken to gel rid of 
it — the removal of a part of Ihc wall, the scraping of 
adjoining parts, the carrying of the dust so scraped off 
to an unclean place, the rebuilding, the replasleting, and 
the resort to still more Ihorough demolition if the lirn 
means had not been radical enough and the plague 
had come again — are very much in Ihe manner of 
dealing with dry rat ; whoever has had occasion U> 
eradicate that spreading fungus from some wall or 
partition, will see ihe genera] fitness of Ihe steps to be 
taken, particularly of the precautions against leaving 
any spores lurking in Ihe dusi of neighbouring parts. 

The mjalnm of the dry-rot fungu. iPnlyfenu datntclsr, at 
Men$lius vajtator', or M. ia^Mrymavi not only eats into wood- 
work, but may form txlween the lalh arid plaster and Ihe alorie or 
brick, large sheeu of fell -like lextnie, holt an inch or more thick, 
the fresh broken surface of which will look greenish yellow or 

the circulalion of air. Without contending that the plague, or 
Ihe fitting leprosy 09 S<i T*?;o mmi, perhaps latber a malig- 
nant leprosy) of the walla of a bouse was precisely the dry-rot 
of nonhem countries, one muu conclude that it was a parasitic 
DouU of the same kind. 

(*) The leprosy of the garment (Lev. I847-59) was in 
woollen, or linen, or in any work that is m^e of skin. 
This excludes the suggestion of Michaelis tljal il may 
have been > contagion of the sheep clinging to its woirf, 
A greenish or reddish colour, and a tendency to spread, 
are the chief indications given as to lis nature. If il 
changed colour with washing, it might be cured by 
rending out the alfected piece ; otherwise the garment 
or article naade of skin was to be burned. Such marks 
are perhaps loo general for scientific identification ; but 
there are various moulds and mildews (such as Mucor 
and PtniciUium). as well as deposits of the eggs of 
moths, which would produce the appearances and effects, 

Such being the prolable nature of two of the varielies 
of fdrd'alh — ^namely, parasitic spreading moulds or 
, . fretting insects upon iiuinimate substances 

' ''■ the same parasitic character in some, if 
not in the whole, of the human maladies in the same 
conlext. The most clearly identified of ihe parasilic 
skin-disenses are Ihe plague upon Ihe head or the beard, 
or Ihe scall' (pnj. Lev, ISi^-j;), and the leprosy causing 
baldness {v. 41), These are almost certainly Ihe con- 
tagious and often ini-eterate ringworm, or scald-head, 
menlagra. or sycosis, of the hairy scalp and beard. To 
them also Ihe n-tine oT ' leprosy ' is git'en ; and indeed 
the most striking part in ihe ritual of ihe leper. Ihe 
rending of the clothes, the covering the lip, and the 
crying out ' unclean, unclean.' follows in the text im- 
mediately upon the descriplion of an aJfeclion oT the 
head which was probably litua dtcalvans (ringworm), 
or favHs, lima favosa (scald-head), which are still com- 
paratively common among poor Jews as well as Moslems 
(this, says Hiisch, is perhaps to be explained by their 

' under thy lockb ibuu m. 



y Google 


religious pracli™ of aluiays keeping Ihe head covered). 
fitjiriasv vtrsicohr. which aiiecis ihe trunk especially, 
and ;n»luces spots ai brownish or reddish diseolora- 

tbe same classes [cp Schajnberg ' (commenling medically 
on Lev.131]. The white spots often referred (o probably 
included leucoderaia or vitiligo. 



In an unpulilion (Upru mMliUau).^ Ntxlulu in ei 

u ib< 

boisc and Ihe dt^hini. 

dw face, Avck, and handi, and on hauy pans such 
arm[nu, and pubea- Tht diuaAc begini ai while 

■ ..i.-ij _«■ ^„ octui alio in Ihc 


>r Ihe hail in Lev. IBij more diilinclivt oTlhac 
ly orher. On the olher hand, vitiLiga i« not 
mended bv rawDeH of ihe flesh, and admill 

_. ji be Ihe diseaw in which parchet of hair 

wllile (as Kapori and olhei deralal^ogisu ™PI™^ "he 

i«u) whk^ would ba 

mafncArd bj- in altendant eniptioni 
Included under ' rising ' <a * eiuplion. 

The disease of 13 13-17. 'K'hich was placed in Ihe 'clean' 
class because ii concerned all the body, may have been 
psoriasis (' English leprosy'), a scaly disease in which 
the characters of ' brightness ' and ' n-hitenesi ' of Ihe 

as it oflen is, the elemenl of ' raw flesh ' would come in, 
and therewilh perhaps the priesily diagnosis of unclean- 
cess. On the other hand. Ihe dull white 'letter' of 


It all cl 


re may well have been a more minute I 

?rve<l by tradition in Ihe priesthood. 

hat the subject is handled at all : JE make 
DO provision whatever for the diagnosis, isolation, etc 
of diseases. 

The chief question remains, whether true leprosy i 
anywhere poinled at by the diagnostics. 

It may be doubted if any one would ever have dis- 
covered True leprosy in these chapters but for the U 
lalioii of idri'aik in and Vg. Even Ihose (Hensler 
and others) who identify white or anaesthetic leprosy 
with Ihe white spots, bright spots, white rising, or the 
like, do not profess to find any traces of tubercular 
leprosy, which is the kind that lends itself most obviotisly 
to popular superficial description, and is the most likdy 
fqrm of Ihe disease to have received notice. The strongest 
argument of Ihose who discover true leprosy in Lev. 13 
is Ihal it would have been important 10 delect the dis 
in its earliesl stage, and that the beginnings of all c 
of leprosy are dusky spots of the skin, or erythematous 
patches, which come and go at first, and then remain 
permanently, becoming the while anaesthetic spots of 
one iorra of ihe developed disease, and the seats of 
nodules (of Ihe face, hands, and feet) in the other. This 
itific analysis 

; stages of leprosy sv 
■ sit?' 



of kprosy. ai Ihey are uniformly found at die present time in 

many pAJIs of Ihe globe. A case of leprosy thai 

4. ITIW would be obvious to .1 passer-by is Diaiked by a 

la P TO a T. thickened or nodulaled tlale of ihe fenlures. espetn. 

•■pi»7. ^1^ ^ ^^ eyebrows, the win_gs of the nos^Ih. 

MS ■%). The same nudules occur, «l», on the liands and the ftet. 

\% with £g]Fpt ; cp Pliny, 




._ ] may be truly leproUL 

and have nothing 10 thou for it in the face, or on the hands and 
feel- perhaps only a nodule heie and tbeie along Ihecpuiseof 

Ihe same ulualions where ocher lepers have nodules or lubeieles ; 

leprosy Xlffra ttJHcitns, macuiotti, ctc.)^ The macular and 

Underlying all these ealemid marks^ whelhet nodules or spots, 
is themoel significant of all the morbid changesof leprosy— the 

oneoflhemsliieval leiit-^iopricktht skin along the couneof the 
. of the disease, it need hardly be laid, are nowhere 

in Ihe bibhca] 

lit within Ihe meagre 

I are preferred 
realer relish. ' 

sh in a Knii-ptitrid stale — very often Ihi 
IS* kinds of fresh.water or salt-water fisi 

ha1f.coirup( llate of cun on account a 

tlish. _The dietetic Uieoiy of the cause of lepios] 

itensified by desceni anj 
)d by tho4e tActeJiologisIs 

ismiiiiniE leprosy by infection. An acquired or 
111 that leprosy is seldom prodnc 


i. In antiquity this disease was specially, and indeed 
eiclusitely, associated with Egypt^ ' circum llumina 
■ ni^j>n> f^''' ■ ■ ■ neque praterea usquam,' says 
•:,™*^ Lucretius (8»„/). Perhaps the li ml u- 
OfiBprotT- lion was only because other counlries were 
less familiar ground. Herodotus does not mention 
leprosy in Egypt ; but he saj-s enough {2^^) on the use 
of uncooked fish and on the w.iys of curing fish, fowl, 
and other animal food, 10 make leprosy probable accord- 
ing to the etiological theory. On the other hand, he 
mentions (lisS) a certain skin-disease of the Persians, 
\e6iai. sullerers from which were obliged to live outside 
the towns. In a passage of Hippocrates (Progn. (14) 
this white malady is one of a group of three skin-diseases 
' — \tiX^nt Kal \irpai lol XtuKiu. A high antiquit/ is 
assigned lo leprosy in KgypI by certain legends of the 
Exodus, which are preserved by late Greek writers 
(especially the Egyptian priest Maaelho) known lo us 
from Josephus's elatx>ra[e reply lo them in his apology 
for Judaism (Contr. Af. 1i6m; cp\\A). Cp 
Exoous, I 7. 

One form of the legend is thai leprous and other impure 
persons, to the number of were separated out and sent to 
....-_ .^. _.-_.. ._ mj„ e. of the Nile. Ihal they were 
, and that Moses became their leader. 
Ihe Jews in E™[ were ' leprous and 
rtain other kinds of distempers, Ihal 

scabby < 
ihey bei 

Behind these legends Iher 

t This appean 10 be alluded to in 1 
in the knees and legs is speciAcally n 

ually got rid of-lhe lepioos 

is the probability that Ihe 



enslaved populalion of Egypt, occupied wilh (breed 
labour in the Delia, would have been specially subject 
to those endemic influences (including the dielElic) which 
gave Ihe country ao 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 Inie leprosy in 
the early history of Israel, no extra 'biblical reference to 
it in Palestine occurs until the first century RC. The 
army of Pompey was said to have brought leprosy to 
Italy, for the first time, on reluming from the Syrian 
campaign of 63 B.C (cp Plut. S^mf.79); which should 
mean, at least, that the disease was then prevalent in 
Syria, as it has probably so remained continuously to the 
presentlime(comniunitiesof lepers at Jerusalem, Niblus, 
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. 12io/, 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 
Benbadad (aK.Tj) are sufficiently like the groups of 
lepers under a ban in mediteval and modem times. On 
the other hand, the leprosy ascribed to Naanian(2 K. S], 
who had perfect freedom of intercourse with his people. 
looks like some more tractable skin^diseaje. Nor is it 
perhaps unlikely 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 affinilies. 
Thus Pausanias(v. 611. Fraier} tells us that 'in Samicum. 
not fat 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 sacrihce. 
whatever it may be. Then he wipes the diseased parts 
of his body, and swimming through (he river lenves his 
old uncleanness in ihe water and comes out whole and 
of one colour.' The other OT case is that of king 
Uzziah (or Aiariah), who was a leper unto the day of 
his death, dwelling in a ■ several house ' ' (aK. 16;/); 
he w.TS stricken beciuse he encronched upon the pre- 
rogative of the priesthood {3 Ch. 2fli6->3). 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 hisBHi* ^ro* (1843), 
p. 169/. One of these may help to justify the references 
to dreams and (perhaps) suffocation in Job 7 14/ 
•During sleep,' s^'s Ibn Slna (Avieenna), 'frequent atra- 
bilious dreams appear. Breathing becomes so difficult 
(hat asthma sets in. and the highest degree of hoarseness 
is reached. U is often necessary 10 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. 109 It would seem that the cleans- 
ing of lepers was regarded as specially a work of Jesus' 
disciples. There is a striking description of Ihe cleans- 
ing of a leper by Jesus himself in Mk. 1 40-44 (cp Ml. 
81-4 Lk. 519-14). 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 I,evitical law of 
the leper (Lev. 144-10). There is no touch recorded in 
Lk.lTii-ig. however, where the ten lepers are told 10 show 
themselves to the priests, and are cleansed on the way. 
The Lazarus of Lk.l6» is only called eUiu^roi-t.f., 
' ulcerated.' li became usual, however, to regard him as 
the representative of lepers ; and in the medieval church 
the ' parabolic ' Liiairus of Lk. and the ' real ' Lazarus of 
Jn. 11 were both alike (or perhaps conjointly) associated 
with leprosy. Hence lepers were called laiars. and the 



Lacarus of Jn. became a patron saint of leper-houses (as 
in the dedication of the great leper hospital at Sherbum. 

Mar)»and Martha). It was perhaps with reference to 
the Latarus whom Jesus loved that lasarts or Uprosi 
were otherwise called pauftrts Christi (lath and 13th 
cent. ). C. C. 

LE8HEH (D|^ ; Accgm and Aecgn {\m) [A], 
A&)EIC and Xi,CENN (A&k) [B]. Xecen (&&n){L]). the 
name of the northern city Dan, according to Josh, 1947- 

Probably il thould nlhcr be LaJilm, aitoihtr fomi of Laish 
cp OfS ftooi b:f. So Wellh. J4 



LE8BAO (Xecc&OY IM). aMacc, l*.s RV, AV 
Dessau {j.v.). 

LETHECH (lO^), Hos.3a EV"ir., EV Hau 
Homer. See Weights and Measures. 

LL'i'i'KU (19P< 3 S. 11 14, etc. : emCTOAH, Acts 
SSij). See Epistolart Literature, Writing. 

LETTU8 (ATTO-rc [A]), i Esd.Sig. RV Attus = 
EiraS», Hattush (1). 

LETUBHUI (Dt?)Q^ i A&T0tCl6lM[AEL].-pi6iM 
[D]. and Lmnuulm (D'SK^: AouMeiM[A], -a\ein 
[DE]. -MIEIM [L]). sons of Dedan (Gen. 25 j), the third 
in MT being Asshurim. In S five sons ate assigned 
to Dedan : pa-ysuiiX ([AEL] — i.t., Siiivn, see Reuel; 
paaov [r,\] [D]), rafiiti,\ ([ADEL]^ i.t.. SiBiii— Ad- 
BEEL). arovpiii. Xarowrm^i, \auiUiH. In i Ch.ljj the 
sons of Dedan are omitted in MT and 6, except by «* 
which enumerates five, as above. Criticism has not 
yet led to definite results as to any one of the three 
sons of Dedan. If. however, we are right in restoring 
the doubtful text of Gen. 106 thus : '—• And Ihe sons of 
Jerahmeel ; Cush, and Miirim. and Zatephath. and 
l^ain.' and if jf)^. 'Jokshan' in Gen.S&a/. is mis- 
written for ]^, 'Ciishan' = ^, Cush' (the N. Arabian 
Kui), we may conjecture that dtipk is an eipansion 
of o-nr (Suram or Surimj-i.e., mir) (GeSurfim or 
GeS.lrfml—that oirvh comes from Dnv'<£, and ultimately 
from DnB'^ = Dne'1K (Sarephith9m or Serephalhtm), and 
that c("bn'? comes from oSxCfrr (Jerahme'alflm or Jerah- 
me'eiim). Thus the main difficultieso'f thelwo Dedaniie 
genealogies are removed. For another possible occur- 
rence of the (corrupt) ethnic ['Isf, see TUBAL-CAIN. 

The Tgg. and ler. (e»«r. mnd'b'm^.} u«une ih< ihr« 

of lif^ of diffeKnt branchH of th( DnJuniln (<i! 
Stcinii, let anicles in SL, and cp MargoiiiH. 
DB B991*). For other gueues t« IXllnunn • 

LE7I ("li ; mrMf. •!•« JfYttlic [AE]. •■•» 
AeyeiNi 4 Macc.219). I. Jacob's third son bv I^eah, 
Gen, 2934 (J)- The story in Gent-sis (I.e. ) ri-couls a 
popular etymology connecting Levi with rrh, Idvdh, 
•to be joined' (cp Eccles.Sis); see also Nu,'l8i4(P), 
where il is said Ihe tribe of Levi will ' join ilself ' 
10 Aaron, Some modem critics loo support this con- 
nexion. ThusLagarde(0j-.2ao; .l/;Vi'4. 1 5,^)explains 
'Levi 'as 'one that attaches himself ' If so, the Levi tcs 
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 Daudissin* 
{Pritslirlhum, ji, a. 1). Land, however [Dc Gidt. 
Nov. 1871, p. 344, n.), eipbins iial Levi as 'sonsot 
conversion' — i.*.. the party of a reaction to primitive 
nomad religion. But it appears impossible to treat -iS 
(Levi) (IS an adjective, against the analc^y of all the other 
names of Israelitish tribes, and especially against that 

1 S™ Cush, Pitt, ind Crit. Bit. 

s lS, a Hrvinl of the uncluary, ftDn iS^nlS. withabsinct 
jr collecuve lignilicatiDn, ' Beglcilung, Folge, Gefotgicliift.' 



of Simeon and Reuben, and Gesenius' 
rendering of ' Levi ' (■ assoclatio ') can hardly now be 
quoted in su[^>ort of Land's iheoiy. If 'Levi' is 
original il may be besi regarded as Ibe gentilic of Leah 
<so We. /Vo/. Hi, ij6; StZATiV It,t[ie8i]) ; NaPH- 
TALI (cp CrU. Bit.), if an ethnic, may be adduced as 

» name «cuning twice ia ibe (enealngy of Jam (Lit. 

)<). Sec (CneniryGBHBAUJCIIsii.,! }/ 

3. A disciple of Jesus, 'called' when al the loll-olfice 

(reXiiHar), son of Alphxus [Mk.J, Mk.2,4 Lk.S>7t 

(Xtvta, accus. [Ti, WH] : cp Mt.S, [call of MallhewJ ). 

Three courses are open 10 us. 

(i) 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 rvame, as Peter superseded Simon. 
Yhc SDpposilion that be had Vt.a names might pass; 
but Ihe view that one of them was lieslowed by JeSui 
^peais haiardons. There is no evidence that the name 
Matthew, ihe meaning of which is still disputed, vaa 
regarded in the evangelic traditions as having any special 
appropriateness to its bearer. Il might lie better to 
conjecture with Delilisch (Riehm, //H'^iD.gig j) that 
the full name of the disciple who was called from the 
loll-oflice was Matthew, son of AlphKus, the Leviie 
('!^) ; *T A*^ * )*. 'Joses who was sumamed Barnabas, 
a Levite.' Il is al any rate in bvour of Ihe identilication 
of Levi and Matthew thai the circumstances of the call 
of Levi agree eiaclly with those of Ihe call ai Mallhew ; 
'Levi'and 'Maithew'are both in Ihe Capernaum loll- 
office when the thrilling speech ' Follow me ■ is addressed 
to them. Musi not the same person be intended? May 
nol' Levi 'be an earlier name of 'Matthew'? So. among 
modems, Meyer. Olshauien, Holtimann. 

(a) We may suppose thai whilst Ihe same fact is 
relaled both by Mil. and Lk., and by Ml.. Ihe name of 
the man who was called by Jesus was given by Ml. as 
Matthew by mistake, the auihor or redactor of our 
first gospel having idenlihed Ihe litlle-known Levi with 
the well-known aposile Matthew, who may very possibly 
have been a rikiinfi (EV 'publican'), and was at any 
rale regarded by the evangelist as such (so Sieftert, 
Ew., Keim [y/iu ixm A-a.ara. 2;..,]). We know how 
much Ihe Tt\ani were attracted to Jesus (note Ml. 
»,D Mk.2ij Lk. K, ]9i/); it is very possible that 
more than one may have been found worthy to be ad- 
It has been pointed out by LIpsius {Apotr. Aposlel- 
giickiiUtit) that the fusion of Levi and Mallhew is 
characteristic of later wrlleis. la the Meaghgia 
Manhew is called a son of Alphseus and a brother of 
James, and in the Bttvierimn Apetlolortim il is said 
of Matthew. ' Hie eliam ex tribu sua Levi sumpsit cog- 
Domenlum.' On Ihe other hand, Lipsius (1 94) mentions 
> Paiis MS of Ihe gospels (Colelier, Pixtrei Apost. 1 9,1) 
which ideutilies the Levi of Mfc. with Thaddieus and 
Lthtaus. and Lk.'s Judas of James. In the Syriac Book 
ef Ihe Bir {Anndela Oxon.. Sem. ser., i., part ii.. ed. and 
transl. by Budge) il is said (chap. 48, p. iia) that Levi 
was slain by Chamius 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 
loiDcwhai neglected point of view. Il will be admilied 
thai iranscrilwrs and translators of Hebrew or Aramaic 
Dames were liable to many mistakes. Now 'AX^oroi 
(cp AlfKiCUS and Heleph) represents most probably 
•trr-vt (a derivative of KeS'II, 'ship'?). Surely it Is very 
possible that the initial letters 'H may have become illeg- 
ible in the document upon which Mt. B9 ff. is based. 

89 a, 3769 


There remains *eS, which in Aramaic Hebrew characters 
might easily be mistaken for <<:■ — ij., Levi. The original 
narrative very possibly had 'Ilphai the son of llphai' 
by a scribe's error for ' MaiLai tlie son of Ilphai'; and 
il is open to us to hold that Xe^^awi ^ Sin. 'to'? 
(Dalman) has also arisen by comiption out of ■e'T<N. 
Cp Lebb«us, 

That ' Levi ' appun in the Talmud u a lume of Rabbii does 

Leviathan; CiK)conil.E) is described in Job 41 [40ij- 
41]. The last iwo verses of Ihe description (4l3j[,j]) 
have been misread (cp LION) and therefore misunder- 
stood,' 'Who is made without fear' is a very quesiton- 
able Tendering; read ' , . . to be lord ol ihe lieasls.' 
changing rn"'>3'? into ryi "ija^. There is an exacl 
parallel to this in Job40ig, where Behemoth, if we 
adopt a necessary critical emendation, is described as 

I'lan V;^). Among the other passages which refer lo 
Leviathan is Ps. 1IM»6, where 'there go the ships' is 
unsuitable to the conteil. ni'iti. 'ships' should cer- 
tainly be □•j':r, ' dragons ' (Ps. 74 13 148 j : K and n con- 
founded ; cp Judg.i^si), and at Ihe close ol the verse 
i3"pnl'':' should probably be otrjj^. The psalmist found 
this reading in his copy of Job (a< *« 19). unless indeed 
we suppose that he read there •i'^'rV'. and copied Ihe 
phrase which the Hebrew leit (MT and 6] now gives 
in Ps. 104 16. The verse becomes ' There dragons move 
along; (yea). Leviathan whom thou didst appoint ruler 
therein ' ; '3 reiers to o;t (v. jj). T. K. C. 

LETUUTX. See Marriage. } B. 

LBTU. (A6YIC [A]),iEsd.9i,-Eml0.s,'Levite,' 


LEVITM. The Leviles (0^^; A6Y[e]lT6ll are 

defined according lo Ihe usual methods of Hebrew genea- 

logictU history as the descendanls of Levi 

1. SMvUr (Uen.2934);hencelheirolhername'b'ne 
*''**■ Levi' (-l^ •13), In Hebrew genealogies, 
however, we are not necessarily entitled 10 look 
upon the eponym of a tribe as more than an ideal 
personalily. Indeed, the only narrative In which, on 
a literal Inlcrprelation. Levi appears as a person 
(Gen, 34). bears internal evidence of the intention of 
Uie auihor lo delineate under Ihe form of person ificai ion 
events in Ihe history of the tribes ol Levi and Simeon 

in Canaan.a The same events are alluded to in Gen. 
49s.j, where Simeon and Levi are plainly spoken ol as 
communities with a communal assembly (/^'ihil, ^^jj| ; 
see ASSEMBLV, col. 345. 

Simeon >nd Levi wen allied Iiibet or 'brolhen': Iheir 
DDsliughi on Ibe Rhechemiiet wu condemned by Ihe r»T of 


s of this 

f Ihe 

Hebrew history 1 
Simeon) ; Gen. ,'(4 does not really place them in so clea 
a light as Ihe briefer reference in On. 41); tor the forme 
chapter has been recast and largely added lo by a lat 
writer, who looks upon the aclion of Ihe brethren In th 
light of Ihe priestly legislation, and judges it much mor 
favourably than is done in Gen. 4(). In posl-canonlca 
Judaism the favourable view of Ihe real of Levi an< 

' The criticsl emntdatioai are due to Gunkel. Cieiebrechi 



Simeon becomes slilt more daminanl (Judilh,!)}/; Bk. 
of Jubilees, chap.30, and espeoiallyTheodolus, a;!. Poly- 
hislor. in MUiler's t'ragm.Z tiT f.), and Ihe cutse of 
Jacob on Ihe ferocity of Ills sons is quite forgotten.! in 
Ihe oldest history, however, Ihe treachery of Levi and 
Simeon towards a community which had received the 
right of eoHHubium wiih Israel is represented as a crime, 

e posiiii 

ol Die 

le tnbes direclly involved. 
Whiisl. however. Ihe Levitei were scattered Ihrough- 

i3?^ the blessing of Moses (Dl. 33), where 

*"'*•■ Simeon is passed over, Levi still appears, 

the priesthood. The priesthood meant is that of the 
northern kingdom under ihe dynasty of Jehu (on the dale 
of the chapter, sec Deuteronomy, § a6J ; and in fact we 
know Ihat the priests of Ihe important northern sanctuary 
ofDanlracedlheirorigintoaLevite (Judg. 17 9), Jona- 
than the son of Gershora. the son of Moses (Judg. I« jo).» 
That the Judjean priesthood were also known as Levites 
In the later limes of the kingdom appears from Ihe book 
of Deuteronomy, especially from 108/ )8i/; and we 
learn from Eiek. 44 id/ that the Judiean Levites 

™ple, but ir 

bed byjosiah. 

Ihe priests of the kical high placei 
ll nuLV even be conjeccured, with i 

LeviiesnikeiheremninunfiheclQM., . 

had ariginally ictiled in Judah and only Endiully Dfierwaidi 
ipmd ilieinMliet northvardt. Micah'i Levile, u we know, 
wuCiuo Bclhlehcm-JudahOudg. i;7),> BuicpMiCAHi., 3. 

Alike in Judah and in Ihe N. the priestly prerogative 
of Levi was traced back to the days of Moses (Dt 108 
338) :* but in later times at least the Judiean prieslhood 

colleagues (i K. 12 j,)- 1' musl. however, be observed 
that Ihe prophets Amos and Hosea never speak of the 
northern priesthood as illegilimale, and Hos. 4 certainly 
implies the opposite. Presumably it was only after the 
tall of Samaria, and Ihe introduction of large foreign 
elements into the population of the N.. that the southern 
priests began to disavow the ministers of the sanctuaries 
ol Samaria, most of whom can no longer have been 
representatives of the old priesthood as it was before 
Ihe nonhem captivity (aK. IT tS Judg. 18 ja aK.33ia, 

in the most develvpcd-form of the hierarchical system 
the minislers of the sanctuary arc divided into two 
X Tjivltaa evades. All are regarded as Invites by 
.L «,^ '''«"' '"T. '#■• Ex. e,5) ; but ibe mass 
taA priMta. ^f ,1,^ Le^,„ 3^ „^„ subordinate 
minisleis not entitled to approach Ihe altar or perform 
any strictly priestly function, and the true priesthood is 
confined to Ihe drscendanls of Aaron. In the docu- 
ments which reveal to us the actual state of the priest- 
hood in the northern and soulhem kingdoms before Ihe 
exile, there is no trace of Ihis distinction. 

Perhaps, indeed, it must be conceded to Van Hoonacker 
(195/) and Raudissin {TL7.. 1699. p. 363; cp also his 
Gach. d. All. PruilrrtHms. 113) thai Eliekicl has taken 
over from the phraseolojiy of the lemple of Jerusalem 
the distinction between ' the priests, Ihe keepers of the 
chai^ of the house,' and " the priests, the keepers of 
the charge ol the altar,' which he refers to as already 

' AceoidinB 10 WdlhauKn't analyu. (707- II 4« / 1 , the old 
nainiive consiited of Gen. K4 3 j* 11/ •» »S/.* JoA 'he 
BUeiiik denoting that only paru of the vctui marked tn; <l are 

inwhichthcoppixiWTiiwarnillniann (€rnfiii,aii/<v.) niullj 
Rfutsd. Cpar«>CotBill,J?.47'fC.ig9i.pp.i-is,udHoli>nger^ 
and Cunkeri comDwnuTMt, ad /or. 

> Cp Biiddc, Ctmm. » Hi. 11} iiS. ' S« alu Gihialociu 
" * f Fm I'h* difficult ^yon nad with Bali, PS3A , 1896, p 
"J, n'?on, thy iovingkindneMa.] 


existing; but as againil Van Hoonacker, Baudissin 
observes with justice that we are not entitled to infer 
from this that Eiekiel Is aware of a distinction be- 
tween priests (sons of Zadok, or of Aaron) and Levites: 
on the contrary, in 40 4$ he uses the designation ' priests ' 
lor those whom he elsewhere calls ' Levites ' (44 ,0/. 14 
46 j). It is better to say that every Invite is a priest, 
or at least is qualified 10 become such (Di. lOs I87). 

ilwy were 

ciacd ronlKnen ( tiek. +4 j/) . A l*.ilicil priau wu • legin- 
male pneil. When Ihe author of 1 K. 1« 31 withei u> reprwnl 
Jerohcam'i priMH aa illegal hecodltmihiniMlfwilliuyinK ihal 
thejF were 001 aiceo Irom ihe loni of l-evi. The lini hittorical 
iiact of a moditication of thiiiialc of Ihinga ii found in iMnncc- 
tion with the auppretaian of the local high piacei by Joaiah, when 
tlicir pTiHU wete brought to Jeruaalem and received iheii auppon 
from the lample oAeTinet, but were oat peraiiited to miaialcr at 

The priesls of Ihe lemple, Ihe sons of Zadok. were 
not prepared to concede to their provincial brethren all 
A Tjinntrv '''= privil^es which Dt. 18 had proposed 
^^ In compensation forthelossoflheirloeal 
.*"•"■■ mlnishy. Ewkiel. aller the lall o( Ihe 
temple. In planning a scheme of ritual lor the new 
lemple, raises the practical exclusion from the altar 10 
the rank of a principle. In the new lempde Ihe Levites 
who had ministered before the local aliars shall be 
punished by exclusion from proper priestly work, and 
shall lill Ihe subordinate offices of Ihe sanctuary, in place 
of the foreigners who had hitherto occupied them, but 
shall not be permitted to pollute Yahwt's house in 
future by their presence (EieL447/:). In the post- 
exilic period Ibis principle was actually carried out; 
priests and Levites arc distinguished in Ihe list in 
Ejra2, Neh. T, I Esd.0: but the priests, that is. the 
descendants of the pre^xillc priests of Ihe royal 
temple, greatly oumumber the Levites or descendants 
ol the priests of the high places (cp iiira 8 1;^.)- Nor 
is this at all surprising, if it lie remembered that llie 
duties falling 10 Leviies in the temple had littie that 
was attractive about them, whilst as long as they re- 
mained in exile the inferiority of their position would be 

At ll 


.. the 

igera, the poriers, the Nethikim and other slaves of 
a at _ Mn Ihe sanctuary (but cpSoLOMON's Srr- 
D. Bi^ vants, Children of), whose heredi- 
tary service would, on Eastern principles, give them a 
pre-eminence over other slaves of ihe sanctuary, are also 
still distinguished from the Levites: but these distinctions 
losi their signihcance when the word Leviie itself came to 
ibotdinate minister. In Ihe time of Nehemiah, 

and si 

(Neh. 11 /., see Pi)KTERS),and the absorp- 
tion of the other classes of subordinate ministers into the 
hereditary guild ol 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 Nethlnlm. from 
the ancient stock of Levi Cp Geneai.ogies 1,^7 (ii.). 
The new hierarchical system found its legal liasis In 
ttie priestly legislation, first publicly accepted as an 
a B^ (I integral pait of the Toriih under Ezra 
^Ji!?^l™ ="'' Nehemiah (ISRAEL. 5 59)- Here 
UgUUUon. ,f^ exclusion of the Levites from all 
share in the proper priesthood of Ihe 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 (35). 
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 


y Google 


grade of holiness than Ihe mass of the people. This 
superiority ol posilion finds its jusiilicallon in the 
artilicial ibeonr that ihey are a suTTOgale for the male 
first-born of Israel, mho, belonging of right to Yahwd, 
are handed over by the nation to Ihe priests (cp FIRST- 
BORN, col. 15:16). 

The Levites are endowed with Ihe tilhes, of which in 
turn Ihey pay a lithe Id the priests (Nu. 18 ii/l). These 
reeulatioiu as 10 Ijlhes were enlbtced by Nehemiah^ 
bui Ihe subordinate posilion of the Levites was hardly 
consisieni with their permanenl enjoyment of revenues 
of luch importance, and wc learn from the Talmud that 
these were finally transferred to the priests, Cp TAXA- 

Another provision of the law— i.*., the assignment to 
the Levites of certain cilies with a definite measure of 
inalienable pasture-ground (Nu. 3B Lev. 20 34) — was ap- 
parently never put in force after Ihe exile. It cannot be 
reconciled with the prohibition against the holding of 
ptopeny In virtue of which Ihe Levites in common wilh 
the oiber needy classes are commended to Ihe com- 
passion of the charitable. 

Tbii piahibitiao ii cleirly eipieMed id Ihe uiae priHtiy 
l^bUnon{Nu.l»»M6j). and, particularly in p. See /,/;., 


:p Gen. t 

d HoloB 

ive lofelher. Jwh. ii (P), 1 1 

d in lupport of ihe prohibinon- It ihould bf 

k lilt quite i«e, and Ihal some of them wei 
#^ rhvt rhe QBtlurc-laDd auigned to one c 
. ablEDtd Vt itB neighbour {rj 

luve incUkii'^Raf iht^'c 



HammothHjor ,. 

SttDlJi/Mm-Diuf.; So^. HA i iig: Addij. f/tJr.l^/. 

As the priestly legislation carried iis ordinances back 
into the time of Moses, so the later developments of 
the Levilical service as known in the lime of Ihe 
Chronicler (on the dale, see HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 
} 157) are referred by that author 10 David (i Ch. 10 16 
23) or 10 Heiekiah (3 Ch.29) and Josiah (a Ch.Xl) : and 
by a similar projection of post-exilic conditions into pre- 
exilic times, we find, among other modificalions of the 
original leit (such as i S. 6 15 2 S. 15 14 i K. 84), various 
individuals who had been prominent in coniwction with 
■nailers of wonhip invested with Ihe characler of 
Levites; this has lieen done not only in the case of 
Samuel (comp. i S, 1 . with i Ch. 6 „/ ig/l), but even 
in Ihal of a foreigner like Obed-edom of Gath.» The 
chief point is the development of the musical service of 
the temple, which has no place in Ihe Pentateuch, but 
afterwards came 10 be of the first Importance (as we see 
from Ihe Psaller) and attracted Ihe special attention of 
Gieek observeis (Theophrastus, tif. Porph. Dt AiiUii, 

For Ihe reconstniction of Ihe post-exilic history of the 
relation of Levites lo priests, we are Ihrown for Ihe 

dartlopnat. •"^'>"^'°B^- Vogelsiein has used with 
*^^ conspicuous acuteness. He supposes 
thai the period of prosperity enjoyed by the Levites 
tinder E^ra and Nehemiah was followed by one of 
threatening collapse against which Ihey sought — and with 
■access — to defend themselves byalliance with Ihe Singers 
and doorkeepers. The excessive pretensions of Ihe 
party thus reinforced, however, led to renewed adversity 
(.Su. Ifi), after which Ihey were ullimately able, by 
peaceful means (cp the work of Ihe Chronicler), to 

'See Mist 

i. MaSaitr SU^J, 

- -,. tiitJtrHutrm 

C/mttrv <ili» of Schwab's translation)! YHllmllli /. Ka, 
KHkihHk./.^lia: Sitl.» •ti.Camor, AMarafit tiil.-cril., 
174B, p. 614; and Hotlinier, Dr DrciMiiJuii.,ijii, gS9 17; 

GBNBAUWias L. 1 7 (v.) end.] 

establish a tolerable mudiit Vivendi. Vogelstein's attempt 
is lo lie accepted at least 10 this extent: it has con- 
clusively shown that the post-exilic history of the Levites 
did not proceed in a slntight line, eiiher upwards or — 
as Van Hoonacker has tried 10 make out — downwards. 

The Levil. 

compleie iaiignincance al Ihe 
at ibe doK of the or period ; 
appropriaKly called atlenlian 
onFyinLk. IHm Jn. I i^and 

Ihe .\T Ihey are menlione 

Actj4i6. If, 


(for Ihe most pan coinparable la 

be observed, and he adds the suegestion, well worthy of 
allenlion. Ihai this faci, coiiT>led wiihihe ultimaK ftubDrdini- 
lioD of the Lcviiea lo (he singers and porters, points 10 Ihe 

Whibi it is not diflicult lo trace Ihe history of Ihe 
■ — 111, , Levites from Ihe time of the blessing 

^^'S^'.^lii prieslly iribe wiih the eailiet fortunes 
pile«l7 lllte. J, n^'^j^ „, j^., „, |^„ „ J, 

determined wilh any certainty. 

According to the traditional view, Ihe scheme of Ihe 
Levilical legislation, wilh its double hierarchy of priests 
and Levites. was of Mosaic ordinance, lliere is too 
much evidence, however, thai in Ihe PenOUeuch, as we 
possess it, divergent ordinances, dating from very 
diffeitnt ages, are all carried back by means of a 
legal convention 10 the lime of the wilderness journey 
(cp HEXATEUCH). If, loo, the complete hierarchical 
theory as held in posntiilic times was really ancient, 
it is inexplicable that all trace ol ii was so com- 
pletely lost in the time of ihe monarchy, that 
Ezeklel speaks of Ihe degradation of Ihe non-Zadokite 
Leviies as a new thing and as a punishment for 
their share in Ihe sin of the high places, and Ihal no 
clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between 
priests and Levites has tieen found in any of the 
Hebrew writings that are demonstiably earlier than Ihe 
exile.' li has indeed been argued that (i) ihe lisl of 
Levilical cities in Josh. 21, and (3) Ihe narrative of Ihe 
rebellion of Korah imfrfy that the precepts o( ihe post- 
exilic law were practically already recognized; but (1) 
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 aHerwards, or, if occu- 
pied, were not held by Levites. 

The Levilical citiei of lodiua are indeed largely idenlical with 
ancieni holy citin (Hebron. Shechem. Mlhanaim, etc.) : but in 
sncienl Israel a holy city wu one vhich poHeued ■ noted 

course. Ibeii local prietihnodii, which in the lime of Ihe mon- 
archy weir all cilled UviiicaU and it is only in this tense, not 
in that of Ihe priestly legiilmtion, dui a town like Shechem can 
ever have been Levitical! 
(9) So again, the narrative ol Korah has proved on 


irigin ; 

rebellion against the priesthood of Aaron belong to a 
late date, and Ihe original form of Ihe history knows 
nothing of Ihe later hierarchical system (see Korah ii). 

■ TLZ. .Bm, 
■Def. ' 

f 'i Jf 'hi 




fa'tt dale^'^Ke L ... . ...,._ 

' the Leviit priests (bui « oi i<p>i<>ci 
Levitical ministry. 


., the lale^l being Van 

evidence in T K. « f 

■-, did not read the cliui 
,' and the Chronicler rei 

BUilicatioB of ptiesdy ar 



It hu thus become Impossible to enleruio Ihe idea oF 

carrying back Ihe dtslinction of Levtics and Aaronites 

fl AttanutiTB '" '*" ^'"^' Mnse lo an early dale. 

tSoTT *• caonol use the priestly pans ol 

'""''■ Ihe Pentaieuch and Joshua as a source 

(or (he earliest history. It is probable, however (note 

Ihe case of Micah's Levite in Judg. IT/.).' thai the kin 

of Moses had a oeilain hereditary prerogative in eonnec- 

lion with the worship of Yahwft (cp Dl. 10 8). 

s the 

miy ir, e, 

if Levite 

yhad r 

iss of Ihe tri' 
in early daU 

e of 

e might vety well con 

with those of the tribe who traced 
: remained by the sanctuary, Cp 
Muses, i 5. The muilipiicalion of Hebrew holy 
places was effected panly by syocTelism with the 
Canaaniles, partly in other ways that had nothing to 
do wiih a central sanctuary, and so arose a variety of 
priestly guilds which certainly cannot have been all of 
Leviticai descent 

It lA poiublCt perhaps, that in tome caiea whcie Canaan- 
ile unctuanei wen taken over by the Israeliici cenain 

.• :„ -_:._.i.. r — !i!.. .j^j jj^^ qonttiwd to rtuin 

_.., Whtlher enn Zidok himielf, 

rruulcm priuthood, wat of LevUical origin 

in of the prieHly office. 


n, Ihe I 


As Ihe nation was consolidated and a uniform system 
of sacred law (referred to Moses as its originalor) came 
to be admlnisiered all over Ihe land, in ihe hands 
of Ihe ministers of Ihe greater sanctuaries, the various 
guiltls may have been drawn ic^iher and have aimed 
at forming such a united body as we find described in 
DL .13.' This unity would find a natural expression in 
the exlension of ihe name of Levilcs 10 all priesthoods 
recogniiod by Ihe Slale — in Ex. 4 14 ' Levite ' is simply 
equivalent to a professional designallon. If this was 
Ihe course of things we can hardly suppose ihat the 
term came into large use till Ihe Israelites were con- 
solidated under the monarchy, and in bd the integrity 

open lo question (cp ARK). Down to Ihe lime of 
David and Jeroboam, as appears from the cases ol 
Samuel. Zadok, Eleazer (iS. well as from i K. 
1231, the priesthood was nol essentially hereditary; 
but, like all occupalions Ihat 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 alio, douhIlei>, Ihe gral number of ihe prieils at Nob, 
who are recVoned u of Ihe family of Ahimclech. but can hardly 
-" -' ■' ' 'Jenpemonally related to him, a 10 be taken 

ai evidence 

family u de 

of ih 


> ITw 

idea of officii Riaiionship to thai of relationthip by blood. 

Wellhausen (Pro!, ('I, 139 /I) has argued from DU 
33$ that the norlhem priesthood was nol an hereditary 
guild, but involved the surrender of all family con- 

unrlerstood as praise of the judicial impartiality which 
refused to be influenced by family ties. Our data 
are too scanty to clear up Ihe details of this interesting 
piece of history; but it can hardly be doubled Ihat the 
development of a consolidated and hereditary prieslly 
corporation in all Ihe sanctuaries was closely bound up 
with Ihe unification of the slate and the absorption of 
tribal organisation in the monarchy. The reaction of 

> See MictH, 1. Add alio thit of the fwnilv of Eli, i S. 
«.,/: cpEu,jE»»HMBaL.f 3(end). 

* Cp Ex. Si 13-19, a niaied pau^ge, doubtless secondary, 
vhich reads like Bcomnieniaiy to Di.»l9. In it the choice of 

(pouibly hiitorical) action of vigorom faith on the part of the 
lello>-trib«inen of Ma*e< [cp Massah and MuubahI. 

• Cp Bcuiogcr, /fA 409. 

tribal feeling against the central Govemn>enl, of which 
there are many traces in the history of Eiphraim, has 
perhaps its counterpart in the opposition 10 the unified 
priesthood which is alluded to in Di. ^tUn.' 

1 of ll 

n the 


KuetKD's refutation of the theory of Land, nfoi. 
Tijdschr. a, 1873, pp. 636^0: De Stam Levi, and 
Kaulisch, Thtot. :Siud. u. Krit. 1890, p. 771 / 

Graf, • ZurGnchichie de> Siemnei Uvi.'in Mer^-j Arckfv. 
I (ig69)>6: 308.1364 Sftiit,GVI liji>: Seefunherihc 
lileraluie cited under Phihsts Av. R. S.-A. B. 

LETinCAI. CIIIBS. See Levites, ;K B. 


Name and contents ( 
Source. (H 1, «). 
P in Lev. «-lu (I ,). 

Chips. i;.M: CoDH 

I. Oiher lemaint of H (4 14). 

Sources of H (J .s) 
Ch»^<eri(ticsafH(f >6}. 
Unity 0( mlacion <t 'j). 
H'. lelalion lo Dt. trek. P 
Mmeni (5i ,8.30), 

Chap, r, (i jt). 

H(« C™p«5.ionofl.eviticui(i3i). 

Bibhoiiraphy (I jj). 

The name comes through Ihe Ijititi Laaticits (ic. 

libit) from the title in the Greek Bible, (to) ^CyU]!- 

1 n.n. •nj TIKON (sc BiBAiOn),* 'the l,e\'itical 

^,. book'-u..lhe part of the Pentateuch 

contautl. ,^,j^g ^f ,^^ hinctions of .he Ixvi.cs. 

'Leviticai' is here equivalent to 'sacerdotal,' — of the 

Levites in (he narrower sense the book has nothing to 

say — and (he name thus corresponds 10 the Hebrew 

tirrtth iffiHaiiH ia'p: r^i-ri), "llie priests' law,' in llie 

Talmud and Massotab.* In Jewish writings the book 

is more frequently cited by its firsl word, Uajjiirj 

It exclusively 

ritual p 

In the chronology of Ihe Pentateuch 1h>> Is 
were revealed lo Moses and Ihe events narrated occiin 
Ht Sinai in Ihe first month of the second vear ol ' 
exodus (between the first of Ihe first month. 'Ex. 40 1 
and Ihe first of the second month, Nu. 1 >) ; ■" L 
itself there ore no dates. 

The book begini wilh the ritual for the several ipecjei 
lacrilice. and Jcfma enset In which cenain ucnfices 
prcicribed (I-;): then bilow: the conitcislion of Asran : 
his tons: the punJihment of Nadib ind Abihu for a violil 

VBiiouK kinds and cau»et of unclennneu C1|.]A); ritual Cor 

tnl body of 
IS own ; iticy 

1 The aiiempt which has repeatedly been made to attach t 
verse to Ihe blettinR of ludali nay safely be regarded as 1 

'"'"philo'hf'Mlfi;.'',. ("^r P«.i rir. J/o. l-frt,. t 5. ; 
ir .i«'»«[>.6'A''"A^«.|«. See Ryle, /**il. a 
>jV. .m-3ii>lt, t }, fTiWifatiUii, 3]«; Matitrak Map 

tOrigeo in Euieb. HE < 
• S« ^JmDua, f 3, vik, Nuuan 

: JcK 

, Prtl. Gtl. Sec 


have been redacted — probably by more than one hand 
— in ihe spirit of the priestly scribes, but not wholly 
conronned to P. much less made an integral part of il.1 
Nor is the remainder homogeneous: H-10 belong to 
the hisloiy of the sacred instilulions ; ^ K is the 
fulfilment of the command to Moses In Ex. 40 11-14. ^^'^ 
should immediately follow Ex. 40 i;-3S, from which it is 
now separated by the collection of lacrifidal laws In 
Lev. 1-7 ; 16 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; 
botti give intei^al evidence of compilation from In- 
dependent collections of larM and of extensive and 
repeated supplementation and redaction. Hie critical 
problems in Leviticus are, therefore, not less difficult 
nor less important than those presented by other books 
of the Heiateuch. 

We may best t>egin our invesligatioa with S-10. In 
Ex. 40 Moses is bidden to set up and dedicate the 

*"^"' The exeailion of the ibrmer pari of this 
command is related in Ex. 4O17.3B; of the latter in 
Lev. 8. It can scarcely be doubled that Ihe author 
of Ex. 40,,/: meant Lev. 8 to follow immediately. 
and, consequently, that Lev. 1-T, which now interrupt 

Tcdaclor. Lev. S describes the performance of ihe rites 
for the consecration and installation of priests prescribed 
in Ex. 29 i-n, and is related lo Ihal chapter exactly as 
Ex. as/: lo 25/; Ex. as/, have been found, how- 
ever, to be a later expansion of Ihe — probably very 
briel^account of the execution of the directions given 
to Mosesinffl/.' It follows that Lev. 8. also, belongs 
to ihe secondary slialum. and thb inference is con- 
firmed by internal evidence;* but, since Lev. S knows 
only one altar, it seems to represent one of Ihe earlier 
stages in Ihe formation of this stratum.* ff. loi n and 
}o are perhaps later glosses. 

Chap. S, the inaugural sacrifices, is Ihe oriipnal 
sequel of Ex. '2S-23 in the history of Israel's sacred 
institutions. It was probably separated from those 
chapters only by a short siatemeni that, after receiving 
these inslructions (and the tables of the testimony), 
Moses descended from Ihe mouni and did as Yahwft 
had bidden him ; this was superseded by the elaborate 
secondary narrative in Ex. 35-40 Lev. 8.« The hand 
of a redactor may be recognised In v. ■ ('the eighth 
day.' ' the elders of Israel ') and in the last verses (13/) ; 
some minor glosses may also be suspected. 

The death of Nadab and Abihn. 10 >.;. is the con- 
tinuation of 9 and from the same source. The in- 
junction forbidding Aaron and his surviving sons lo 
defile Ifiemselves by mourning (6/) is appropriately 
introduced in this place, and such a prohibiiion may 
have originally stood here; but the present form of Ihe 
verses is late (cp 21 lo-.j). Verses 8/ (cp Eiek. 44 1.) 
and ,0/ (cp 11 „ 20 95 Eiek. 44 aj/) 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 l)een lost. Verses 
ii-i; are a supplement lo 9 17a 91, and would naturally 
stand after 9 11 ; i«-ki is a very la(e passage of midrashic 
character,' suggested by the conflict between the pro- 
cedure ia 9 1; and the rule in 6 94-30. 

The chapters which precede the above (1-T) contain a 
coUectioii of laws on Ihe subject of sacritice. 

■ChilT-MtH) HK below,)] 13^; on the nlition of H to 

' Set HlSTOKCAL L1TB11ATU.B, ^ » 

><w Exodus ii.,is.ii. 
* Popper, Sii/liAiaf.g^j; 

• We. cm') n6; Kue. //«. ; 6. n. 
'We. CffCli^iKi- " - •' - - 
SiB; DiivcT, tntradS* 

: Ilillm. Ejiod. Lnil.\ 


TheKoiinpriK: buml oHciing (I); neatofrerin^ (!]: pe»» 

offering (a); liu offcimg (4); >in (ii«pu>) oHinng (a i.ij); 

ireipus aDcriDs |Ai4-<l7 [^tt-361). Tirltk 

4.0bsiw.l-T: of burnt olicriD((«S-ii(i-6l); meal oflennc 

SurlflciAl I0i4-'8i7->>|i; pi««i'nwalofleting(6i9-S} 

lawi.l [11-1611: im offetLog 1814-30 lij-i3|i: irei- 

Ihe pri«ii{ao/:); pe«ceoflerin^ C" ii-is); pioHibilion irf =>1. 

(i 18-34); «ubKriplioni,'3j/37/ 

In this collection of laws il will be observed Ihal 1-6 7 
[1^1 are addressed to the people; (J8[i]-7ii lo the 
priests. To this difference in the lilies corresponds in 
general the character of the laws: l-fi7 [I-A] prescribe 
what sacrifices and offerings the Israelite may bring, or 
under certain circumstances must bring; fia/. [1/.] 
deal with Ihe same classes of sacrifice, but with more 
reference lo the priests' functions and perquisiics. Chaps. 
1-7 are not, however, a uniiary code of sacrificial laws 
in two parts containing directions for the worshippers 
and Ihe priests respectively. The differeni order of the 
laws (the peace offering in Ihe 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.' elc), and, finally, the subscription, 
7)}, which belongs to Ihe second part only, show that 
6S [i)-T 11 formed a collection by themselves. 

Further examination shows thai neither part of 1-T is 
entirely homogeneous. Chaps. 1 (burnt offerings) and 
S Obap 1-67. ? *P"'^ offerings) are substantially 
a. uuBp. 1-07. ,„,3j,^ gn(j „jg g,„j examples ol 
relatively old sacrificial iorbth, 

Sliihl chinca have been ntide la nljuil the liwi to the 
hiiloncil theory of P : for ' Ihe pricft,' which tccmi to have been 
oKginally uMd Ihioushoul icp I g 11/ ic 17II II T6),lheRdacIor 
hu Kiaielinies tubiiiiulcd ' the urn of Alton' (ils8], moRfn- 
qgenily ' Aiion'i tons, the priem' (I 58 II 81; cp I7); 'he 
itfcRiKC 10 the 'leni armectiQg' (i 35818 13) ii alto ediloriil. 

Chap. 3 1-3 (meal offering) has some resemblance lo 
1 3, but is at least out of place where il stands — ;t should 
immediately follow 1 (cp \if. 3i); the rest of the 
chapter b differently formulated (and sing.; nole also 
'Aaron and his sons') and must Ik ascribed lo a 
different hand. 

C^ap. 4 (sin offering),* with its scale of victims and 
riles graduated according to Ihe rank of Ihe offerer, 
belongs to a class of laws which seems to be Ihe product 
of artificial elaboration in piieslly schools rather than 
10 represent ihe natural development ol Ihe ceremonial. 
The altar of Incense (j, cp iB) is a late addition 10 
the furniture of the tabernacle;' the rilual ol Ihe high 
priests' sin offering (3-11) is much more solemn than tha) 
of Ex. 29 10-14 L<". 9 S-ii (cp also 8 n.,j) ; the sin 
oflering of the congregation, which is elsewhere a goal 
(Oi; Nu. IS14, and even Lev. Iti), is here a bullock;* 
the same hetghlening of the propitiatory riles is noticed 
here as in Ihe oflering of the high priest. 

Although 5 I-I3 has no litle, it is nol the continuation 
of 4; it knows nothing of the diiiinclion of persons 
which is charade rislic of 4, and differs both in foimula- 
lion and in terminology— the very precise author of 4 
would nol have spoken of the victim as an 'aiam (S6/; 
cp 14/.)- The same reasons prevent us from regarding 
C 1-1} as on appendix to 4 by a still later hand.' In 
5 1-6 much diflicully is created by the apparent con- 
fusion ol hatlath and 'asam (' sin offering ' and ' trespass 
offering'), two species ol sacrifice which are elsewhere 
quite dislincL.' The verses seem also not to be a unit ; 
1/ is nol an analogous case 10 1 4, with which j/ are 

, usj*:; \\a%.ZWT 

ee Benheiu. Suhtn Gmfpin, etc., ii;,,... 

4164-181118611; KiMawn, Th.Ti,i,^iff.\\%r^y. HotTman 

mJluHgta, 184^, {(rom M7GI.. 1874), 

ee W*. C/flV 138/; Kue. //«. i 6. n. 17: H 

iiidepcndeDt products of the sa 
CB. f t7/. 

ly Google 

cOTineeled. Versa ■ 4 </ aie in maner and fbnn cog- 
nate to 13/ 6>-; [5lT-l«]. 

The ni«t piobabic ejtpluutiDn La that [d B j_^. g Law jite- 

■.in offering- (5^). The inicmofi of j/. it mo« Jifficull 10 
itmunl foi^ for IhfK delilcminl. no ucHfice i> eliewhen pn- 
Ktibed (Me llj4jf. 1.^5^. «c. Nu. Wii^). If =/• "« 
denved Ttom sn okffJrdA, 11 must be sumxned that a tpecilic 
cue, like that in Nu. It 19 oi in Lev, 7 »y, wai originally con- 

The mitlgationi in 67-10, 11-13 ^"^ later.and perhaps 
successive, additions (q> 1 if-t;). The laws in Sij/I 
6s-j [5as-»6] are from a group defining (he 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 i^t (cp 
4i 13 sj if) have probably supplanted a more specific 

These laws, though probably introduced here at a 
comparatively late stage in the redaction and not with- 
out some alteration, are substaniially genuine priestly 

to H in Lev. 17-26 point to proximity, if not to identity 
of origin (see below, § 15). 

Chaps, (is [i]-Tji contain a series of rules, chiefly for 
the guidance of [he priests, and, in the introductions 

I" "° [if/)), addressed to 'Aaron and his 
sons.' Each paragraph b^ins, 'This is the /arUA of 
[the btimt offering, etc) ; and the restimplive sub- 
scription. T 37. is in corresponding form. 

he CDUn of the lent of ireciing' <« 16 16 fg iq|> ia 
._. _.. . * in 1 1 (etc., and other glossei may be mled, 
especially infi .7yriio/l. 

The rule for the priests' meal oflering. 6k~i) [ij-iA]. 
has a diflTerent superscription, and is clearly secondary; 
the exegetical diflicuUies are due to subsequent glosses; 
6 30 [jj] depends upon 4 (cp 10 i6-»o) ; 7 i-io. perquisites 
of the ofliciating priest (cp 1^^). are introduced here 
in connection with 7 ; 10 is perhaps later than 9. as the 
offering of uncooked flour is later than that of bread and 

The priestly lorolA in these chapters, abo, are rela- 

represent actual practice; ihey have been preserved with 

rial ch 


Chap, T jj-aj. prohibition to the Israelites (and pi.) to 
eat the fat of sacrifices and the biood of animals (cp3i6* 
ij 1710.14). stands not inappropriately after ii-ii, 
but is not from the same source. Substantially the 
^me thing may be said of 3i-n, which, again, are 
formulated differently from 11.97. A later hand may 
be recognised in 33 (and pL), which is a doublet to 33; 
34 (isl sing.) is added by the redactor; };/ {cp Nu. 
IH S) is the subscription to an enumeration of the priests' 
dtiei (3j# doublet to 3(W),and undoubtedly late ; observe 
the anointing of all the priests, jCd (see ExoniiS ii.. 
i 5< ■') ■ il " '''e original subscriplion to the liro/i in 
6b [i]-Tgi (the 'installation' is a gloss referring to 
6 19.33 (19-16]) ; 3S is added by a redactor. 

Chaps. 11 • 15 are nalur.-illy connected by their 
dealing with the subject of cleanness and uncleanness 

«. 1 1-1 6 ; characteristics 


unclean animaU-,.,., kind* allowed oi for- 
bidden for food ( 1 1 i-t}); deniementbycoa- 
■n animals, alive or dead, and the necfiianr 
-jB): delileineDtbyconucI>iIhihearcaue>oi 

< The latter u the lewiih explanation: SiriffU. n n t. 
• On Ibe lelaiion of ihiK chapter! lo 1-6; ^l'■^1 Ke above, { 4. 
■Chap. Ao If] has been uodeniood to speak oi the dail^cven- 

■ Cn»//f-, etc., 169^ 

Kriptions t«/r46/). Uncleanneai an 


..._ ,,, ^,); piiriticBiioqof ihe leper.otfcTi 

leproua' tpotianibewallaorhoumandthcirttca .,..,.,,,. 

genetaliubscriptionlsi'j;). UncleanoeaA from Kxual tec reiiona 
and dischargea in bealih and diieaae, in man tlA [.island voman 
(19-ji); general iulMcripliqn(ji_/). 

the phraie, ' Thii ii the lirXt of,' eic, in the •ubaciil>liani 1 1 1 46 

,5 ,. J- „.. .._.. : ..- _.__!_ 



waiedly in 

The distinctions embodied in these laws originate in 
a low stage of culture and are there of fundamental 
importance.' A high degree of elaboration, evrn ol a 
kind which appears to us anihcial, is not of iiself proof 
of late development; savage taboos frequently (orm a 

that the terglA in Lev. 11-lS are based upon ancient 
Israelite, and even prehistoric, custom. As they lie 
before us, however, the chapleis give evidence of having 
been formulated in different schools, and of repealed 
literary supplementation and redaction. 

The close of chap. 11 (4%, cp 440) exhibits the 
characteristic phraseology atid motive of H ('I am 

«^' whkh^™1^;ennT('«el^.'ul'' 
h probability that the food 

1S|. It is inferred w 

laws in Lev, 11 were included in itie ' noiiness code ; " 
Lev. ;3)3j implies that H conlained such rules. Laws 
on the same subject in closely similar form are found in 
Dt. i4.< probably taken from the same priestly collection 
from which H derived them.* The food laws of H have 
been preserved, however, only with many additions and 
alterations; 11 1 id S lod^J 11 (except V?M(P k'?). 11 13-19 
in their present form, and much in acij 41-41 and 46/. 
are to be ascribed to successive, and in part very late, 
redactors. Laws on a different subject — vii., defilement 
by contact with unclean animals (14-3B) or the carcasses 
of clean animals (39/.)— have also been introduced.* 
and these again are apparent^ not all of the same ag:e ; 
33.38, in particular, seems to be more recent than the 

TTie rules defining uncleanness after the birth of a 
male (12 1^-4) or female (j) child, and the requisite purili- 

/nllljw,*!, T "= formulatKl in Ihe same way as Ihe 

which chapter they are closely connected l>y their subject ; 
123 fixes the duration of uncleanness by a reference to 
15,9. There can be little doubt thai 12 ,-, originally 
stood after 15 30; what led the redactor 10 transpose the 
chapter it is difficult to imagine. The title (1 la) 
is editorial; 'the door of Ihe tent of merting' (6, 
contrast 'the sanctuary,' 4) is also secondary; 8. 
which follows Ihe subscription, like the corresponding 
mlligations 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 
.- ~- .«, innocent eruptions (133.44) are care- 
.iV' ■ fully defined, and are manifestly the 
result of close observation.' The sub- 
ject was an important part of Ihe torii ol the priests 
(Dt. 2-lB), and one which from its nature is likely to 

• SeeCiEAN AHo Unclbai.. 
■ See below, t i«. 

' Hoi«, /.«, r,-n.-ir,-i. ». HrM,t,tl,3i: Wumler, ZA TW 
li9}/ (1S84); Kue. //«. t 15. n. 5; D..7-r--Brf.(')s9; cpalso 

Butk.iio/.: Kaliich, !tit^. 


* -Some «chfdan have thoufthi that 1ft / arc in great part trc 
H: tee below, ( 14. 

y Google 


tave been relarivelj early fined in wridng; the minnle 
discriminaiioa or symploms b not lo be taken u evi- 
dence of reeent origin, whilst the rites of purification in 
lit-Sa are o[ a striking!]! primitive character.' The 
chapters are not. however, eniirel)' of (he same age. 
The original law contained only Vi,.f6a It i-»aa, with 
the subscription 1-1 tji. The riliml of purification in 
14 ic-B is obviously a later subuilute (or a-Bo. 

In a* ibe leper it alieody clein. in id he ii Mill la be ckanial 
(cp iD^i; ilK coooection in Si (q) a sunifeiily iRiKcial. the 

prioB in Lev. B [c(.14 i^-iS wiih ii}/. jo Ex. «t3o/.); ihe 

t. tbeei 

er of the wbnlc 

dutIu of lut* dale ud probnbly 


a of the number and cosllinesa of the 

viclims in the case of the poor (llti.31), with its inde- 
pendent subsciipiion (31), is presumably still more 
recenL The purification of Ihe leper (l*a-8) is separated 
from the law for his seclusion (13 45/) by a passage of 
some length on spots of mould in stufb and leather 
(13 ,7-s8) having its own subscription (»). which would 
Stand more properly in conneclion with the rnles con- 
cerning patches of mould on the walls of houses 
(11 3)-;3). The association of these fungus growlhi 
with eiuptive skin diseases (' leprosy '} is not unnatural, 
and would lead to similar regulations for inspection by 
a priest, and for the destruction or purification of Ihe 
materials affected. Chap. 13 47.J9 closely fbllovrs the 
formulation of ISi/l. and may be a comparatively 
early supplement to Ihe law on ' leprosy," if not of 
approximately the same age. Chap. 14 jj.jj is not im- 
probably younger. 

Theiniroiiucnon(u). wiih ii» referenB to Ox future tetlle- 
in Canun, ii unlike ibU of any d(Ik[ of Ihc laws in ihii 
id Ihe adipution of the liiual tat ihe purilicntioD of 
9 ilie cleaniing of the houK («-sj) Mem inilkiiil ; 
E Tenen miy. however, be » mil bUi addition, since in 4S 
me boiue it nlTtady pronounced cleui (cp IM jB, vhere do 
fijnher cereiDony a prencjibed). The niHcHptioD. ^-J?. hns 
bCBi cjpondcd in iucc«uive •uget. 

In chap. 15 a basis of old tdroA in characteristic 
formulation is recognisable, most readily at the begin- 
11 n.._ ta, ling and the end of the several para- 
this basis seems lo have been 
1. especially by the mulliplica- 
tfon of cases of derivative pollution, and some of these 
additions seem lo be very late. It is not possible, 
however, lo discriminate sharply between Ihe original 
rules and Ihe subsequent accretions. Verse 31, seem- 
ingly addressed lo the priests (read 'warn' [OMnini] 
for'separaic'). is an appropriate close lo a collecdon 
of laws on various forms of uncleanness, and does nol 
suggest the priestly editor; Ihe subscription, 3).j4. has 
grown by repeated glosses. 3111 only is by the first hand. 

The beginning of chap. IB is connected with lOi-j 
not only by v. i (Rr) but also by its contents. Nadab 

IS. Ghkp. 16: 

and Abihu lo 

: by presumptu- 

ously intruding 
YahwC carrying unhallowed 
nniwiriiiTiir.- jg ^^^rj j„ „^j^ censeiB; the fate of 
these priests is Ihe occasion of a revelation setting forth 
Ihe rites with which Aaron may enter the sanctuary 
without incurring Ihe like destruction.* In Ihe history 
of the sacred instilutions, lUiJ'. must, therefore, have 
immediately followed Ihe death of Nadab and Abibu in 
IDi/. Nol all of 16. however, is from this source; in 
(.18 a singular piacular ritual, including the bringing 
of the blood of Ihe victim into the inner sanctuary and 

■SecWRSJt(/..?(ii(.<')447. cp4H,4saB.; Vratli. Htid.Oy 

' > Fieaueni in H: Meli6 

> $« Reuu. Cmi. d. A Ti, I iBj: Kite Htx. f tj. n. ii: 
Dillm. Eisd. i«.A(>», sj.jT. ; (;iie. ZA TW\f, iji^ (iBoj) : 
Nov. Hiir. Arck. 2 diff. On the annlyib: (3on. Tk.T 
in I4».#. 1 1S77) ; Slide, C vn ijB n. ; BnHinger. ZA Tft 6i^ 
(iB^f; Addii. //tjr.iiyi: Cnrpentei and IIulbrd-BitteriET, 
Hixtib.J. S««l«oATONa«B«T, Davoi-. 

• Nou UK abtcDce of the inccuK nlur. 


Ihe sending away into Ihe wilderness of a scapegoat 

laden with the sins of the people (see AZAZEL), has been 
united with ihe prescriptions for Aaron's entering the 
holy place; in ^i,a is ordained an annual general 
fcst day (cp 23 j6.jj). on which the priest peri'orms 
rites— not further specified— for the purification of Ihe 
people and Ihe sancluaiy (cp Eiek, 45 18 10). Ben- 
linger, in his analysis of ihe chapter.! ascribes Ihe last- 
named law to the author of 1.4 6 i,/.; ii siood in 
close connection with ft The elaborate expiatory 
ceremonies in IH j j-to 14-98 represeni a much later 
development (Ato.sement, Dav OF, § a) ; the fusion 
of the two elements had its basis in Ihe praxis itself; Ihe 
younger ritual probably never had an independent 
lilerary existence {ZATWdHf.). 
L A^'*^*'^ *'^ 1^ I''!''''' vnrioiii indiulioni in Ihe text (r g. , 

a Ihe < 

» ihe n 


lenl [diirej 

of the Day of A 

glimet— jafl r-io 15«*fl lOa h™b lo-Htn-j. 

The inlroducdon, which doubtless directed that these 
rites should be performed annually on a certain day. is 
missing; remnanis of it may perhaps be preserved in 
n^.3,a, which verses are not an old law of P (Ben- 
ringer), but give evidence of conumination from Lev. 
23 96.31, and of various glosses, [i is more difficult to 
determine just what was contained in the original direc- 
tions for Aaron's entrance into Ihe holy place ; for in 
converting this act into a periodical ceremony and incor- 
porating it in Ihe 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: ihe 
abluiion, Ihe veslmenis (4), the sacrifice of a young 
bullock as a sin offering (6). the incense bumi in a 
censer on coals taken from Ihe altar (ij-14) ; a more 
detailed resforation cannot be atlempled here. 

Chap. 26 3.4, is a solemn address of Yahw« (i p«is.) 
to the Israelites (pi.), selling before Iham the blessings 
upon Ibem if iheywalk 
in his statutes and observe his com- 

I if they will 


-'these are the 

13. (niap.'l7-S6: 

IAW-B00k.» ^toh-hewilT'^risinh 
not hearken unto him and keep these c 
Even apart from the subscription (46) — 
statutes and Ihe judgmenis and the laws (taibtin. nij- 
fitlm, toreth) which Yahw« made between htm and the 
Israelites at Mt. Sinai through Moses ' — the character of 
the discourse imd its resemblance lo Eh. 2H conclusively 
prove thai Lev. 26 originally stood at the end of a body 
of legislalfon. lite distinctive motives and phraseology 
of 36 recur in Ihe preceding chaplers in numerous 
exhortaiioni 10 observe Ihe statutes and Judgments 
therein contained (cp 18 1-5 94-30 19 , ^tii 3, 20 -,/. «-i6 
22 31-33) ; briefer words of similar tenor are interspersed 
In other placesi note also the occurrence of (he char- 
acteristic phrase. ' I am Yahw£ ' (wllh various comple- 
ments), throughout these chaplers from 18 1 to 264s. 

II Is plain, therefore, Ihat 18-2S. or at kasl consider- 
able pans of these chapters, come from the law-book of 
which 3U is Ihe conclusion. From ihe prominence 
given in It to Ihe motive of holiness, Ihis book has been 
called Ihe Holiness Law;* it is usually designated by 
Ihe symbol H.* The characteristic formulas of H 
appear first in the inlroduclion 10 IH (i^j). and earlier 
critics regarded this as the beginning of the extracts 
from Ihat book.* More recent scholars ate generally of 
Iho opinion that 17 is derived from the same source. ' 

' ZATW^Iaff. (i989t: tee Atokbmbkt, D*yof. J 1. 
» See ATONXMesT. D*v op. ( 7. 
' For liieniure nt below, f 3., 

* See I> 9 Ai 7 96 21 B etc. The nime *u given by Kloit. 
ZZ7-HH4I6 (iB77)-V*«iM(«r:*, 38s. 

' Kuenen employs P.. olhcn Ph. 

• So Ewald. Noldeke, Schndei. Gnf. Coleou. Kloneminn. 

r, |6.n 

: tVdlh. CWIij.^.; liori 

y Google 


A readioE of l^v, 1T-2G diiclosei a twofold aspect : 
on ihc one hand unmistakable affinity, in pans, to ilie 
priestly legislation; on the oilier hand, much that is 
at variance with the usual manner of that legislation, or 
lies outside Ihe circle of its predominant imeresis. Both 
in contents and in form ]», (or example, resembles Ex. 
SO-23 and Dt, (cp especially Ut. 23 f.) much more 
closely than P; Ihe hortatory setting of the laws and the 
emphasis on ihe tnotives to obedience, not only in 26 
but also in the preceding chapters, has no parallel in 
P. In whicli Ihe divine imperative Is its own all-suflicient 
motive ; the phraseology of H is peculiar, and strikingly 
dtfTerent from thai of P; > finally, there are actual con- 
flicts between the laws in H and those of P, particularly 
in regard to the feasts.^ The priestly element appears 
in many cases to be superimposed, ot lo supplement the 
other. The hypothesis which first suggested itself was, 
therefore, that older laws were revised and incorporaled 
by r,' sometimes, as in l»-20, in large masses having 
a coherence of their own ; the liypothesis was subse- 
quently extended lo 17-28 (or lH-2e) as a whole (see 
below i 30). 

The paraenetic framework in which the laws are sel 
(see, eg,, 18) is of the same characier Ihroughoul, and 
is somewhat sharply dislinguished in style from the laws 
themselves, as the example just cited shows. Hence 
il 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 loraA which had 
already acquired a fixed formulation. A comparison of 
18 20. on Ihe same subject, is peculiarly instructive in 
this regard. The result of this preliminary exai 
is. theiefore. thai in Lev. lT-26 we ha 
laws, nol aU of the same origin, which have been sub- 
jected to at least Iwo successive redactions, first by Rh, 
and second by Rp.< 

The lubjecti dedl with in Lev. 1T-SS m die [olknring:— 
dameiiic aninuii ilauchtered 10 be oNeied lo Yahwi ; blood 
-- - '^- eaund?]; iitcul defined and 
(\6): variaui thoR cammMd- 
:fly monl and locial (1») ; Molech 
inoiher law aninit inceu («); 

physicilly peii^t; regulaibnt concemini the eatipi of 
.tUBi food ; viciini la be without blemiih : other nilei 
vicuin>(^l/t: calendar of ucied uii«n>(at); die oil 



n of Iht 

2i, which in both Its parts seems to be foreign 10 it's 
present surroundings. It is clear that Lev. 1T-2S do 
not contain a complete law-book, such as H presumably 
was; many topics which would have a necessaiy place 
In such a code are lacking. These subjects may have 
been omitted by the redactor because they were lufli- 
ciently treated elsewhere, or may have been transposed 
to other connections; some such displaced fragments 
may be recognised in Ei.-Num. (see below, S 14). 

Chap, IT contains a nucleus of old lardth in brief and 
eonsislent formulation, which has been mucli expanded 

iivi. n. ffitiiiW; Bisattch, ffritMiiligeirli ; Hole.; Dr.. 
etc. See belo-, » 15. 

■ On tbe vocibulirr o( H see Dillm. ffiim. Dtul. 7m, 631 / ; 
Dr. /»(™/.(') n/.: Holi, //«.,../: Crpenie. .i,d 
Hatfcrd-Ba»ertby. Htx. 1 jjo/ See also Baenuch, //rijfe^ 

' Chap. is. Tbe conHici w« do'iicri' 'by George, Ffi/t, 

i»i: (183s) and Hupfcid (1851^). 
•^BookolOtifini': EwalJ. 

'™*Hor.'J;'47^"'fl4''.ne>npt hi 
m,iuu«Kijf ii«iKu^H.viL,:<oousii.,$4, m.endJ^lodtowlbBi(t 
law* were originally aroikped in ^ 
GrufftH, etc ; and Paion in ■ 


in decad>. So Bcriheau, SititH 

' aniclea ia 7BI (tee 

and altered by lalei 
15. Chip. IT: 
BUughter of 

' bauds. A considerable part of 

expansion is plainly the work of 

Kp i'^,, 11/ 14) ; but tliere is a lower 

k ora iheep or a aaai and doei not bring 

all be leguded as having eaten flesh with 
H }^-H) ■ ■ redactor introduced the wants 

■bed blood : that penon ihail be cui olT from his people ' <4)i 

Se niMiSSl«ii'n of 'Ei le.t. 'vt« tT°^% iS'a'fragniiiii 
ofalaw,coimpoiKl>netoE<.»i»[t;j,iacriliee •bail be offend 
to Vahirtonly; giiRp. With ij/ cnll «o and W S (Ejek. 

Chap. 18 contains laws on incest and sotne kindred 
subjects (6-33). preceded by an introduction (aJ-s). and 
in <%>n la. concluding with admonitions anu warn. 

"*•*■ main the work of R„. 
Verse 5 is a douUel 10 } : tg iifrom Rp: 14.18 30. ate probably 

mulatflf.pTobablv a supplement from annlheicolleclion of ^r»A 
on the aacne subject: at (Molech) ia introduced through a 
merely vertni asHKiation by Rh who wrote 316. A tew glosiei 

Chap. 19 contains a brief manual of moral instruc- 
tion, perhaps the best representative of the ethics of 
17 Chiif ancienl Israel, opening and closing with the 
19 ■' Koial f'"'™"'" °' Rh {=* 36* 3j) ; observe also the 
n^caoU '"q"*"' feciirrence of the phrase ■ I am 
Vr»i»V»- Yahwe, ■ or ■ 1 am YahwS your God, ' after 
groups of commandments (3 1 10 la 14 16, etc.). Two 
passages are obviously out of place In this chapter; s-i, 
by its subject and formulation is plainly connected 
with 22»9/; », also, is foreign to the context; 
it has been thought that ils appropriate place would be 
after 20 10 (Dillm.), but Ihe case is clearly one of tort, 
and the formulation corresponds rather 10 24 ij.n — 
another misplaced fragment: ai/ is a late addition lo 
10 (ep 66/). The rest of the chapter is made up of 
-.J .:_z.. — ii^bly compiled, or at least supplemented. 

e than 

iduced by R^ (^a lot la* 18* lyaa 39 jo [=20 a] 
Jiff 3a* 3j/.), and probably the repeated 'I am Vahwf 
— though in this Rh may have been anticipated by the 

The first group of commandments (}/) is in some sort 

a counterpart (o the first table of the decalogue ; i i-ig 
similarly remind us of the second table.' In general 
the chapter is to be compared with Ex. 20 1/.22 i8-aa tSf. 
23 1.19, and parts of DL 2i-35, in which many parallels 
will be found. These do not justify us. however, in 
regarding Lev. 19 as biased upon Ihe Decalogue, the 
Covenant Book, and Deuteronomy; < actual coincidences 
in formulalion or in order are singularly few. and ap- 
pear to be sometimes Ihe result of textual contamina- 
tion. Raiher Lev. 19 is another of the epitomes of 
gt>od morals, of which there were doubtless many in 

The original law against the sacrifiee of children In 
ISClMIt 20- '*"' "°'«*' ="" (Mm)* has received 

T 1^. repeated addilions, i disclosing Ihe hand 

ot Rk (additions of Rp in }#). a^ a 
gloss, and 4/ a variation on 1* 3 intended to supplant 3. 

h. CHW 

,a^; Horst.. 

,^.,cp4a_>;: DJIm. 
..13/ Sie below,} 

ff. (rB8i); 


y Google 


The hiw i^ainsl wilchcraA (6) seems ti 

the more original totah which is preserved in 37. 

Verses j/ belong I0 Ihe par»neiic Iramework o( 
perhaps only accidentally broughi logeiher in subsei; 
ndaction : Ihe corresponding close Is n-^. 

Vcnc 9 hai nothing to do with the tuhinl of the ta\.\( 

wiiheiijl: ii ii "' """ 

■lUfdhCT out of p] 

01 improbable U 

r follow laws against i 
with a woman during n: 
:h ihe death penalty is 

the penally h: 

I. sodomy, and 
niaiion. against 
lunced. These 
It of IH (Graf, 

c.).' 1 here nas oeen some contamina- 

. t^., 20 19). and the clauses prescribing 

been glossed and lecasl. 

I of Rh. Vfnei li/. deal not with th( tub- 
lound in II ^jda 4^, It it pobiue thai 

were incorporaled 
Rh or by later e 
finally, by R, 

same phenomena which 
old lorolh concerning the 
lie been glossed, revised, 
ited by successive editors, 
losses were probably made 
III themselves before they 
any additions were made by 

1 ol him 


cases exactly 10 distinguish these varic 
a considerable part it can be done, 
original nilii ire found in liB Cbtginninji lo 
""""" " "'■' '"■.trictiyi^ ' 

. _......, ... , in 

tbe ariA ii repeued in ilighlly variant forms {17 91) with 
■luHt by Rr: n> the old role belong, runhci. iiina inlio 
glooed br Rpl : iB^io i< an (fold) ipeciAcalion of bremiibei 
(cp^ 33-34); Ruin 93^: 14 (Rp) is a fragment. 
Tbe beiinning of It 1-16 a in diutder: laBi i> Rh. but 

■ordi of I [>tr> fniui their lequel (3); 



, . K old mie (' of the Med of A. 
a lolloving rule may be reCDgniaed ... ,__. _. _, 
bctng Hippluited by Rr, to whom most of ti-j 
aKribed; 8 may have been included in H.lhouf'--- 

(cp 111 ^ and i\ 8i : lo-'ij ait •ubilantiany old 13 

(Rr>, ai alao the Cullowing caulogiM of dde 

Vel^37-^1galli, ate ojriawa.' Mimed byline cHKing «■ 
bonatvHia of Rh (3I'35). in which 33 tocma to intrude between 

Chap. 23 contains the annual round of sacred seasons, 
derived in part from a priestly calendar, in part from 
9n rn..n 0«- "■ "^^ former element is easily 
"iSS;* r^gni'^d by its rigid scheme (see, 
^^^' t^., s-B 14*36), the enact regulalion 

of Ihe dale and duration of the festival, the days of 
■ holy convocation ' (Nu.28/) observed as the strictest 
of sabbaths, and the -fire-offerings' lo Yahw*. The 
characterisiies of H ate equally unmistakable in olher 
pans of the chapter. Ihough. as elsewhere, the original 
lexl ol H has been heavily glossed by priestly edilors 
and scribes- To Ihe calendar of P belong 4-8 (Passover 
and Unleavened Bread; a/., Rp), 11 (fragment of the 
law for Pentecost), 14 / (Feast of Trumpets), 37-33 
(Day of Atonement), 34J.)6 (Tabernacles) : 37/. is the 
subscriplion. which 44 was meant 10 follow. The taw 
for tbe Day of Atonement shows some repetitions, and 
has perhaps been amplified by later edilors ; cp 16 39-34. 


■ Sol fto 

.D the 

ng the pei 



efe.); ™ 


Paion. r/rirt 





Ps taw (or Pentecost has been supplanted by a lon{ 
passage from i! (9.30), in which Ihe old tsroA, Ihe 
setting of Kk, and the additions of Rp, may be dis- 
tinguished. I[ begins with the waving of the first sheaf 
of barley from the new hatvesl- The introduction is 
by Rh (too) ; Ihe law probably began, ' When ye reap 
your barvesl.' To [he original law belong loi ita* 
140*: the various offerings come (rom Rp (not all from 
id). This is followed by the prescription of 

"(.S-").'S^.' fifty days'! 


It H (1 

I of place 

the obsen 

:p 19,/ 
e of label 

21.0bap. £1.1 

with a brief introduction by Rp (jgoal ; 39a) and 41a 
unquestionably belong to the original loriA; perhaps 
40a" also (cp Neh, g nf.) ; the rest musi be attributed 
to various stages of the redaction (41J 43?4aJ, Rh). 

Chap. 24. 3rv. 1.4, on the lamps in the tabernacle, and 
;-9, on Ihe shew-bread, are supplements respectively to 
Ex. 25 31-40 (cp 2T ao/ Nu. 8 1.4), and 
Ex. 2S 30, and belong to the secondary 
stratum ol P; how they got into this place It Is not 
easy to guess.' Tbe rest □( Ihe chapter deals wilh Ihe 
punishment of blasphemy, and with manslauf^ter. 
mayhem, and killing or maiming cattle. The nucleus 
is a group of old lotblh. wilh a closing formula of Rh 
(i5*-33), and glosses by Rp, especially in 16; on the 
original position of these laws see above, § 17 (on 2O9). 
The punishment of blasphemy Is itlusiraled by an 
... . .... pjjjjiiy hand; cp. Nu. 


law of the sabbatical year [1-7) if 
old tdroA (with glosses emphasising 
' ■ e year) ; 

■ cp Ex. alio/; the 

of Rh. 


""^- alsoRH. Verses 8-733-34 
wilh Ihe reversion of alienated land lo its om 
fiftielh year and with the right of redempll 
and houses.' The greater part of S.17 is from H: 
1T-13 is an addition of Rr conforming the jubilt 
lo the septennial land sabbath; g also seems to 
late; clauses from an older law are incorporated in 
(' ye shall proclaim an emancipation ' ; cp Eiek. 4li 
and i ('and shall return, every man to his estate ) 
i,a 13 are of the same origin; ibf.. of which ij is ih 
sequel, together with the introduction (8 loda) am 
■ ■■ ■ I, are by Ri 



The f 
probably not 

>r Ihe 

1 froi 

e age; 

a the preceding law; 39-31 apparently a novel 
10 14-38 ; the exception in favour of the Levites (31-34) * 
depends on Nu. 3.1 t-g, itself among the youngest 
additions to P; Ihe langii^e of 1,-34 '^ '^<B- 
The prohibition of usury (35-38) is from H ; cp Ejielt. 

18 8 13 


In tt 

: followi 

'es (39-46) the charitable n 
ably been amplified by imilaiiv 
extensive interpolations by Rp, 
haps all Rp) and in 49.53. 

Chap, 21) I /, laws forbidding various species of 
Idolatry and commanding the observance of Ihe sabbath, 
set in phrases of Rm. are strangely out of place here; 
> is parallel to 194,3 identical with 1!) 30 (cp 19 3). 

Chap. 2R contains promises of prosperity to obetlience 

< Popper, Sli7lstBHr, 109/. 
' See wc CM'i tt6' Tlaeiilich (i 

■ On the iaw of Ihe Jubilee Vear'we'We. Cffl't itj£.,l.n 164 
jr. : HatTminn, Ail<iinillif,i[iH.\ 7; jf. : Ham, 37^ ; Katjfcx. 

(4-46 (per- 

• Uviie 


eMio^''b k. 

y Google 

(l-ii) and threatened judgments on disobedietice (14-4;). 

oa m,,- will" a subscription lo the Holiness 

„ ""■ iz"?;i„ Law-Booic (46). The whole is spolw 

ughout). and o 
lo the preceding 
23 30/: and Dl. 28. To the last meniioned chapter Lev. 
2lj has much resemblance, not only in its general tenor 
but also in particular turns of ihi>ught and expression ; 
bul these coincidences are not of such a nature as to 
imply literary dependence: the total impression, on the 
contrary, is distinctly ol originalily on both sides. 

The dUptxilion i> diHeieni : Dt. £> has an uitithctic Kiici of 
bleHinEiaiidi:uii«(9'i4 li^) 10 which ihire U nocouniimBrt 
ioLiT. ]M;^ Le». ISiieliiDKlk (m-"^'S-»ji/ ij^jSi?^); 

le ■■» thai 


tathe l> 

:onnect Lev. 26 with those pans 
■s which are ascribed lo Rh; ' 
there is every reason to believe that it is by the same 
author who compiled the law-book H and attached to 
the /ira/A which he incorporated his characterisdc 
modves.^ The diflerence in siltiaiion, which Baenlsch 
urges as the strongest argument lor attributing 2U (o a 
different author, is easily exaggerated (in 1^-29 the 
entrance into Canaan is slill ruluce— 18 3 14 19 13 20 h-^, 
q> 23 ID 25 1— whilst in 211 it is an accomplished fact) ; i( 
would be more just to say Ihal the situation is not con- 
sistently maintained (see cm the one hand IS1J97. on 
the other 26 11). The relation is in this respect the 
same as that of Dt. 28 10 Dl. 12-26; in the prophetic 
jieroralion the author's real present almost inevilahly 
shows through. 

DilliDinn Hid B«Blich haw rightly obsirved thai Lr.. M, 
like Ei. US 30 ff. and Di. ii. )iu bik ouptd jidditioiu ddi! 

Eieliielpeciillaily invlwd: 8 U a liter doublet to 7; lej it per- 
hap4 autou 104x1 '7 would be in place rather wiib 13-36 : 30 
\i prabably a giou to 31 derived from Kick. A 3-j ; 24^ a late 
intcTpolaiLon (Ki,} cognate 10 aCh.T^Bai; 37 11 alw qumioned; 
3g-42 is ■ late additioni w sen in at the ianie point as 36, the 
phranology remindi ui ot Eiek. (cp 4 17 a4 13 )« 10) ; the (ol- 

wriilen: 44/, aUo. in lecandAry. 

It has been observed above (§ 14) that Lev. 17-2S is 
not a complete law-book; some laws may have been 
milted by the redactor ' 

nection. The question thus arises whether any portions 
of H can be recognised in other pans of the Pentateuch. 
One such has been noticed above (§ 8), the food laws 
in Lev. 11, with the characleristio colophon o( Bh (45) ; 
cp 20as (S >7 end). A considerable number of oLber 
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.* 
It is obvious thai the characlerislic expressions and 
motives of Rk ate the only crilerion by which we can 
recognise fragmenis of H ; resemblance in the subject 
or formulation of laws to tarolk 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.' Further, the test of diction must not be 
applied mechanically; not all the sections in which the 

to he ascribed to H: familiarity with H and Eiekiel 

K»y.e;. Jpf-.b^ CBi): Horn, js/; 

^ Not an independent prophetic lemon (Ei 

baum. pA. 

Del. ZKW 1 ha: Kiyiet. JFT 7 

Kue. Hii. \ 15, o. i; Dillm. ,V*»i, utnt. yai. 040: wursier, 
ZATWiriiff. (-84); Holiinger. /^u. 410; Baentsch.e^: 
Caipenler antrKarfDrd-Bsltcttby. % 14s. 

' The Mm includii F.i. a ffi l/ia/ 2« 38-46 HI 13/ Lev. i t-6 
(1-140 [Ba-sitj lOia/I II (in pait), IS 16 Nu. 
S11-.3 (t.i-31 la-g 1*9/ 103^41 18 ../ 

may have lu^esled ttie formula to later authors or 
edhors ; or, on the other hand, it may have beea used 
by others before Rh. I n the greater part of the passages 
which have been claimed for H. the evidence is for 
one or the other of the reasons indicated insufficient; 
Nu. 1937-41 is perhaps the only one about which ihere 
is no dispute, though in some odier cases a probability 

The analysis of Lev. 17-26 shows that the la«s in H 
^pressed by the author of thai 

tJOok. b 

e taken 

n liom 

_ form alieady fixed; 

even where the share of Rh is largest, as 
in the provisions for Ihe jubilee year (25b^.). there is a 
basis of older law. It would be too much lo atfirm 
Ihal Rh made no material changes in these laws; bul 
in general his work was selection and redaction, pulling 
Ihe existing laws under his own point ol view and 
attaching to Ihem certain distinctive motives. Ihe 
differences of Ibrmulaiion in the laws themselves, 
especially in Ihe laws on Ihe same or kindred subjects 
(as in 16 and 20). prove Ihal (hey are not all of the 
same origin; the presumption is that Ihey were taken 
from more than one collection, made at different limes 
or places, or in different priestly families or guilds. In 
other parts of Lev. and Num. we find groups of laws. 
nol belonging to Ihe main stem of P, which are cognate 
in subject and formulation to those in H, but show no 
traces of ihc hand of Rh ; it Is probable that these are 
derived from the same colteelions on which Rh drew.' 
The laws In these collections, like those in H. bear, in 
general, all the marks of genuine lorolh. representing 
and regulating the actual practice of the period of Ihe 
kingdom.* They know nothing of a central sanctuary 
or of a sacerdotal caste ; the priest is simply ' the 
priest,' Levites are nol mentioned, 'the priest who is 
greater than his brethren.' upon whom greater restric- 
tions are laid (21 10), is a veiy different thing from Ihe 
Aaronile high priest of P (see § 30) ; the occasional 
references 10 Aaron and bis sons, the tabernacle, and 
the camp are demonsttabty inlerpolaiions by a redactor 
(Rp), who thus superficially accommodated the old laws 
to Ihe History of Ihe Sacred Insiiiulions (H|51X>RICAL 

Literature, § 9). 

The representation of the author (Rh) of the history 
agrees wilh Ihal of the older historians and ihe prophets: 

Xrw a '^S"*^" Yahwt has brought them out lo 

" "■ give Ihem the land of Canaan (2S3SI ; 

he is going to expel the peoples of the land belore 
Israel (IS94 20»/) ;< the laws are given lo the Israel- 
ites before their entrance into (he land;" Ihey are 10 go 
Inio' operation after the settlement {It 3 n 19 13 20 31-14 
23 ID 25 1). There is no archaislic attempt lo simulate 
Ihe filiation in the desert (the camp. e(c) ; Ihe place 
of worship is nol the Tent of Meeting, but simply Ihe 
Sanctuary (mi4dSl. ■ holy place,' 20 3 21 n) • or the 
abode of Yahw* {miiiSn, 'dwelling-place,' 17 4— if the 
word is really fi\>m Rh— 2(lii, cp Eiek. 37 37).' 
■" J - . - repeatedly exhoried to observe 


f, IO19 


ol Yahw« (JK^olA umitfJIlm. 'stalulei 
judgments." IH 5 =6 19 j, 20m 26 .8; miswoth. 'com- 
mandments,' 23 ji 263 14 15, elc; never loroA); they 

Egyptians or Canaaniles (18 3 3D 13) ; Yahw£ has sepa- 

' See < 14, and below, tji- 

KjS 'l/i- if^not limply a lapse . 

lubscriptian, 2846, accordii 


rated Israel fiviTn the nations (X1416J). Many offences 
ue condemned as defilement ('ami, tam'ah, Viaoiyf. 
19 31 22s '.n. I, etc; cp IHiji; iU3); ' the synonymous 
expressions in IS 20 are in pan, at least, from later 

IsnclitetarevuiKd nol 10 ptofuK (^iV;70 lw(y ihiogt. luch 

Ws/. ill.UieuaciuirylSlwJiJ.prauhood' 
The people oT Yaliwt must hallow them 
betauic h« is holy (10 9 ^^796, cp H 44/ 
be meitxl : IK » 16 >! ; Ysh-t halJowihi 
piiesti. piirticoliirljf, are holy (il 6. cp 8) 

r ' hoiy th 



and he 

!S thesi 

ha^lov themselves, ami be hofyl 

acnfices of the 



it appeals to this motive, we find 
■n implicit appeal in the recurring ' 1 am Yah»*.' or 
■ 1 am Yahw* your God.' often srtenphened by a re- 
minder of the great deliverance. ' who brought you 
forth out of Ihe land of Egypt' (l^j6, cp 253849;$ 
3B.j), -lo be a God 10 you' (22,3 2H4J. cp 25 38). 
The Israeiiies shall fear Vahw« their God (19 31 25 i;), 
or his holiness- u., his Godhead (19 30 21; 9— read so I) . 
Motives of humanity and charity ate represented not 
only by particular injunclions such as 19 16/ 19ia (~ 
23 99) . '2} 6. but also by such institutions as Ihe sabbatical 
and jubilee years, and Ihe miligation of slavery, on 
which the author lays especial emphasis. These pre- 
cqMs of humanity include Ihe foreign resident tfi*-), 
who is not 10 be oppressed (IHsj), bul to share the 
cbaiily shown Ihe Israelite poor <19ia = £(99 2^6), and 
ID be treated like a native — 'thou shall love him as 

Part of these commandments ci 

e from 

tr. ITnt^ of "I 

bul Rh has emphasised Ihi 

Id some places Ihe admonitory motives of Rh seem 

20 7 / 22 3. 35! ; in a lew 

n apparent conflict (esp. 18 »4 
' wilh ij-aB). It would be slrangeil these 
exhortations had not, like Ihose of the 
n expanded and heightened 
by succeeding editors: in other cases contamination of 
parallel passages is probable. These phenomena do 
not overcome Ihe impression of unity which the redac- 
tion of the whole produces,* nor sustain the hypothesis 
ol Baenlsch Ihal the chapters come from three or more 
diflerent hands.'* 

The question has lo do. nol with Ihe age of the 
UtitA* but with the dale of Ihe redaction of the Holi- 
■a AvKnf H> "^^ Law-Book. I'he whole character 

H ud Dt °' ''*'' """^ discloses affinity 10 the 
literature ol the close of Ihe seventh 
aikd Ihe sixth century — Deuteronomy,* Jeremiah, and 
especially Eiekiel. The first question lhal is likely lo 
be asked about a writing of Ibis period is its relation 
to the deuleroDomic reform suppressing sacrifice at all 
altars save lhal in Jerusalem (6ai B.C.).' The only 
passage in H which appears to reslriet sacrifice to a 
single sancluaiy is 174;* any Israelite who slaughters 
a bollock, sheep, or goat, and does not bring it before 
the abode (miJi^) of Yahw^. shall be regarded as hav- 
ing eaten blood. It is generally agreed lhal Ihe word 

irobabty used in Ihe k 


' See BcnMa.SMlMHrJrr Uraftittn uni dtr ?i 
iia Frtmdri, 110/ 153/ (1896). 

• On Dillounii'i hypothesis d( old ' Sinai ' liwt in Iw 
HODS by P and J napeiiively [£i«/. LrB.W 583/ : t 
6,7^1, «e Hots., j6/-.; K.yKi, TJ-Tl 6^_ff. (igSi 

Isneliie ud the iim^r (19 ij/ 33/; cp DKirrsp 

jogrfa.cpm. 15). ° " "* 

' Dl 13 I K. K/ 

• If iRetimiDalc additions of Rr. Sccfij. 



If this redactor waa Rh, then H would appear id repment 
the exireme conieqiKiKe of die deutennoniic reroim.' leavint 
no place for the slauihier of inimala for food whhoul sacrificial 
riiM, for which Di. naku uprets provision (li it/ 90-15).' 1' 
is pouihle, howeyei, thai the word was inlroducedby a piieillv 
ediloT later than Rh {of course noi Ihe same is Ihe ediWr who 
brought in the ' lent of meeting');' cp Nu. -I38 It may 
reasonably he urged that if Rh adopled the principle of cen- 
traJisation here so uncom promisingly, he would haidly have 
failed to slio* elsewben some symptom of leol for the reform 
or hniLlity 10 the local culis-conuut I»l., Jec, Eiek.« 

It is unsafe, therefore, to use IT 4 to fix the dale 
of H. 

It has been argued that H is younger than Dl. because 
some of its laws indicate a more advanced development, 
especially those relating 10 Ihe priesthood (Lev. 21), tbe 
feasts (23^K, 39.43). and the sabbatical year (25 1.7 ig- 
»; cp Di, IS 1-6), also Uv. IS ,6 209. as compared 
with Dt 25 i-10 (levitate marriage) ; « bul Ihe argument 
is not conclusive. Even less convincing is Raentach'f 
effort 10 prove that H abounds in reminiscences and 
even direct borrowings from Dl.< 

In H and Dt., bwh of whkli dnw iheir maurial largely 
froin older collectbni of IfrXt, then are manv laws on ihe 
™L _*_"_?!f5!.'."."Jf ."™i.. ™L-5."?. Z, H"on Dt. 


il indepemknu of Iha two i* ralher 

lack of 


lonslrable, the case is olhen 

,. ..., ,_._. csand phrases of Rn tb 

xJ™DreieAed lie in'one serial developmeni.' 

H and Dl. is not 
with Ezekiel. The 

BHUeLs jfg^rd the prophet as Ihe author of H ; » 
and although even more decisive differences make this 
hypothesis untenable,"' a direct connection between the 
iwo is indubitable, tn the chapters in which Eiekiel 
writes the indictment of his people, teciling Ihe sins 
which broughl calamity upon it, he judges it by the 
standard ol a taw similar in contents to H and having 
in common with H many peculiar words and phrases.H 
01 greater weight than Ihese coincidences with the laws 
in H — which might of themselves prove only that Elzekiel 
was lamlliar with some ol the older collections from 
which H was compiled — is the agreement in the dis- 
linclive point of viewi 'holiness' is in Eiek. as in H 
Ihe signature of religion; 'defilement' and 'profana- 
tion' is the prevailing thought of sin ; " characlerisdo 
phrases such as 'I am Vahw^ that sanclily them 
(you).' also link them together (Lev, 30a 318 ij ij 22 » 
16 ]9 Eiek.20T3 3T)g).'* 

'See Rr. /»(»!>/.(• 




aiea pccn 'jdS (Nu. 7 3) 
and tsrcnnr^D'lD'? (Ex. 8Ai<4ll«) occur only in later strata of 

'See Kue. /fix. f 14, n. 6, f 15, n. 8; Baentsch ;8.^. loj 

" • Z.r. 7« #; Kay«r (y/T T 656 #.) sets oul Ihe parallels to 
H in Ihe Covenant Booli and Di. u> latiuSai farm ; he ihinki no 

'";S^IlBUTB1.0KOI4?"T/ 'J*' ""'". 

Kavier, forej-/y.'K*M Sict, .76 #. (1B74); JfT.nSjr. 
(iKIi); Hotsl.i™, xvii-tn-i. n. Hntkirl. t/if. (.8S.).eic. 

■"NiHdeke, f/Wirii.i-4. 67 j7:KiKnen,(;«/i/i>M<,'J 95/^1 
H,j,. \ .,, n. .0; Klosl. PnlaU^k, 3,9 ff; "P- *^ff.: 

xciMy Eiek. IB M ti as wilb Lev. IX-SO. 

r. /"(iTH/.i") n/.'u-, If.: fiieSisch, 81 *:; Pa'lo 
- ~ - ^If.UW)-- CaTwnter ami fftrfotd-Bi 


SeeSniend,£»r*. iiv/; Hotst, 71^: fiat. Hit. i n. 
tartby, titji. 1 147/ ijo. 



The questiim thus arises: Was l^kiel acquainled 
wiih H,' or did the author of H (Rm) write under the 
influence of the thought and language of Ezekiel 7 
The grounds on nhich the acquaintance of Rh with 
Eickiel has been held by many critics* are not con- 
clusive. The strongest argument is the fact that Lev. 2li 
supposes full experience ol exile and dispetsioD, and 
closes with promises of restoration. We have seen 
above (j aj), however, that, like Dt. 28, I.ev. 26 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 (jo 34/ 

In the nnuindet of Lev. 16 there it nalhinj which ski 

Judah. 'i'he alTikLn^ pEtTallela 10 Erek.* in thi^ proplKlic di4- 
CDunesR, u utuHl la luch cases, tuKcplible of two mlerriTetA- 
liont; b;it on ihe whole Lev. 'Jit by iii teneneu and vigour 
Biakcfi an impTCuLOd of originBlity *hich a cenio of ntninii' 
ceiKct picked op Trom M parts of Hfek. could hardly produce.' 

The parallels in Eiek. 10 Lev. 1T-2S are found in 
masses in ceilain chapters (above, co!. 3790. n. ii), and 
include not only Ihe taws in H. but also their paraenetjc 
setting ; the most natural hypothesis is that Eiek. derived 
both from the same source. 

Thit pieiuniplion it confinncd by ihc faci ihal ihe common 

The a 

!. Ihst Rk Klecied fron 


entbicc the lawf, i« emremely iniprotuble.* 

For the posteriority of H to Eiek. it has been 
thought decisive that H prescribes certain stricter rules 
for the 'priest who is greater than his brethren' (21 is), 
whilst in Eiekiel's restoration programme (40^.) no 
such distinction is made. Bui as there was a chief 
priest under Ihe kings (a K. II9/. 16 10 /I 22 10/'. 
25 iB; cp Am. Tid/'.), to whose station stricter (aboos 
would almost necessarily attach, it cannot reasonably 
be inferred that H here represents a stage of develop- 
menl beyond Eliek. On the other hand. Ihe distinction 
between priests and Leviles in Eiek. (44 9/!) is an 
avowed innovation unknown to H ; we may note also 
in Eiek. 40 y. the fixed dale of Ihe feasts and their less 
close connection with agriculture, and the minuter 
classificaiion of sacrifices, in which, as in many other 
points. Eiekiel stands nearer to Ihe later priestly law.' 

We may, therefore, with some confidence ascribe H 
10 Ihe half-century before Eiekiel. Many other ques- 

. the plac 

s Law-Book w 

ind the I 


]l is commonly said Ihal H belongs to Ihe prieslly 
ttratum of the Hexaicuch, representing an earlier stage 
80. H Uld p. '"^^t '!^°"«"''l»; priestly schools frorn 
ov. iM. Buu *■ ^hich p as a whole proceeded ; " and it 
Is, accordingly, sometimes designated by Ihe symbol 
P], in distinction from F^ (the main stem of P), and 
later additions (P,, etc). But when those passages, 
especially in 23 and 21, which manifestly belong 10 laic 
strata of P, together with the many interpolations and 
glosses of Rp, have been set aside, neither the laws in 
H nor their setting (Rh) disclose any marked re- 
semblance 10 the prieslly history and legislation; their 

' Ndldeke, Unltrnci. 61 jf: Klot. ^trw^M (i8;r)- 
PtHlaliueli.i^i/.: tlt\.ZKii'i(,t^\i»»a)\ Uillmann.JVii./Jf. 

&■ <fff-: llr. /nti-rd.i'l mfi.; Palon, /.(, io(^.; u, for 
\'-n\, Baentsch.a*. 

• Kuenen, G^sMinil.'i<AUiT'')^Ki!iri^<< ef hrail. % tat: 
Hrx. iti.n 10; 'Kt. Cm'l tr>ff..m tblff.: SmctiA.Ettii. 
Hv./ii,: Addis. //«. a 180^.367; Cirpemer and Harforf- 

• The [AiHitM alio which We. ((D iji.O 169/I lignalitet u 
eviilence of dependence on Jer. and EkIi. are confined to the 

• S« Bfieniich, iii_^, where they are set out verse byverse. 
*Dr- /fc/^W.f) 150. 

•See DD IbcK pnnu Baenttch, 86/:: PiiDn, Prti, Ri/. 

' See Kue //«. ( 15, n. in,; Baentsch, i>,ff. 

■We. C//f'>isii Kue. «<J-. 1 6, and n. aj-aB: Holi. //m. 


affinities are atlogelher with JE and Dt. The panenelic 
character of H is foreign 10 all ages and stages of P; 
the language is quite distinct, as the ^cilily with which 
the additions ot Rr can be stripped off shows; the 
fictitious elements in Fs representation of the Mosaic 

; the 

s, the Levit 


t holy' things ii 

Doubileu ihe laws in H repreient and R^Iaie prieidy 

or pnesdy guilds; the priesu were the cottodians and expoiLieia 
of the ISrItk. The pan> of H which have been pnurvcd,' 
RKweovei. deal largely wiib tub>ccli in which Ihe prieiihaod 
had ■ peculiar iDtereni, — the physical qualificaiioni of pricHi, 

prevent their eating Kacrincial food, Ihe cxaminaiion of aaimali 

in ihe priestly ichools of Babylonia Ihat Iheu things became of 
importance and were regulaied by fixed rules, or even by 
•unmnanik (Ho>. «i3>r. SS). 

Chaps, 17-26 are followed by a chapter on the 
commutation of vows and tithes; a late chapter of 
ai n..» ftT Pfi="ly law, introduced here, perhaps. 
81. Cll»p. 87. ,h„ugh association with the laws on (be 
jubilee year and rights oi redemption in 25s ^. The 
lithe of cattle is not elsewhere mentioned in the 

In conclusion, the Book of Leviticus is Ihe work nol 
of the author of the History of the Sacred Institutions, 
SB. Compod- Tf-I 'TB^rd'^l »^ 'h; -""i" »;™ of 

LeTltloUB. yj^^J^J' ^'^.^ (omZr'm^a^ia^ 
The redactor's sources were the history above-named, 
from which he took 9 10 ..5 16i.,6i. /; H (in 
11 1T-2G) ; and collections of laws on sacrifices (in 1-7), 
1 12-15);' a priestly 

calendar of feasts (in 23) ; an account of the 
ciation 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 Ihe first 
sacrifices at the tabernacle (8/). though they interrupt 
the immediate connection of 8 with Et 29 (40) ; Ihe 
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 thai of H in 
3:1, both being mutilated; a motive for the position of 
27 has been su^ested above ((ji). Of Ihe position of 24 
no satisfactory explanation has been given. The analysis 
has shown that many changes in Ihe leil of Ihe sources, 
and many more or less considerable additions and 
interpolations, were made by the editor, or by subse. 
queni redactors and scribes, before the book attained 
its present form ; perhaps the scape-goat ritual In 16 is 

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

1. Comminlariis.—}. S. Viler, PiKl. 3, iBoa; H. Baum. 
ganen, 1844: C. F. Keil, 1861: t'), 187°; ET, 1866; A. Knobel, 

i8s;M'>byE.Dillmann.iSe<>; (') edited by 
88. UUTAtora. Ry»el, 1897; M. M. Kalisch. 3 vols. i8«t, 

■ 8;>: S. dark, 1871 iSpeakei'i Bible); E. 




E. Henheau, Diijiiin Crw^f/i 

drti mitlltrfH BuikrrH drt Fntalmckt, 1840; Graf, Pit 

Stckuhllulitn PUtiirdii Allrn TMamrmli, 1866: Th, NBU 

■We. Kue., etc. Seeagai 

■^■^^-^mnch more was o 
hai preseived we cannor ki 

riew Kayjer, yPT : 5*0^ , 



ilaUMck anil Bui 



W. Cftltiuo, Th4pi -, 

_ Kanu, i>« BcrtJiiiiiAci Bucti dir Uri 

xmd Hint BrmiltnngiK, Ii^^■. JPTI (iMi) -jibjff.. np. 
yij'.: J. W<lllBui»3t> CtmHti'iin d" Hixalnck, H„d 

j" ■*- ■- Blkektr AiAT. iSBf !•) 1B09 (-J/T, iSrf, 

Zur Charakleiiuik und Gctchlchie dei 

Tnflr Tradiihn of thi Extd'i. >Su- 
r. «„^(,„*, ,. ,BoSl J^l. 

(1S93) : F. Dcliiii: 


3. Hulbnl 

"on^^l-lIT iim',.Zir7-«4,-a4, 164- 

w >bo«!ia,n. I. On IT (!,-)«! A. ,__. 

»• 401^. {i%n)^Piiilalrutk, iteff. (1893): F. Dtliiiich, 
ZKwtt%,g. (1880): L. Ho™, Lnittcnt xvii.-n^i. ««J 
Pritittrtkmmi.^tff, UViay, B. Bunuch. ZJoi HiilirktiU- 
pulM, Lev. 1;-^, I'ioi; L. B. Paton, "Dx; Rctawn of Lev. 
»Ho Lev. IJ-Ib; ffirffaia, 11 TII-T9I (1894): ■TheOrigioil 
Fonnof Leviiicu^lMV ySilSj.^. (■S97);'TKeOripMl 
Foimof LevWcui, tlM.' 7fli 17 i^ff. (iMI i " The HdIidcu 
Code ind E«>ciel//*™. Xf/ Xn.. ; 9*-1.5 (iB^). 

On ibc Feui Liwi lee alu J. F. L. Ccorge. Dii mitm 
jUJufkm FriU. iB}8; Hupfdd. Cimmmlala di... Iim/v 
rwm/r,On.m . . . a*wd Hibrint ratient, iSji. iSsi, iSsB; 
W. H. Gteen. Tk, li,6m, F.aiU. i88j. 

See >]» ibe <«>tki on InlrMucIion lo the Old Tstunsnl. 
opecially ihoie of KiKnen, HoUinnr. Driver, CornilJ, Konig; 
«■ (he Huiory of IirkI. especially^wald. Slade, Wellhiuien, 
lod Kiilel (L oS-ioo 113-116): and on Hebrew AicHiEoIoKy- 
Nonck. BeDimier. ttiles of man of dvae worlu in DMimi- 

LBTT(ee), 1 K. S13/9153T. See Taxation. 
LIBAHU8 (AIB&NOC [BKA]), i Esd. 448 Judith];. 
See Lebanon. 

.n), EccI(U.G( 

; RV^-. 

UBEBTIMES. ' Certain oF the synagogue, which 
is called (thesynagogue)of lhe£iJfr/ii>u(XiBepTiM(i>N 
[Ti.WH], AeiBcpTElNUN [D]), and Cyrenians, and 
Alexandrians' {so AV). are nwDtioned In Acts 69. 
There has been much diversity in the inlerpretation of 
Ihis word. If ' Libertines' is the righl reading, i( can 
only mean ' freedmen.' The Jewish population in 
Rome consisted largely of tlie descendants of Ireedmen 
icp. Tac. Ann, 28;. 'qiiaiuoT millia libertini generis ea 
supeistitione intecia'; Philo, Lig. ad Caium. 1014,01 
rXelaut iwiKevBtfuHrTtt). It Is plain, however, that the 
synagogue referred to belonged equally to the Ultertini. 
the Cyrenjans, and the Alexandrians. Il Is difficull, 
Ihercfore, to avoid supposing that the firal of the three 
names, as well as Ihe other two, denotes the inhabitants 
of some ciiy or dblrict. 

Hence ' Libertini ' hxt beea coanemd with Libenum, the 

' Episcomim Libertinentii ' which occun in « 
Sjiiai at Canhice. a.d. 411. Then it no r 

ifened froB 

with the 

loueh lo juitlfr the pcoiniiienlplticeciven to the Libertini 
■ BlaMioiB9i</fctoJA.ed.philofteic.)lriedIo]ii*iirj. 

. Thoeii 

It is bell, therefore, 
versions and Syriac cot 
lighl. which presuppose either MtSiwr or \tftiiiiTirur. 
Senral scholars, not knowing of (hese authorities, had 
alimdy tried conjectural emendation. Schulthess pro- 
posed \ip6vr rUr jmri Ki^p^nj* (cp Acts 2,o) ; Beza, 
Oericus, and Valckenar Ai^SiiirrJ™*. At/Svffrl™* in- 
»olres the least amount of change, and whs adopted, 
with cognizance of the new auLhorides, in 1898 by Blass 
(Fhihhgy 0/ IMt Geipth. 69/), who is of opinion ihat 
Ihe Greek towns lying westward of Cyrene would quite 
appropriately be designated Libyan (cp Libva). 

A<Sk ■• plain ftomtlie mtHiam £^1(1*11 of Citullui 1811 1), 
■nd fram Ihe getigripfaical leiicon of Stephanut Byiinlinui, 
JoKphu* <f. Af. *i) leili u> thii manv Jews were removed by 
Fulemy Lafi and plicedin IheciliaoTLiInL Tfaii itaitment. 

, 17)6: Soberer, Dt Synag. Li 

cp Ceides, Di Sjnag. LUirUn- 

LIBKAH. I. (rt)?"?, ■pavemeni' [Ex. 34 mj. 
imi, libnatH. ' a compact 
one, etc' (Del. Ass. HWB 
LaBAN \3.v.\) 
rB«>IBAL1; but Ao^va fLj iaiK. Bn l»B 1 Ch. ![ 10 
'Alinjod). I0» - ■ - 

odi. I0n]o1ti;:*ii>raia lodi. I»49:(l 13 [Bj 
% l-OU]; «..» in . k. e« I^I.Doie tn>i <r.. 
AmI»^k in 9 K. ISg [A], I cVu;; [.aj I UA], 


precedes. Add AhIb 
.Cli.iLiolAi, I..I „, 
iniK, aBji [A], lei.niilB-Ae 
W18: Aafln«[AJinJoili. 1U31^ 

the lowland of Judah (Josh. V,,,^). 


ally Canaani 
ciij. (Josh. 2 


(Josh. 10j9/ 12 is), aflerwardsa 
n. Bi ,3 [P] ; I Ch. S 57 [4^] must be inc 
the Edoi * ■ . -■ . 


Cb. 21 16), and w 
Sennacherib in the reign of Heiekiah . 
3Tg). Jouah's wife came from Libnab (a K. 23 ]i 
24 iS). Sayce finds it mentioned in the list of Rameses 
II L before Aphekah {ff/^»> 635; Pat. fal. 339); but 
Ihis is disputable (see WMM, As. «. Eur. 160). 
Eusebius and Jerome (05-JT4i3 135>8) describe il as 
a village in the region of Eleutheropolis, called in Iheir 
day Loiaira 01 LoiKa. Hence Stanley identified il with 
Ttll ts-Safyeh. which is only two hours from Eleuthero- 
polis;' but see Mizpf.H (in Judah). Llbnah musl. at 
any rate, have loin not very Sar from Lachish, on Ihe 
SW. border of Judah. andon the edge of the Philislian 


nlificatianorLibnah wilh^/.^^H's'i 

ill hardly 


or \xiiiii-(PEF Qh. St., i 

>. C"\ bul Sam. n]U'<, with which agree Ihm-» [BJ, 
A.MAFL']).Kum.88»(H^H[AF])ii. TbeLABAK (;.!>.} 
of Di. 1 ■ in peihipl die ubc nanie. S« Wandbrincs, 

UBHI nS^, perhaps a gentilic from LiBnah a, 
cp Genealogies i., § 7, v., coL ttiGs ; see abo Laban, 


1. AGenhanileUviiicalnwDc: Nu. 818 i Ch. «i;» [is] 
[BALI). The name occun eliewhert u Ladah [f.r. t]. 

i'fK*. d's^r. Zta. 


il.iMi. CpC.NiebL 
Leah, Levi, Ubni, . 

A library (BiBAioOhkh) founded by 
Nehemiah is referred to in 3 Mace. 2t). Onthesupposed 
'twok-lown' in the hill-counlry of Judah, see Kirjath- 

SEPHER (C0l.368l). 

Ihe word ffi0A. ilu occur* In Ena <i, • (i> tf^SAittfiut 
[BL], ivTiU $. [A]-K'-ICD r>'3), and in Eilh. iij, • (ir 

LIBTA (hXiByh, Acts2io.AieTEC i" « [cp Vg. 

Uiyti] ; AV Libjuu, as Uanslalion of LubiM in a Ch. 
123 1<)3 Nah. ^9 Dan. 11 43).lhe T>ame applied by Iha 
Greeks to Africa generally. Ihe portion first known and 
most familiar to them being that on which Doriaik 
colonists settled and founded Cyrene. 

andon the doubtful ' Libertinei' of Acu Aa >ee Libeiitines. 
The Dime 'Libvi- alio occun in AV of £ek. SU; and H'j 
<nig. 'Pbul 'land' Libyana' in Jer.4«9 (>««-' Full. SceRV. 

The ancients underestimated the size of Libya : Siratio 
(p. Sa4) surmised Ihal It was less than Europe, and Ihat 
Europe and Libya together would not be equal to Asia. 
Libya did not properly include Egypt— i.f., the Nile 
valley (Herod, a,;/):! Ptolemy (ii. 16 iv. 1) fiist 
assigned E^ypt to Afirica. 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 Ihe 
Empire. North Africa tell into three secdons. 

(r) The Original Province of Africa, consliluled by 
the remnant of the posfessions of Carlhage aRer the 
drsiniciion of that cily in 146 B.C. (Sallust, By 19) : 
to diis, in 35 B.C., Augustus added Numidia, which first 
, //rrtd. ZmiiiH Buck, ad loc. 


became a province, under the name Africa Nmia, in 
46 B£. (Pliny, HN S >j Dio Cass, 43 9). This cenfrnl 
ponion consiimled Ihe senalorial Province of Africa, 
which, like Ihe Province ol Asia, »as governed by &pro- 

(a) The weslem portion of Nonh Africa, Mamelania, 
«as made a province by Claudius in 40 

(3) The eastern section. Ihe Cyrenaica, was combined 
with Crete in 37 RC. I0 form a single province. The 
old name Libya was ofHdally revived liy Diocletian, who 
separated Crete from Cyiene, and divided the latlet 
into an eastern p.irt (Liiy/i Inferior), and a weslem 
pari ittcluding the old Cyrenaic Pentapolis (Libya 
Sufirlor). w. J, w, 

LICE (Er:3 and DJ^;' CKNii]>ec. CKNtnec)- 

Meniiotied in EV iti cotinection with the plagues of 
Egypt (Ei. 8,6-18 ["^.J, Ps. Ittijit), where RV"«- 
suggests the alternatives of V'l.E^A (Putci') or sand-fly 
ISimuiiHin). If we lay stress on Ihe usage of the 
Mishna (mis, Hri, 'louse,' but also 'vermin'; cp Tg. 
Pesh.. and see below, n. 3). we may tie inclined to de- 
fend the explanation of Josephus {.-Ini, ii.I-li]), Bochart. 
and EV 'lice.'' On a point like this, however, the 
Egyplian-Greek version («) has a claim to be deferred 
10. hs rentlering is riE*f«n (cp Wisd. ID ,0), 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, imai; cp Heb. iimiimf) 
and olhei worse kinds of fli(», however, are still more to 
be dreaded there. Besides, the enormous quantities of 
lice of which EV speaks must soon have perished when 
eiposed to the dry heal of Egypt 

The liDpiUr ir hubeen ihoughl la occur ■□ It. Bti;, where 
' in like miuiner ' i3n hirdly be cancel. It is leu impralnble 

bep"n?^ilh'a', whl^hl^ldfiiclliwleTlIb; lofint Wtir)". This 
give* ibeaeiue' shall die like Eiuti.' AsMuhantmut vyt.God 
■uy'KtfaTihainniblc (even) of a gnat ' (Koran, .fur. IX 91), 
■nd in the Babylonian DelugcSiory theitodi 'gather like Aki 
.bmiiihe«crilic«r'(epnej. ^w. //)*'5,i.p.'_Zumbu'). ITii.. 

Cht.'^n^."/!. (on !•. ni 6)/lha< B ..- should be^re^ in nIiI 
18 3} more than plausible. On both paiw^es see Loci'sr, 
I>Ul. T. K, C— A. E, S. 

Smith, Did. Gr. and Rent. Anl.W j.v. • Lictor.' 

LIDEBnt ("p"!^). Josh. 13 3S RV"*-, AV DeBir. a 
place in Gad, probably the same as Lo-JjEBaR [f.v.] 
(AmBun [B1. ^aBeiP [A]. UBttp [L]). 

LIEVTBHAHT8. i. RV Satraps (n':B7nlfp>t). 
Eira-jfteic. See S:,i>*ps. Passi*. 

a. (nna),J*r. aiijRV'"fr EV Gournor (j.p.. ■). 

LIQHT. 1'he true God says, according to Ihe great 
prophetic teacher of the Eiile. ' 1 am Yahw* — and 

1 B»l* """^ '* """= else-who formed light, and 
™»J created darkness' (Is. «16/), So the 
MDOeptiou. WordolGod.inthe Fourth Gospel, says, 
' 1 am the light of the world: he Ihat tbllows me shall 
not walk in darkness, bul shail have the light of life' 
(Jn. H 13). Between these two sayings lies Ihe develop- 
ment of a new conception o< life, the germs of which, 
however, are partly to be found in the work of the 
exilic teacher. The stnlemcnl that Yahwi produced 
light is no part of Ihe traditional Hebiew cosmogony. 


: ihould 

■s ^ ^ if iii-rin. i»6i) tup- 

Lcepi ai an intensely li 

F™K).'' Hence in 1^ 111 i^fln • pnrt4wy iMe paSigl) Yah3 
H called the ■ Ughl of litarf • (phi. Holy One'). Wban be 

n full 

igbt. duiinE which he appears before God. 

To the Babylonians, too, the divine Creator (Morduk) 
was Ihe god of l^ht; creation intieed Is mythically 
represented as a baltle between ihe Light Being and 
Ihe Dark (Tiamat). See Creation, S3. It is the 
Priestly Writer's reflective turn of mind that leads him 
to prefix to his adaptation of Ihe old ct>smogony Ihe 
slalemeni, 'God said, Leithere be light ' (Gen. 1 ,). To 
the not less refleclive minds of Egypiian priests .idifTeient 
idea presented itself. Hidden in the dark bosom of 
Chaos the eternal light wns impelled by longing 10 give 
itself existence; manifold and sometimes grotesque 
imagery was employed to describe Ihe process of 
emergence. Creation itself is described thus, — " He 
hath made all thai the world contains and halh ^iveFi it 
tight, when all was darkness, and there was as yet no 
sun.' ' So tix) a hymn in the Rig Ved.i represents 
creation as a ray entering the realm of darkness Irom 
the realm of light,^ and similar ideas are presupposed 
in the theological statements of the Avesta. In Ihe 
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 ( lob 3H ,9/). 
That God is robed in light, is said in Ps. lU 1 (cp 
Ex. 3a etc., cited above), and just as in the Avesta the 
heaven where Ahura Mazda dwells is called ' Endless 
Lights," so God in James 1 ij is called ' Ihe father of the 
lights ' — ij„ the father who dwells in perfect and never 
darkened light (though Ihe view that rh. ^ulTB = 'ihe 
stirs "is also possible; cp Ps. 136;. Jer. 4jj). Hence 
the ' light ' of God's ' countenance ' is a symbol of Gad"s 
favour (Nu.6j5/). 

*" >- - ■ - •■ f(j| ibtmselvei 10 be in darkness. 
light (cp 

The lenim of 

j). Tbt Psalms a 


li,). InPs. ..,, 

t full of lb 

e find the fij 


1 ■ faiihfui^ 

himiclf, HMntial lighl (Pi. 119 id;, iio), and in In. w'a ihc 
Itiael within Israel (the servant of Yahwi) is said to be ' a lifhl 
(o the nations,' u bcinK the bearer 10 them of God's law. In 
Enoch 4> 4 Ihe same phrase is applied la the Meutab. 

It was natural lhat the vague expressions of the 
Psalter relative to 'light' should be interpreted by 

2 LfttMT '"'^' J*" ""''^'" *' influence of Ihe 
derelapnmt Pr^"?'"" eschaiology. 'Ughf and 
usvwviHUHiv. .,jfj ^^.^^ virtually synonymous, and 
these profound expressions received a fuller content 
through Ihe developed belief in a kingdom of light 
and life to be supematurally set up on Ihe earth. The 
Fourth Gospel, however, and kindred NT wrilings 
(with which we may to some extent group the Wisdom 
ofSolomon; cp J 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 Ihe 
kingdoms of light and of darkness, not perhaps unin- 
fluenced by Oriental and especially Zoroaslrian dualism 
(as the great Herder long ago pointed out), and not 
without a connection with Gnosticism. The aim of 
Christian disciples is ' tobecomesonsof light" (Jn. 13 36; 
cp Eph. 5g I Thess. ,■15) = 'to become sons of God 
(Jn. Ill), through 'faith' in Christ (cp FAITH), who is 
the 'light of the woHd' (Jn. Su Oj, cp I4 12 46), and 
to be ever 'coming to the light' (Jn. 3ai) to expose 
themselves to this beneficial test of their inward 'truth" 
or reality (see Tritth). The expression 'the genera- 
tion of light' (Enoch lOHii) gives merely an external 
point of contact: the fourth evangelist himself is. we 

■ Cp Bniencb, Rr!. m. Mrih. dir ' " 

■ Max Miillei 

-. Lit. s6j. 




.f Jes, 

Nm CO the Founh Gospel the Epistle to the Ephesians 
E a slorehouse of references 10 the symbolic lighl. The 
* »^»..>ua satelliiei ot the 'ruler of this world' 

called ■ ihc world-rulers of this darkness' (!^h.6.j,RV).i 
TTiose who 'walk in Ihe lighf (Eph. 58; cp Jn. l^js) 
are under a moral obligation to bring to light (he works 
of darkness, and la ' convict ' those who do Ihem (Eph. 
9ii 13:^ cp JD, 3ioyC). In Colosstans we have Ihe 
clauical passage, Col. 1 13 / ('the inherilance of the 
saints in light,' and 'Ihe power of darkness'), with 
which a striking passage in i Peter (ig/.) may be 
csmpared. The designation of Christ in Heb. 1 3 as 
'Ihe eflulgence ol his (Cod's) gloiy' is ■ detelopmeni 
of Ihe more elaborste description in Wisd. T at. ' an 
effulgence from everlasting lighi. and an unspotted 
mirror ol the working oi God' (cp MIRROR). The 
symbolbm of 1 Thess. i^/„ Rev. 21 11 13 is loo simple 
to need any subtle explanation. 

A haidpauAffeia is-^tg may be here TeTcrTed to. * Dew of 
lillni'irtw now delcDd 'dew ofheibt') b evidenlly wrong ; the 
me reading is preurved by 9, ' thy dew i* a heaiipg to Ihem ' 

■peKUy i( ihebealiag olall Ihiogi.' See Ha KM. t v c 


UOH-ALOKS (C^^tC). Nu.24G.t See Aloes. 

LIQimB (D1^), Ex. 2Sis, RV>« 'amber'; ^iOta.t 
RV Jacinth [t-".]. 

UEHi (*np^). a Manissite, descendant of Shemida 
ifv. ) ; I ch. 7',5,+ (\&KeiA [A]. -«eeiM [B], Xok. [L]). 

Po»ibly uiDlher farm of '^n ; lee Helek. 

UUTH (RV"!-), or Nioht-monster (RV ; AV^-J, 
or (AV wrongly) SCREECK-OWL (IT?'?; ONOKEN- 
T*YP<ll[BKAgr]; AiAift [Aq. inQ"w] ; AiAit [Aq.]; 
AAMI& [Symm.]; H ^ S> >. [Pesh.]; Umia); and 
ThB^M (RV-n*), ot HORSELEACH (lo EV) (rtj31*7P; 
see Horseleech). Apparently two demons of similar 
characteristics, both mentioned in post-exilic passage* 
(cp Isaiah ii., J 14: Proverbs, { B). 

Desolated Edom, according lo Is. 34 14, will be 
l.Lilith. ''»'""<'• *T 'he SArvRS {t.v.) and by 

The naoe.H Schnderlong ago pointed oui, i> connectalirith 

.. CiT/t/r 


IJlu. LJIilu. and ardaJ Ule were not specially demons 
of the night — a view which is peculiar 10 the related 
Jewish superstition. The darkness which they loved 
was that of the storms which raged in [he wilderness. 
Potent charms were used lo keep them from Ihe haunts 
of men, where they would otherwise enter, bringing fi;ll 
disease into ihe human organism. A corrupted form 
of the myth of Lililh. strengthened by Persian elements, 
spread widely among the Jews in post-eiilic times as a 
part of Ihe popular demonology. 

The details of this myth can only be glanced at here. 
Lilhh was a hairy nighl-monster (the name being per- 
haps popularTy derived irom layi/, 'nighl'), and speci- 
ally dangerous to inDints (cp the Greek Ijmia). Under 
her was a latge class of similur monsters called Ulin 
(plnr. of Ulith; cp Apoc Bar. 108), of whom net only 
children but also men had lo beware. Hence, in Talm. 
Bab. (SiaMS/i. 151J), a man Is warned not lo sleep 

' Cp HolBmann. fCnin JirEfkmr. M. CohiurtHt/f. J70. 

' AeconlinR u [rtncut (i St>3), Eph. titj wu a pOHage 10 


alone In a house, and in Taig. Jer., Nu. 61s. a passags 

in the priestly blessing becomes 'The Lord bless Ihe* 
in all thy business, and guard thee from the Lilin.' 

See Ihe Walpurgis-nighl icene in Fault (a proof of Goelhe't 
learning), and cp Bacher in MGW}, .B70, p. iSB: F. Weber, 
■Jlid.rk,r,l.i%i\ Crilnbaum.ZZI^Clllasoy:; EiKuneDger, 
Entdtcklts jHdiHlhnm, t .13.^. 

The vampire is. according to some, another ol the 
maaik'm, or harmful beings, of which the worid is fiill 

e Thi. '*«« Demons, and cp Pirki Abolh. B9). 
Tunnin T'^" '-^'^^ (mentioned in Prov. SOij) is 
•^ properly 'the horseleech' (see HORSE- 
LEECH), but surely not Ihe ordinary horseleech, if it 
was the mother of Sheol and the womb. 

The most satisfying view of Prov., U., is perhaps that 
given al Ihe end of this article ; but a less bold explana- 
of Bickell, who arranges thus (^^' being 

omitted as a gloss) :- 

and the passage, which is an expression of wonder at 
Ilie mysteries of death and birth, means that Ihe under- 
world and the maternal womb (cp the commenlators on 
Ps. 13di}i;) are as insatiable ('Give, Give' expiesses 
their character) as Ihe ' Aliiliah — a mythological demon, 
which the people and its poets imagined as resembling 
a leech, and which is possibly referred to in Ihe 
Targum of Ps. I2S[9l : see HORSELEECH. The Arabic 
' aliik is explained in the Kamils by ^/. ' a female blood- 
Sucking monster' (Ues. This. 103B), the ghoul of Ihe 
Arabtan Sighli. and Sayce finds ' the vampire ' in 
Babylonian spells (see j i). 
In licl, according to Babylon! 




Prim. CkU. I 

panllel, cp the >kep-deinoo called Btlthyaniu (Spiegel, Erau. 
AH.ttij: cpKohat. yf'i- Aiifr/tlfffii,S6). 

Mou probalily, however, nflV?Jf^ ti miiwrilten fcr r|7|ip|', 
which i> a title ascribing (he Ibllowipg aaying to Ha^^ikth 
(■eeKoHEUTH). The woidi rciukiKl 'Iwo daughlen. Give, 
five,' hive sprung out of njn nj^a^r, which wen writlen in the 
wrong place. See Che. PSSA, June 1901. 

lHYdfltltf. 1 K.7i9, ry^. aCh.4sCanL2./l 
Hot U j|6]; pi. O-l^-e'.Cant. ti«4s 613 «./ Ia|j| Esclui. 
W14IMB Ml. <l>a Lk. IS 97: •>XA, ,„,„randii|»Hi). 

The Hebrew word iiian. like its Greek' and English 
equivalents, seems to have applied lo a large number of 
different species. Its origin is most probably Egyptian, 
from a word whose consonants were i-ti-n, denoting 
the lotus flower. Nymphaa Lotus. L., blue or white (see 
Lagarde, Mittk. 2 ij ff,. who quotes a description of the 
flowei from Butckhardl's AtaHc Provttis. ib} fi) ; and 
as Lagarde points out. It Is not improbably the lolut 
flower that was present lo the mind oF the writer of 
I K. T 19 11 36. as this was frequently used in ^^lian 
decoration and would best provide forms for the capitals 
ol the pillais and for the rim of the sea in Solomon's 
and Hosea, how- 

t have 

1 ior 

flowers quile different from the lolua. From Can 
it is usually inferred that the ' lilies ' meniioned were not 
while, but red or purple; and Ibis view is supported by 
Ihe implied comparison with royal robes in Ml. 11 iS 
IJi. 12 iy. These and the other references suggest a 
fragrant flower of bright hue which gave colour to Ihe 
fields of Palestine. According to Boissier, Ihe only lilium 
occurring in Palesline is i. (J/Juih ,■ so that Heb. lujafi 
has almost certainly a wider application. Tristram 
(NHB 46a f.) discusses the different possibilities. The 
most plausible claimant for Ihe name is the scarfet 
anemone. Anemmi ceroiiaria. L. Welislein again (in 
Zt. /. altgtm. Etdk. [1859] 7148) speaks of a dusky 
violel plant somewhat like a crocus as exceedingly 

> According to 1 lecenl emendiiion, 'liliei' (H^JE"!!') and 
'applet' »e parallel in the well-known puiage, Cant. Sj. See 
F-um i , [»]. 

> The <(«»r 



plentirul in Ihe fields of Haurin— moat probably Gladi- 
tlai atrBviolaertii. Boiss. If, as Trislram reports, ihe 
Arab peasantry now npply the name siiian 'lo any 
brilliantiy coloured flower at all resembling a lily, as to 
the tulip, anemone, ranunculus,* it seems reasonable to 
conclude thai Ihe biblical name had an equally wide 
application. See also Shoshanmu. 

[See H. Chriit, •Nochirili d. Lille d. Blbcl' in ZDPf 
Sa es-Bo (iSm) , wbo remaila that ihcR it Dot tufficienl 
to decide what kind of lily it meant, and that the flowei 
■-"- ■-" irobaWy Ihe i-' ■ - ' 

ilillge di 

e Bibliu 


I. Hit. i. 93-76 (Fieiburg i. B., 1900). 

a Biiliii. 


ilDOIclcir.' 'Liljei. 

UXS. Assyria 
familiar w' ' 

n planll of pt 

: of li 

Babylonians alike were 
(carbonaiE of lime) and 
vhelher as a plaster or a 

\e Egyptians, by whom 

m (sulphf 

alike foe preservative and 
and Ihe same remark applies to 
this form of mural decoration 
pilch of excellence, and from whom il was laken by Ihe 
Etruscans, Ihe Greeks, and other ancienl peoples. See 
Wilkinson, ^ac. Eg, I361. cp pi. viii.; also EBit\. ,,v. 
'Mural Decoration'; and, for biblical references, see 
PLaISTER. and cp Moktar, According lo Rev, W. 
CaislBW of Beirul, mortar m.ide uith lime is used now 
more often Ihan formerly (Kastiiigs. DBSnt a). 

The phenomena of lime-poundmg and of calcination 

' ' referred to (a) in Is. in^ and also (4) in Am. 

2 1 Is. 

and il 

burning of bones (phosphale of lime) that is spoken of. 
Bui all these passages may be greatly improved by 
methodical emendation. 

K3. 11. 1 

i. A) .. 

... , , if [RKAQr], cam 
fHKtril tmnii l^idti etiarii licul lefiJti ciiirii elliai: 
£V ■ when be makelh all Ihe iloMi il the alur u iihtlkitonet 
that ire benten in lunder'; Puh. lenden i) by it/iS—i.i., 
xiAit, m/j-. (*> Tt, ilJ, in Ihe uprEHknu 1>6»? ilif , "rt. 
«i<»m'» if ■■>•«■ (/.' , r<.B'), at tnrrxdii cinii (It. BS 13]. 
UHB. (I) -nP, Ih-id. Is. «.3t AV, wrongly. 
See P«NCii- <») -n- *<"". '•■ ** U "V (AV ' rule,' ii<T/».). 
Cpnvn.r.-*™a' '--■- "^ ' 1.-..-.^- 

er the block of wood 10 lay out die c 
Id have HI uke. The builder UKd it 

it(Job*isZech.l; " " " 


bSv, *«*«'. *"h OI«r, Get., ' 

/WA]/, EkI '" - 


il law. Still, il it iuil polwible, >b Dillmaon lug- 
(S41), thai bad in iiKlf meant only • white siufl;' 

3. but, ru (^llirffai or piatavt, EV ' fine linen.' i Ch. 
431 [a^tu, B; afS^ut. A; a|9Dut. L] ISi; 3 Ch. 2i4 
[13] 3m 3" Esth. 16 His Ejek. 2Tiet), is a laie word 
in Hebrew, as, apart Irom the highly doubtful mention 
in Eiekiel,' it is found only In Ch. and Esth. Bkf 
is almost cenaialy equivalent to Ihe older lerm 'iei 
(I??. cpiCh. ISajWilhGen. 4l4>; and especially a Ch. 
[ij] 3i4 Sii wlih Ex. 2843 etc.). and both d 

10 the 

e of which then 
itt is probably an E^ word, being 
in eonnemion with Egypt (Gen. 41 4" «Dd 
esp. Eiek. 27 7). and as aecortling to Ex. alliS il is either 
identical with or a species of bad {see above), Ihe evi- 

that being a particularly Egyptian product. 

""' ology of ihe wordiBf itquiie unkBowBI apoaible 


>e Cord. 

10 1« AV, AVra*. 'rale.' RV 'ptovince,' 
RVBf. ■ Kinil.' CpCAMoB,fi. 

occur as renderings of Ihe following words : — 

I. 'ffCx, lOH. Piov.I i6t (defining ""39:;, dark-hued UuITi) 
—uken far a verb in 9 and tinuigely reedertd faypa^^a by 
Theod.— occurt in Tgg. in the tenteof ' tope.' If MT it correct 
(lecbelowkititprotubly the tame at Gr.A^nf,* fine linen cloth/ 

cloth.' Ho tatitfactory eiyvofoEv of the word hat been round 
in Ihe Semitic languigo (againti Del. ad Ix ). [Frankenb. 
■sd Che., howewr, think the leil very doubtCul. The latter 
rcadt (hut: ' I have timchcd corda on my bediKtd; 1 have 

9. bad, 13 (Ei.2)t4i3!l>8 [nol in S] LeT.fito[,] IR4 
1} 3a I S. 2iK 22ig 3 S. 614 I Ch. \7.t,\ plur. Eiek, St / 
ti lOi 6/ Dan. 10; I36/t).is rendered by 6 in Ihe 
Pentateuch Uhot, but elsewhere variously.* 

D"«e, read "E»?). 

«ord iLw.' J#"f. Isa^rf^lihrowmoUahi 
J it Biiytriiag gaii»d oy comparing Ar. 

Philology being of no assistance, we are thrown back 
ipon the statements of Greek and Lalin writers about 
lyssus : and from a careful examination of these, Braun 
Di vistita iairrdoUim Hrbr. 1., chap. 6). Celsius 
Hitrsb. II., 169 g.), and more recently Yales (Ttx- 
trmuM anliquerum, LontL. 1843. 1.. 351 g.), have de- 
" Lced with fair certainty tha conclustoo thai byssus 
IS "fine linen.' On the other hand, Forster {Dt bysia 
liqtterum { Lond„ 1776) argued that byssus was cotton, 
d has been followed by many modem scholars. On 
: one main point, however, his argument is now entirely 
overthrown. The stalement of Herodotus (286) (hat 
the embalmed bodies of the dead were swathed In cloths 
of byssus (ritSAni ^winii Tt\a«iw«i) was taken to 
prove that byssus meani cotton, because it was long held 
' ~ cotton was the material of the mummy clolhs. How- 
, the microscopic examination by Thonuon (whose 
lis were Rrsl published in the P^il. Mag., Nov. 1834) 
■nd later invest Igaiions have clearly shown Ihat these 
wrappings are linen, at least in the vast majority of 
cases.' 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 Ihe flax-workers in the grotto of el-Kab (cp 
ateo Budge, Mummy. iBg/.). 

It it true thai j;t lean imo late Gieek writert, PhilotUatui '■"'^ 
and Pollux 11 76) appear 10 have exiended ihe te 

ooFuiiont an natural with unicienlilic authon, 

_.._L__ _, .. ... ^^„^ ,(„„ , 

There is reason for distinguishing fittirf 
sort of Unen from Uvor: thus Pausanias ar 
speak of them as distinct; and Pliny (lix. 1 
byssus of Elis. juattraii dtnariU scripula tins per- 
mulala iptondam ut aari rtptrio) and many others refer 
to byssu« as among the most costly of materials. We 
may therefore be satiified with the EV rendering of 

1.137, evrs.Vo. The plural it renil 

Eiek. KlffToXAandimAiliyial in Dan. Svn'<,«( 

Symm. *.vi,_Th. S~U[(].i>i The Dtual lendeiin 

■SeeCoiplll.irif J^. ThewordiiabientinS.ui 

acoiunt it oiveit bv Wilkintou iAitt. Be. chap. 11 
am. AreKix ifng-.i. 

y Google 


' fine linen. ' The mention of ' (be families of the bouse 
of those ihal wrought 6ne linen' (p^) in i Ch. lai {if 

correct) reminds us of other references lo the growth 
and spinning of flu in Palestine (Josh. 2« Prov. 31 ij 
Hos.2]9[mi])- See also Flax. 

^ mi^w/i, .Tip?, in 



a Ch AH 

5. tdiHit, [-19. 'fine linen' (P[ov.31i4 AV, ls.333 
EV), -linen EBrments' (Judg.l4i3RV;> AV -sheets,' 
mg. • shirts'), an anicle of domestic manufacture (Pr. 
/.(.), which was considered a lumiiy (Is. /.c). Accord- 
ing 10 Jer. J^ii.'H 13 there were three varieties (a sleeping- 
dolh, a garden^lreis, and a sampler), and in Af/ndcA. 
37 4 il is spoken of as a summer garment as opposed to 
the «'j3-» fur winter use. In ¥omd 84 it is used of a 
cunain, and in /filASj^i of a shroud. From these 
passages it may be concluded that idJIn denotes either 
in genend a piece of linen cloth, such as a sheet, or 
more specilicaUjr a linen shin worn next the skin (cp 
Moore. /..dx.. ad tot.). 

The idenlifioiuDn of jdiOii with Svi. itdJlita and Cr. riiMi 
(by whkb it ii rendered in •iave in 1 >. S 13, where Ihe rendering 
B Woe) hu been doubted (cp Fiankcl,^) ; il nuy. bowtver, be 
OKUMCted with Ihe Ab. ntdmii (Am. Tab. lalimH), ' numenl - 
(q> D»L Au. mVB : Wi. A m. Thmlaf. ' Gluiar '). 

6. fiillm, O'Brt, it rendered 'Imtn' ia Lcv.lSt?/ J9S9 
Dt, SJ II E«k. «.;/ Jei. 13 1 ; (« Flak. 

7. El, i^((;en.41t>Ei.254 2Si3i3«279[9>om.] 
r« iS 2S 5/ B IS 39 356 1} IS 3; 36 8 35 37 889 1« iS 13 39 a/ 
s8 »7-»9 Prov.3lM Eack-lBio 27;; onoe -^ [Kt., 
(follows], Eiek.ieijtt.rendered^iIo'ffWor^ffinFiinS. 
is. as we have seen above {3). the older equivalent of bit. 
Si! is not improbably of Egyptian origin, being identical 
with Coptic sMeni= byssus. and so apparently contiecled 
with Coptic jilni/, 'toweare.' Like the ^iVowik t^Xk 
of (Jreek writers, robes of ii! formed an honourable 
dress (Cien.4143). It was a chief constituent in the 
more ornamental of the labemncle hangings and of the 
priestly robes, along with dyed sluHs* — blue, purple, 
and scarlet. The ' hne twined linen' ("it^ iW) of Ex. 
2S-2S 36-39 was probably woven of thrrads spun from 
a still finer flax than thai which produced Ihe ordiiuuy 
S!; we may compare what PWtty (ISi. % a) says of the 
specially fine Ciiman flax : na id marime mimm, 
tingula tarum ilamina etntfui quiMquagtooJih constat*. 
adding that in the still more wonderful case oF the famous 
linen cuirass of Amasi* each thread was made up of 365 

what pofectioD the arts of spinning and weaving were 
carried in andent Egypt- 

8. (Um/, -^n (11. 199,t • pfemt, AV Nrr-woaKH, mg. 
WHira WoiKS, RV WHm Cloth, mg. collon), which ti a 

WEirr, WHfollownliiyKVrewJAiSiiv. Fo 
Ecciui.404 (• •iisA^ni) MC Fiocic. 
nhH- (Lk.!4iJ Jn. 1(140 SOs^t), plur. 
ndtrni'ilira.'AculOi. llifXon whichi 

ej,). So 
efel lO Ih 

It oi.««(Ml.'gT»Mk.Us'/l*<«Lk-*«S3t; RVlinen 

1 So, (on, RV in Prov. SI 34. 

3 AccordiW 10 Jewish indiiion (Mithna, KiL^i) Ihe gsr- 

ibe law againit ia'afitit, T3CF1^. Lev. 10 19 (' ganncnl of linen 
and woollen,' AV), Dl.« ■!(.'. . •woollen and Hnen lojelher,' 
AV\ Dillmann (on Ei. 3» 4). however, ihink) they may have 

t^t, 'woven.' and nrdj, 'falw' (cp Kn. ad !x.\ •'> word 
•i^avw oecuTt again in Wisd. 2 it (AV 'counurfeii.' RV ' baM 
BKUl-) and I&9 (-counierteii[i],' EV> Cp Dttaa, | 7. col- 

>Cp -fii bAm.7i Nab.ti; (Souk, Cr., 13014 


cloth ' ccmiiilenlly) : cp EgypL iAr>i/(>ee7)iisynonyniaui with 
i«.i»» 1 cp Mi. ir so Mk,U4< Lk.Mii Jd.Ms/, and. ina, 
Jud g. H ij, iWna [6LI, v.*Uw [At n. M. 

LntTEL. On the sacredness of the lintel see 
ThresHuLU. The only true Hebrew word lor - lintel - 
is F|lp^ maJiifk (cp Ass. asiuppu), Ex. 12jji/. 

For W. 'dri' (I K. <jO RVnv. givei -posis'i and for 
■tree, kapklSr (Anufli), AVrag. and RV give ■ chapilei<.).- 

UHQ8 (AiNOC [Ti. WH]) unites with Eubulus and 
others Jn a greeting to Timothy (a Tim. 431). Accord- 
ing lo Iren^us {Adv. Aorr,, iii.Sj) Linus received the 
bishopric of Rome, not from Peter as first bishop, but 
from ' the apostles ' (cp Eiis,//£3i ; and the lists of the 
seventy disciples compiled by Pseudo-Dorotbeus atvd 
Pseudo- H i ppoljtus ). 

IniheSyriac r,«M,^ i^f Simim C(/4«, where he ii called 
Aiuut or liui (ibe / or h» name baving be«n laken at Ihe tign 
of the accusative, which might be omiued), he lb a di&cipic of 
Peter, a deacon, whom Ihe apoAlle maks bithop In his ^teod, 

be read before Ibe people ; he a also represented as taking up 
Ihe bodiei of Peter anj Paul by night and burying ihcm. One 

Roman Church on aird Sept. According 10 the Ronuii Breviary 
he was an Eirunan, native of Volaierne. and wai bitbop of 

™iy-lhr«"d^°Bnd it' hliried bi ihe Valican. ° SchullB 

^i Jf»/. sjSS, however, has ihown that there was no 

L burying'place in the Valican bcToie the reign of 

ine. 'Hamack dates the episcopate of Llnut A. o. 64.76. 

o/I-cJnir^ Z/r., and cp Lighifoot, ^V. 


UOH. Few animals are mentioned more frequently 
in the OT than the lion (t'tlis Uo), and fanilliar 
jB__ acquaintance wilh its habits is shown by 
1. 1-Kn* ^^ ^g^j, ji^ji^ employed. There are 
five Hebrew words for lion, which, il so happens, are 
collected together in a single passage (Job 4 10/ }. 

I. 'Jrf. 'aiyiA, ">, nT«, the common word for a (ull.grown 
lion. The cognate word in Eth. is applied 10 any wild beati, 

3. idSl, K'a^ (v''t'> eat,' cp Ar. /a^>ii, but tee Hominel, 
S.lifrtA. iVi/.). used especially of the lion™. Gen. 499 Nu. 
tSi4 Joellt (0 -w, .n-w), and UiifyA, irsy, Eiek. IBt, and 
cp alto ihe place-name Brm-LEBAOTM (nVMJ^ tn-JI). [In Pi. 
Ki7a[iu| tit\,xi\ Ihe lAU or 'grenly lion lakes the placa 
of the dog in Che.'t letl ; cp Doc, 1 3, begin.] 

J. klfUr, 'tVf ('covered'— (".«.. wilL hatrl), a young and 
strong lion ; cp Enk. IS if. 5 Ps. 17 11 (n n-iM), Eiek. at 1} «lc 


4. idja. ei:!t(v''to be tttong'X Job*.. is.80t (itB-aSi 

prov. so 30 ; cp perhaps Ihe place-name Laish. 

5. «V, '?ni^(v"io cry out'). Job4.o 10 16 (n-iit) SSb* 
Hos.Gi4andPs.»li3(iiTB3)- IdenliRed by Boch. wiih Ihe 
black Syrian lion (cp Pliny 8 17K On PtOl 13 s« SmrEBT. 

AV in JobWl renders fntl'ia, "Ibn'i whelp*,' RV, how. 
ever, -the proud beasis" (cp Talm. r™^, ' pride ">; cp RVi 
rendering of 4l34[s6|: Vg-^/u »^rfi>; Get..Buhl, 'noble 
bcatttofprey'-f., 'iheBon.' A***/, however, teems to be 

See hit Chn 


In Job? 

n Job« 

thouM probably be fl^ {• p. j 
P«h., Michaelis, eit). 

A study of the parallelism in the differeni passagei 
will show that the above words for lion were more or 
less inierchangeable. The Rabbinical writers did not 
see this : ihey sought lo assign each name 10 a particular 
part of the lion's life. For instance, most unreasonably, 
^\ (no. 4) was said to mean an old. decrepit lion. In 
reality r-^ means the precise opposite — a lion * which 
lurnelh nol away for any' (Prov. SOjo)— i.*., one in ils 
full strength. 

It is plain enough that lions were a source of danger 
in ancient Palestine, The reedy swamps of the Jordan 

- t, 4 (Jer.4&i9 5O44 Zech.llj, cp Rel. Pal. 

3. lUvnU. ^^^)^ jIjp recesses of Mts. Hermon and 
Scnir (Cant4B). and the desert S. of Judah (Is. 306), 



were their Tavounle haunts. They are no longer found 
ID Palestine, (hough they are mentioned as late as the 

jungles of the Euphrates and the Tigris. They have 
probably disappeared from Arabia.' bul abound, accord- 
ing to Layatd," in Khuiistan. In a few parts of India 
Ihejr are not unknown ; ' bul everywhere, even in Africa, 
they show a tendency to disappear before the encroach- 
ments of man. In bisloric-il times the lion ranged over 
Syria, Arabia. Asia Minor, and the country S. of Ihe 
Balkans, besid™ the whole of Africa and the greater 
part of northern and central Hindustan. 

In its habits Ihe lion is mraiogamous. The number 
of young produced at a birth varies from two to four. 
_ ji_K-t, '"'' '* commonly three ; the m-ile helps to 
'■ ""■"■■ rear the whelps by providing food for them, 
and he also takes part in teaching them lo provide for 
themselves (cp Eiek. IBiff. Nah, 2ii[ij]). Lions do 
not entirely depend on the food Ihey kill, but will ea.t 
dead bodies even in an advanced stale of decomposition. 
As a rule they are nocturnal in their habits, though 
occasionally seen by daylight, and their habit of lurking 
in sectM places is often referred lo by Ihe OT writers 
(PS.IO9 17i9 job38}9/ Lam.3io Jer.47 and Dt. 
83n). The lion was the shepherd's terror (cp Mic. 
6b[7]); more than onc«, as David told Saul, he had 
to rescue a lamb from a lion's Jaws* (i S. 17j4 RV ; cp 
Am. 3 11). Ordiitary shepherds had to band themselves 
together to drive off the enemy (Is. 31 4, and see Am. 
3[i). Not unfrequently men were attacked (i K. 
13 S4.^ 20 36). 

It secmini if the diminished populHEon of Samaru after Ihe 
caplivily WETC much plagued by liou<9 K. 1734^). Thii il 
teprMBiwd u a judgment; a limilai itory ii lold of Deeius <«e 
Rel. Pal. gb/.). Genenlly ' DU>n-«KK '^are Ihe old lions who, 
wiih diminished iciiviiy and broken i«ih, find it difficult lo 
captuie big (sinw. On Benaiih'a eiploil (a S. IS ») see 

The lion's roar is a favourite figure applied to enemies 
(Ps.22.3(.4] Prov.28i5 Zeph. 83), to false prophets 

«. Poatlul <'^'^' ^2">'' "* '*" ^""^ °^ '^ ™"'''' 
.iw™ monarch (Prov. IBti. 20j), to Ihe wrath of 
•"""lO"- GodUer.253oJoel3U].a).andtothe(u,y 
of Ihe devil ( i Pet. 58). Olher references are made to 
his open mouth ready 10 rend the helpless (Ps. 22ii {93] 
aTim.4ij}. to his chasing his victims (Ps.Tifs] Job 
10 16), and lo his powerful teeth, symbols of strenglh 
(Joel 16 Ecctus. 21 7 Rev. Si). In Gen. 49$ Ihe iribe of 
Judah is compared to a lion ; hence the Messi 

1 Rev. 6 

The s 

e title : 

3 Dan ii 


>. and to all Israel in Nu. 2314249; also lo Saul 
and Joiuithan in a S. 1 33, and lo Judas the Maccabee in 
t Mace. 34 a Mace. 11 11. David's Gadite guard are 
called ' lion-faced ' (i Ch. 12§| ; see also Ariel. 

To hunt lions was Ihe sport of kings.* Amenholep 
III. boasts of having slain loa lions during ihe first (en 
D Lion* y"' °^ '''^ reign; 'two i3si of lions {]' 


lao) 1 
b4ni-pal cl 


handed, and this exploit was not uncommon among his 
predecessors. Under the laler kings lions were sought 
out in jungles, caught in snares, and preserved for the 
royal spori. Bow and arrows, or a sword, daggers, 
and spears were the weapons of the hunters.' In Pales- 
line, as we gather from Csek. 194 3. a pit would be dug, 
or a net prepared, by which ihe Uon might be caught 
and then confined in a cage (ijlD, f. 9+, AV "ward,' 

' Dough! y. .4 r. Dfs.itia. 

> AViuTY* iZMd ill Simafm, 3 4S 

' °- '- '■'-''■ ■'--Kajai,: 

■ For Ihe lion as rcpiesenled ujnn Egypiiin and AiS] 
* HouBhton, ie. 

''*'' **°' represented the strength of th 
and terrible God of heaven. In Babylonian mythology 
(he lion is the symbol of summer-heat. N ERtiAL [f . V. }. 
the god of summer-heal, is represented as a lion-god. 
It is not, however, a probable view thai the opening 
exploit in ihe career of Samson (Judg.lij) is to be 
directly explained by Ihis symbolism (Sleinthal). More 
probably, hke Gilgamei' and (he Phcenicion god Mcl- 
kart,' the hero Samson was represented as h««ng his 
land from dangerous animals, which in turn may have 
been suggested by the conflict of (he solar god Marduk 
with the dragon Tidmat In Egypt the lion-headed 
goddess (Sekhet) was Ihe patron of Bubastis, l^tonio- 
polis, and other cities ; and at Baalbek, according lo 
Damasdus (i'lV. Md. 203), the protecting deity was 
worshipped under the form of a lion. 

More &mouK, however, is Ihe gresi AnxMan lion-god Ya- 
ghmh, i.r., ■ proleclor ' (ep Kor. i'jw.'lsi). Such namo as 
'Atld- ond 'Obiid-VlEhaih among ihe Ijoreish siigiesl ibal he 
was worshipped by Mohanwied's own nibc. YagnOth* is of 
Venuniie origin, and the name has been idrnlified by Kobettson 
Smiih(Xi/. Stm.a>4y, cp Wellhausen, Hiid.OI j^t wiih die 
Edomile Jeush (f.c). LabwAn (cp ir3^> and Laiib (a p-^?) 

; Ht/.Snt.m 

e. f/n-d.l?< igj'. 

LITTER. Thai litlers were in use in Palestine before 
ihe Greek period is clear, not only from the pathetic 
allusion in Dt. 28 s6, but also from Gen. 81 }«(£), where 
Rachel is said lo have hidden her (eraphim in the 
■camel's furniture,' which should probably rather be 

In the phnst T^? II (B ri ir^yfi«T« ifv nfiiAav) ^3 
b so called from die round shape of Ihe litter. In Iv Wio 
tendHS nnj-ia by n-ih; Ihlnkinj of 1? (we, however, 
• "■ re. in facl," shaded 'by an 

iwning iltetched on Ihe wooden 
Usually, one may suppose, 

Lhe litters were not Ijome by 
men. out were 01 a size 10 swing on the back of a mule, 
'The Damascus litter,' says Doughiy {/Ir. Dts. \tt). 
■ is commonly a cradle-like frame with its lilt for one 
person, (wo such being laid in balance upon a mute'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 tSt) more comfortable. 
Burckhardl describes these as sometimes five feet long 
(see Knobcl-Dillm. . on Gen. 31 34). A represenuiion 
of an old Egyptian litter is given by Wilkinson {Aac. 
£,f. ItJi, no. 199); on the Greek ^pt'tor and the 
Roman Uctica. Smith's Z>i'«. C/flJi. Ant. {i.v. 'Lectjca') 
may be consulted. 

The word ^priof has been supposed by many lo 
occur in a Hebraised form in Cant. 8j. If true, (his 
has an obvious bearing on the important question 
whether there are any books in lhe OT belonging 10 
the Greek period, and directly influenced by the Greek 
language and even Creek ideas. No word for • litter' 
occurs in Ecelesiastes, bul in Cant. 3? RV righlly renders 
nf D (ffli/MA / see BED, 3 3) ' litter.'—' Behold it is lhe 
litter of Solomon ' (kWijj, UcIuIus). The bridegroom 
(honoured by thcextravagant title 'Solomon') is supposed 
10 be borne in (he cen(re of a procession, sitting in a 
litter or palanquin {cp a S. 831, where the same word 
means 'bier' — irXfnj, firclmm). According to (he 
generally received view, this 'li((er' or 'palanquin' is 

I See Smith -Sayce, Ckaldmtn Cnuiii, iUusi 
om M'empSii'cW™ " ' «" on on ai 

1 opp. 


called in V. g by another terra' ([^-iMl S ^p(e]i«r). 
which Roberlson Smith incUned to explain from Sanskril 
(see Pai^nquin), but most scholars (so e.g., Bu. and 
Sitsfr.. bul nol Del.) r^ard as a Greek loan-won] = 
^opcuw. (Id the Midrash on Cant, p-^ii is explained by 
(Sine = ^<>p>l*ui). The Greek derivalion is supported t^ 
■ panial parallelism between the account of Solomon's 
litter in Cant. 3ia and thai of the ^ptia in a festal 
procession of Antiochus Epipharves (Alhen. 5j ; cpCAN- 
TlCLES, 8 15). To this view three objections may be 
raised, (i) The ^opciw was borrowed by die Greeks 
from Asia, (a) If a Greek (or Sanskril) loan-word were 
used at all. it uould be in v. 7, not in v. 9. The 
native word nitlaA would be flppropriately used 10 
explain the foreign word ; but after the litter has been 
brought before us as a mitlah. we do not expect to be 
told that ' king Solomon made himself a ^pettr.' 
The niirounding conicil '» fiill of dinkullta which lujgst 

*p3n from lh« ml of Ihe panagv. We may suppoH ih&I pnDIt 

emtndation»(nolablythaiof nDW^.Tfor^^l. D'sdS** for pj^d 
[i«PuBi;LBi,and_E')an(w.T3nir Ik* Ebosy]), ih» dMcripiion 
Chfc JQX U 5«^ [1899!),- 

Whal D il that CX1I7IH up from the wildetneu 
Ukc pillan of smoke ; 

Wiih ^ ip^^of the i^idlam^ 
'surrounded bvw^.ri'n.1: 


sword on hii thi^h 

Id pilbri he made of * 

I u bock of gold, 
luicBi— alnua-wood I 

Come fonh, y 

And behold the ki.„. 
In Ihe crown wirh which hi* nuHber crowned him 

'hich hii DuHbi 
le joy ofSu hewt. 

And ia Ihe day of the Joy 1 
Thu), besides ^i;; -if, (a) ;ifO, miffoA, but not affirytn 
(whkb il really nonuitieni, ucepl in MH\ means liner. So 
I, fdb. In Is. H so, unleu 'can (fm mulet)* be 

*j^)! Htnce 

; AV. 

": A^"' hora 

'--'i), a 

Ihe denom. Ai^^vvm, properly ' 10 dri^ 

LITTLE 0H£8 ()er. 14 j). See Nobles. 
LHTLE OWL (013). Lev.1117. SeeOwL. 
UTUBOT. See Psalhs, Hymns. Sacrifice. 

rence to the weight 

LiVEB (135. ■ heavy." wilh re 
of the hver ; htt&p). It is important to negii 
noticine the sacredness of the liver. Repeatedly 
■ lYit yitkirtlli of (or. upon) the liver' is directed I 
bumed upon the sacrificial aliar. 

TheHeb-phiasaan l^n nVj'.^ Ei. W 19 Lev, B it 35 
T31T^ >?, Lev.34ioi5ii>fiii™n3}.no'n'B,Uv 


I CpMishna,.5'^iI>4(t9>i], for iht hit use of r 
bridal palanquin, 

3 Fesh. kitkr kaidlt.Xa. 'the cDUR (T) of ihe live 
Tarf. HWB. I.t, imn. Tbe»n>eletnlinMH.f.i 
where il is prohituled cm the day of Aimemenl 10 fi 
who has been biiien \y a mad dog ihe animal'i 133 
bonKTopaihic mode of uealmem was podcnlly cuil^ 

amonrlhefaipar.soflheioiinial. Ai all evenuiheold inler- 
pcejaiion 'lobe of ihc liv«r' <•, Jos. ^Kf.ilLei, eic) has 

In Tob. 6t-iA 89, there is a reference lo the use of 
the liver of a fish in exorcisms ; its employment in 
divination has been already referred to in connection 
wilh Ezek. 21ai [16], See DIVINATION, § a (3),> and 
cpOefele, Z.-I /■ff 20 [1900], 311^ 

Bul why was this part of the viscera so especially 
sacred? Because the liver contested with the heart Ihe 
honour of being the central organ of life. Wounds in 
the liver were therefore thought to be mortal' ; e.g.. 
Prov. 7"3. 'a dart through his liver,' and Lam. 2n. 
•my liver' (l[ ' my bowels,' bul 6 and I'esh. -lij) is 
poured out upon the earth,' are each of them a peri- 
phrasis for death. Being therefore so sacred, the liver 
w.-is nol to be eaien. but lo be returned lo the gii'er of 
life (see RlilNS), 

We can now underslnnd the Assyrian usage by which 
kabittu ( = 135) became equivalent to tibbut 'heart,'' 
and are not surprised lo find a group of passages in OT, 
in which -UJ has to be restored for the faulty tjj (tSaf) 
ofMT. In Ps. 76 Is] the keen-wilted OratorianHoubi. 
ganl long ago read ' and pour out my liver on the dust ' 
{!|W: icyS -ija* ; cp Lam.2ii), and in Ps. I69 [B]. 
'Therefore my heart is glad, my mind exulls" (-!3j ^ivi). 
remarking that ' in the Scriptures the liver is the seat of 
joy and sorrow'; and in Gen, 496 he follows (ri 
ijmird *wf) in reading 13^ 'my liver' for "lif ■my 
glory.' In Ps. 3O13 [>a] 979 [3] IO81 [i] similar cot- 
rections are necessary : perhaps also in Is. 16 11 (lU 
for '3^ ; cpLam.Eii).* T. K. C. — S. A. C. 


LIZABD. Tristram has described forty-four species 
and tweniy-eight genera of the group Laceililia 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 wilh. Amongst those most frequently 
found he mentions ihe Lactria viridit and L. lavii 
and Ihe wall lizards belonging lo the genus Zooloca. 
Another not unimportanl species, called the Monilor 
tiihiieui. was held in high esteem by the ancient 
Egyptians as destroying the eggs and the young of the 
crocodile. Although the litard is mentioned only once 
in AV, there can be but little doubt that this is the 
animal referred 10 in the following Heb. words : — 
1. 3J, fJ*<t.*v. lli9,SAV ToKToisB, RV Gbbat Li»»d). 


lifiti — a liiard wilh a powerful la 

h Ihe 

things (Lev. I.C.), and unce il it followed by vq-o^ {' 
kind ') is probably a generic term, in whk:h case the f 
nsmc) in n 30 are, as RVim. suggesii, (hose of difftte 

*■ "a*!. '*"J*** (Lev. II 30, RV Gbcko), AV Fieri 

Vellh. Htid.n 133/; WRS/t«/. 

' Cp Asch. Atom. 43i.tivy*"**P^4irap,of4htart-wound. 

' For the paralleliim oflheMwordnee Del. j^ii. A/WJiiT. 
Del. renders ia«i*»i> only ■ Gem Hi h.' Hut Jenien (A'sMo/ 1 1 
n.) give, /o.liverja) inward; and Mu«i-ArooU 

< One may hope that, as Schleusner suggeilt {Ltx,, (.T>.) 
the V<><> or e in I S. 1» 1} IM is a corruplion uf a Greek tiani. 
liieiation of T33. Theod. has jrofcii: bui Aq. tA nr rAiitn ; 
cpi)(.8ij»(K)o.X See Bed. II 3,4 ("0. 

> Hiidgon Nah. I J reads 3^1. 'the liiaid' (i.(„ Nineveh) for 

• According u> Doughty {Ar. Dtt. 1 jo) the /*i» 

is an edible sprawling liiaid, fullest Lenolh a yard wilh lai 
nsidered a delicacy. The cokiur is l.lackiih and gi«i 

■peeked above the pale yeliomisb u 
ulted for Ihe nomai^inilk bottles. 


y, and il. skin is 

y Google 

J. n>, kUk {it., RV Land-croo 

le), AV Chahelkoh 

J. QDh, jj»c/ {/4., AV Snail; ni^x, lactrla: cp Sun. 
Raihi, K<ni.>. RV Sand.|.1»iid, » Boch^ who idenlilict il wiib 

■be fuel ihal iu f«l are alnuu invitibbe, ii orun aWcA by ihc 

«. rifpin, linitmetlt (.Ih., (Km D^i, 'u bnuhi, Mow,' AV 
Mole \ (aianAa^ ; iW/aX (iptaincd u the ' mole ' (which ill 
pedc ■ (cp Pah.). Il is «ry common'ly taken to bt Ihc Ck*«K. 

f/r/AV; Iboxe/ [Pcih.D.9 u raiher Ihi lintd <» RV), the 
nrerence being to lh« foci (hat a hanntcu linjd may be held 
in the hands with impunity. n'COr '^ ibc reridervig of the 
ir W|pS (above), and >)uil of the Sam. 1 


, flrf fee.). 

hably di 

Tlie IlBird, Ihough ealen somelimes by Arabian 

old tradition relates that Mohammed forbade it as food, 
because he thought the liiard was the offspring of an 
Israelite clan which had been transformed inio reptiles 
(RS SB ; Doughty, Ar. Dts. 1 396). This has a sugges- 
tion of (oteniism. and thai (he Heard was a sacred animal 
seems 10 be borne out by the occurrence of tlie Ar. 4"^^ 
(jx) as the eponym of a widespread tribe (A'l'ji. 198), 
and also by the recolleclion of Ihe imporlanl port the 
flesh, bones, and skin of the licard have played in 
ma|^l and medicinal preparations.' 

LOAF (-IJ3. Ex.29»j etc.; DT^, iK.Uj ett ; 
&pTOC, Mk.Sit]. See Bread. 

LO-AIOn (W {<$). Hos. lo. See Lo-ri;hamah. 

LOAH (n^ttE:<|, I S. 2ao. The sense U unique ; see 
]»a. cpSAUL, 1 1. 

LOCI(^P), RVCanLCjetc See DooR. 

LOCKS. Five Hebrew words correspond 10 ' lock ' 
(once) or 'locks' (of hair) in AV; bul one of these 
(/unMtiA. nai) is more correctly rendered ' veil ' in RV ; 
see Veil. 

I. ir}»,//r»', Ihe full hair of the heid^Au. >iVrii, Nu.«s 
EEek. 44911. OnaiuppoiedcauDf tbefeni. plui. in Judg. Sa, 

I. nif, r'f'l. > fotelock, Eieli. Sjt. Aq. Theod. x)!^. 
■vAsv (' fringe,' cp Fhincks, n. i_). TbcnienTian of the forelock 
In canDedion with eotaiic eipenencn ii unique. Cp Kaw, |a. 

3. n^p, Ifiamffeili (mininan in MH and Syr.X CanI.II a lit. 
Cp CahtiCLBS. I I; (i), and on the fonn lee KO. 3 I, p. 199. 

4. rhB^nO. maktlfhSlk, propeily ' plaits,' in conneciion with 
the long b^ of Samson, Judg. IS 1319. CpHAia, \-i. 

IiOCtlBT. The biblical references to the locust are 
of much interest, though the Hebrew text may perhaps 
' e criticism. The species 
1 is intended is usually supposed 
>e the Sckisloarca pmgrina. formerly 
known as Acridium pengrinnm. This species, like 
all the locusts of ordinary language, belongs to the 
Orihoplcra and to the family Acridiidr. not to the 
Lxuslida. a name which has produced much con- 
fusion. The species at the present day extends from 
North-West India lo llie west coast of Northern Africa ; 
it is the only Old-World species of the genus, all other 

1 With ^cp Del. n^£ic., and see Lag. .S>iiil. 1 IJt. 

* The Pesh. reading is anolhei form of »g»l ; fee FbRRBT. 

■ Cp the Wilchei Kenc in Macbeth, Act iv. 'Sc 1. 

and mtbtU. 

To iltuunte the great dislanc« that can be mrerwl by 
theK insects it may/bc nKniioned ihai in 1865 a v«sel bound 
fTom Bordeaux la Boston »as invaded by S./trr^na when 
iKio miles from the nearer land, after which lor two dayi Ihe 
air was full of locusts which settled all over the ship. In 1889 

is shown by the Government Kepoits on 'the dnliucHDn of 
locusts in Cyprus. In iSSt over t3«> Ions of locust egE> had 

Ihe island in 1883. 

The eggs are laid in Ihe ground by means of the 
powerful ovipositor of the female, the deposition usually 
being in remote and uncultivated lands. On leaving 
the egg the young Immedintety cast their skiu, an 
operation repeated about the 6th. i3lh. aist, 31SI 
and 50th day. Although the wings attain their perfect 
development and the locust becomes capable of Higlit 
and of forming su-arms only at the 6lh and last moult, 

the land in great armies devouring every blade of grass 
and every leaf of plants and shrubs (cp Joel I4 j). The 
most striking effects, however, are caused by the swarms 
of migratory locusts (si-e above) ; these, coming out o( 
a clear sky, darken the sun (Ex. lOij) and in a short 
time devour every green thing, the coining together of 
their moulh appendages even producing a perceptible 
noise as they eat their way through the country (cp Joel 
2s). They are therefore an apt figiu^ for su-arming 
hordes (Judg. 6s 7 " Jer. 4613 Judith 2». and cp Jerome 
on Joel 1 6 : quid enim lecustis innumeraHHut it 
fortius; quibui kttmana indns/ria nsiittrt non potfit]. 
Their habit of banding together led a proverb-writer to 
class them among the little things of this earth which 
are wise (Pr.3017). The likeness they bear 10 horses 
was also noticed (Joel 2* Rev. 87. and cp the ItalLtn 

anee. When the hot sun beats powerfully upon them, 
they literally 'flee a\t-ay. and the place is not known 
where lheyare'*(Nah.3i7). Fortunately the visits of 
the swarms are. as a rule, not annual, tmt recur only 
aAer a lapse of some years, ihough the period is 
imcertoJn ; the cause of the immense destruction of 
locust life which this indicates, and still more the cause 
of the sudden recrudescence of aclivily, ore at present 
LocuBis are ftvquentlymentioned^ the ancients as an article 

and wings are removed and Ihe iKxiy fried in builei oi oil, am 

said lobe not unpalatable. On Ml.Sf tee at end of anicle. 
Hiere are nine words in the OT taken to mean the 

locust, and although, according to the Talmud, there 
g Nimn. ^■"^ *°"" *"' species in Palestine (cp 
S. nunn. i_,^^j,„[,n. Zoo/, d. Talm. a86 f.\. we 

cannot, with any degree of certainty, apportion a distinct 

species to each Hebrew word. 

'- "Jllfi I'^vt (prop, 'niultiplier';iiif|{t,ppovxot [Lev. Ills 
I K. 837), arWAtBot [Nah. B i;]X is ihe usual word for locust. 

Egyptian pla«ue(Ei. 10 ..19. we EiioBUs ii.. 1 3 ; ii-. col, 1449)- 
In Judg. (I5 T 11 Jer. 4«»3 (oh Mao AV lenders Ghasshoppf... 
( In Pt.lOa 33, ' I am tosseJ up and down a> the kKUtt ' (EV) is 
hardly correct : Kau. US gives ' I am shnken out.' •mtni !> 

cplt.SS,. So Che. V>i.l4 ; cp|3.) 

9. ojr'ii, rWirn.(ir™iiitIBAFLD,in EV the Bald-loci-st 
(Lev. IIm), cp Aram. npSo, ■ lo consume.' which in the Targ. 
represenll JJ*^. Perhaps n Tryialis with itl long smooth head 

3. ^Jin,(lafy*/(Lev.ll9i):ieeBEHTLt 

4. 3JR, f^it^Cv/'tabide, occonceal'TsufHr. butinLev.lIai 


Job SB 90 RV: 'Ha't >hou made him to leap at the 

'; and ti.SS4. [In F.cclus. 4S17 |i»l Ihe (all of snowii 
to <he flying down of birds and 10 Ihe lighting of the 
-« i»j)it laraAAnwa (marg. wn) imi |Wg" nillOl 


IS33 K40» i£ccla.I2j) but ii 
liiinta 10 in Nu. 1^33 (xe n. 1), 

ihe generii: wrni (or locuMs (cp Lewywhn, ic). Cp ihe proper 
S. DI|,flf>dM.' KcPAUtU-WOIH. 

«■ Pi0.'«**<'"*''"';ft-**"; i-(.«iBja,6I.<^!r 
CAHKUWOUlOia RV regularly) or Catrrpillh.' Some kind 
of locuKI H mouil, or pobibZy & ytHin; kocuiL la Jer frlif 
^/,-* jrfMdr <Tco pS'^ ■ ™j* CRIerailler ' (or ' cwiktrworm i 
denoles ume Ipedlil kind. Tlx Vf . hll bmlnm acMhalum.* 

7. SxSl, iffUf^i {probably ' linklei,' tptiaip^X nuy be loint 
ipecie of iiuecl noted fa iu Miidcnl pwse. nicb it, in Dt. 
(DM t^'che. P'-/*. lt..<l^ IkIx'Aol fonnHlible ttelK^fly, 
ihe'mllaLyi'of the Gallms.' Bui oiherriew. of oTOsi^b 
in Is. U. an poniblE. See below | 1 and cp iJ., iSOT, 

16-46}. idS (linei 40-46)1 note, alio, 
■ iltwingi,^ and Rrt ■ the nutlini 



e. D-ai, '9l),£#^iH(p1vr.),/Ji^j'(r:olleclive)— i,A,'»ninn't 
-(i.l^')i moally rendered CHASSMornR (cp Nah. S %jfi | 
nrw),; bm in Am. T .. in AV»«.. ' g.een wonn..' 

g. ron, 4diI/('uinsiuner,'q)ilKverb'«nDt.£8]S; Ipvrifi^; 
and AK^XKiCh.BKhin > K.Ss; 9Ch.0M Ps.TB4«I^l^; 

or the above, nos, 1-4 were classed among dean 
winged things antl were allowed (o be eaten (Lev. 
llji/, P; cp Clean, § 11); Ihey are described as 
having ' legs above their feet' (v^fi^ ^Sbd D'pTl), whence 
it would appear that a distinction was maile between 
leaping locusts, lallaloria. and those which run. mr- 
leria. A similar distinclion is made by the Arabs 
between the/o™ (riding) and the rdjil (going) ; cp also 
3Ch.SiB, Pesh. iamfd parfhd ini-taMld. In Ihe vivid 
account of Ihe locust plague in Joel 1/ (see JOELii., 
g 5, and cp Driver's Comm. ) four of the above are 
mentioned in the order 51*9 (Joel I4). The fact Ihnl 
Ihe order in Sis is difierent (1695) makes il improb- 
able thai these words can be taken to refer 10 locusts 
in different stages of growth. 

There are a few passages which have not jet 
been discussed. In Is, I81 the land 'that sends am- 
, bnssadors by Ihe sea ' is neither ' the land 
of the rustlings of wings ' nor ■ Ihe land 
of strident creatures with wings' (see 
above, g a [s]}. The most probable reading is ' Ha 
Cush! land of the Streams of Gihon' ; Gihon is Ihe 
name of the upper, or Ethiopian, cotu^e of the Nile (see 
Haupt, SBOT, 'Isaiah' [Heb,] 109); the right words 
have B twofold representation in the Heb. text, though 
both times in a comipl form. The difficult clause al the 
end of Am. 7 1, following Ihe reference 10 the ' fonna- 
tion ' of certain locusts, evidently needs criticism. EV 
gives. ' and lo. il was the latter growth after the king's 
mowings,' a somewhat obscure enplanation (see Mow- 
ings). Bui 'latter growth' (cp*?) surely required no 
explanalion. On the other hand, something more 
might well have been expeeied about the locusts. S 
■ ■■ ~ " - ■ " anX*iti. The 

LDUBcnlt , 

gives cat ISoi ppcvvpt tU yiirf i ^a 
reading probably is S'wn a\i\ n3"wi pS' 
Ihe canlterworm. and the locust, and Ihe pnli 
< i|r(>^ should be B'3^n|. CpNn.lS. 


13! .h 


105 I160SI). 
i Cp a1» 1 

" AV'tl 

happen.' Thii lepmenis 'jtl 3^1 of MT, But, u We. pa 
cortecL Reader limply, ' Ibe grauhoppeil.' 


and the calerpiller' (cp Joellt). The sense gains 
greatly ; we also obtain a fresh point of contact between 
the Books of Amos and Joel. 

Hisil. — In two passages h^iil seems to have been 
corrupted intoftV, ' shadow.' One of these ( Pb. lOOij). 
in an emended lexl, gives a striking parallel to Nab. 
%il\ the other (Job IS^ = 14i), to Joell7i9. The 
renderings respectively are — 
I. ' Uko cateipilkn (yanil 00 the fencei I un taken away. 



I fad«h, 

Twakuid>oflacuits('?>enBnd .1^) are apparently ref^ntd 
la in Pi. 411 II and ('t^l* and S)rvft in Ecclus. 14 ij; in both 
cases accordinjj to critical emendation. Ben SiTa'a fondncn for 
interweaving biblical exprewons wiib bib provcibs baa helped 

The NT references to locusts (dic/iliei) occur in Ml. 
34 (Mk.l6) Rev.93-ii. The Mt.-Mk. passage slates 
thai locusts formed the chief food of John the Baptist ; 
it is pointed out, however, elsewhere that there may 
here be an early misunderstanding (see Hl'sks, 4, 
John the Baitist, § a). The locusts of the Rev. 
passage belong to the supernatural imagery of the 
Apocalypse. Contrary to what is said in Prov. 30iy 
the locusts are said to have had a king. There may. 
however, be a confusion between ij^, 'king,' and ^^, 
'angel,' Abaddon [f,ii,] (note 'Y^f&teii, Rev.9ii) 
being variously represented as Ihe ' king ' and Ibe 
' angel ' of the abyss. 

See Driver'i Eicutsui In Jttl md Amu (Camb, Bible, iBoi) ; 
>Enea> MunrD,M.D., ih, Lmi,IPIatKiandiuSipfmm» 
<i90o},and, on thelext of JoblSia Pi.18ti IWijandEccluk 
Uij, Cbe. 'BiblkalDilBcullie^£j->M.I4li9oil. 113.^; s. A-cgs; T.iccgs. 

LOD (n?) I Ch. St., See Lyoda. 

LODDEira (AoAaiOC [B in f. 46]), ilLSd.S4s/.. RV 
= Eira8ij, Iddo[1J. 

LO-DEBAE (15T \'? ; a S. B4/., Aii&BAp [BAL] ; 
XABAiftpi[Ain,..4]: T^TlA; 17^AwiABAp[BA]; 
^aA. [L]), a place in Gilead in which Mephibosheth, 
Jonathan's son. lay for a lime, with Machir son i^ 
Ammiel, who also befriended David on his flight to Ihe 
E. of Jordan. Probably the same place is meant \ef 
the Udeblr which Josh. 13t6 places in the territory of 
Gad. GrSti has discovered the name in Am. 613. as. 
along with Knmaim, captured by Israel from Aram. 
Here MT (iai itS) 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 
Iwo for Ihe possible play upon their names (see Amos, 
% s). Lo-deliar has nt« been identified ; but 7 m, R 
of JU'lUs or Gadara, near the great road eastward, 
and on a southern branch of the W. Samar, is a village 
iidar, which must have been an important site on the 
back of the most northerly ridge of Gileiid. There are 

maeher. A". Ajlun loi). The houses cluster on the 
steep edge of a plateau which commands a view across 
Hauran as far N. as Hermon. Strategically il is 
suitable ; no other OT name has been identified 
along this ridge, uhich musi 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. 1Sj6 (cp review of Buhl, Pal. in EipmitBr, Dec 
1696. p. 411). [The reading -Lo-debar' in a S.S*/. 
has been doubted : see Saul, § 6, and cp Mephibo- 
sheth. Wellhausen and Nowack adopt the above 
emendation of Am. 613; Driver, howei'er (/«■/ and 
Amai, 199). finds a difficulty in it, Cp Mai 

LODaE For (i) HJlSl?, nfiundA 


y Google 


LOFT (n;^). I K. 17i». See Chamber, 6. 
LOG l6: kotyAh; i«/flW««), Lev.liio. See 
WeioHTs AND Measures. 

LOQOS. Eicepl in the proli^ue lo the Fourth 
Gospel 0"- li-iS) the biblical usage of Aoroc shows 
, =iKn„„i no peculiarily ; U means a complex of 
Wf^^V -^^PHM^T^), pr«en.«i in th= .nity 
rel«rsni»i. ^^ ^ sentence or thought. The entire 
gospel can be culled ' the Ajfoj of God,' or even, simply 
the bgai («/ i(oxi')—xe. e.g.. Ml.lSi»-:i} Gal.66 
aCor, 2ij Rev. la.9 — as bdng a declaration of the 




I the Logos coi 
n the beginning'— i.^., neiore ine creation— in 
nion with God, and himself was God. The 
desciiption proceeds in w. 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.' 
•IheSon,' 'theChrist.' 1 14 makes it dearlhnt for the 
writer the identity of the Logos with the bearer of the 
gospel, Jesui Christ, is a fact ns important as it is 
indubitable ; for him the redeemer is in his heavenly 
pre-exislence the Logos, after his incarnation Jesus 
Christ. In 14^ it is a very difficult mailer 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 tluit 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 
■nd so denying none of the qualities of the one 10 the 
other: the full Godhead of the Saviour is a pledge of 
the absolute divineness of the salvation he brings. In 
•ny case so much is certainly claimed for the Logos in 
14-14: — ('JAn existence that transcends humanity (it 

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 
! passible relation to God. even the tide of 

God n 

d (the a 

prefixed}. Moreover, according to f. 3 it is through 
the Logos that the universe is created : nothing has 
come into being without his intervention, and mankind 
owe also to him the highest good they know — light 
and life. Thus from Jn. 1 1 ^ we may define the 
Logos as a divine being, yet still sharply distinguished 
from God. so that monotheism is not directly denied — 
not equal to the Father (cp Jn. Hj8), yet endowed 
with all divine powers whereby to bring 10 pass the 
will of God concerning the universe. 

Apart from the prDlut(u« th« Lop^os ks tliu» defined is not 
ugain nArned in tbe t'ounli Uoipel ; in i Jn, A r he has been 
introduced only by a Inle inicrpolalion, jukI in i Jn. I T 'the 
Logos of Life' admiti of tuiolhtr inlErpreiaiian than that 
demanded by the prologue. So also doei Ihe /.»m of God ' in 

to the EOHpel that rendtn it prohable that by the exprnuon a 
heavenly perwn of the higheil rank a itilended. 

There remains the question : From what source did 
''vs conception of the Logos come into 
le Johannine sphere of thought? 
..»_-«. ii cannot have been the creaiion of Ihe 
OOnoeption. EvangeMn himself, far the vciy order of the 

I. Origin of ^i 

leach that there is a Logm, _ . . . . 

from theOT, though ihe divine 'words' are conce 
Hebrew Sciiptum ai objectively eiiuinr, and 
creative pooetl (Jo. 1 1 it evidently related to a< 
for the Loan Is nowhere a lived member of 
world. Norwould" ' ■ - 


1 Cbe. OP!. I 



of the Johannine Logos 10 adduce the phrase 'the Memm' 
(■"I K-Dp) by which the Tamums denoM the Divine Being in 
self - manifestation, though the S4me hyposiRiiung tendency 

hke-sounding pbiase oTlbt Pouith Gospel. 

It was from Greek philosophy that the Evangelist 
ilerived Ihe expression through the medium of Philo of 
Alexandria : but this need not be equivalent 10 saying 
that he was the first to put forward the connection 
between the Philonian Logos and the Jesus Christ of 
NT believers. Nor yet has he slavishly transcribed 
Philo ; rather with a free 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 Ihe Logos conception. In spite, however, of the 
majestic originality of the verses in queslion {\1-s9f.), 
suggestions of Philo have been traced in almost every 

Among Creek philosophers it was Keracllttis who l^rst put 
forward the Logos— i.e.. Reason— as (he principle underlying 
Ihe univene ; with the Stoics the Logot became the world-soul 
which shapes the world in conformity with a purpose, and is Ihe 

the world. This concepiion wu combined by Philo wiih the 
Platonic doctrine of Logoi as lupenensual primal images or 

o Jewish theology 

a Logo. 

ii'>God, who was ever being 
. . 'act way, and being relegated 

(0 a sphere where nligion could find no stay. 

As the Wisdom of Solomon (cp also Ecclesiaslicus} 
introduces wisdom as God's representative in his relations 
with the world, and, if a tew passages be left out of 
account, almost compels a personal separation of this 
wisdom from God. so does Philo, approaching tbe view 
of Hellenism, with the Logos, which he already in so 
many words designates as 'Son' and ' Only- begot ten.' 
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 il was the author of the Fourth 
Gospel who first had the skill to take it up and to give 

current melaphysic in such a way as to make it sub- 
servient to the deepest interests of Christianity. His 
representation of Christ is nol. 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 sultaUy appeal to his educated Gentile Christian 
readers, or whether we assume that his design was 10 
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, 
bi^an to give greater alleniioii to this philosophical 
element in the gospel of 'the divine' (roC Btdkbyav) 
than lo the historical features of the narrative, and the 
employment of tbe idea of the Logos in this manner, 
occasioned by this author, though he is not to be held 
responsible for it, became a source of danger to 
See J. M. 

Vl°!^\^' UebTr das Verh91tni>£ des Prologs des vienen Evgl. 
lumganan Wetk'inZT'A'a, iBoi.pp. iSlo-jji; Uiil.^Dsgma, 
ET volv L.iv, i H. J. Holtimann, rfC« 4, iSJi. especially pp. 
7'io. 40-46^ AaA.Cesrk.d. Loffoi-Itlee,tZ^: W. Boldcnsperger. 
"- Prvltg da vitrttn Evaigtllumt, 1898; Janr--- ■"■ 
■- r-. 1 —J .k- Logos/ ZNTW, Feb. 1901, [- 

John's Oos^l ar 

II, pp. nff-: cp 

LOOEINa-QUSB. AV's rendering of rfiVrfa Ex. 

SSI (mg. -braren glas^sl, and of 'MX Jgb37 is. RV MlKBOB 
(g.v.\ Id Is.8gj n--,i is rendered 'glass'in AV. but 'hand 
mirror' in RV. "Tht meaning, however, is doubtful: s« 


LOOM (H^^), Is. 3Sti RV. See Weaving. 
LORD. On 1/ORD as represenling nirf (Yahwi) and 
on ■ Lord ' as represenling ')!(< (AdSnai) see Nauss, 

39 '09. "9- 
'L«d* In OT ilandi foe one Aramaic and dght Hcbnw 

|l) fnit, 'iJlit, 'miiur.' Gen, MllDrd^nilcr; Gen.S4i4 3J 
of i)k muKT <» EV) of a >la>e. -Mylold/orafathci, Gen. 
U^Nu.llislof Elijah, ik!|8;. 

(i) Wa, Wa/, ' owMT," CT EV El. a IS, ' Ihe owner <Sj»3) of 
Ibe ni ■■; Job ai J9. ■ .he ownen thereof ' (i-.r., of a piece of Imnd); 
cpWRB,Jf,/.iVj...(»i.5«. CpBAAL,!.. 

(j) 3'^ rdj- S« Rab. Rabbi. 

(t)-llr. !»-, EiraSij. S« KiHG, Prince, 3. 



17 ; eh 





lOT, 1 ,0, or 

of oToii-, A*, 


I, uplain.' S«Eu^ 




m). only in pi 









of Ik-. More 


flof D-)h,a 

rord which hai 

el«wbere, 10. 


I hand of nn arly tA 


<;)r33,,«fr, C«n.ST^37, ol 



■nfrf, Anm. 



9a4 6>3:=Pll«Syriac 

»tr'^, ' 

Lord,* and md 

', 'bnl. 


,, Mt*3> ID 

J4 13 a 

Jicepl where i 



(ii)i.™»i«.,inpL Mk.OiiJilnglyaKodaiei. InRev.Ai; 
1B>] RV; AV, 'great men.' EV ^great man' in Ea:lii>.47, 
Heb. ymhv Ccp Ecclei. 9 4 <X 82 9 Hob. o'Jpl, *« 3 Heb. o'anj 

LOEITB DAT (4 mipiad) iW/« ; ■'«' dominica). We 
cannot say wilh cerlainty how far back the practice of 
marking the lirsl day of the week by acts of wordiip u 
traceable. This at least is probable : ' that in the 
posl-aposlolic ordinance we have a conlinualion of 
apwiolic custom ; ' ' but the time when the Christian 
Sunday began to be observed in Palestine, where the 
observance of the Sabbath does not seem to have been 
at &ni superseded by it, remains utterly obscure.' 

I Cor. Ifl 1 bids each penon, kstA idar aafifUrmi 
(EV 'on Uie first [day] of the week'), lay by him in 
> he may prosper (for the 
in Jerusalem), that 

e made when tl 

s (I Cor. 18.). 
is often possible and somelimes inevitable (o infer from 
the practice of a later time thai of an earlier. This has 
been done in the present case by Zahn,' who finds clear 
though faint traces of Sunday observajice. It must not 
be overlooked, however, that the contribution of each 
one is 10 be laid up ' by him ' (wop iavrif). i.e., in his 
own home — not in an assembly (or worship. 

This Biuesli an allttnaiive ciplanalicn to Ihal of Zahn. 
The church of CoriTith coniisled for the moit part of poor, 
obuure people (1 Cor. I «^) ; pouibly Ibr many of them the 
last or the fini day of Ihe week wat payn^ny, the first day 
Ihenfore, wa* ihe day on which they could most easily lay 

any auured &cts as to an obaeivance of Sunday in the Pauline 

On the other hand. Ihe • we-seclions " in Acts contain 
a valuable indication. On his way to Jerusalem. Paul 
stayed ai Troas seven days (Acts206). the last of which 
is called iila rUt (ra^^Tur (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 

I Weirdcker^ At. 2ntaU.m 549. 

) Cp Zaho. G^tci. det SpnuUtn, 179, who luppoK* that at 
leas ai early as the ihird decade 01 the lecond cenlucr the 
Sunday was marked by public tronhip at Jaiualem. 

> Zahn, ep. cil. 17;. 

* Before finallT accepting or r^^ling this conjecture, k will 
hare lo be CDnndeied wbeEho- weekly payments of wages were 
usual, and alio which day of the week waa reckoned at its first 
in the civil life of Corinlb. Plainly Paol la reckoning by the 
Jewish week— .from Sunday 10 Saluiday ; but Gentile akiroU^era 
beiu the week with Saturday (Zahn, iBi, 35^). 



was a ' breaking of bread ' and Paul prolonged his dis- 
course with the congregation (ill midnight (v. 7). Even 

The passage furnishes no conclusive proof thai ihe first 
day of the week was Ihe 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 Ihe first day of 
Ihe week was at the time the day on which the Lord's 
Supper was observed in Troas. 
If, on Ihe other hand, the narrator bad wished it id be under. 

UOCh] that the 'breaking of bread* wl>:r.k h* » m^nl^nnino umn 

merely A^ 4a-, and in connection w 
departure, he would hardly have e; 
It Tl much mote likely Ihal Paul fix 

lllofe <^th hi> b^lw^ breihi 
from the pen of an eye-wiini 

apart of the first day of Ihe week for purposes of public worshi 

Whether Rev. ] 10 ought also to be cited in this 
connection depends on our eiegcsis of the passage, on 
which see below, g 3. 

The younger Pliny's well>known letter to Trajan (about 
113 A.D.) does not stale directly that the 'fixed day' 
«. Llsht frnm ^""'"B 'be Bilhynian Christians for 
■Jl.^* religious worship wns Sunday, though 

OUUr HnTOM. ^^ ^ certainly probable (cp Acts SO?). 
Its indistinctness is compensaied for by the fulness of 
Ihe information in Justin Martyr's Firil Afolegy (chap. 
67), wrillen about 15a A. D.' 
The evidence given before Pliny was 10 the effect ' i 

"of Troas. *^i 

we are justifieii 

ipostle's approaching 

w Chruto 

depoaiium appdiati abne- 
garent; quibua peraciis moren <a\» discedendi fuisae tursuiqiw 
Icoeundijadcapiendumcibuni, promiscuum tamen et innoxium' 
<Plin. E/f. 10«s l87l, ed. Keil, «7/). 

Justin Manyr's words are as follows t—' And on the day called 
Sunday (rf td£ qAtov Aeyofirf*^ q»i^pf) ihere Is an assembly 
(np^Anwit) in one phice of all who live in cities or in the 
country, and the memoirt of Ihe apotlles or the willing) of the 

Wxp't ■y**'P''): Iben, when the render has ceased, the 

(wu^^^r i, 

(elhcl and OITer prayers ('VkOfiT'VttM'i 
Ichap. «ei, when our prayer is ende 
K ™J[W. bread is broughl {.mimi^iinai 



^hic^ ll^nksTa> 

( ftri^m^ IiJwri). and wl 
widows and those who an 

the day before Saturday {tji «( 
appeared id his apostles and d 


which are sc 


For they crucified him on 
les. he taught [theml ibDse 

'.. Ihe day 

which was reckoned the first in ibc Jewish week 
■ ••«.— J.-" tilled Sunday, just as Ihe other days 

planets; the nomenclature is of Bab>'lonian origin (see 
Week). Sunday, too, is Ihe name employed by two 
ancient Christian writers^ in works, il is true, addresud 

> Cp Hari 

Lck, TLZ M 


y Google 


to non-Christinns'^vii. by Jiutin {ul sufr.). twice, and 
by TertullLan (Apal. i6, Ad nal. 1 .3), lis naluralisa- 
lion was made easier by the consideration thai Ihe first 
day of tlie week was tbe diiy on which light was created ; 
anil, moreover, the comparison of Christ to the sun was 
felt lo be apposite.' 

In the early church the name ■ First day ' (of Jewish 
origin, as we have seen} and also — since the day 
» 'Pi tA .followed the Sabbath, or seventh day 
*EigWhd*y' f '"' w«l<-'t:iKf;h day is of 

bieubu o»x. frgq„e„t oceutrence. The two names 
are often comlMned : ■ The eighth day which is also the 
first. ■ ^ 

Most characteristic of all, howevir, is the name ' Lord's 
day' (^ «i;ptoi!ij iiii4pa; also simply, ij supiamj' or ^ 
H 'Lord'a '^"1"'"^^ '"P^")- Usually' Rev.l io{^»4fii|» 
■ . , ir rytifiart it ri tu^KJ ^*^P?) is cited as 
"■■'■ the earliest jnslance ; but the presence of 
the article liefore Jrupiortn and the connection in which 
the phrase occurs holh favour the other interpretation 
(supported by a weighty minority of scholan), accord- 
ing to which ' the day of the Lord ' here stands for ' the 
day of Yahwt," the day of judgment — in LXX ^ itnipa 
rsi nvfioo (as also in Paul, and elsewhere), called else- 
where in Rev. ' the great day' (i ii(i^,)o ^ jiryttXi?: 617 


i«ri uruaii^ Smrrrt, <>■ ]( m1 i ^i wiur inniAir ; and the 
till* of ihE vriling Df Mililo of Saidil (niH npuu^) mcnlianed 
hf Eutebiut (ff£ iv. ii i). H«e ' Lonf't Day ' hai bcconw > 
technical Dome for Sunday, The ivord KupiaM6s, howtver, is 
not ■ IHW minus of the Chriilisiu (mon paniculsrly of Paul), 
U uaffd former^ 10 be wippoKd. It coma from tb« official 
langua^ of the imperial period ; frequent ejuimpjea of iti 

The question as lo the reason why Chrisliaris called 
the first day of the week the Lord's day is not adequately 
aiusk-eted by the remark of Holtimann' that 'the 
eipression is framed after the analogy of Siirror 
Kvpiatir.' The old Christian answer was that it was 
the Lord's Day as being tbe day of his resurrection ; 
cp Ign. ad Magn. 9i, as above, Justin, A/utl. 16), as 
idxive, and Barnabas 15g : ' Wherefore also wi 
the eighth day with joyfulness, on which also Jesi 

n Ihe 


into the heavens, ' ' This answer has much to be said 
tot it. The Lord's day is the weekly recurring coni- 
memorniion of the Lord's resurrection. 

How it was that Christians came lo celebrate this 
day weekly, not only yearly, has still to be explained. 
a i-iriiH / Apart from the established habit of 
•werid Ori* "''^^'''''K "he weekly Sabbath festival, 
tmuon. particular days by feasts of monthly 
recurrence may very probably have contributed lo this 
result. In Egypt, under Ptolemy Eluergeles. according 
to an inscription coming from the Egyptian Ptolemais,' 
tbe twenty- fifth day of each month was called ' Ihe king's 
day' (4 too (SaaMua l»ifpa) because the tn-enty-tiflh of 
Dios was the day * on which he succeeded his father on 
Ihe throne' {ir J npiSaPtr r^ partXtloJ' wapi ToC 

I Zahn, (Tact, lia SBnmtagi, 35;, 
>hn doe> in the uk of the name 
onttanllne it lO go loo far. The ( 

»CpJu> , . 
» Zahn, 3,6/ ' 

=eX and 

hulue, Z)u KaUktmhtn, 

• F.ighih di 

» A»,''fw'"e™mple"bylK^k',''jv' 
SitT, and Zahn, 17S. 
> See Dnumann, NtiH BH'lihidin, 
' ^Cii, iSf?, p. 31S. 
' Further evidence in Zahn, 359^ 

■897. P- 44/1 


»aTp4« : Decree of Canopus, 1 j). The Christians might 
have hekl Ihe same language in speaking of the first day 
of Ihe week wilh reference to Christ. 

Of lilic naiun 18 the cuslom, widely diffused throughout Ihe 

only, bui 

byiDonih': Ihee 

iiadition— often assailed, bui numifeHly quite 
a Mace. S 7. Cp BiirrHDAV.i 

Like so many other features in the kingdoms of the 
miadochi. these tnrthday customs seem to have had an 
abiding influence within the imperial period." Theivord 
' Augustan ' (Se^cumt) as a name of a day in Asia Minor 
and Egypt is at least a reminiscence of the cuslom in 
question : the name, which first became known through 
inscriptions, has been discussed by H. Usener,' and 
after him by J. B, Lightfoot' and Th, Mommsen.' 
According 10 these scholars, in Asia Minor and Egypt 
the first day of each month was called Sf^HffnJ, Light- 
foot regards this as at least ' probable in itself, ' but 
finds that 'some of the facts are still unexplained.' 

already mentioned, has revived an old conjectiu^ of 
Waddington, that 2epairrli is a day of the week, not a 
day of the monlh. 

For this BuicKh adduces two inscriptions from Ephesus and 
Kabala, and mnkcH reference (in Ihe opposiie method to lh»I 
of the prcMnl article) lo tbe analogy of the Christian mptajr^. 
To bin iitQ inKriptiont w< may ben add the Oiyrhiwhua 
papyrus, 46, dating fran TOD A. D.(fTDUf)YA^irpdropo<'a£ffiuAt 
N/f»ua TjKwov le^Hmv rapfumjtov Mfvii^ 4Xc0wrT^; 'oa 
ihe day of SebaRe, tlh Mecllir of (he third year of Ih* , . . 
emperor Trajan.' 

Without venturing on a confident judgment on a very 
diHictiU question, we might, on the evidence before us 
conjecture that "LtpatrHi in some cases denotes a definite 
day of the month (the first ?), and in othen, as for 
example in the inscriptions fnan Ephesus and Kabala 
as also in the Oxyrhyncbus papyrus.^ a week-day — vii. 
Thursday {dia /ovii). 

metamorphosed into a ' day of Augustus ' we should 
have an analogy to Ihe change of the dies Solii into 
the ' Lord's day,' As a ruune for a day of the month 
also XtffarHi would have a value not to be overlooked 
as an analr^y for Kvptar:^.^ 

At what tlate 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 * that lufiuin} was 
not used before the time of Domitian. 

A. Barry in Smith and Cheelham'i DUI. C*r, AHlif.. j.r. 

'Lord'i Day'^ Zsckler, A£<>II44it^, i.Ti, ' Sonnlag ' ; j. B. 

de Roisi. Inicr. Ciriit. yrNiRtmr. L 

I. LU«l«tlir*. igs7-'B6i(it(>oAtv^nMi): Th.2abn,.W 

a. </. i**rt d. <Uln A'inir, iSjf 

d, nfere 

to Oit oMer lilu 

re of the 

LORD'S FBATER. The Lord's Prayer is a signifi- 
cant example of the scantiness and incompleteness of 
1 m— i« Christian tradition. It is not to be found 
(^tSi '" ^' ^^"^ gospel-,.*., in the oldest, 
""•"'■• as most scholars are agreed — (unless there 
is a tiace of it in Mk. 11 n) nor in tbe fourth ; and the 
two gospels which contain it, refer it to different occa- 
sions, and give it in varying forms. In Ml. it stands 
I On this ctulom of a montbly ceMnation of the birthday lee 

feierX ^ii/icA'!/i fBr dit tauliil. w)ainKkafl ■>. die Kundt 
dt! I'nkralntiumi t (.90.) aJT. 
" 'The Pergamuoi iiiKription, 374 B (temp. Hndri«n)eipreMly 

• TAe Attittlle F*lim, Part ii.(*, 18B9, 1 478^ eip. 7 14/ 

• Af. Ma. Frlnkel, DU Inukrf/ttH tvM PirgamtM, %i, 
S Ms :q> also Fiankel himself, ii. i\i. 

• Am ydii<t. iSoa, 49/ 

' The Editon think of the day of the Emperor's acceuion. 
Their refeieiKC however to Ihe Berlin papyrui m is incon- 
clusive ; see vol. s of ibe BerUn Papyri, 354. 

B So Deissmaiin, Nm BiMsludltH, 4%/., with concurrenc* 
of A. Hilgenfeld, Birl. PiiM. iVtclutuckrift, iviii., iggS, 1541- 



(69-13) ■> P"^ of 1^' ' SennoD on the Mount ' ; accord- 
ing lo Lk. {II 1-4) it was given byjeaiu al ihe requeit of 
a disciple. ' as he was praying in a certain place.' From 
■he eonleit in Lk. (lOjS) it has been concluded that the 
locality «pas near or at Bethoajr or Dear Jerusalem, more 
precisely Ibegardenof Gelhsematie.' (Not far Erom the 
traditional site of Gelhsenuuie on the slope of Ihe Mount 
erf Olins stands Itwday the chiu-ch of the Pater-nosler. 
showing in the quadrangle Ihe Lord's Prayer engraved 
on marble tablets in thirty-two languages. ) Older har- 
monists used to combine the two reports by the suggestion 
that Ihe disciple, who. if he wns one of the twelve, must 
have been acquainted with the prayer as taught on the 
foimer occasion, expected some fuller or more porliculor 
form of prayer ; or supposed that be was nol of Ihe 
Twelve,buloneoflheSevenly(rlIT«»/«i9i7ri5r), Before 
this, Origen had explained (he fact that in Lk. a shorter 
form is given than on the Mount by the remark tMi yt 
Wfit lUr t4ii ^uiftfrij*, Sri U) di^XifiUrot, il/nitirai rir 
Kipto* ri iriTefiiiTtper. wpAt li rote rXitorai, Siot'^aot 
Tparrrtpai iiioimiMBi, ri aa^ariper {Di Oral. SOi ; 
ed. Koetschau. Sjgj). Modem exegesis finds in this 
dificrence a proof of twofold tradition, and is 00 the 
whole inclined to see in the place to which Lk. refers 
the prayer, the betier tradition, the 'Sermon on the 
Mount' having received a later insertion. So, e.g., 
.^thur Wright (JiiWK NT ProtUms. a6 ; TJu Comfusi- 
tiaa iflht Four Goipth. 75), who insists thai in Ml. il 
breaks the paralleUsm of the context ; and Geo. Hein> 
rici.* According 10 Baljon {Comm. on Ml.. Ulrecht. 
1900). Ml. seized Ihe opponunity to bring Ihe Lord's 
Pmyet ' which he found in Ihe Logia ' into Ihe ' Sermon 
on the Mount,' because Jesus whs speaking there of 
praying. BtU il is quite impossible lo say anything 

Ml. look Ihe piece. Even the kafax Ugameium iwuii- 
«u», which is common 10 holh leils, does nol prove 
unily of source, or Ihai Greek was the language of thai 
source. 1( is jusi 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 Ihe Greek wording of the First Gospel was in- 
fluenced by the language of the Third Gospel.' 

According 10 Lk. , the disciple asked 'Lord, teach 
us lo pray, as John also laughl his disciples.' That 
the disciples of John were addicted nol only to much 
fasting (Mt.9tt Mk.StS). but 10 much praying,* Lk. 
alone lells us (5]]). To odd fiesfa pelilions on particu- 
lar subjects to received forms of prayer, is bul nalural 
in all times: certiin rabbis (R. Elleierand R. Johanan) 
are specially mentioned as having done this.' In this 
way ihe Baplbl may have added lo the prayeis then in 

laught it his disciples. Such an apocryphal prayer is 
found in Syriac MSS. whether also in Greek and Latin 

' M. Mirioli'iulh, Tkt Lartli Praytr, pp. 7, ig. and, with 
""^^ ' " F.'h. Chme.^lw'^Lorf'iPrayM 


■o Ihe tarly Church,' TS 
* Da SlTtfrttligl (R< 

GltiCinimdin }i,M, 
• LiKhif.. Htr. h 

Zoienberf 's rauliKU«< of the 
■ pnver of John ("heihM idtnl 
in US ij (»; (ifnr Ihc candck 

Syriac or Cartbuni). 

iillv Zllin, Einl. lilt; for I 
was coined bv Mi. 01 on< of I 

4Dt 11 apparently quealiontd by jDlichi 

■*»-, on Ml. •; art. 'Schemonc Esre" 

tSil. 1098. 

:h jDhn IdoBhl his duaplq' reudi ID 

I M.S, Pocodie, 10 : 

le) worthy of Iby kingdom and la tcjoLcfl 

oflhy Son.' 

- : Syriic MSS in Puis nenii 
ilical with ihe precedlhE of ni 

1. ITordiiic. ^ 


Not only as to ihe bkosUh but also as to (he Uxt of 
(he Lord's Prayer, there is a twofold tradition. Thai of 
the form which passed into 
general use ; thai of Uc sufiered allera- 
(ion even in the MSS of ibis Gospel 

(a) In Ml. the modem critical editions oiier hardly 
any varialioQ. The form fKB^a of TR. instead of 
Atfdru is relained by Alford and Weiss, by Weiss also 
the article -rip before 7^1 ; bul i.^iixw of the TR ii 
generally given up for d^cafuv. On (he doxology, 
see the revisers' marginal no(e. and (he notes of WH, 
pp. 8-10. WH gave it a place among the ' Noteworlhy 
Rejected Readings.' Weiss at the foot of bis page. 

Tbe crilTcal apparanu may be supplemtnted by (be following 


mttitntisia Iht Bodl. MS 1 

.T.S4— on' 

(Brichunan, 60, 446, 4^ 
(a) For Jri y4( in iwi r^ mt, cj 

mtntary an tlu (hifili, I., for Clem 

il'.L.. at Orifen i> dividnt : t% u foul 


(1) The Sinai codices , „ 

M. Lewis.(»b»n) witnex in lai JM.; ID dm ibc Uwiji- 
FilimpKH of iyt», which bnalis off after Ihii word. Cp lb* 
additional note of BurkitI b WH fimpmiian of 1896), who 
rrf™ 10 the Syriac AcU af TAtma, <ed. W. Wn({.I. j.j), 
where Ibe Lord > Praytr ii aiven in full from syrn witbout 
doxology. Tb»i die copyiu oil {Codex Babiemk) was so liiile 
■cqiuinied with Chriiuanily that he wu able 10 write cni aJ 
rtftmm tnum 11 Justly poinied out by BurkitI i^ambridgt (/ni- 
trrrntr Xifarttr, jdi Match. ' 

mn I 

' 64D. 

lerud after 'oordebu.' TbiiiialH Ihe leading in Ifae^cfi^ 

(^ Speciid nention has 10 be nude of the Didacbl, which 
offers at Iht opening ■> iv o^P^ (•*""•)> riii' UiiA^r uur, 
li^^r\iTirmianrilir^K*'^^tif'Uni%mXirmt. On 
Ihe woid Miktifi cp G. A. Ddiuunn, /fnu BiitltCtidiin, 4I 
(^ BiUi Sli^iti, looi), and CDmpue with ihii lingular, 
Ihe umilar linfulat '■ ^ -<-..< s> '•— ' c.v„,.i... ;. 

'« Schuld ' f< 

„ -.-r'lCaiechism, uifl in lAitcn, wheta 

' Schuldeo ' are money-debu (Batjon. Camm. 94). 

■ {i) In Lk. (he test snlfeiEd much in MSS and 
editions byossimilaliontolhatof Mt. InTR i( difTered 
from Ml only by 31J«u ^lut ri naS' 1i/iipar, rit ifuip- 
rial, ml yiip airol i^t/ur rorrl i^lXom iitir. and 
the omission of the doxologj. The criiical editions 

and thai the third and seventh pelilions are loudly 
absent. In Ihe rest, there is full agreement, Ihough 
Weiss Hgain writes Aff^Tw with TR. All prefer d^Jo^uv 
to the i-pit^ut of the TR. 

There ii one »eiy inieretilng nriini irtiied at length in 
.1. .^m, of WH : JAMn. »S iyio- -—■■■■' ■—■ i*- i--- —: 

(buidei Ihe 

.upp1eni^nr?brreni.rl; ofWH (S^Md 

(besldei the uplldt tesilinony of Creg. Nyo.. MuimuiCon- 

«a4(>7aainih( li« of Gregorys Egerton 9«ia. in ihe%riiish 
MuMum) has ihil very re>di>ig ui the lexl of Lk. («e H. A. C. 
Hoikier. A fitll BfcOK-I >■/ al/al«>n a/ IJti Crak Cotmi 
Cstltx E'lwrilium, 6oj (iBool, who givei a phoiographic re- 
production S Ihe passage, and Chue, 14). Whel^I in Ihe 
reading ^' ii>iac which is added in cod. D and various formi of 
the f«ond million.^ a imce of ihii Marcioniiic reading is 

•rhv Jvtviitfiffv, perhapi vAt iMa^iTiai intlead of ra o^iAiffiaTa 
(on Ihe Kcond dauK there is no lesiicnony eilani), and put hij 
■#et i(i« niH"»»4««, a dogmalit ■ilentian, which (Inde- 
pendenily, !i would seem) aopeBrs also In Latin in Cyprian IVt 
^ - ■■ ~ ;P..ifi., 

3 See Cha». who quote) ihe so-cilled King's Book DI 
id W. H. Freie, ' Edw»idirie Vernacular Servieei,- [n . 
4. Sl,.diii. Jan. 1900, p. »4S- 


«.HMUilag. ' 

B pas«Bg« like [he Lord's Prayer, every minule 
, detail such as numbering and anange- 
I and even onhography deservei 

Augusline {Eachirid. Ii6) remarks 
oralione doniinica peiiiiones non lepUm sed 
mplexus est.' The number sevea became 
(hencsforlh traditional in the Roman Catholic and the 
LiUtberan Church. But the same Augustine argued : 
'quod ille (Mt. ) in ultima posuil : littraneia mala, iste 
(Lk. ) Qon posuil, ut inlelligeremus ad illud superius 
quod de lentatione dictum est pertinere. ' In accordance 
with this view. Origen and Chrysoslom counted six 
petition) ; they arc followed by the reformed churches. 
WH print the Lord's Prayer in Mt. in a K 3 stichi. in 
Lk. without strophic arrangement. Wordsworth-While 
make, in their Latin NT. of PaUr-nomtn Umm one 
•tichus. at il nt iaduias and iid iiiera two. Hetie- 
nauer's reprint of the Vulgate puis a full stop after every 
petition, therefore also: • lentatumtm. Sid.' In the 
Greek text Weiss places a colon only after y^. WH 
•fter 7^, t^UHfitr, and iiiiwr, while Brightman (Litur- 
giti) omits all punciuaiions in the second half, and 
separates the first half by commas. AV. RV, and 
Prayerbook need hardly be quoted. The division and 
■irangement of WH pro»e (he best. 

No allempi can be made here to give an exhaustive 
' Breviarium toliiis evangelii' as 
, Terlullian styled il, or ■Coelestia doc- 
mpendium,' as Cyprian called iL 
'Oralio hxc,' said Tertullian, 'quantum substringitur 
-verbis, lanium diffundilur sensibus.' Some philological 
remarks, however, are necessary. 

(i) TIU fioni/iiJB.— 'The abrupt rinp,' says A. 
Wright (Gaj^/^£ii:(e [1900]. 103), ■ is softened down 
in SI, Matthew by an editorial addition which in identical 
or equivalent terrns occurs in Mt. S164S etc. (19 limes) ; 
only once in Si. Mark (i: 15) : not at all in Si. Luke ' : 
but see Lk. II 13. ' In the West there ig evidence that 
the abruptness was eased by prefixing the original Ara- 
maic sMu (imIoMhii. -ourfother'). So Rom. Sis Gal, 
•it (Mk. UjS).' It is better lo say that the Aramaic 
original 'Abba' was preserved even in Greek surround- 
inp. but explained by the addition of the translation, i 
nn})) (as in Mk.S4i. Ta\iSa through ri tcpirtiyr). 

Tluit not only ihe iKilated wi-np c^ Lie, bui alu *ir^ 
4fw> at Mt. cm camipond 10 KJK ii wiflidcnily ihowii tiy 
,Djtlmikn» Wfftt /rni, 157^ though for a prayer the more 
.MknD VVf Cm Hebrew), Kjl3H (AnmrnicX \ta» (Cililean), 
local to DiloHii more probable. For the Iioliled «»> nr 
Inr^cp Mi.llie}i Lk 

SSiiiiii) a>j44« Jn-iiji ii»7, , ... ._ 
\tta. L ad_»5>r.8j: tit ii-iaTfMfrn , rpte ui If ii-v 

Uuon bu here iiait <"<" father). 

That the imperative forms dTuw^^rw and yaiiHir'^ 
may be used for the optative, (viriiiOf not siricily 
rpotfrajmiui, is shown by Origen [Dt Or. 21 j, ed. 
Koetschau, 2 js; / ) with reference to some remarks of 
Tallan on ytniff^u in Gen. 1 3- 

On the uw of Ihe passive uciil of Ihli verb faulead of the 

tUlc*. I >a, ■). jln Gen. 1 j ytinfiin. of LXX givei place in 
Aquila imd Lonaintn {dt StMimf) u> -yrWtfA*, in SyDunikcbus 
to frra, in ihe Omciila Siiy/lixa, i, 9, to ynrirtiS) On (he 
Semitic original presuppoied by -yvif^qna, tee below, 15(4]. 

{a) i*i«6<rmt. The remark of Origen. ■ 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 
philologii^ reasons. 

{a) The oldest tradition seems lo be that represented 
In Syr" (cur. , sin. and Acts of Thomas) by KonS (or pnh) 
Wraii (our) lOiuiaHl. eontinual irtad, 

1 The pivue b important, uiAiisirmstaiylDt Orat.tJ j 



41 with Ul.Mjoii Lk. 
=- ' ^t .»*?- — 

'^>* I'M is. in the Peih. of the O 
Heb. I-Of ; see especially Nu. i 
hiead ' EV). and il il a uranie c«i 

', Ihe regular renderinE for 

rfdeim, ihat no! only Ihe 

. venioo of a Mace- tiuulaled 1 s (rpH#i{*a^i«r teAt 

<Ef>»vT) by Ihe ume word u in NT r^y urDf jutMt 1** 
irunviDrl biu il» the medixval Jew, Shemiob bep Shapbiul, 
to whom iiducthe Hebrew truulmiDn of the Gospel of Matthew, 

'"' "ury by MGntier ap ' "- -'-- - ' 

, lferS<t,< hit upon 

formed from 1*Dri an adjective n'on. 

lublished in TB79 by A 

T. R. t 

t, Oistt 

. Curtl 

minll <l87I, p. lo), and C. Taylor S«rif '/ tir /jwrl* 
Fatitn Utjj, p. 141), leemlohavT had so knowlrdgF of thk 
mediievB] predeceKor when ibey propoced l^on u original for 

{i) The same tradition seems represented in the West 
by the old Latin ' cotidianus ' and the Gothic ' hlaif un- 
sarana Ihana jiH/n'Ran ' (cp the same word in a Cor. I] iB 
= i<a0' iiilfir and the adv.. tiitttino for 9iA irnrTit, 
wdnorr. itlf and the Old German tmissigoM (Valeranser 
of Weissenburg). 

(f) With the ' venienlem ' of the Sahidic version is to 
be compared Cyril (Luc. 365). >I /lit tiraf ^o^i rir 
4{orT<i Tt KalioSTiailitror xariTir alwwa rir n^KKurra, 
while he himself explained : Sri rqt f^qfi/pov rpn^^ 
nAovrrai tV etlnjffif Jn djcHi/iofti STfKorAn ' ^iriot^or 
riw o^d/«n Jio»o««r9«i XP^- The Coptic has craslinum. 

(rfl The Peshltta has ■ ihe bread of our nad; and is 
follovred by the later Syriac translation of Polycarp and 
Thomas of Heradea, who formed the rare adjective 
|,,jtAJada 'our wni'j' bread.' The Palestinian, trans- 
lating ' our bread of rickntis.' took iwuintt in the 

(r) Jerome tried the word safiermMantialii, ' sub- 
stanlivtis ' or ' superventurus' : Victorinus, ' consubslan- 
tialis.' [Hence J. B, Jona in his Hebrew version of the 
Gospels (Romae, UDCLXVtii) even gives di'J.t^ wpn^-] 

(/) 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 identi5ed 
at times wiib Ihe Semitic original of Matthew, had 
tud/idr (ino). Two views are possible. The one is 
that thb mdhdr is a Iranslalion from the Greek, resting 
on etymology ; if this be so, the explanation has IK> 
more value than any other. The other is thai Ibis 
mdJiir represents Ihe Jewish- Christian form of prayer of 
400 A.D. (or thereabouts), which was also known about 
60-65 A.D. in Jerusalem, Kokaba, Bcroea- 

Kor Ihe latter vitw airong reasons are given, espedally by 
1b.2aiai,GcicMiikl£dtl Kanviu.itai^aif, fiW.tjij; for the 
~ ■' "enoett in A. Wright's Casftl b/S. Luit, 
>(h) uon^ loundsalitileslrange in Hebrew, 
•'" lie 159 n BJpriS; bot il b ■> 
-e are philologkal reasons which 

« R. U. Ken 

in other laniuagis also, a 
slrengthrn tnis trBdition.l 

(e of lb 

3, and d 

liliy IfOtn jj fvtwffa, s 



L iifi^ld'-li^ 

"" If we 

iMA^pa, the following day. II 

Comparing Prov. 301 '^n onS (AV ' food convenient 
forme.'mg, ' of my allowance ' ; RV ' food that is need- 
ful for me,' mg. 'Heb. the bread of ray portion '), 
Del.. Salk.-Gi., Resch translate u^n cnS: Ronsch (like 
the Palestinian version), unVjD Dn*? ; Taylor (like Ihe old 


n H-P. a 


)n Mu B (Vatlaral. T m). the .rfiur- 



Sfriac and Shenitob), irvTn KonV or TUn orA. Arnold 
MejB (Mutttrtprache Jisu, 1896) thinks of Aramaic 
WQ. 'suiBcienL' CbSKS conclusion is [hat the original 
nu; simply have been ' Give us our (or ' Ihe ') breati of 
the day.' M. Schultze [Gramm. der aram. Mutter- 
tfrackt Jau, 1899, g 1 13) gives laAma di fori-dna and 
Mim is given by ' the last reviser of the last version of 
the Hebrew NT' quoted by M. Margolioulh, who finds 
this 'utterly inconceivable.' proceeding 'from a sheer 

common life and must not be taken all^orically (as 
Mardon and many since his lime have taken it) is now 
almost universally admitted. 

(3) TOHj(»C ; ma/o. 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- 
faauslive investigation of Chase. Shemtob translated 
jn '>X (changed in the edition of S. MUnster). There 
is an early allusion to this meaning in Ihe Didach^ 
(10s). /""^^V- 'ipti.Trji ^KxXiialat von, ^iaa^iat aAHir 
ii4 Torrit tdhi/mC. The Ethiopic. loo (see Bright- 
Ban, Lihirgits, 134), has ' Deliver us and rescue us 
from all evil.' The same combination of Ihe two verbs 
t7 which in the Pesbitta ^iam is rendered (Ml ) ,Bttt 
and (Lk.) J.S. is found in the Neslorian Liturgy 
(Brightmao, 396), ' Savt and deliver us from Ihi 
toil ent and his hosts.' Taylor (Sayingi, 143 ff.^ 
writes ■ The original form of the petition can scarcely 
have been yvi p iiStbh ' : but may it not have been 
yV) "n^ iiVan ? On the pn ni- or jn.T '', see Taylor's 
note. It seems on the whole the most probable view 
to lake it as masculine. The Arabic leit published by 
Mrs. M. D. Gibson (5i'ii4'><i SiHailiia, 7 u, has 
.' from the Satan' andaddsiA/iicafler ' temptation ' ; cp 
aa Ihe laiier addition. Brighiman, Liturgia. 469, /. 54. 

(4) For the doiology, cp not only 1 Ch. 29if, but 
also Dan. 23; i Esd, 4)B<DBnd the Prayer of Manas- 
seh (end). The earliest quotations are in Polycarp, ad 
Pkiliff. 6 .ind 7- 

In former times Grotius (especially), and. later. 
Welslein expressed the view that Ihe Lord's Prayer was 
■ (•a_-_^(«. " combination of Jewish prayers 'ex 
-S^S^ formulii Helxatorum ^cinnata.' 
WHii jawun Others went fiirther. and maintained 
"*'•"• that the Lord's Prayer consisted of the 
tegiimiufi of prayers, singled out t^ Jesus u suitable 
for his followers. Still more extravagant statements, as 
that Jesus had gatheied Ihe Lord's Prayer out of the 
Zendavesta. need not detain us (see PJfB<'> ijt»}. 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 Tie Lards Prayer no Adaplatian 
tf exiiting Jeaisk 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 (^ivji^iMft^ii. 6(1900] 153) 
of the leachii^ of Jesus BS a whole — that Jesus uttered 
things which woe said almost literally by Jewish teachers 
befOT« and after him. On the other hand, 'duo si 
fiu:iunt 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 10 be 
certain of the exact age of the parallels adduced. The 
Jewish Liturgy has had a complicated history, if we 
mentioD only the most famous pieces of it,* the Shlmd, 
tbe SUmanik 'E'srih. Ihe Kaddiih, the AbtnA Matkini, 
< On ihc Skfma' and SUmfiM 'Eirtk HC Schflrer, Gl'r 
1«4«.#; Dalrnno, »Vwy««, am(for Uieniiurr, »« p. joi); 

6o$^.; 'TMoT^cn(ebel,'a(w_^l'Mu«af^eb<t,'8is./r: 'Schema," 
mSjJf.i 'Scbemont'Eire,' loqaff.^ 'Abinu Mmlkenu.'in Suppi. 
11. IV, pp. i^D:5<:hechur, '^SoiBe Rabbinic Parallels lollie 
NT,' in yc*. Apr. 1900, p. 49«- 



and Mnce Christian scholars arc (ftpart from Dalnian) 
behindhand In thorough and critical study of <locu- 
ments (cp PRAVBR), il seems best to restrict ourselves to 
some of the most remarkable and indisputable Jewish 

For OT parallels •« the BiMe (KV) with mareinal references: 
Ditmur, Clmi Tulmmmtin in A"™ <,8mX niid Hohn, J>ii 

(i) Exordium: w&Ttp, or wdnp^JpAvihotpavott. It 
is tbe Jewish custom to add n:prl(^j. >t,TP?7' ' (*'>o) i' 
in heaven ' to m where il is used of God ; but in prayer, 
even among Jews the isolated u>:ut is not unusual. The 
fundamental passage for the designation of God as 
Father is Ei. 4 1». (Cp Father. ) 

For Shimfinth 'Esith, cp 4 mnd 6 <n hmVi i>r«n.i»„. I>h. 
Palesliniui detected by Schechler an 
CWniiah of Cairo and publiihed "" 

the Babylonian, Daiman, 301 ff.), :ttil<e -Tf? n'SIt l)|n and 
U'31( uj nSp, and in the Babylonian (onn ip^Sh^ D'ail IJS-^n. 
where the Paleilinian has ipSlI '• IM-wn. On ihe U|^ u-aj 
(the prayer for New Year and Day of Atonement) tU Ham- 
buijer, Ic. SuppL tl. i; on O'crryi 3M, 'Father of mercies' 
(i Cor. 1 3 ; Bfrilkhaih a) and D-prr},! 3N u-aif 'Cm the prayer 
before Ihe Sheoia), Hambureer, I.S. Id tbe Ifaddlifa Dl^ 
■ra^rt ijOK, foi which tbe illaddish de Rabbanan hai inp-Q 'p 
M|nH1 iTQi^n, 'before the word of heaven and eanh,' and 
■nalhei r<^«^iioD, 'xi '» ma, ' the Lord of beaven and eanh.' 

■o the recital of Ei. IK ; see ZDMC H i'il 

(a) kitmuttfru, comp. in ShEmOneh 'Esr«h. 3, ^1^ 
lips' riSji Mw, in tbe Babyl. recension with transposition 
elig i|if«*i pitg nf»t and Ihe sequel "|«Vjri; dS-^ji D'f\tj» 
,1^ for ^-i|^ BiSn |-»ti ; further Bab. 18. Dfi-nH Mrr' 

H?- ■ ' 

The divine name occun lurtber in Bab. ■ (ev mah, ' for hti 
Baine'> sake') 13 -ppa D'noian. '"bal "u" i" •nj' name'; in 
thy naaiE wi Iiual. The faiUuk begini ; n-^ ^pp'' S*in< 
xp^tlS nx • tuacnilied and hallowed be hit gr^t n^ni^' in the 

>{ lUIJIm 

b. Beilkhotfa, 411J. 

in (cp the preceding) 

(3I iXedrs. Any benedict 
which is without HaliHik is no benediction a 
b. Berflkhdth, 401^. 

Shfmentb II (Bab, adds mio] >t»;^ Kfit U-^J tfmi, 'and 
be kinff over uB (quickly) — tbou aionc' (oppoeed to [la] TKiTO 
)W, 'the kingdom of pride ■); cpno. ,,, ^-po TVl fV3 tliaSo 
Tprw, 17 (variant KTilr 3^ 310 Sw 1^ "a)- 

Kaddiab, .t'ni^X ^^'i ' may bii kingdom rdgn ' ; but read 
with Salman tS>:, ' "■r be make it rugn ' ; the If iddlsh de- 
Rabbanan add» (in one receiuian, n*"ip'3)» 'in hii Efory/ and 

(4) ytrrfifftm. Whether in Hebrew njfp or '.1; be 
Ihe better translation, can be doubted. Shemtob. 
Del.. Salk.-GL, and Resch adopted nk'f; ; M, Mar- 
goliouth preferred -n: tbe 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 mn. wilh 
Ihe exception of the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum, 
which, in accordance with its usual diction, has i3pn>. 

in Jetti-h prayers there teems to be iw enact parallel : but cp 
BfiakbCWli. 7^, where Kabbi Elieier aniwen the request for a 
thon prayer by saying 'ji Spco BTW3 "PTI .ipp. ' Do thy will 
in heaven above (Taylor, Sayimgi, 139^ Hamburger, 109S 
n. 6), anri Berskhoib, tU, ahv Q'CTi* lynyt '• TJdSo pKl ■n% 
' May it be thy will, O Laid, oui God, to make peace in the 
family above and in tbe family below.' In Sbf mOnCh 'Elitb, 



^ ^3t ^pm *^p Dpi 'with ihose who do thy will' md 16, 
U-itSm '' mn, ' be pkiud O Lonl oui Cod ' ; u tbe Babyl. co- 
oentioo i4 U'pni -pjl Smc nrtf TOn pm^ ■I*™" pn^a ^3pn> 
In ihi ^iddtih jiampa Tapnm ]i3ni^ ^apwi. '""y your 

(5) Tb» dfrrav. No eiacl parallel in Jewish prayers. 
There is a pelilion for blessing of the year in Shemoiieh 
'Esreh 9, in Hibinenfl and elsewhere, and the saying of 
R. Elieierhaggftd61{o>i:fl4o-I30 A.D.), ' Whosoever has 
a bil of bread in his basket and says, What dull I eal lo- 
morrow ? must be reckoned among those of little faith ' 
{Satd. ^8i). 

On the diflercDl iniuliliacu of lim«io%, tee above, 1 1 is\ 

(6) KiU H**- ShfmiKik 6. ^ UKQn ■) u-M u^ nh^ 
Uin^p [tjjjt;] »!'?■ '" ihe Babyl. recens. ifiu'Sj am [cwi]; 
also in HdStnlnS. ri iiptiKiiiaTii (expression from 
businesE-lifeJis more^vijb^Fi (Del.. Marg.; alsoShem- 
lob, who render! t^iKlrati intur. ij-main '^P3^) than = 
ajB^^ti (SaUcinson-Cinsburg, Resch), 

(7) lU ««pa«lidv. Shemtob, Dd., |^•5) -I'S; Salt- 
Gi. , Resch, not) >i~S : the reviser, rightly challenged by 

. Margoliouth (p. 95), ngpy; Mlinster, pfjf for 



MionpTiTS . - - IwanSKloccuilin the Jewish 
■naming pnyer (cp BJrIkhDIh. bot. Mnrgidiouth. ft, Tsylor, 

the Lord*> Piayei: -pS i«S_ilt('3n Ski - . ■ tjdSo pn '.m 
i» B^pn S<n pi3 -1'^ mS p-oi tS •rti irop t^ »h\ tcon 

(8) d«& ToB vovitpaS. In the prayer which Rabbi 
used 10 say afler the usual prayer according lo Bitftk- 
hdth, r6j, he mentions, among the evils from which he 
desires (0 be delivered, after m 110 (n irjBOi jn d** 
pn IDE'S pn mno, also n'npD<i nairsii * and from Satan the 
Destroyer' (Taylor, 143/). 

(9) All the expressions of the Doxology occur in 
Jewish prayers n, ip', jij^. ij, nyai- 

by KocuchBu^ "uur^pHan ramonE n»>dJrn*tre>iiiJI"ihai 
of iCamphiiuen (1866X F. H. Chue'i Tkt 

oW.^lW'W, jd^Tl), when too ifae liiera- 
■ure b duly noted, C. W. Siubi», Tin SmiaJ TiatlUitf «/ llu 
LcrtCi Prayrr (igw). 

A poitianDfthe Lixd'i Pnyer. from ■ clay tablet oT about the 
fbiuih ceniury, A. n. Aiund Bl Meoara and now in the Salional 
MuKun at Alheni, has been publi^ed laiely by R. Knopf 
(Mitthill. dtri Kaa. Diutsck. Anh. InililnU : Ailuniieia 
AilheilMnt XXV. 4 [t^oa) 3I]-.^iii)l The tablet i> bmken, but 
«ihJa i.wh rev wmr^fiov. Then follows jn^i aad ihe monograni of 
Cbrisi ^. Eb. N. 

LOBDB SUPPER. Sec Euchakist. 
LO-RTTHAKAa {n^Tn (6, g 33, ' unpitied ' ; oyk 
hAehmenh [BAQ], cp npru t6. is. H"). and Lo. 
AMHi CSOKO, 'nol my people"; oy AaOC MOt 
{BAQI), symbolical names given to Hosea's daughter 
and son, lo signify that Ynhwi would cease lo h.-ive 
mercy upon the hotise of Israel, and thai they were tto 
more his people, nor he Iheir God (Hos. I6-9; see 
Rom. 9:i5 1 Pel. 2 id). Cp HOSEA. g 6, Jezreel. % 1. 
col. =459- 


>t Ihe 1 

. . . . ) Ifl-nihamah, and to Lo- 
anmi I will Hy "Thou an my jjeofde " ' <2 « l,s» . . , 'Sa; 
ye unto your brethren Anuni (my people) and la voui liner 
Ruhanuih (piiied)' 1 1 NX Zech. 15a ii no) the only parallel 
'"--'-■■'-' i7iA«ildtaihefbe';er ■- ■" " " - 

SaijK (Jl^Xlowhkh probably 
" " at day ... I will 

illsD • ■ . .'Say 

ly paralleL 

IDiiTihouldiwherbeMerahneerCepir ' - 

.'xt, the present writer ihinki, spokeofjel 

and Jeiahmeelitei HI the inhabitanu of old Jerusalem), w< 
closeparallel 10 Hosea; forp. «*/S should ' '' 

f Ariel' in Is. t 

bom God halh ao [uly.' 

LOT (h^i). Josh. 186. See Divination. % a (iv.). 
Ephod, Urih and Thumhim. 


LOT (13^. A(Ot). aiighteoiBman, whobythcdivine 
favour escaped froin the catastrophe which befel ibe 

ilSS^ alj» said to have been brother's son to 
Abraham, whom he accompanied from his 
fatherland (I24/), but from whom he parted at length 
owing to disputes between tbeir shepherds, and to have 
been allosved by his generous uncle to choose the Jordan 
valley for himself and bis flocks (IS j-it) ; a later 
tradition says thai Abraham made a successful eipedi- 
ijon to rescue Lot who had been taken captive by 
Cbedorlaomet and the allied kings (14 1114 ■«). ll 
should be noliced here that the stoiy in 12ia-» is 
probably one of the later insertions in J ; hence the 
otherwise surprising drctimstance thai no mention is 
made in it of Lot. The words ' and Lot wiih him ' are 
an editoHal correction (cp Ox/. Hex.). 'Ilie Moabiles 
and Ammonites are called by two writers the b'ne Lot 
(EV 'Children of Lot'), D^ igtg Ps. S39[e]: a 
legendary account of their origin is given in Gen. ISjo-ja 
(cp AUMON, Moab). 
In the lallertlory IheprageniiorofAmmonand Moab appeal* 
. dwelling ' in ihe cave \ or, more precisely, two parallel stale 
enis are made in vti- joa and 30^, ' he dwelt in ihe mountain 
(myM). Hence the quesiioa 

) and 'he dwelt in th 
in Ihe c 

ttber perhaps on Vt^, * in ■ cave,' m being 
:hanee in Ihe context. 

It wnuhl be somewhat hard lo deny that the story in 
Gen. 19ja-jB was interwoven with the slory of the de- 
struction of Sodom by a laier hand. Ii was not one of 
the really popular Hebrew legends, and contrasts as 
strongly with the prexious honourable tiiention of Lot 
OS Ihe story of Noah's drunkenness {Gen.Oai^) con- 
trasts with thai of the reward of his righteousness. 

The primary Lot (Gen. 1930-38) was presumably re- ' 
presented as a Horite ; he is identical with Lolan. who 

llie fother of a son called Hori (i-. »|. The secondary 
Lol {the kinsman of Abraham) mny. or rather must, 
on™ have had another name, and very possibly (ep the 
probable supnsession of Enoch [;.t>.] in the Hebrew 
Deluge-story by Noah) an error of a very early scribe 
lies at the foundation ot the change. In Gen. 11. 7 (P) 
the father of Lot is said to have been Haran(pn). Now 
Haran [f.f.] can only be explained as a variation of 
Haran ([Vl), or rather Hauran (pin)- See JACOB, 3 3. 
The narrative of J in its original form possibly spoke of 

falherland ; pin would easily be miswriticn -nn. Hori, 
and nin be considered a synonym for Lolan, or Lot, 
' " ■ ■ itural to attach 

of il 

f Moa 

o Ihe 

person of Ihe righteous survivor of Sodom and kinsn 

of Moabilish and Ammonitish 
ew origin ; it is an artificial 
me point of Ihe tracing of the 
".ot Ihe Horite. which is 

obstacles. I 
late). A ret 

; but these are due 10 
circumstances in uhicb 
the biogr.ipher places Lol. and only prove 

It has therefore made but a slight mark 
:rature(Dt. 2919 and Ps. S39[s] are both 
cnce is made in Lk. ITKija Imih to IM 
I, «hich remains morally effective even if 
sah' (Gen.l9a6' ' 

■M). His function is to 
isiors of the Hebrews » 



w9d. teV-MdEing wtnion. but men of [wetT aod 
i^hteooawm (cp aPtL2}/,\, Of the ehuacter of 
tte primiuj Lot. who alooe has a right to Uw Dame, 
we have no tnulworthy iafbrmation. His name, how- 
ever, is significant ; it comes from ' to take a stranger 
into the binil)'' (Ar. iiea in viiLJ, 

Wlnckler Hipporta this by m qiurtatun from Ibn HlKAm (63^!) 
nUdvc ED « tOMO who wm bclaivd on a 4:enuji DCOAion, pro- 
tridtd with a wife by hii fritnii, and udoiMed iaio the fhcnd'i 
bmily {iitdf^Jaii ; m ibis w.n\ be becuae bu frieiid'i brolhvr- 
Appjying ibii key 10 Ihc Lot oT Gen. i9 y^^ '^ ^^ hotMn of 
Ccn. Kvtv), wt ruy suppo« thai a prc-Edomililb liibe wkb 
adniilled uita imiao with the EdomiliH. 'I'hc runne of LoUkll'l 

Cp Wi, AOf 25/; Studieo, AilrmlmyllUn, Bi-iij; 
SuIe,Cuc4.1ii9; Eonki, (;«£*. lug; HaldnesantlGiinktl 
DnGenwk Fwjcuriih L^endtKtlhe Uldzmib Btr. Jtaiia ; 
Gar Uohiunnudvi, Karin, U jB^j, etc. t. K. C' 

LOTAH (1151^ ; Autan [BADEL]). one of the ions 
of Seir, i.e., a Horite clan. Gen. Sflsoni;: i Ck I 38/ 
See Edom. g 3. coL 1183 ; Lor. 

LOTHASOBUS (Aue&covBoc [BA]. etc), t Esd. 
V44t=Neh,84, Hashhadaka. 

LOTS, FEAST OF. See Pukim. 

LOTUS TREES (D'b^V)' nienlioned in Job40>t/. 
RV. as a bvourite covert of the Behemoth or HIPPO- 
POTAHUS [AV ■ shady trees ' ; cp Ges. Thti. ; -ntMtO- 
A&n«L AcNApA and ieNip4'Me^6^4 [BKA]). RVs 
TBtdering is doulMleu conecl. The cogtvale Arabic 
<U/ ' is the ■Wm-tree, a Uiom j shrub, sometimes attaining 
considerable height, a wild species of lYx sidr {Rhamnus 
^Ha Ckrisli [Linn.], cp Lan*. s.v. dd!. sidr). This 
prickly lotus (according to Volck. the L. lihvilrii) is the 
i. Zirr/Avi. a native of N. Africa and S. Europe, and 
is to be kept distinct from the water-lilies, t~ Nympkaa 
(of Egypt) and L. Xilumbe (of India and China), which 
repeatedly occur as a matif in Eg)'plinn and oriental 
mythology and art. ' Sec Weti. ap, Del. ad toe. 

LOVE-APPLE (nfl). Gen. SO. 4 RV"f , EV Man- 
drakes [;.t>.]. Cp ISSACHAE. % a. 

L07E FEASTS (ftranAi). Ji"le "■ " RV ; AV 
'feasts of charily.' See EucHAmsT, % 3. 

LOTIffOEINDNESS (IpTI' 'f^'"')- " characteristic 
term of OT religion, applicable both to Yahw^ and to 
1. Bradwing. ™"- This rendering of M-^rf .nay be 
^^ " inadequate, but is certainly preferable 

to ■mercy' (or 'mercies.' which alternates with it in 
E\'). ■ Mercy' is an inheritance from the Wycliflite 
BiUe^ Vg. gives titiurUordia, and 4 ^Xfor, ^Xf*)^ir^7r, 
fkrlaiur (but also nine limes liiDMxriini. and once 
liiout). It might hare been better to limit the use of 
•mercy ' to the phrase ' have mercy' ("jjin), I*a. *t [j] 
•>[}] 9>3[m]. etc. Other renderings oi' ^itd in EV 
are -favour' (Eslh. 2tj Job 10 11), -goodness' (Hos. 64). 
The root meaning may be ' mildness ' (so Ges.("t). but, 
in actual use. Mud is not mtrt ■ mildness ' or ' gentle- 
ness.' A few classical passages from the OT will prove 
this statement. 
I. I S. lit, ' Foi ve ibowed bnlktrtf kindaai to the chil- 
dren of luael-' 
S. B*f«mioa«. 1. tS. Wa, 'Mayest ihou thow !tfing- 
iimfitu to thy Krvanl, because inio a bund 
HDCliooed by Vahwfr ihou \i34H brouichl thy veTvant.' 

Miit irringiinihua <^Vah>4 {epa S. 9 3). Bui ohould I die, 
mayBL thou not withdraw thy corapaMlOD from my houK for 

mhren with thee, and 

h) flithfuilKU.' 

' On the Syr. equiv. J)_^„ fiint, cp LCw, Pflat. mf. 
* Found >L» opon » Jewisli intaglio, 1^., Penol-Chipiei, 
» We foUoiTH.' P.'smilt 


,S. iK.SOji, "Dm klnfiof th* boiue of Israel are kimdl^ 

6. Hoi. 4 1. ' Hear the woid of Vahwi, ye >oiu of Iirael, (or 
Yahwt bat a quarrel with the inhnbiuuiu of lh> land, beaiuv 
there ii no tnutwonhineu, no brvtktrfy Un^nai, no knov- 

, ■ What ihall I do to 
"7* night.™ 

™/ -jft,:/w. wa. lik. 
:ri^ ; Aiid the 

. . For U^Ja/n ^., . .. .,„ 

lowiedfe of God mote than burnt offerinf,.. 
ft. Hot.^] .-4d, 'When Itroel was young I benui to tovi 
m ; from (the time (bal he was in) EeyiK, I called him mi 
n. As uon Ml called them. Ibey went ftom me; Ibeyiacn 

--'^--"ySV,--- - 

Yi%u4 leqi 

-^ God I extended 10 them ; 1 nve much 1 

B, 'God bai lold thee what il good ; and what 
-'- -' ■'■- — - '- jollTy. 10^ love irvli 

ID do JDllTy. to love braUurly 
ittmanra, anu lo ixivomte me vrofka of Vahw^7') 

ic Jer. 23, 'I renieAlber in thy behalf the toyal ^ffrelion <X 
thy youth, the love of thy bridal state.' 

11. Dl. 7.3. ^BecauK ye obey tbcH judgmenta . . . Vahwt 
thy God will carry out for thee ibe covenant and the Icving^ 
kindmu which he swore to thy Auhcra.' 


S10, 'All the paths oC Yahwfcare iffvingkindntat i^ 

14. JoblOii. 'Favour^and InintkindiHU Ihou hati ptac- 

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

■ a.».i(..*(».. fo"™ "^ active kindness which Portia 
I. ^tpltokUoiU. ^iij , ^^^j, , ^,^ ^-^^^ „^„ ^1^,^ 

are concerned, any form of helpfulness. It is in fact 
the ^XoatX^fa of the NT, which means a helpfulness 
bom of sympathy.' Sympathy in the ancient world 
It existed, propierly speaking, 

>rg thos. 


Israelilish prophets and legislator 

but the task was hard. Certainly it was a bold act on 

the part of the servants of Benhailad (see 5) to appeal 

olhcAArf of an Israeli 

hking. Thee 


kings, however, were, by comparison with other kings. 
distinguished by their k/std ; it is a gratifying proof of 
the reality of the higher religion in Israel. Ahab 
responds to the appeal, and recognises Henhadad as a 
'brother.' Perhaps, however, he would not have re- 
sponded thus la the appeal of a Hittite ; the Ara- 
ma:ans and the Israelites had, after all. some degree 
of kinship, la this case the 'merciful' of EV is not 
misleading ; but even EV does not say that the Kenitet 
'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. (1) and (3) Jonathan appeals to the real thou^ 
adoptive brotherhood which united him to David. In 
(4). if historical, Daviit shows his generosity of feeling ; 
tttnl. whom he addresses, is ' a (oreiKner imd 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 (9I should be grouped. Hosca complains that 
the social feeling (^Aflf) which once distinguished Israel 
has disappeared ; a nameless prophet of a later day 
makes the cultivation of this feeling one of the three 
duties of an Israelite. (7) and (8) must also be taken 
together. From the latter we see v 


The I 

s nothing to say o 
1 'Judab, 

s than 


• Readings adopted ; pp. i-j "jaft, P«h., Tbeod. ; ■<l'ii:J, 
r -;{□. cp •; crii'Ji;, Si -nvVii, So Ruben, and pa.ily 
'i. (AT Vnltrt. 18A Wcllhauscn. -B^rn, Pesh., Gr». ; 
n-iB, GrS. Ver» 4 O-aSj; iDfT ; •fi-J'in, Che. 
» Readingt adapied : D-nSj; ; Il'rtSit flSil^ T^^, (T •^ 



formal ' coveoaot ' between Yafairi and hU people ; 
tbe only bMth he kcows of is the natural one between 
a ratber and bis son. In relum Yahwi looks iorjllial 
ttffeclirai: loyal himself, he eipects loyally from Israel 
Jeremiah (see lo) has a similar conception : it is, how- 
erer, out of the marriage rclalion, religiously, accord- 
ing to him. thai Ifiud gro^ss ; he calls the forgiving 
husband of Israel itjn. 'loyally aAectionate' (EV 
■™TOf=r). J.r. 3., 

In (ii), hon-ever, a remarkable modification of ^itd 

appears. Thai Yahwi from the first loved Israel D 

2 T ••» ^°^ ""' doubl ; bul in order that his 

noSiiSi "■•■ "•» "I" •«>«•. l""l "■■"' si" 
luuiuuvBuuMM. py„j[^3[ obedKnce to the prescribed 
laws. As D puts it. Vabwt will ' keep his covenant 
and his loving- kindness' for Israel — i.i. , will show love 
to Israel — upon a certain legal condition. Heitceforth 
the same idea of the divioe hised as limited by the 

Ifiud ceases to be purely spontaneous : it is still ' active 
love' ; but it is dictated, and its channels are prescribed. 

The adjective oTon, kdsidim ( = "ipri yw. Is. C7 i 
Ecclus. 44 1 ; see As.sideans), late in use, means not 
simply ' men of Rlial devotion to God and brotherly 
kindness towards their fellows,' bul 'men who perform 
the pious deeds (□■-lon) required by the law,' and it is 
nearly = ' righteous' (cp Is. VI % S, drSpii iljiiu«) ; see 
Clean, Pt;KE. etc. (for S and Pesh., whose renderings 
are historically signiiicant}, Siill, (bongh this sense 
predominates, we find i-cin used once (Ps. 13t, bul the 
text is doubtful) in the sense of ' gentle.' without any 
reference to Ihe law, or at most, with an underlying 
reference to the -covenant with Noah,' which the 
heathen were held responsible for neglecting* (liS 'tic 
I'DR. ElV '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 M/ud. 'loyal affec- 
tion.' It is a sign of the strong universalistic tendency 
of the movement known as //oind^t or Wisix)!! (;.v. ). 

Thi. leiKleiUT ne — ^ "- ■ - '—•>- -■-■ -•■ 

diviiK love ii univeri 


Lt the 

I. Whilst lainE R^bii eipluncd ion 
IWDn D-Clf? inov. 1«M>' in Ihe leiue of AuKUStine'i laying 
Ihu Ihe vrnuM of Ihe hf»lh»n »tt only ttlndida viHa, tbt 
famoui R. JohiDin b. Zakkii gave the cWiuble inleiprela- 
(ion, The beneficence of Ihe heaihen i> <») a Hn-offering (for 
Ifaem) iedia iaIAra. lol).* R. Johanan flauiiihed abaul n 
A.O.; under the formt of leKaiiAEn he aKpreua the Kpiiil of Ihe 
goipel ; bul the Inie (piiilual kinsman ot Jesui i> Hotea. 

LO'V COmiTBT, IjOWLAHD. See Shephelah. 

LOZOH (XozuN [BA]|. I Esd. 63} = Eira 2s«. 

LUBIH {a'2'h ; D'S^ in Dan. [so Baer. Ginsb.) ; 
AiByEC [B(t.^QL]; Nah'iSg aCh.l2}1fi8, and Dan, 
ll4j(EV'Lybians')t: the singular 34? probably occurs 
in Eiek. 80s ; see Chub). Everywhere, except Nah. 89 
(where read probably LUDIM, with WL AOF 1 S13), 
' Lubim ' probably represents ■ Libyans ' ( Egypt Labu. 
Lebu); in Dan., U.. EV actually gives 'Libyans.' 
On the three Libyan invasions of Egypt see Maspero. 
Struggle tf tht Natioiv. 434. 461, 471/ After the 
third invasion Egypt became 'slowly flooded by Lib- 
yans.' They supplied the Pharaohs with a highly paid 
tniliiia, and at length a Libyan by descent (^ienk) 
actually ascended ihe throne. See EGYPT, | 63. 

Siade. CornilLand Giniburg woi 
m Jer.«9{cpLim,I .(. U 0.0 

uM be noted, bovi 


« See Weber, yerf, TkaL 163, 

(!»««), Biu •. Pe^. wEge.1 

* See Edoihuni, Hut. ^Iluji 

f p«ple,' taking 

which is 



the Asfiyrian inscripliom expreuly refer to Lydian trooH in 
the service of Egypt. Cp further, Cnua, Lehasih. 

I.OCAfl(AOYK*c[Ti.WH]), Riilem. v. 14, RVLuK*. 

LUCIFBa, AV°V' and RV Day star (S^'ri), Ihe 
epithet applied to the king ot Babylon who in his pride 
boasts that he will ascend to Ihe heavens and make 
himself God's equal : his fole is lo be cast down [0 
ShSOlto the uttermost recesses of the pit (Is. J4..-ij). 
By Jerome and other Fathers the passage was applied 
to Satan (cp Lk. lOiSj. 

^^'Di Hdtli BCCDidlng to the vowel-points (bul cp KOoig, 
£**m*. Ja 106) is an impeiaiive ('howl'X » P«b. Aq.ld.; 
bul Ihe above rendering, which follows (d w rAApot:' cp 
I Pel. 1 19. ^m-,^Afo,\ -^rg. Ve. Rabb. ii the only natural one ; 
itrequlrei lu to point HeUl— jV, 'briUiaui' (u Hi. Ew. Kn. 
Di.; cp-n-ft). 

The description of the doings and of the fate of 
HSIal is so peculiar (note the expressions 'son of the 
dawn,' 'stars of God,' 'mount of assembly' [see CoH- 
GREGATlOH, MOUNT OF], ' reccsses of the north '). 
that Gunkel {SckBpf. u. Chaos. lyif.) recognises an 
allusion to a Hebrew nature-mylh, analogous to the 
Greek legend of PhaethSn. The overpowering of ibe 
temporary brilliance of the niortiing<slar by the rays of 
Ihe sun is compared to a struggle between Elyon and 
the giant HEISI. References to a mythic tradition of 
■warfare in heaven' are abundant (see DfiACOH. 
Leviathan, Stahs, Orion). Bui if so, why is there 
no Babylonian equivalent of HilSl? It seems belter to 
read either ^Snp, 'thou famous one' (o fell out after 
Ihe preceding o), or, with a reference to a theory for 
which much evidence is accumulating through textual 
criticism. l*ffifri'' 'Jerahmeel.' i.t., ' Jerahnteelite op- 
pressor ot Israel.' See -Isaiah.' SBOT, Heb.. 199. 
Pahadisk, § 4, Obadiah (Book), §S %ff. and cp Cril. 

!■ of then 


iied ill 


ibtful? The key 
(OTgX ' ' T. K. C. 

IrUCIITS (XoYKloc [Ti.WH]). i. Roman consul. 

VII. Sidetes. and Ptolemy 11, Physcon, iMacc, ISiS 
(AcYKloc [AttV}). He is mentioned in connection 
with the embassy of NuHENius (^ i;.)Io Rome. Prob- 
ably Lucius Calpumius Piso. who was consul with M. 
Popilius Lxnas in 139 B.C. is meant. That Lucius, 
not Cneius. was the true surname of Piso has been 
shown by Ritschl. See SchUr.. Hist. i. 1167/, and 

cp Maccabees, First, % 9 (f). 

a. A certain Lucius joins Paul, who is writing tron 
Corinth, in saluting the Christians of Rome, to whom 
therefore he seems lo have been known (Rom. I611) ; 
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 Fleudo-Hippolylui makes faint biihop of Laodicea in 
s>tU, . • - '-- •'-- " - '- " - -^ --■-..■. 

In lb 

'leudo- Don 

n uid 10 have been ordained bishop of Cenchres by Paul. 

He is possibly Ihe s.ime as 

3. Lucius of Cyrene, one of the ' prophets and 
teachers' of the church in Anliodi (Acts 13i) 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 Anlioch, and there 'spake unto 
the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.' 

1 Cp Ft 11 

intip we have wfii imtr^ipta fl 


LWD. LDDni n'S. I- (Aoyi [AEL]). Gen. 10«- 
(Sam. 1^1=1 Ch.1 17(8 om). Lud «-as the fourthson 
ofSbem. according lo P. Most scholars since Bochart 
haie followed josephus lAmt, i. S4). who makes Lud the 
foonder [(irrurt) 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? Historic 
tally, too, there are grave objections to making Lud 
the brother of Asshur. Lydia was never conquered 
by ibe Auyrians in spile o! the boastful assertion of 
ASur-bani-pal (Smith, Aisuii. SSi;) that Gugu, king 
of Lad (Lud-di). ' took Ibe yoke of bis kingdom. ' Did 
P reaUy transfer the circumstances of the Persian age 
(fcK- Cyna did conquer and annex Lfdia) to the 
Assyrian period (cp Geocraphv, J ai}? 

»al rf wiual .mf DdMion. It ii probibl. dot oS-V (EW) in 
Gn. M I (>« SoDou) awl alw am (Aiam) in G<n. U » (m 
KaMuaL) ha« *ii>oi odi of Sicm- U«»hm«l), «d pcrhapi 
uiU Dure probable that in Pi.BSg{i) -iipM (Auhur) should b« 

Gen. ia»r In (hi> oue we ihall do bel 10 nippoK Ih» in 

<).e ori«in>] <e 

trw. ■ 5frn« 

1 of P-. Ii« ndlher ■n'j nor B 
y b>vt come fiDU W^ and 
' of IjMjnT). Vene » »il 

nit »ppenrtd. hui 
be, equally wilb 
then run, 'The 

and Jerahr 

at upldned ai th^ 3JJJ 

(ATab-Kadeih = lheN. Arabian Kadesh). Butcp AlirACKKKAD. 

The viev <rf Lad here prDposed accco^ with tbe explanalion 

given elKwhere (NmiiD^ of Gtn.lOw^ It will then be 

under Uuhaih. dunging 'Ludim' into n'S^ni, Cudiilim^ 
tf., tbeptapleafCsrm«l(qi Maon). 

a. Elsewhere, where the nnme appears, Lud is taken 
by some to refer to the Lydians (see Pvr) : but perhaps 
it rather means a N. African people. 

The puBges are KMig (Imt IBAQ1, Kmi* Ul Avtwt 
(Syinni.inQ<»c.l>Eiek.ITiDSOj<[but her* AV Lvdia],Av<» 
(BAQlXKeGaacKArHV, |». 0-^7, Luniu, the plur. form, ii 
dM nuneofaionof MiiniiD(EcvPT)inGen.lOT3<J)=TCh. 
1 II IKr), o"-n^ IKM (A«*.«M lALJ, -If (El, A.t».M (A in 
I Cb.lll, B Dm.n,i>nd reciui in J«.4«4<Av«« (BHAQl, AV 
LvoiiNsX The ungukr fonn (Lud) occur* in Eiek.iTioWs 

In Jeremiah tbe Ludim appear with Egypt, Cuih, and 
Put (Libyal ; so also in Eiek. 30; : and in Isaiah with 
Tatrtiish, Put (by a probable text emendation ; Che., 
Di.. Do., etc.. afier a|, Tubal, and Javan. We know 
nothing more. Hence the hypothesis of Stadc (Dt 
Pafi. Javan, s f: = '4taJ. Jfatta {1899']. 139^) that we 
have in Gen. IO13 (so also Del. Par. 310) and in Jer. 
469 (so also Co. and Gies.) a teitual error for o'aiS, 
LtiBiH [^-f.]. whilst Lud in Ezek. and Is. is the same 
as Lud in Gen. lOn, and is used loosely as a distant 
people, on account of the assonance with Phut [tne) 
has some plausibility (see also WMM, As. u. Eur. 115). 
See, however, above (i. end) and Put, % 3, and note 
Dillmann's adverse judgment on these alterations. It 
bat any rate difficult to explain Eiek.SO; in ibis way, 
and the motive, and also indeed the possibility, of the 
cormpiion of Lubim into Ludim in at least two of the 
passages are by no means clear. 


B. (a). 

Kt. nin^il), a locality in Moab mentioned belween 
Zoar.and Horonaim. Is. 16s (anaBacic [tmc] AOYeiO 
[BKAQr]) ; Jer- 48s (enAHCSM [as if from kSo ' to fill ] 
AAwe [BK""] AAee [K*]. AAAtoe [.\Q]). some 
have identified it with Sarfa. N. of the Wady Kerak; 
vhov there are ruins described by de Saulcy. 
This, however, is premature. The most probable read- 
ing of the text, the present writer thinks, is p'^ip n!?pD, 
'the ascent of Eglaih' \q.v.\ the same place as that 
teferred to in Is. 1 S < 1 it lay near the S. border of Moab. 

What authorily (if any) Eiiietdui had for hii siaitment that 
the city Lueithawuiimated between Areopolii and .^r (l'J'<^ 

CAS' (li^ : cp/. .^I. mai.juin, 1S91, 
when ib«. point out the n-nH.!] of 1 

p. S3*:2,*Sj«gjf: BrjBjf) 

I to begin hy mmining Ihe Kii of 
u taken place) and nvT^.T rhga 

meuiod, moreover, r 
Kl&J. SucJianei 

.xpSr nViw (iraiup. 


T, K. C. 
LUKE ' is named only three limes in NT. According 
to Pbilem. 34 he was > ' fellow-labourer ' with Paul ; 
1 In NT ^'^'^''^'"S ''> '^'- I'l' ^ physician who was 
specially dear (A d-yaaTjritJ to the apostle.* 
Both letters, which according to Philem. in/ Col. 
4 3;-9iS 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. 
33} it is Epaphbas, in the other (Col. 4 id) it is Anis- 

thal ' only Luke is with ' the apostle ; whether as a 
fellow- prisoner is not stated. In any case the situation 
is quite different Trotn that disclosed in the other two 
epistlrs in so far as we are here in the present instance 
informed that all Ibe apostle's other companions have 
forsaken him. According 10 IS 16 29, a Tim. also wat 
written from a captivity. Even where the Epistle is not 
held to be genuine, it is often supposed that 49-iS along 
with 4 ig-sad are a genuine note (or two notes) written br 
the apostle, and firom captivity. Prom what captivity — 
whether or not the same as that referred to in CoL 
and Philem. — cannot be discussed here (cp Paul, Sao). 
In Co). 4io-T4. a classification is made of the com- 
panions of Paut. Aristarchus. Mark, and Jesus Justut 
9. Jaw nr "" grouped together as being - of the Clt- 
OwUlT •^'"'^'='°"' M ^"' '' "^ro^W; then 
tnwHw. „n|^ Epaphras with the words added, 
•who is one of you' (6 <J ifUir), in other words a 
Genltle Christian ; finally are named Luke and Demas.' 
The inference is that these two also are Gentile Christians. 
This holds good also if Aristarchus proves 10 be a 
Gentile Christian. According to Acts 20 4 he belongs 
to Thessalonica, and according to a very probable con- 
jecture (Galatia. g 33) he is selected to be representa' 
tive of the essentially Gentile Christian community there 
in conveying 10 Jerusalem their contribution on behalf 
of the poor there. 

iK Tf/tTHyU^) in Col. 4ii is added the expression ' these 
only are my fellow- workers unto the kingdom of God ' 
(oiroi iiArtA evnpyiA tit tV ^iXifov rsC Stop). If 
this be taken literally Epaphras Luke, and Demas were 
no fellow-workers of Paul — as in Col. 4n/ (Epaphras). 
Philem. 34 (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 

workers of Paul who were of Jewish birth, though besides 
these there were others of Gentile origin. To delete 
the mark of puncluntion, however. — whether perii>d eg 
comma,— is impossible, unless 'these' (lArot) 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. It 
it be borne in mind that the genuineness of the Epistle to 
the Colossians is by no means free from doubt, the ex- 
pression can even rouse a suspicion that w. 10-11 ver« 
not written by a single author at one writing, but that 
either w. la-r* are an addition, or that v. 11 (with or 
without ol drrtt Ik rtpinvt^) is an interpolation. At 
the same time, even where tbe Epistle to the Colossians 

9 In Mai^n-t NT (Zahn, EM. 1 «47 353*) die words t Uip^ 
i Byai^A were iraniing ; cp 1 ). 



i( not regarded as genuine as a whole, there is a diipoti- 
tion for tbe most part to regard the personal notices in 
4;-T5 as a genuine fiagment ; and fioally it is ao( loo 
dillicull to suppose that v. ii is to be suppiemenled thus : 
' these alone — Ihat is lo say among those of Jewish binh 
— are fellow-workers.' In any case Ihis course is an 
easier one than that oT biackeling ' of [he circumcision 
these only' {iK TtpiTiyi^ oBt« fiiroi) so as lo make 
'fellow- workers' (avrt/rfol) the immediate continuation 
of ' who are ' («l fyrtt). 

Luke thus remains in any esse a Gentile ChrisUan 
unless we regard the whole passage as too insecure lo 
allow of our founding anything upon iL 

Tbe interest which Luke has for iludenls of the NT 
turns almost eniirely on ihe belief Ihai he was the author 

•^ ^J^^SI!^ t^ f^"h=r back than to^^rds the 

Terlullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muraiorian 
fragment) ; ' there is no sound basis for the contention 
of Zahn (2i7s) that tbe existence of the tradition can 
also be (bund as early as in Marcion because that writer, 
from his aversion to Ihe Third Gospel (which neverthe- 
less was tbe only one he admitted into his collection-' 
with alterations it is true) omitted the eipression of 
honour applied to Luke in CoL I14. In ACTS, gg i. 9. 
15/, End Gospels. § 153, it has been shown that it is 
impossible to regard Luke with any certainty as the writer 
even of Ihe ' we ' secdons of Acts, noi 10 speak of (he 
whole book of Acts, or of the Third Gospel. 

must have been an eye-witness of the events of the 
A. Tnf»»<«. ea"hly life of Jesus, and as Ihe author 
tSi-^S^H, "f Acts, a companion of Paul, led 
tlw ftUtnorsmp certain infermoes. (al From (he 
''""S fourth century onwards' he was held to 

have been one of Ihe 'seventy' (Lk. lOi), aJlhougb 
this is excluded nol only by Ihe faci of the gentile 
origin of the historical Luke but also by wbai tbe Third 
Evangelist lays of himself (Is), (i) It can proceed 
only from a misunderstanding of Ihe words (rapiittXouBri' 
kAti ratir) of Lk. 1 j (cp coL 1790), as it ' all ' (rStv) 
were masculine, when Irenaeus {iii. II i [lOi] 14i) with 
express citation of this text mentions Luke as having been 
a disciple of several apostles, not only of Paul, (c) 
la like manner, from the fourth ceniury onwards 
(Lipsius. 360, 36a, 367) Luke was identified wiih ihe un- 
named disciple at Emmaus (Lk. 21t9) ; being assumed 
to be Ihe author of the gospel, he was believed to have 
withheld his name out of modesty, {d) The assumption 
that he was the aulhor of Acls led lo the further belief 
thai he was Ihe companion of Paul not only in his 
caplivily. bul also during his Journeys, dlher during 
those portions only which are spoken of in the lirst 
person, or throughout the whole of them. In the nine- 
teenth century this also led to his being identlRcd with 
Silas =Silvanus, because ii woslhought esisier loallribule 
the 'we' portions to Silas (see Acts, % 9). So, for 
example, van VIoten, ZIVT, 1867, p. 323/., 1871, pp. 
43'-434' TTi* idenlificaiion was thought permissible 
on the ground that Incut and lilva are synonymous. 
(() On the assumption thai Luke was author of tbe Acts 
element of Alexandria* held him to be also the Irans- 
lalor of Paul's epistle lo Ihe Hebrews, written in 
Hebrew. Ihe linguistic charaeler of the Greek lexl being 
similar to that of Acts. (/) ' A medical language ' was 
discovered in the Third Gospel and in Acls (so Hoban, 
iSes), and also in Hebrews (so Franz Delitzsch in bis 
Contnentdry. 1S57 [ET. 1868-70]. condensed in Ihe 
introduction to the and ed. of the commentary of Meyer. 
I For all thai foUowt, ep opedally LipJiui. ^MTf*- 
Aicilrlriickuklrn. ii. •t-m-i-'i. mnd Zihn, EM., I (B, 
* EarliMt of all in Adamaniim, DM. Jf rrcla^dH-mtaa, 


.«) in Orig 

» In the A>/»iy/<n... , 

mdumintwiui IS i Pel. a^Jin., 1007 ed. Potter. 

s. //^vLlij; in 


t-Qf'ntB'iti). (/) According to Zahn (g jB, 6) it is 
possible that even Ihe legend which represents Luke 

as a painler and attributes to him various pictures of 
the Inoiher of Jesus (the legend is first met wilh in 
Theodorus Lector, Hist. Eal. li, dating from the first 
half of the 6lh cent. ) may rest upon misunderstanding 
of ihe word [xai-] Ivroptli. which in the Byiaoline period 
meant ' to painl ' and which is used in Ihe passage of 
Theod. Lector jusi cited. (J) Apart from the same 
presupposition which r^arded Luke as an author, 
Origen [Hem. 1 in Lucam. 3933* F, ed. de la Rue), or 
rather his unnamed predecessors, would not have identi- 
fied Luke wilh the anonymous ' brother ' of a Cor. 8 iS 
■ whose praise /• Ike Gosptl {i.i. , in the oral preaching 
of Ihe gospel) was spread through all Ihe churches.' 
(i) Ramsay, we may presume, apart from Ihis presup- 
position, would hardly have extended Ihis last theory 
slill farther, so as to hold that this Luke was Ihe full 
brother of Titus who is mentioned immedialely before, 
and that he wasa nativeof Philippi {SI. Paul. 303, 313, 
ai9. =48/ . =86, 389/ , eic. ). There are, for instance, 
some small touches in Acls which Ramsay thinks he is 
able to explain by taking their author to be a native of 
Philippi. («) On the olher hand, from Ihe uncanonical 
text of Acts 11 a8 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 aliesiaiion 
earlier than the time of Augustine. ' 

In substance Ihe Aniiocb tradition is met with al a 
considerably earlier date. 

Ramsiy (h< .bo«, 1 4, l»y» •tr™ (of. dl. 389) upon the 
ficiitui EuMbiut<//£iTi. '-' ..u^i A k 1;_, 

S. Btith^ftM. ■ 



I iwkmd « 

publiilKd fragmeni 

lian ; he dKnly speaks of him 
mrdinr 10 birth of Iho&e frc 
.k lir' Tim«;ttuK). This curio 
iviouily chosen in order (o avc 

[lut Luke ' belunRed to a fami 

o Antioch. Even should this i 
d be deprived of all i» value I 
triu> himself in Ih. Qu^sli«. 
nf u,h:-.h \Ui „ emrfy « .8,.. 

MUM -A ^r ytrai irt r« #sb- 

inoi"A'r"tiocli'X'"SliouM"it'l» held doiibtful whether IhJ 
is jusl qutited actually come from Euseblus Inaseiuch 

baa Tendered tl probable thai they w-cre 
or equal antlqnily is the Latin pr ' 

3r equal antlqnilv is the Latin prologue to ihe Third Gospel ^in 
A^ordswDrtk, NT tatine, 1 aAg) which has been IhoToughly dis- 
:u»ed by CotntaaHtiianiiamtclii Hnl-^t mh i/tn 4 £'»»■- 

those of Ihe third century 
tradition on Ihe subject, ai 
conceivable that a mere 
adopted. Many 

riiics think that there has been a 
.'ith Lucius who is mentioned in Acts 
mlioch. He belonged, however, 10 

t. however, 
laving givei 

lion the possibility of Ihe 

""■ as an abbreviation for a great variety of 
terminations (see NAMES, g 86) and in Pntrobas 
1614) we have a name which in all probability 
ut of Palrobius. Besides Lucius, such various 
IS Lucilius, Lucillus, Lucinus, Lucinius, Lucianus. 
auld all produce Ihe abbreviation Lucas. In 

)f Latin 

cethe ■ 

'. '8», pp. 3'^3'f>. 

•ms^ primed. Har 


L,iic*nua a ■itcd Cor Locu u the nunc of the Evaneelin in 
ntal MSS. of Ihc Veiu. lulu {*^., O-W Lmlim BMic3 TixU, 

■XUH only iwki— in boili cus in Egypt ft47u, and Add. 

TonkV TVidcntiAiationofLiikcwiiRaKLuciiu ' — ^ 

y Pul in Rum. IS »— an idrnlificalkin Ihu ' 
by prinn Hue* DE, bI. de liRnij-iani 


RAdy mentioned^ whi^ ii 10 ' 
cd. VaUuii, XL 1, 43, ihEie ii a 
Lake ibe cxpnssko ' i[ 

«ut (tivel ipR wvuihl' 

ilifiolkin Ihu ii 


rinled in 

« find 'i 

writer explains tlul hen u in New Greek Uhl la Ihe Ronunce 
kin£uae« the vccuaative (Lucam) it uken u the Iwu And u- 
plaiiKd u equivilenl !□ Qp ^l>- Thui ii will be only by ■ inia- 
undcrsundinK thu io ihe Srrmo itt mmtali S. Zkc« atirihuled 
to Abbol Herthviui of Monle CauinD (036-884) the original 
kncuaceorthenaineiicalled^olic In <ut in the Hamitin 
traitantiitimtnim tcths.cBtkeL liccttnimat AlcitiitecsUtcIa 
(Cokigne, ij;6. p. 9S}*i middle^ dttd by Lipsiui (p. 366), the 

Buicta' The yeaji of hii lift ju 

«i»ity A 
•f Biibyni 

oeatiofully Thebet in bKypI, 
luec dale tW the ofunion aratc 

iia plenus %\ 
' S 37), Ai fields of bis 

r the Danube. Down 


u It bid nffered 
lb thai spollle at Pi 

I be wai beheaded,-. 

ra. only at r 

For (he Ooipal moocnrdlng to Lnka, see Gospbls. H 

.11. 11. aj.i,, JJ.45, 64, 66/:, 76. Bo, Bi, 98, loi, 107-111, 116, 
o, 143, 144 A '4?i '531 etc, alio Ihe index coL 


LTOATIC (ceAHNiftzOMCNOl [Ti. WH]). This 
tttro occurs only twice in the NT, vii.. Mi. 434 and 
1715. Therevisers deliberately rendered 'epileptic' on 
Ihe ground that a Creek medical authority of Ihe seventh 
century expressly states that irikjtrritht was the 
■dentific term, and (hat Sai/ioniifiOM and irtXiii'ia- 
filAirw were popular terms for Ihe same disease. See 
psusage quolol from Leo in Ermerin's Anadtila medico 


quo iden 

nnes eccleiias. Et ad ColiBsensei ; SalutU 
Himus. El ad Timotheum ; lucai 
olomen egiejii 

fHnnintionis ejuseomes. Scripiit Evar""*'""" ' 
huhu: Miumui, inquit, cum illo fratr* 
EvangelL •--- ^--"~-' 

Becum win.. Aliud quoqoe edidli . .....„._., 

qsanum Neronii annum. Ex quo inlelliglmu), in eBdem iirbe 
nbrum esse eomposiiiun.' 
' IfiltJT perkdo* PauU et Thecis, et totam baptioti Leonis 

refeiT nrBhylenim quemdam in A^ ninatOTem ApiDHtoli i^uli, 

Fauii amore lecUv, el ob id loco evcidisse. Quidam suspicanlur, 

laeiiin, de Luca u^ificai^ volumine.' 

' LwaiD auEem nan folun ab Ap«to1o Paulo didiciiM Evan- 
Celiiiin, qui cum Domina in came non fueral, aed a ceteiis 

Sicut tmdiden: 

Kripdl : Ada vero ApoAtolonim, aicut videral ipK, cor 
Vbit octoginta et ^valuor annoe, uxorem non habeiu : t 
«t CDnElantiiwmli : ad quain urbem vigenmo Conmanti 
«iia ejiB cnm nliquiii AodreB ApottoH iranilau sunt de j^ 


br G. MushaD in GuardiaH, March 9, 1893. ll ii a 
nrntnke to suppose that in Mt. 4 14 the aiXirriafifui'M 
are distinguished from Ihe Jai/uti^fimu ; it is plain 
from B comparison of passages that 'limatics' are 
mentioned as examples of the class of demoniacs, and 
' paralytics ' of those lonnented with pain. As the 
periodicity of the attacks of epilepsy was supposed to be 
determined by the changes a( the moon (see Wetstetn 
in Inc. |, those thus afflicted were called eeXrina^biuttn, 
UaaJii or moonUnuk. Cp Madness. 

LIITE (Sj;. Is. 6 Tj, RV lAV ■ viol '] ; and ki NYPa. 
1 Mace. 454 RV [AV ' harp ■]]. See Music, |8 t f. 

LUZ [f'h, Aoyia [BADEL]). i. Another name of 
Bethel [?.».], Gen.HSij' 356 483 Josh.iea (see 
below), 18 Tj Judg. lij. Of these passages the oldest 
come from P -, but the idenlilicalion of Beihel end Liu 
must be much older ihan P ; il is i«//iVrf, indeed, in Judg. 
1 ai-a6 (v. 33<t is a late gloss). Whence did Luz derive 
its name? The lexicons say, from nV, ' 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 {Uettn. 157/, n.**J, have been likened to 
an « sacrum (nl>). Winckler (C/ 26s), however, 
more plausibly explains it by Ar. Ia>i4 as an appellative 
= ' asylum,' a suitable name for a sanctuary. Accord- 
ing (o him, the two oldest and most im;>ortanl temples 
of the land of Israel— that at Bethel and that at Dan — 
were both called Luz {see LaiSh) in the sense of 
' asylum."* Still more probably may we take [.iJiiS (cp 
8) to be shortened and corrupted from .inSn, "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 (7) in the land 
oflheHittitesI?). Sees, 

In Josh. IftiRV gives, 'and it went out fiamBelbel to Lux,' 
which seems 10 distinguish Beihel from Lui. Dillmann, Benneii, 
and olhen omii .-m^ ('Loiah') as a slos*. CrSti, however, 
lhInki,comparin(iS.ia/,thal,fDiSK-r'3allheendofB. 1 we 
should probably nad {lim'J, and for ^im-30 we should read 
jlKTI-SO, rendering '. .'' 10 Belh-aven, and it went out from 
Betb^ven to Lui.' t. K. C. 

3, A city said to have been founded ' in the land of 
the Hillites' by a family which had had to migrate 
from Bethel or Lui, Judg. I16. Some suppose that 
' Hiitites' in this phrase is used vaguely (liki ~ 

s'), or I 

etional in 

NE, Syrian empire. See Hittites (§ 4). 
But should not ' Hitllles ' be ' Rehobothites ' and ' Luz ' 
be I^alQsah (see Rehoboth, Shecheh, Ziklac)? 
There is a strong plausibility in Ihe emendations else- 
where which support Ihis view. There was probably a 
southern Belh-el containing (he sanctuary of HalDsah, 
otherwise called Dan (where Jeroboam placed his 'golden 
calf). Another tradition (Judg. 18|assigned the conquest 
of Lai«h( — Lui = ffaliisah) to the Danites (cp MlCAH , 3 ), 
LTCA0HIA(AYKa,ONia,[Ti.WH]), twice mentioned 
in Acts 14. In v. 6 Lystra and Derbe are 'cities of 

* '""""o- „ iin people speak • m the speech of 
Lycaonia" (Awtoomrrf). In its original extent, Ly- 
caonia, the counliy of the Lycaones, was the vast, 
treeless region which like a broad band runs athwart 
the plaleau constituting the interior of Asia Minor, from 
Galatia proper, the zone of undulating country on the 
northern edge of the plateau, to the offshoots of Mt. 
Taurus and the confines of Pisidia and Isauria (Cilicia 
Tracheia),' The boundaries varied at different times. 

I Gen.SSiQ ei>*afi,.m [A], -uut [DE'L], -nfitnM {£■>]; 

a W. M. MQllei (Am. •>. £ar. 165) finds the name Lui repio- 
duced u Ku-da in Ihe listi of Rameses IL and III. It nay be 
so; but Gaia appears lobe ibt next phiM{cpff/;n)»J7). 

tending from Lyslia to the town Isauia, in Slrabo and Ptolemy, 

y Google 


The ficl ihat Iconium was the last cily of Phrygia |Xen.' 
Aaiii.i.219) gives us a. fixed point on Ihe original 
boundary, which rausl have fallen between Iconium and 
Lyalra ; consequently, Ihe apostles, being driven oul 
of Iconium, crossed the Trontier frorn Phrygia inio 
Lyooiiia (Acts 146). Nevertheless, Iconium was 
genetttlty reckoned a Lycaonian town, in defiance of 
history and local feeling. N. of Iconium, Laodiceia 
Combusla (Kalakekaumene) was on the frontier, being 
reckoned 10 Lycaonia (.Sirabo. 663). so that the line 
must have run between thai town and Tyriaeum. On 
Ihe east Lake Tada divided Lycaonia from Cappadocia ; 
and, farther south. Ihe range called Karadja-Dagh 
and the lake Ak Gtul were on the line. The frontier 
on the north and south is iitdeterminale. Lycaonia 
was thus largely co-extensive with Ihe plain called 
Axylon ('Treeless,' see above) by the Greeks, which is 
thus described by Hogarth {A Wandering Scholar in 
Ikt Uvant. S5) :— 

' Canographm vrrile tllij timet ■ Dnerlj and Ihmfore Ihit 

mm bnasl.higb for Ihe Krslcbini; of a Honei 
unhjr boUoan Ihrough wl 

10 Ihe ( 

il very level, being broken by the Ba%-Dagh 
and otner hills. The wells which supply the drinking 
water must be very ancient (Sirabo, 568). The plain 
afforded excellent pasturage for sheep, and gave op- 
porlunily for making large fortunes by Ihe trade in 
wool. It was on ibe Lycaonian downs that Amynlas 
grazed his 300 flocks (Sirabo, Lc. ). 

Lycaonia had no history as a separate independent 
country. Until 190 b.c. il was included within Ihe 
a HIitoTV Syrian (Seleudd) Empire. At some time 
a. BinoTj. i^i^^n 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 letrarchy to Calatia proper, making one of 
the twelve telru-chies into which Galalia was divkled 
(Plin. HNtg^Y This Lycaonian letrarchy included 
fourteen cities, of which Iconium was the chief. The 
rest of Lycaonia from Derbe eastwards 10 Caslabala on 
Mi. Amanus, was given, in 139 B.C., to Ihe sons of 
Ariaratbes, king of Cappadocia. in reward for their 
father's loyally (Justin, 37 1, Sirabo, 534/). This 
was called the Eleventh Strat^ia of Cappadocia 
(H)» rtdcnjTo*, sc. tTpatrrf^ar. Strabo, 537). Thus 
Lycaonia fell into two parts, Ihe ' added letrarchy,' and 
the 'Eleventh Slrategia.' In 64 B.C. Pompeius re- 
organised the country after the defeat of Mithradales. 

The northern pan of Ihe tctrarch}^ was pemuuKnllv aiuichcd 
10 Galalia proper and il ntaincd Lti iianw dt * Adtled l^nd ' 
{rpooYiAvi^rvT VtfA, v. 4 f o) ; the uulhem and most valuable 

the eastern pan of the old Eleventh Siialegia that was allowed 

ID ibe FiDvince uf Cilicia. The diilricl of Deibe and Laranda 
was administerFd by Anilpaier of Derbe urtder the supervision 
of the Ktxnan gDvemor of Cilicia. who alw retained Ihe 
rifibl of way (hrough eaHern Lycaonia (i.r., the Cappadocian 
port of, ibe Sirai^™; cp Cic. Ad /am. IB ;j L isi. (»■! 

""f'^xiJ. Id,'ii.4«. vTaiflj'pi'in. I^Ni^^"""'^ 

In 40 B.C., when Anioniiis 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 uith Isauria {Appian, 
flCBjs: cp Sirabo, 569, 577). Iconium was his capital 
(Sirabo, 568). In 36 B.C. the kingdom of Polemon 
was given to Amynlas. who ruled over Pisidic Phrygia 



_ _ _.CilieiaTracheiau-- 

Rami. Hill. Gi^r. s/Ahf^y^ 

1 S« Mumy'i Han^. te A Af tSi. Ranuay, on Ihe other 
hand, deuribei ii leu ravounbly. 

3 Tba line ordemarcaliaupasKd, probably, juslN- of Savatra 
or Soatr* 00 the eutem highway. 



and Pisidia proper ; at thetimeGalatia proper (including,, 
of course. iheAdded Landfwasgiventuhim. .\nlipater 
of Derbe had taken advantage of the Civil Wars to make 
himself completely independent ; consequently Amynlas,' 
who was a loyal agent of Rome, was allowed to destroy 
him, and to annex his terrilory. Lycaonia was thus. 
with the exception of the eastern pan of the old Stral^ia. 
wholly within the realm of Amyntas ; and when AmyntaS 
was slain in 35 B.C. it became pan and parcel of Ihe 
vast Province of Galatia.' Subsequently, in 37 A.D.. 
eastern Lycaonia (i.e.. Ihe Cappadocian pan of tbe old 
Eleventh Slrategia), having been placed under Antiochus 
IV., king of Commagene, became known as Lycaonia 
Antiochiana ('ArriDj^ian), u, X'^V' — P<o'- v. S 1; : C/L 
10 SMo). In 41 A.n. Ibis arrangement was confirmed 
by Claudius, who also detached from Galalia the 
extreme south-eastern comer of Lycaonia — viz. , Laranda 
and its territory — and transferred it 


,i> lay in 

CI thai Anliochus 

iix'^Coins with 1° 


Ifitl. Gagr. qfAM^ii. Coins with ihe leeeni 

8. bi tvaX* 



I of the Tracheiol 
d the I 

of Antiochus in Ihe provincial system 

(SueL Vtif. 8). From this il is clear 

that at the lime of Paul's i-isit (about 50 A.D.) Dcrbe; 
was the frontier city of Galatia Provincia in this qiuuter, 
and therefore he went no farther eastwards (Acis 14 >i).. 
It is also clear thai the bulk of the Lycaonians were. 
from the Roman point of view, ' Galatians.' men of the 
Province Galatia (Gal. 3i iCor.lOi): (or in Paul's, 
lime Lycaonia. alu-ays fated 10 lie divided, fell into 
two parts— Galalic Territory (raXariKi) x<^- ^"^ 
1813) or Lycaonia Galalica.* and Aniiochian Territory] 
or Lycaonia Antiochiana. The former, or Ihe Roman 
part of Lycaonia, the only part in which Paul viori€d,' 
is mentioned three times in Acts — AclsKs (where il is. 
defined by Ihe enumeration of its cities, as Paul entered 
from Phrygia Galalica), Acts I61 (defined again by the. 
enumeration of the cities, as Paul entered .from Lycaonia 
Antiochiana). and Acts 18i3 (defined by reference to the 
Province, as Paul entered from the non-Roman pan).* 

Tbe Lycaonians were probably the aboriginal race, 
conquered by the immigrant Phrygians al 

4. OoltuT*, 



r religion and cl 

Ramsay's Hiil. CmruK. 

Gaiatians, igf- The i 
ably mostly the foundations of Greek kings (especially 
of Ihe Seleuckis), which accounts, among other things, 
for the influence and numbers of the Jews therein (Acts 
14ig). LycaoniaorSoulhGalatiapo^essed. longbefOTe 

Ihe great commercial route. Greek was the language. 
of commerce, and these cities were/uci of Grseco- Roman 
influence. The villages and rustic districts were the last 
10 be Hellenised ; but those of southern Lycaonia felt tbe 
movement a full century before those of Galatia proper. 
Hie toveminE <Lalin> race wv conAned la the gariison iowdi 
Hellenic or'jewkh, wouki olvi lie coniincd in the main. In the. 

1, cp 7™™. 4 

W Ihe Lyc= 


1.57). . 

a in this 

.. 0/ Hill 

essential contrast between the 
society and civilisation of Lycaonia. or South Galatia. 
and the northern part of the province {.i.t., Galatia 
proper), Greek civilisation did not establish ilsdf in 
North Galatia until very late ; nol earlier than 150 A. li. 

1 Dio Class. N 96 : Tin 'A|i<Ir»ii nXivnln*'™!, i fnAana (leri 
TifT AvmUfLoc 'FvMCLiev ifltorru fffxt. 

< This litle a oat indeed aclually found as yet, but is proved 
by Ihe anak>gy of Pontus Galaticus ai diMinguished from. 
Fontui Polemoniacus, and Phrygia Galalica (=Tl|r *pvTtw lal 
raAsrunir niipmr of AculSt) as disiinguithed ftom Phrygia 

J ISee, however, GAI.ATIA, H 9-I4-1 

y Google 


ms it daminant even in the cities (Ramsay devetopj 
and proves thii at great lenglh in Hist. Comm. hi 
GakUiam, Ij,i; cp Momras. /'iro. of R. Emp. iMf.). 

.V. ._j > — „ ,h, EuphralH lo Ephesiu, cioising 

- ■'■-— — i LiLTundii, through faaStl 
McirapoUs in Phrygia,' 

Hence ibe dilTasion of Chmlianiljr, being strictly 
conditioned hj the geograpbica] and hislorical Telatioi^s 
of the various districts, slartcd from Iconium as centre 
for the whole of Lfcaonia, and the ecclesiastical system 
of Lycaonia wai highly developed at an early pet^od. 
In northern Galatia the centre was Ancyra, and the line 
■long which the roovemenl travelled was thai leading 
from Bithynia through Juliopolis (Rams. Hist. Gtogr. ef 
AM 197 140) — a roule which came largely into 
use only when the centre of the Roman wtnid was 
moved (0 the shores of (he Bosphonis. See furlber, 


n Hilt. Oti^. t/ AM, fmv. ; U 

« T.rtr^(fm.\ 

I Ga^tiaml, fall. 

Brit. Mm. Cat. i^Grtlk Ciritu 

LTCIA (AYKii, Acts 27 j). the SW. part of Asia 
Minor between Carta and Pamphylia, where the Taunis 
range descends in masses lo the sen. forming a, n^;ged 
coast with several good harboun (Stmbo, G64). Tlie 
inhabiunts, who called themselves Tramele {T««viAiu), 
were apparently the descendants of a conquering tribe 
allied 10 the Greeks, which crossed the Hellespont from 
Europe and established itself among the original Semitic 

ltd In Gen. 10, wen 

,„,.- J 10 the (;r«l.t, hut »1 

the Egypliaiii, who oiled Ihini Ruliu or Lak<WMM A 
Err, 354 ]fa\ Tliey an alio mentioned in one of the Am 
' ' " ' u plundering Al»liya(Cyprmt Ci - "' 


e the c. 

absorbed into (he body of the conquered race. Through- 
out western Asia Minor from (he very dawn of history 
developmenl tunis upon this conflict between European 
and (>iental elements (see Rams. Hiit. Phryg.\Tf.). 
A rdic of the latter was the Lycian custom of tracing 
descent through the mother (Herod.lijj; cp Sayce, 
Emf. of Ikt Mail, i^); cp Kinship, g 4. The Lycians 
were absorbed into the Persian empire after a brave 
defence^ After their victory over Antiochus at Magnesia 
(t90B.C.) (he Romans handed over Lycia and the 
greater part of Caria to the Rhodinns ; but twenty-three 
years later independence was restored (o (he Lycian 
ci(ies (Pol. 30]). Tben followed (be golden period of 
Lyciaa history. 
The country formed a league (t^ Av ^ v.*.. — 


rf-r <cp CIG 

only a derelDpineni of aj 

ibe 'fiairat pndnct c^ Ihat Hellenism, [hat masiery of the bv. 
harian mind by Greek political thought, which look «uch strong 
root in Alia Minor ■(,GreenHlge,//aM*A.D/(;.*. Citat. Hiit. 
34T, where lee details). The dliet were arranged in three 

(Lvnnich) was elected. In the lame proportion the public 

Paiai^ ™ St* . both m^ntSied °in 'ih" NT. 'kcts'"?! 1 
jn™. -!|Mv> iDO. "S (cp Strabo, 66s> There «a> no 

During (his period. Lycia is heard of, in i Mace. 
15i]. as one of the states to which the consul L. Cal- 

and then hit tbt trad 

cities, (b, more .L, a 
coins, and Pliny HN 

e tw. iTom Ibe Cilid 
e route at Ludiccla 


ciita were not the si 
hundred |riaoe> art kix 

ri sayi that Lycia 

n his own liw there w 


an Gates, through 
through Iconium, 
Conbutia (Rams. 


pumius Piso sent letters in favour of the Jewish setden 
ii39B.C.): PhaSEUS (q.v.). a Lycian town. Is men- 
(iotied separa(e1y in the list. For loyal(y to the 
Romans, (he freedom of the Lycians was confirmed, 
first by Sulla, aivd afterwards by Antonius. In 43 A.D. 
internal dissensions afforded (he Emperor Claudius a 
pretext for taking the territory of (he Federation into 
(he Empire (Suet. Ciaud. 95, Lyciii oi eiitiaiilrs intrr 
St diseerdias iibniaitPt adentil]. As a province. Lycia 
seems (0 have been combined at firs( with Pamphylia 
(DioCass.60i7). Two praetorian governors of (his 
period are known^Eprius Marcellus (Tac Ann.\i-}% 
in 54-56 A.D.). and Licinius Mutianus {Lycia ttgaha, 
Plin. HN\%^). As, however, under Galba, and per- 
haps under Nero. Pamphylia was united with (he 
Province Gala(ia (cp Tac. Hisl.^^), it has been con- 
jectunrd that freedom was restored lo the Lycians by 
Nero or Galba ; b( all events, informalion tails as 
regards Lycia during the reigns of Nero and his sue- 

in Kiepen-S 


Kovince Lycia.Pamphylia, preciiclvUke Ponius-BithyniafSueJ. 
ri>. G. ifx Monms. in CIL iii., Suppl. no. f/tyh- As an 
imperial province, it was governed by a ptKionan Ltgatau 
Aiteviti frvprrlert ; but ui 13s A.rx Hadrian handed it ovtr 
lolheSenaleineachangelbr Bilhynia(DioCus.mii)i When 
abxlrbed by ihe Empire the old Federal union alill persued 
as [he Kwv£r Awctbv for the imperial cultus, under the presidency 
of tbe Lyciarch. 

Lycia has no importance in the early history of 
Chrislianity ; in this respect it is like PAMPHYLIA {f.v. ). 
Its name does not occur in i Pet. li (cp Hon, First 
£f. <f Ptier. 163/). For its later conection wi(h 
Christianity see Mommsen in Arck. tpigr. MillieiL 
am Otitr., 1893. p. 93/ 

The Austrians have done much for Lycia. See Benndoff 

Utantnn. KiJiril ' ' " " ' "' 

FalKkri/l, 1B9B, p. ■«! 

tTDDA, or LoD(l$; AqA IBKA]; but AtiiA '" 
Nch.]l3s [K"i^'">«L, BK'A om.] Maec and NT; 
AYiAoN [gen, plur.] in Eira2j3 Neh. 73? i E5d,5« 
[L], AojA in iCh.8.i [L. Bom]; AyiiioN Aoi in 
Ezra 233 [A]), a town of (he Shfipheloh. In (?) (he 
GS ha-hftrftshiro or ' Valley of the Craftsmen (?),' corre- 
sponding to the mod. LMdd. 11} m. by rail SE. from 
JaRa. Marielle. Brugsch. and others find it meniioiied 
(as Lu-l-n) immediately before Ono in the Karnak list of 
Thotmes IlL ; but W. M. MDller (As. u. Eur. 140) 
will not admi( this. CpHADtDand Benjamin, §B. j. 3; 
but see Ono. where (he doubtfulness of this identifica- 
lion 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' (I'ojwi) that were added to Judfea from 
Samaria, in (he reign of Jona(han the high priest, by 
King Demetrius II., Ephraim and Ramaihnim being 
the other two. It is mentioned by Josephus and Pliny 
as giving its name to one of Ibe ten or eleven (oparchies 
(i(Xi)(»ux'»' rmrapx'"'! 'n(o which Judiea was in (heir 
time divided (Jos, .ff/iii. 35; Plin. //A^ v. 14 ;o). Shortly 
after (he dea(h of Julius Cxsar in 44 B,c. (he inhabi- 
tants of Lydda and certain other (owns were sold in[o 
slavery by Cassius owing to (he failure of (hese places to 
pay the heavy contributions he had demanded ; tJiey 
were afterwards set free by Antony. Lydda is mentioned 
in Acts9]9^ in connection with a visit of the apostle 
Peter. It was burned by Ceslius Gnllus in Nero's 
reign, was laken by Vespasian in 63 A.u., and. afier 
the fall of Jerusalem, for some time shared with Jnhneh 
the honour of b^ng one of the chief seats of rabbinical 

In a Tftita OrMi Vacriftio of ibi fourth century Lydda Is 
mentioned with Sarepia, Ciraarta, and Neapolisasacmireoflhe 

Cjrple trade. Ilsclaaical name was Zl/fi/it/if (when lir« given 
not known) ; but it conluiued alw 10 be known, espcciallv in 
Christian diclei, as Lydda, as appean front ejnscopal Una id 


wbich In name occun- PeUgiiu wbh oiadnnncd here di a 
KV^od hekdinfi;. After vkryirrg fortunes the diy waa deiuDyed 
1^ SaUdin in ii^i; but it was rtUuili, only, however^ (o be 
tacknl fay the UongoU in 1171, From this lui blow <( never 
recorerec!, uid it i* now an uninipotlanivillAgF, the only balun 
ctf interotf which it pu&cuu being the Church of Sl Georn, 
partly daiinjE ftoni the twelfth century, which nmindi us that 

necled with the dragon'inythi ot Egypt and Babylon. It would 

a ijUuk, avribed to Mohammed 

l!i, ia>i that 'luneiai)wil1ilayny- 
intichriV) at Lydda, or even at the 

Jnffil the itnpoMor ' - Ai 

fate of the church of LyddJ 

Gtorgett ift77, p- loX Ant,«,,,a* », .u ,«■.,, « xivK.v,H»,,« vi t,jv 

mythic dragOcL Sec ANTiCHKi^r- 

LTDIA, RV LUD (16 : Eidt. 30s) and Lvdiaks, 
RV LuoiM (DnW ; Jer. 469), S« LUD, a. 

LTDIA UYilft' ' f^""- 8" Eiek. SOj AV, RV LuD 

[^.f.]' cp '^- >i7io). the central member or Ihe triad 
1 ««.»««. "f districts fringing on (he W. the peat 
1. mttuUOB. i„,^^ p,^„^ ^ ^,ij Minor. On the 
N. canie Mysia, on Ihe S. Carta, on Ihe E. Phrygia. 
Lydia thtis included Ihe basins of the Hermua and its 
tributaries, and thai of the Caysler, and extended 
soulhwards over the range of Mesaogis as lar as the 
MEcander' (Slrabo, 577). Eastwards, in the direction 
of Pbrygia, the boiindaj7 wns tuicertain, even lo (he 
ancients, and ii was dtsptiied whether (he Kalakekau- 
mene, the inland volcanic region on the upper Hemius, 
was to be reckoned u Lydian or Mysian (Strabo, 636). 
This confusion was due partly to the presence of bo(h 
Lydian sta(es and Mysian states in Ihe same district 
(Slrabo, 579} ; partly also il was the result of disregard 
of ethnical facts by the Romans in (heir organisation of 
the provincial divisions, as Strabo himself says (6^9). 

Whether Ihe Lydians are referred to in (he OT is 
considered elsewhere (see LuD, Ludim, Put) ; our 
chief object here is lo illustrate the history of NT times. 
Lydia had long been a great Hading state, owing to its 
natural wealth (ep Herod. IgjSw; Tac. Ann. 4 is), 
though LIS trade was inland, not maritime. Il was in 
fact the policy of the MermnadEe (who, about ^Sj B.C., 
e«tended their rule over Phrygia to the confines of the 
Median empiiv) 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 Lydiant were the liru to coin money, and were the 
carlieu Inidcrs (Herod- 1 uX Thig statement of Hetodotun has 
been explained by Radet bypoititinRout that the old Phtenician 
■ ■ ' - ''■ -^t, and thai the Lydians lint put 

««i, by .1 

ivihius(He1«(!ljj!)^Jihow. Il^i commerce on a 8™!°™!* 

(£ave Lydia al*o the £gean trade : her history becante inter- 

binda toficiher the eeogtaphy and hulory of Asia and Europe' 
(Sayct, iinA'"*''*' ^""'i 4'3)- 

The victory of the Romans at Magnesia, in the valley 
of the Hermiis (190 B.C.). resulted in the transference of 
a DI i;~_, L-ydia from Antiochusof SyriatoEumenes 
a.BUH>ry. n, of Pergamus PoL21«i Livy,37s6). 
To this change reference is made in i Mace. 8b. In 
133 B-C-. by ihe will of Aitalus III., the Pergamene 
kingdom passed to the Romans, and Lydia henceforth 
formed p-irt of the Roman province of Asia. After this 
dale, the name Lydia pc)sscssed no /o/i/tco/ 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 facl that so much is said. 
for example, of Ephesus. Paul names only ' Asia ' and 
•Galalia' [cp Galatia. §g 5. 15/]: the writer of the 
Apocalypse sums upjfiw Lydian cities, together with 

en Lydia and Caiia, 

'Lyilla' u>d 


the Mysian Pcrgamus and the Phrygian l.aodicea. as 

' the seven churches which are in Asia' (Rev. It). 

Here must be noticed the view maintained by Blass 
(Act. Afail. 176) and Zahn {Einl. 1 i3i/)as lo the 
I Blauuid f*^*^ "f Lk. in using non- provincial 

xSn™ ""^ (Lycaonia, Hsidia, Mysia. etc), 
giving lo the term 'Asia" a more 
^^^ icted application than il had in official 

*"*" usage [ep Galatia. | 15], According 
to Zahn, 'Asia,' as used by IJi., 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 13310 S4 B.C. The enumeration 
in Acts2i( seems to give colour to this view, and in this 
passage Ramsay (Chjireh in R. £«/.!'' 150) admits 
that ' Asia ' is ' pointedly used in the popular sense, ei- 
duding Phrygia '(see Asia ; bulcp Phrygia for another 
explanation ). No support (or Zahn's view can be 
derived from Sirabo (637, riya yip ^ Mfforia 'Atflo 
OJfrTo). 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 ai its greaiesi extent 
fail : il was not until the end of the third cent. A.D. 
Asia was restricted as Zahn su^esls (cp Ramsay, Stud. 
Biil. 430/). 

The Lydia (see LvDlA. ii.) who befriended Paul at 
Philippi, came from Thyatira (Acts 16 n). Trade 
guilds, united in the worship of simie deity, were char- 
acteristic of Lydia (ep Rams., Citiit and Buh. 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, 
£<■>/. 1 375). 

The fact ihat five of the seven churches of Asia lay in 
Lydia makes that country important in the history of 
Christianity. See the special articles EPllE.«t;s, Phila- 
delphia, Samdis. Smyrna. Thyatira. 

^/nrs/wiv.— Radet, La Lydit tl It mntdt grte aM Ttmtt 
da Mirmiuida, 1B93; Sayce, Andtnl Emfim ff Iht E^il. 
mf- W. J. W. 

ITBIA (^YilA [TiWH]), a woman of Thyatira. 
dealer in purple slutfe (nopttitPOTTuAlc). and a ' wor- 
shipper of God' (ceBoMCNH YON GeoN ; see Prose- 
LVTF.. % s) ; Paul's first convert, and his hostess, at 
Philippi {AclslBu/ 40). See LvDlA L, 9 3. 

LTE occurs once in RV (Jer. 2ia). where it represents 
Heb. TJIJ, ntlher, AV NiTkE, and twice in RV"! 
(Is. lis: 'I will ptu^ns with lye thy dross' ; Job93o 
' if . . . I cleanse my hanils with lye '), where il repre^ 
Smts Heb. -rta la,' «r. Cp SOAP. 

The English wotd Ux is now used for solutions of the hy. 

to certain oils or f^TS. produce soap, but was formerly applied 
. :-, e — . J .1.- ^^^f^ ^ wood and plants gener- 

ally, the water dii 

LT8AHIAS (AyCftNiOY. Ti.WH) is mentioned in 
the NT only in Lk.3i. where he appears as tetrarch of 
AniLENE [q.v.] at (he beginning of Ihe 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 ^fark Antony al the instigation of 
Cleopittra (Jos. Anl. xv,4>, 8 93; fl/i. 22,, % 440; 
SchUrer. CfV^ lufi. ET I401)— thus a difference of 
more than sixty years. The question arises, accord- 
ingly, whether perhaps Lk. may not intend a ytninger 
Lysanias with regard to whom we possess no direct 
information, and whether it is possible (o suppose (hat 
wha( is said in Lk. may be applicable (0 him though 
inapplicable 10 (he older Lysanias. 

'The Lysanias of whom we know from secular history 


;, -WJ, 'in ll 

ice,' ought perhaps 



, __4 . .certun Menneeui ; this Ploi 

hi™"' •' Ins ,o Smbo (ri 2... p. ; 

succeeded his feUier Ptolemy, who was (he son oT a 
^f certun Menneeus ; this Ptolemy, accord- 
1. 753), waa lord 
e Iiurseans ' — by 
which we are to understand )«obaUy the 
southern Antilibanus (see IsHmael, f 4 [7}} along 
with Abila (west from Dtumtacus) — and also of the plain 
of Massyas or Marsyas, which stretched between (he 
Lebanon and Antilibanus ranges from Laodicea in the 



li N. of L 

e Men 

r Seme- 


(a) The apologists are not alone in maintaining the 
impossilulily of this kingdom bnng designated as the 
letrarcby of Abilene. SchUrer(s96/..6oa ; ETi.2ia«^) 
takes the sune view, and assumes therefore a younfer 
Lysanias, who in (he Baptist's time was tetrorch of 
Alnlene only. Schlirer himself affirms thai ■ Pompey 
destroyed the fortitied places in Lebanon (Strabo xvj. 
2i3. p. 755) and undoubtedly also curtailed the Isri- 
tory of Ptolemy in a way similar to that in which h« 
dealt with the Jewish territory.' That the kingdom of 
Ptolemy was thereby reduced to (he limits of Abilene 
alone must not, however, be assumed, for Ptolemy 
purchased immunity for his incursions from Pompey ty 
the payment of a thousand talents (Jos. y4a/, xiv. 3i. 

In particular It is not probable that ptccisely Piolemy'i capital 
(ChaE) WM tiken fiocn him. JoMphiu, howe-er (i/ii.Tst 
t ■47), eiipmly dialinEiiLiha ihii Chalcu frrnn the'kill£doin at 
Lywiiju when hejoi- »**-'=- -- - - '-^-'-;- -- -- .-■---*-- 

kinffdcn wl 

f accordingly it is impossible to assign Abilene 
the Lysanias vouched for by probne history 
we must put some other meaning upon the expression 
of Lk. unless we are 10 postulate a younger Lysanias. 
Krenkel i/fstfAiis n. Lueai. 1S94. p. 96/) seeks 10 
explain the expression from Josephus. 

■ - u-M^-XY. 10., Hyj-Ms; J/i.S04, 

hat Augujuui give ID Herod, wIuIe &n«l<inu wu •tjli 

E, Tiidun. Bauuim, and Auranilii. AOei Ihi death of 

Herod in 4 Ji-C ih«c thnc laritaria along with a portion of 

- ' ' ' ' rua fell to Herod'i ion Philip {.Ant. 

3, 1 ^j). Thii tttiaichy of Philip mi, 



Syria; but b jj it wu fivcn to Aorippa I. along with the 
'teirarehy of Lysanias' (Jm. Am. aviii.Sio, | ijfl. In BJ 
fiL 11 J, I ii5);o«phm maka the tame Maiement. only with the 
eipitwon 'the 40<>lkd kimgdam of Lyunias ' (^avUffov rffk 

acCDidijig 10 Jcsephui {B/W. 12J. f 147), hii son Agnppa II. 
obtained the former tetrarchy of Philip^' -f-, Bataniea, Tracho- 


« with idkal had fon 

been ih 

of Tndionitis. foUei 

. «. T 1. I irf, Joaa^us italei it thua 
:hy of Phil^ ai^dBatajiB, and alai 


rrrtim nrauvt^ That this holds aoodof j 

1. 1 1] 

Upon these dala Krenkel bases (he conjecture that 
Josephus does no( mean to speak of Atnla as the only 
possession of Lysanias. that he calls ii the tetrarchy 
IB- kingdom of Lysanias simply and solely because it 
was the only part of the former dominions of Lysanias. 
which, instrad of being assigned (o another lord such as 
Herod the Great, I^ilip, or Agrippe I. and receiving 
a name from the new master, had since (he death of 
Lysanias continued to be directly under Roman rule. 
This inlerpretation fits best the 'Abila of Lysanias' 
('AjSAof tJj» Aiwiwioii) ; in the other pass.-iges it is not 
the most obvious one. i( would be more natural (o 


mterpret in another sense— that Abila alone had con- 
stituted the lerritory of Lysanias. — in that case, (hen, 
of a youngei Lysanias. Bu( Josephus never gives any 
Indication of a younger Lysanias bang known 10 him. 
His readCTs were bound (o Suppose lum to mean the 
Lysanias who was executed in 36 B.C When we look 
at (he question from this point of view, accordingly, the 
simplest course would seem to be to conclude thai 
Josephus intends this same Lysanias throughout, and 
that there was ivo younger Lysanias ; therefore, that 
Krenkd's interpretation is not to be set aside as inad- 

(c) Coming now to Lk, , Krenkel supposes faim to 
have borrowed his expression from Josephus. but on 
the erroneous impression that Lysanias had survived 
and ruled to n period shortly before the granting of his 
letiarchy to Agrippa I. and (bus (0 (he Bsp(is(' 

js of Josephus, 

Acts, % 16, and Thbudas. Even il 
acquainted with Josephus, however, i( is still possible 
that he may be in error ; he may have found and 
in is understood the expression ' letiarchy of Lysanias,' 
meaning the former tetrarchy of Lysanias, in some other 

(if) In any case we need some explanation of Lk.'* 
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 leiritory 
and Lysanias was not a Jewish ruler a( all ; if Lysanias 
was (o be mentioned other neighbouring princes deserved 
equally well to be so also. The most likely suggestion 
is that Lk. starts from (he condition of matters which 
subsisted down (o the year 100 A. D. . and thus approxi- 
mately to the time when he was cotnposing his book ; 
Agrippa II., the last of (he Jewish princes, possessed 
in addition to other territories Abilene also, and Lk. 
(hiis fouitd himself called upon (o say who it was that 
held it in (be Baptist's time.' Whether he is indeed 
conecl in giving a tetrarch Lysanias for this period 
must remain an open question. That he was mistaken 

difficulty ; but neither can il be disproved. In no case 
can it be held to be impossible, on the allied ground 
(hat such a mistake on his par( were Inconcdvable. 
Not (o ipeok of the mistake regarding Philip in (his 
very verse (cp Itubea), the undeniable error in v. s — 
(ha( there were (wo high priests at the same lime — li 
BO serious that, in comparison with it, that regarding 
Lysanias would seem quite lulural, especially if Lk. 
was depending on the unpreclse mode of expression he 
found in Josephus or some other authori(y, 

Dio Cassius calls (he pre-Christian Lysanias 'king of 
the llurteans.' as also does Porphyry (ap. Eus. ChroH. 
ed. ScbOne, 1 ijd), if wo assume ihai here 
Lysanias' (Avaatlmi) ought to be read for 
'Lysimachus' (Aiwi^x'"')' I' '^ illi^iimale to infix 
from this, however, that the coins with the legend 
'Lysanias, tetrarch and chief priest' (Aurarlw TcrpApx^" 
xal ifixitpfut : SchUrer, 1 s^B. n. 33) relate not to him 
but to a younger Lysanias. The coins bearing the 
legend ' Ptolemy tetrarch and chie(f priest] ' (IlTaXi^uiloii 
TtTpipXBu if}i<.tpiwi\) are without hesitation attributed 
to his lather. In that case, however, it is very probable 
thai (he son also bore (he same title. True, Ptolemy 
is nowhere designated 'king' as his son is. The ex- 
pressions of Josephus are quite general — that he 'was 
ruler' {ivnimiar. Aal.iav.T ,. % ras), or ' bore sway ' 
{iKpirti. flyi. 81. S 18s). But the (ides ■ tetrarch' and 
'king' are not sharply distinguished. ■ Tetrarch' a( 
that time and for many a day had lost its original 

9.T1UM. T 

I Holttm 

a (mo 

mention, in Bias belonging 10 .wo son. of Hetod the Great 
and accordingly believed that out of the kingdom of Herod 
there muU have been formed a fourth telioriLhy besides ihe two 
he hnd named, and Judxa— vii., the 'lelrnichy of Lyuniai.' 



meaning of ruler of a fourth part of a kingdom and 
had come to be applied quite generally lo any ruler 
over a Isrilory not loo great, dependent on Rome 
(Schdrer. i., g i6. o. is. 350-353 ; ET ii. I7, n. la). 
The writers of [hat period, however, often sulHlitule for 
it the title of * king ' also, which strictly denotes a 
higher dignity. Even JosejAus designates the territory 
of one and the same Lysanias partly as a tetiarchy 
iTtrpapxla) and panly as a kingdom (^affiXda, § 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 Baalbek 
( = Heliopolia) to the N. of Abila {C/G 4533) is of 

_ « ,_., importance if the lacuna have been 

'■ l»«<«P*i«>^ rightly DUed up by Renan {Mission lU 
Phiiitit, 1864, p. 317-319, and more exhaustively in 
Mlm. dt lAcad. da Inter, it BtlUs Leitrti, vol. aSb 
[1670}, pp. 70-79) : '. . . daughter to Zenodorus [son 
of] Lys[anias l]etrarch and [10] Lys[anias . . . and 
tjie sons [and to Ly]san[ias ... and lh> sons 
in me[mor]y [piously] erected (. . . Sirydnip Zi|i>oJii/ii(i 
Aiwtariiw T\tTpipxiiu tal h.\ia[arlf . . . lal t]o£> iJoit 
[Ml] (A./)ira»[ip . . . Htl T«]i ulo» M^^^h* X^pt' 
[(We;9wi] ir4B'^Kcw). SchDrer and others deduce from 
this not only that the Zenodorus named above (§ id 
and i) was a son of the pre-Christian Lysanias, but also 
that younger members of his family also bore the name 
Lysanias. Krenkel considers this lo have no point 
inasmuch as the inscription bestows the title of tetrarch 
only on the b.ther 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 Zenodonis {ao B,c. ). 
Moreover Krenkel has confined himself, as he ought 
not to have done, to SchUrer's reproduction of the 
inscription. Schilrer himself says that he is giving only 
the legible portions of it aiul takes no account of the 
lacunae 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 hii father — for distinction's 
take. In point of fact Renan conjectures only so much 
as this — that the second and the third Lysanias wert 
distinguished by addition of the names of their fe.thers. 
The most important consideration, however, ii that for 
both of them the name Lysanias itself rests upon piirft 
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. Brocch), 
the only person who had seen this fragment of the 
inscription which has since disappeared, did not read 
'LysaD'(AT£AN)atall. but 'Dosan' (AASAM). 

{b) Another inscription {CIG 4511. cp Addenda in 
vol. iii. ) relates that a freedman of the tetrarch Lysanias 
has conslrucled a road and built a temple ' for the 
weal of the lords Augusti' {irif r^i rur tupluv 
Irt^oarulf] ffsmfpiai). There was no plurality of 
Augusti ( — la^vrrol) until the time of Tiberius, along- 
side of whom his mother Livia, after the death of the 
Emperor Octavianus Augustus (14 A, □.), bore the title 
of Augusu (Tac. Ann. 1 B ; SchUrer, 1 fej, n. 37|- 
Now it is by no means impossible that a freedman of 
the Lysanias who died in 36 B.C. should, fifty years 

temple, particularly if, as often enough happenwl, 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 



], and Btilr. t. Wartiiji 

', CkrvKoL SfHtt. d. vier Enutftiin, 1843, pp. im- 

=_■-- . if^^i,^ aVr EnaMiiiiiM, iB&o. pp. 106. 

_ , REnin, in Af^m. Acad. /■urr. i6f, 

4. UUntltra. i«7o.Pp.49^.»ndop™»llyScti0rtr,Cj';'l, 

Bcilagc 1, 600-603 (^Ti.'iiiijn for the 

ummption at a younecr Lyuniu. On the other side, lee 

Sirauu, £**(«/*«, 1,140^1835, pp. 310.3131 Kaia, GacA./au 

(4>>M, U1B7B) 9-», and speoilly KreDktl.yaa/*u a. ^KU, 
i8w, PP- 95-98- r. w. s. 

LT8IAS<AYCi&c[AttV]). i. A general of Anliochus 
Epiphanes (see Antiochus, 3) and one of the seed 
royal, Anliochus, smarting imder the recent defeat of 
his captains ApoLLONlUS (a) and Seron {^.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,' He himself with half 
the army removed from Antioch lo proceed with the 
invasion of Persia, entrusting his young son — afterwards 
Anliochus V. Eupalor — to the care of Lysias { i Mace. 
SjiJ^.]. An army of 47,000 men under three leaders 
was sent against Judxa, but met wiih no success 
(1 Macc.4i^, see GoRGiAS, NlCANOR), 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-iur by Judas (i Macc,4a8^), 
and the tidings of this disaster completed the discomfiture 
of Anliochus, who, on his deathbed, entrusted the 
guardianship of his son to Philip, j ' (i Mace. 6j/:). 
Lysias, however, set up Anliochus Eupator as king, 
and set out upon a fiesh invasion of Juda:a (618^). 
fieth-iur was besieged, and at the neighbouring locality 
of Bethiacharias the Maccabsan party was deleated 
(see Eleazar). Leaving behind a portion of his army 
10 continue the siege of Belh-zur. Lysias marched upon 
Jerusalem ; but hearing that Philip had relumed to 
assert his newly gained authority. Lysias concluded a 
treaty with Jerusalem, which, however, he immediately 
violated (6;i^). He hastily marched to Antioch. 
which Philip had already occupied, and ultimately over- 
came him (see Philip, 5),' He was put to death al 
the commencement of the reign of Dehetrcus L [?-p.]- 
His history as recounted in 3 Mace. lOn^ Il-I2i 
13i-ll9 diflers in several essential particulars from the 
above 1 see Maccabees. Second. S a/., coL 3869^ 

a. See Claudius Lysias. 


I. Son of Ptolemy, who is said to have translated 
into Greek the book of Esther ; see apocryphal Esther 
111 (S tOii)- On this and on the statement that the 
translation was made al Jerusalem {rdr [Lfl rir] H 
1X1}^) see Esther, § 9, coL 1405, Willrich, 



A high priest (about 171 Bi:.), temporarily ap- 
pointed by his brother Menelaus [?.!<.]. His many acts 
of sacrilege roused the indignation of the common people, 
who rose against him and killed him {a Mace. 499 39/^). 
On tb( llalnnenl in p. ^ (ttj* Afix<'P*>*vi-i|f itiAitxpr) see 
Willrich, 7Hd^ud, 165; (he V^, Kems 10 bav« suppowct (hat 
• ■ • ..... . , RVw.t reading: 



fono of > Hebrew name. Mr, S. A. Cook conjeclurcs that Lyti- 
machui ilMlf i. a Hcll.niiinK of Ibc Hebren- fa-'»l' <Cp 
IsKACHiAH. SskiACHiAH). Sce gtnooj^y Onea^ 
Slta Actsl4al6s3Tim.8ii),' The site of Lyslra 
was guessed by Leake in iBao, and his con- 
jecture was confirmed by Sterrett's discovery of a large 

Philip had been appolnlod chancellor. 
ibecaseofMvR* l/.t.j; bni while tb< mod. 

Ramsay, St. Pc 

ould Ktm lo 

ii found 

« LyHr. 

> Rams 

CnUtliatH, »3), it probably Lycaoniui. at the similar names 
Ilisire and Ktluun occur 10 the SE. and NW. of the lows 
rnpcctirely (cp Raou. Mitt. Gtegr, 6/ AM ^%ii. 



pedestal, standing perhaps in its origiiuil positioD, having 
an inscription in honour of Augustus ( Wotje Exfed. 
14a : Dinim Aug[aslMm] Cai[mia1 iul[ia\ Filix 
Gtmina iMihtt eontecTttvil ii[areli!] <^«Brtiniam]). 
This i^^>ves that the colooy occupied the hill about 
one mile NW. of the roodern village Kkat^H-Strai 
(= 'The Lady's Mansion'), some eighton miles SSW. 
of Iconium. A considerable stream, llowing eastwards 
out into the Lycaonian plnja, runs between the ancient 
site and the modem village. Few remains of the old 
city are visible above gnwnd : but a smidt church stands 
near an Ayaima {i.i.. 'ArfU^iia) or spring reputed holy 
hj 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- 
dicaiedby tiie pedestal already mentioned (see JtJPlTER). 

Whenon thedeathorAmyntasinisB.C, his Itingdom 
was formed into a provirfce (Galatia). Lystra, Isaura, 
« m-LiL,, *■"! DctI* ""ere all included within it ; for 
"■ "'••''^- Lystra had belonged to the Lycaonian le- 
tmrchy transrened to Amyntas in 36 B.C. (see LvcA- 
OKIA). and Derbe had been taken by him from 
Aniipater with tlte connivance of the Romans (see 
DCRBe), The importance of the town was ephemeral, 
and dated only from 6 B. C , when Augustus made an 
effiirt to regulate and civilise the mountaineers on the 
southern frontio' of (3alatia. To this end there was 
created a sysiein of military mads radiating front Antioch 
to the garrison cities or colonies. The military colonies 
founded in this region were Olbasa, Comama, Cremna. 
Parlais, l-ystra, and Antioch (cp CIL 3, suppl. 6974) 
{see PlSlDiAj Lysira 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 (tindl the time of Hadrian), Lystra thus stood 
in prond isolation in this ntxik of (lalatia as the repre- 
senulive of Roman cirilisation, and the Latin -speaking 
Cc>A»>i lormed a military aristocracy amid the iitiola or 
Lycaonian natives of the town. The nearest Roman 
dty was Antioch, the military centre. 

The >>7niHlh)' between the Iwa coloniei i> illiutnled br Ih« 
incricrion discovered at Antioch on the buie ^ h atatue pre* 
•enied by LyMra <Sttft»n, Walft Exftd. 151 : tV Aii*>w^BTiT» 

fifr . . . tniii^rrr). Tbe Latin leeling in LyKra it iho 
tM^ct that the lume of tbe dty U vritlen .^lurrdODCoiii* <u,v 
in inccriptions, imdeT the influence of m ^be analogy between 
tbe Lycaonian word and Ibc Latin word bvtrum (cp CIL 
««H6, Cat Liatminim, and 6j86. Coini bava COLOHIA . 
jDUa . mix . GUUHA ■ LUsnA> Netenbeleu> it wm only 


mrtM circumitancei that for a time impraied diii rareign 
chaiaaer 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 
S. KT nfciruuw* ■™"''"" ""^ ^^^- Lystra retained 
~«Hnr.. jjijji^ lenaciously than those towns 
the native stamp. When the hill-country was pacified, 
Lystra ceased to be of importance ; and its situation 

trade. Hence it was neither Romanised nor Helletiised : 
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' 

permanence of the native character in the bulk of the 

Aihough on the ground of their constitution as 
Roman colonies, Lystia 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 H& {vihtn rif ■wiftxiDpw, -the region that lielh 
round about ' AV = the X'^'P', *'/>", 0( Lycaaitia 
Gaiatica. See LvcAONIA. J 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 llig. it is Jewish traders from 
Iconium and Antioch that come to Lystra ; and in Acts 
IS3 Lystra and Iconium are grouped together as the 
district in which Timothy was well known (Rams, St. 
Paul Ot Travitttr, 179). Lystra was the birthplace 
and home of Timothy, whose parentage illustrates the 
composite character of the population- a Tim. Sio/ 
clearly implies that Timothy was a spectator of tbe 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 joiuney (Acts 14ti). and again on the 
second Journey (Acts I61) : 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 ISaj (on the South Galatian thetuy only {cp 
Galatia, gj 7 and 9-14, 34]). 

In lalerChnslianhiitoTy Lyitra is rarely inentioned. Arlemu 
or Artemiiu, one of the Seventy, ift uid to tuv* h*#n it« hichnn. 
Eacavation will doubtlen rcvtal much on 




[ (to aS-IOse] or Muehak (n;^; 
M&l&TEl [B], M&x&ei [AF], t/,t.x\9e\ [L]; other 
readings M&xei. 4|&eei, OMAXAflei [ = M&)(., cp L], 
NUI&8EI, MOX&TCI, M&I&X^AXC 1^1 ' MOXATei [K], 
MAXATt, MAX'^TM, M&l&eeei, MAX&8&, MuSATEI, 
MA&XAS[^]- MAAXABI [Qj: M&K&ei, M&K&pOl, 
MAX*eiTOY [I-])' r' ""> "*""<= ■»■ " 'he preient writer 
holdj, probably a popular comiption of Jerahmeel (see 
Maacah ii.}, we need not wonder lo find it both in 
the N. and in the S. of Palestine. The final editors 
of our narratives certainly took Maacah to be an 
Aramcean country. It is mentioned in connection with 
Rehob, Zobah, and Ish-tob (Tob?) as furnishing 
Aramaean mercenaries lo the Ammoniles, aS. 106B 
{lMMX<^ [AL]. auaXiit ' [B]) ; in (he parallel, i Ch. 196. 
it is eireri called Akam-uaacah [kV], Svria-maacah 
[AV] (nats ipw. ffupuw *u»Xa [BK], tf. >iox« [A], (T. >«aj[« 
[L]). In 3S,20is{AV) we read of a city called Abel 
of Belh-moacah (gee Abkl-beth-maacah), which a 
commonly supposed to have derived its name from the 
northern Maacah. It should be noted, however, that 
Abet.beth-maacah (so RV) is called (v. 19) ' a mother 
in Israel ' whereas Maacah only became Israelilish after 
the defeat of Hadad-eier;" the reading Abel-betb- 
maacah must be coirupt (see Sheba, b. Bicri). The 
genUlic noun lUwdwUlitM (AV), KMUsMUtM 
(RV), -nj^, occurs with -Geshuriles' in JosklSija 
[JE] [ini.'nf^. whence RV Huekth) and in Dl3>4 
(AV ■Geshuri and Maachathi,' i tatif [AF]) ; here a 
northern people and land is evidently meant. In aS, 
23}4. bowever. 'the Maacathite' as clearly indicates a 
Soulhem district (see EuPHELET, a). 

Acomiptfonnof' MnaoMh' i. r»n(EV Hamatk). Wi.» 
thinki Ihal Ihtre wcrt iwo Himiiihi, one in Syiia, Ihe alhei on 
the S. uf Ml. Kennon ; ihe second rem however is luiely ■ 
coirupiion of nsffD (MaacahX We know as a fact th« there 
was a SDUlhem G«hur (Lf thai be the rlEhl vocafiulion) ; k it 
katdly leu certain that then wu a »ulhem Maai:ah, and ihe 

ably staled ibat 'David 0^ 5iilaiiu>n)'taDk the' Maacalhite 
(diHric>)ou< of the hand of the ^rtphalhilts ' (ki Mxthio 

place-name lODnCHuilTAM), andlheoddpemonal namti Solon 

nsm, I,'-, Ihe lautheni Maacah, nav alu occur in Pt, aa« ((f, 
emeoded lut <He Psalms (Book], | M (iv.D and eltewhen!. 

MAACAH RV, so also in iS.Sj AV, which has 
elsewhere MaacMah (njj^, MtLt.x^ [BAL]). Like 
MiCAH and MiCAIAh {tf.v.). tbe name seems to the 
present writer to be a popular tximiption of Jerahme'el 
or Jerahme'elith('ajerahmeelite'). Talmai, the father 
of Maacah 3. was also probably designated 'a Jerah- 
meelite' (b. Ammihui?). See Talhai a, and Maa- 

I. A 'son' (or 'daughter' ?) of Nahor (i.e., Hauran) 
by Reumah (Gen.22i4, /laixa [ADL]).* The name (see 
above) corresponds to ' Kemuel-abi-aram' (another 
dlsgtiise of Jerahme'el), in Ihe list of Nahor's sons by 
. Milcah. See Kemuel. Nahor. 

1. Daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, and mother 
otAbsalom(aS.33, »«Hixn9[A], i Ch. 8., m"Xo [BA]). 
See GesHUR 3, Talmai. 

3. Mother of Abijah (iK.ISi aCh.ll»-»). also 
called MiCAiAH (aCh.ias; AV Michaiah). In 
I K. 15 her father's name Is given as AbiSalom, in 
aCh. 11 as At^lom. but in a Ch. 13 as Uriel ofGibeah 
(fi"*, however, for 'Gibeah' has •y^pauf, Vg. Gaiaa, 

»CpWLC/2Mi.''' » IHd.iia/. 



Peah. rdttMJU, 'Ramah'). It has been thought that 
ihe name Uriel may have been derived from i K. 15 » 
(where it may originally have stood, see ASA, i), Ihe 

motive of the change bdng a desire 10 provide some 
other parentage for Abijah's mother (cp TaMak 3). 

A more uiiilaciory theory can be offered. The reading ia 
1 K. 11 J is more nearly CMiTert ; qV'311 maybe a gomiplion of 
SkOIH, »nd both ^Rp-m and Sd-TK comiplioni of SoiT- 
Maacah, aii we have seen, is probaNy a conuplion of n-StOnT. 

Mauah [a JerahnKclile], of Cibedi. The Gibeah meant b 
that of }otb. IS ;;. 

4. Mother of Asa(iK.lG.<>. am [BL]; aCh.ISit). 
See .Asa, i. Most probably i K. 15 to should run thus : 
' His mother's name was Maacah [a Jerahmeelite].' on 
the analogy of i K. 15^ (see 3). She was ileposed 
from her position as queen-mother on account of some 
religious symbol (niW, RV 'an abominable image') 
which she had made for Ashehah (?.«'.], i K. ISij. 

In Peih. of I K. IB 10 Maacih's iiuher'i name li given u Ebed- 

5. ^aibet of ACH'iiHlf.t>!T(> K- 3 ^'afvn^BD, called also 
Maoch (ftlf. 1 S. 27 a, .wujt (B), lumfi (A], •Lxnimnr [LD: "> 
■" 'ijHivucei. The reading of 9'- and Ta. ii im- 

Taluaj Ud_fim.X 

icb (i Oi. 3 A fuqr* IBAD, penonifj'ing 

it (id»-j. 

-*a(AD; - 


S. Wif^ of Jehlel,' father' of Gibeon<iCh.S99,M>''xe|Bt. 

luXn CBa""1, (-»• [Ll; Bj] f«.x> (BHAD. B'. reading 
conntini the derivation from Jenhme'tl. 

9. Falher of Hahan [a) (■ Ch. II 4J. ulan IBM]. fia«i(An. 

ID. Falher of Sbepbaiiah, a Sbneoniie (1 Oi. n it, >»;(• (B], 
liaiiX"fAl, (lavarifLI). ^Nole thal^lheiMai -■— -' - 

._For anolber'inuani .. .. ,.... _ 

both probable 

d Mcholahai 

(njnj. abbrev. from some ethnic, but see 
Maadiak and cp S). b. Bani. in the list of those with 
foreign wives (see EzKA i., { 5 end); EcralOjt 
(MO&eUEll& [BCt]. MOO&Eld. [A], MOYDY^I [!']> 
= iEsd.934 MoMDis («OAlleiOC IB], -ieic [A]. 
mooyAcia [L]). 

KAADIAH (nnps, see S 33. but also cp Maadai), 
a priest in Zerubbabel's band (see E:eitA ii, . g 6 ») ; Neh. 
I2s (BKA om. , Mftaliic [«=■• "'■ ••"■■]. MA&iiiC [L]). 
Cp Maaziah, Moauiah. 

HAAI CPI^), a priestly miuician in the procession at 
Ihededicaaon ol the wall (see Ezra ii.. f 6»), Neh. 
12l6+ (BKA om., M4*i [«""■*"■]. «Aift[Ll). 

1IAALEH-ACEABBIM(D'ai;3t' Hilfp), Josh. IGjf, 
AV, RV Ascent of Akrabbim(?.i'.). 

MAAHI. I. (mane, [B]. «a^N. [AJ «ooNei« 

ID), ,E«1.63. RV-E^ 

2. RV Baani (fia^t], 


Eid.»j4 = Eni 

llAABATH [n-T^ ; M4rApw9 [B], map(06 [A]. 
M44pto9 [L]), a city in the hill country of Judah 
(Josh, 15;9|, mentioned next to Gedor. which is 6^ m, 
N. from Hebron, Near Ihe ruins of Jedur (Gedor) is 
the village of Bft Umniar, which may be a dismnt echo 
of Ma'aralh (?). Not far away are handsome rock 
tombs and a number of small caverns (Baed.l'l 135). 


t. AV Hftuiki (T'VP).> = Neb. 

^11?. v.). 

t PV). See Maaseiah i 


RV Mth— Uh (n^pnp, g 2S : [Ginsb. ; 
but see Baer's note on Jer. 32iil), an aneesior of Barach, 
Jer.32.a (MAfcC&iOt t^Q]. MNAC. [^'']. MACC. tA], 

MAceoT («]): "s9 (M44CAI0Y [BW^'Q]. -cc. [A], 
MAX^lOY [^'])- '" Bar. li the name appears as 
Uaasias, RV Maaseas. 

1I**HBIAH (n^TD. [and 4n;;b?n? in Jer- 35( and 
nos. 4-9]. for [he comiplion n't?J)3 see no. 19 ; ace. 
lo Cbe. from some ethnic (see la), but pointed as tf= 
'work of God' cp Jaascel and see Namrs. g 31 ; 
MdkiCAi*[c], maaciaIc] [BKQ], maaciaIc] [L], ma- 

I, FalbcT of Zephuiiob the priBl, tsnp. Z«lFJfUUi, J«. !1 1 
(M>>«r<r>u«> (Bl, p™. [B-h], B«ri. [A], m"". IQU. cp 29 [36] 
j( (,™muo. (Balb], (•«"'. IAD. 37 [44] 3 O'W.m.H, ib>b], ,uu 
[AD. He ii pouibly ihc umi u 

1. ti. Sluilluni, ■ dooT-keeiKr, Jm.S9 [4!] 4 (juuurtn [m^-*], 

3. FiUherDribe'rilie'Frop(ietZedcluah,Ja-.l»ii(om.BNA, 
lununi [Theod. in Qoe.l). 

«. b. Aduih, a apuin or Jtukh, who jJlicd himKlT villi 
JehoudAt ^ Ch. 33 1 iynffuw {A]). 

J. An officii] (-Bio^, i« ScmiEluDds Uqiah, iCh.Mii 
(.MAiTuov IB], ,iu<r<ru» (LD. 

6l a ' !.iiig'j «n,' if thij ii riebl (1^73 ; »« HAXMaLKH), 
■lain by Ibo Eptaiuoutc Zchri when Pclub iovidnl Judsh, 
.Ch.a8jO»*-»[Ai)- lAccording In Cht 'Azrikm'^ which 
fbllon, codiu from ' Jnalunttl/ originaily a gloo on ' banune- 
kch.' TbiisMaMri»fiwM[lic'ruleroflh.hMije.T 

7. GovRTKiT of Jnuftalvm, (cmp- JoiiahT Knl with Shapkan b> 

a. and 9. Two Le-iie. u 

, Cb-lS 

>tlit> . 

a (Bl. t 

empk. 3 Ch. 34 a Otawni (E 

10. A past in the K^t of ihoa« with foreign wivqfsnBtRA i., 
I J ad), EsalOil fci««n^[B|, psuiri [■!, -■[.««))=. Esd. 
»■,, Matthkl*., HV M.THBLAsOumWiDLlBfa. [AD. 

11. One of Iht b'ne Harih, a piiol In Uit of thoH wiih 
ruTeiEii •tm (kc Eiha i.. I i end). li^naKlii Ouunu)^ [BM|, 
K-nw (AD=i Ek1.9.. (Eanesj RV Manis, ™^|BAD, 

"la. One of Ihe*b'ne PASH><u>ra prieil^ liirof Ihoie wilh 
■ - ■ - tnd), EnalO"- - ■ 

« [HI. » 



. ..1 lilt of ihoH 

wirs(Ke EidA ■., I 5 end), EmlOjaOuwiw [B], • 
ni(llD=T EkLOji MoDstAsKVMonssi ' 

15. In Lin of Ecra'i HiEMwrten {ue 
I S : iL, 1 16 Is) ; ii., t '5 (<]') Neb. 8 4 
= iE^«4j Balasaimk, KV Raai 

EiRAiL, |w[/I; cpi., 
Ouuurauw [B], -irux [Ll) 

S. Erpounder of 

i.n N . ... 

kS buuunt |BA|, 


iB. b. Baiijch descended Iron SirjLONr \a.r>.]. in list of 

■ Uhite bbihiBu.uof JeniBlen.(Ke E»a ii., | jl*), | ishla), 

h. U J 0»w«a [Bl, ,«iA™ JAl, |.«nui (k-I, >m>«>> tK=»l, 

nw |Lp ; he reprejcnH Ihe Sheiai ' - • ■ ■ ■ 

name Auuh (n'M) is piobably 


3. b. JihieL in litt of Behjamile inhaiutanis 

■ Email. I Jia I isdl-); Neh. 11 ; (m«>-, 

dl and 11. Two priest! in proceuion at the 

jf Judnh, juil 
Cfi. a s where 

o («1, . 

; Ch.6... RVMAASAI. 

EnaSifi, Shgmaiah. 17, 

in Jer.32i> 

[BA]|, I Esd.8« RV = 



the sons of Ram b, Jerahmeel b. Hecron ; i Ch. 29rN 

HAAZIAn (4n;tpt:i, 'Vahwiis a refuge'? the name 
may, however, be a corruption of n'pnij ; see Maa- 
SEiAH i.), tbe name of a {post-exilic) prieslly family, 
lo which was assigned one of the tn-enly-four ' courses.' 
I Ch. 24i3 (maaca. [B], M00I4A [A). mOOIi* [L]). 
Represented amongst the signatories lo the covenant 
(see Ezra i., §7); Neh.lOSM (r»;ijm, .■ci«e.a [B]. 
Bfeio [K], *MWf««i [A], ^afuii [L]) ; cp Maadiah. 

MABDAl (A*AMiAI [B], MANiAl [A]}. 1 Esd. 9j4 = 
EiralOjs, BENAtAH, g. 

HACALOn {[€k]makaA(a>n [BA]), i Esd. B.. = Eou 
Sa;. MiCHMAS. See MicHUASH. 


Judas (1 4> 
Whan (is). 


1. Tluna 

l»3.|A), 9Macc.8si« 1019^; or 
|KV1 1 Mace. 10 i.)l Ii ihui makei 

13). John 

Bibliography (| 9). 
'Miiccabsus' (makkaBaiOC: Lat. 
r, vh^AU ) was originally a name ot 
the third son of Mattalhlasfseega), com- 
monly called Judas, and in Ihe books 
' Maccabees is applied only to him. 
;« .Mace. 3, 8.; I™<. lit 

As Maccabceus was Ihe central dpiie in the stniggle 
for Jewish independence, it was natural that his name 
should be used at a laier day (so, e.g., in Origen) to 
designate the other members of the family to which be 
belonged (also called ' Hasmoneeans ' ; see below, g a), 
or even in a wider sense, lo apply to all Ihose who were 
in any way associated wilh him or his brelhren. 
Similarly, certain writings which are concerned directly 
or indirectly with the tleeds or ihe limes of these leaders 
have been entitled Books of Maccabees ( Macim^wv, 
or KaKKaffaiKd ; properly, the Maccabeeaii history or 
times : cp BoaiXeiwr, etc.). See below on the titles oif 
'sMacc.' (coL 3879) and '4Macc.,' especially (col. 

The ftirm and the meaning of the Hebrew (or 
Aramaic) original of tbe name Maccabeeus are alike 
uncertain. The Greek transcription points to a form 
wilh i(p). Against this, the Latin miuhaiatis {cA = 3 
[ii) has been urged, but without sufticieni reason. 

The argumenl in tkvour of the form ^330 hu been preaenled 
with great IhoroughnEse and ingenuity by S. I. Cuniu iTIU 
NaiHg MatkaStij Leipdc, tS;6), who altemptB la give the 
Latin form 'Mictahnui' direct connedion with the Hebrew, 

that point, however, even Wtn let Jereme't indefi^ ' Macha- 
btoorum primum libi-um Hebraicum reperi ' (in Frtt. <M.) mean 
aU ii can. and believe that he had aciaally »en a Hebrew 
. .1 — 1 Ti.™ :. ,^ ,h, >ligbie«t probability that the old 
t Mac*:, was revised by Jerome ; on Ibe 
ence a fttrongiy opposed 10 this view. 

So far, therefore, as Ihe 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 ihe book made with painstaking accuracy 
direcilyfrom Ihe Hebrew(see below, Maccabees, First, 
% 3 [col. 3858]), whilst the Latin form of the name is 
found in a version made/n™ Ike Grtei.' 

The favourite interpretation o[ the name has con- 
nected it wilh the Hebrew BiflW^WA (see HAMMER. 1); 
1 [The spelling of (he name occajional|y varies in AMV.) 

eiisience of a Semitic I Mace See col. 9B57, | 1 ; and coL 
iBMi, I 11. 

Oale) Jewish writings ('ape, •330, •USStA are derived ritber 
from the Greek or ftom the Latin. 

Utin It 

y Google 


Aram, maiidbd. Judas vrould thus have been called 
■The Hammerer,' presumably because of his prowess 
in battle. To ihis, however, there are objections ; 

1, The form of Ihc word— appkrrntlr od ikdjeclive ending in 

puag« jer.Mi3 (cp Bfrdikllk, lif) Alio, the 'himmei' 
theory of Judas^ nameieenu hardly credible. 

}. I[ is bvno means certain tluu the name Miccibee was 
given to Judu becaiu« of his valour. Tlwre ji no hint of such 

that the intemrciaiiDns oT ih!^ nature (bmtd in later writinn 
(<,£-., in Gorion ides) ate iDcre gueues. 

It is lo be observed that nol oa\f Judas, but also 
each of his brothers, has a double name. In the 
passage i Maec. 2a-s, John is said to have been called 
Gaddi(see«>l. 3853, n. ij; Simon, Thassi; Judas, Mac- 
caUeus;' Eleazar, Avarati ; Jonathan. Apphus. It has 
commonly been suppined that these ' surnames ' are all 
descriptive of the character or exploits of those 10 whom 
they are applied (thus Eleaiat's name, Avatan, has been 
exfjained from the incident of his boring a hole (root iin) 
In the elephant) ; but ihe fact ihat not one of the names 
tends itself 10 any such inleipretalion should be cob- 
clusive against this theory. 

On the ctintivy, the ' turnnnKi ' have rather the appeaiance 
ofnames given at binh (Caddi is ■ familiar Jewish name : s« 
below, I 3 .) : and when the liK ' Simeon. J udah, Eleaiar, eic,' 


Hobahiiily at once suggest! itsell 
es originally given by MaiEaihias 

v».. »*..,.»-.., ^,.^..».... J, Kj..«j, yy^ caliphs, etc. ^ 

It u a precisely similar 9se when Josepbus f/ii^- Kui. 40) 
wrilei : 'KKftvi^iK i BiAac Aey^inc, altluHigh ' Balas ' was 
the sritiiuU mamr of this liing. and ' Aleiander ' the later 

SchDr. C/^li7e; ETii, p. 340!' Cp'atio the nuns"of ("he 
queen Aleiandta, whose Hebrew name had bKn Salome: 
'AAi{^rJI^4»iIaJun<Eusebius): A/tiamirafiir it SaJina 
VBCabalur gerome, Cemm. on Dan. 8 34^); by Josepbus 

It is doubtful, Iheiefote, whether much help is to be 
gained from the side of etymology in determitiing the 
Hebrew form and meaning of ■ MaccabEeus.' 

For the various conieclures ihat have been made, see C^niss, 
1^=4; Wace's .J>Kr7^4<i, 1 94;/ : SchOier, C/fTflliji; ET 

1 1, p. Ill f. 

As for the form, the evidence decidedly favours 'apo 
(with single p?) ;'lhe poisilnlily of a form with 3 must, 
however, be admitted. 

The Jews do not seem to have applied the name 

■ Maeeabee ' either lo the members of the dynasty or to 

9 Th, _,„. ""c books dealing with the events of 

■iUSlSS;' »■'""% In..«d.,h^,»rffc,bo>h 

the adjeclivE ' Hasmonienn (Asmo- 

the family name of the house of Maltalhias, 

■ Hasmoniean ' does not occur in the books of Maccabees, bui is 
frequently used by Jostphus (we the references, below^ and 
appears once in Ihe Mi.hni (.Vi.UM« 1 9),< where Judas and 

1 If Ihe a 



Thai J 


« simply tr 

. had thus undeisiood the name, ho" 
ewme uw of Ihe figure in iy-^l 

«tc., u of course due to 'the lacl Ihai ii tiid already becoine ' 
househoid word among Ihe Greek.ipeaklng Jews. 

» In favour of Ihe single rather than ihe double p, ihefbllow. 
ing contideiaiions may be urged :— <i) The po™bility that 
JoKphus «ole the name wiiha single a (so genetally in Niese's 
ed.>. (3) The occasional employmeni of n to represent a single 
p. Thus, Auo^Bi, for ppp \ NueoBIui for n-tni (Am. 1 i 

[unless we should point ira***! 

which may w*H have become 6iied 
from our dreek ver«on was made. 

« In this passage, certain chambers ftnap^) Ijekinging to the 

oispfff natoi -lait an (var. -pDrrt) 'loicen la itn na 
\f '^7a : 'In Ihe NE chamber the Hasmoncans laid away the 
stows 1^ the altar which the Gredan longs bad defiled.' Cp 



pn -in- Similarly Targ. iS.» 4 
in the CfmAn and later Jewish 

_ the Hasmoiueans- (Trinu. 9/* OHimi. C™1 

fmi, Lond., ia99).p. 7; Levy, Ntuktbr. tind ckaOd. Wfr^r. 
busk, S.V.). The Hebrew form o^icrn also occurs. 

The origin of the name is wholly obscure. It was 
probably borne originally either by Mattathias himself, 
or by one of his ancestors i but we are quite destitute 
of information on ihispoinL In i Mace. 2i, Mattathias 
is called ' [he son of John, son of Simeim' (Marrowfat 
'leidi'i'ov roE Sv^Mib):' Josephus, Ant. xiL6i. carries 
Ihe Une oik step farther back, adding roG 'Aira/uinilDii 
(cpxiv.l64Xvi.7O; ^"t '' i^ "ot "I'E'y th3> ^^ t>^ 
any authority for this.' The adjective may have 
originated in the name of a man. Hasmon (cp the 
Chronicler's oi^n ; se« Ha.shuM) ; or, more probably, 
in the name of a place (cp Fs |tovFi, Josh. ISi; and 
.ijiDfn, Nu.S3i9/ : see HesHMON, Hashmohak); or 
even iu an appellative, though Ihe absence of a r<x>l 
nrn in the Hebrew-Aramaic literature known to us 
makes this veiy unlikely. 

Tbefanciful eiymidogvconnecling the name wilh the «. Xey. 
' ' B result of a scrilie's blunder), which is then 
ibic kaiml^, 'fatness,' should be put aside 

O'lceji, Ps.ftS33(i 
eaplBined by the ^ 


Palesline was under the Egyptiai 

Jews were not directly interfered with in the exercise 01 

_ nnriaiiiB' '''"'^ reLgion and eusloms. Even then, 

S^^^ however, Greek cities were springing up 

KltUtUu. '° '" t"" °' ''",!'"i"'l' "IT"' 
__.._...._.. p„;j5,„.g „^j gradually being brought lo 

bear on Judaism by ibe rapid encroachment of Greek 
thought and culture, Afler Ihe beginning of the 
Seteucid rule (19S B.C., under Antiochus III., [he 
Greai) this pressure was vastly increased, both from 
wilhoul and from within. The Syrian kings did not 
find It easy to hold logelher Ihe heterogeneous elements 
of their domain, and it was to lh«r interest to dis- 
courage the excltisive Jewish religion. To the Jews 
themselves, Ihe struggle against Hellenism might wdl 
have seemed a losmg one. There was a strong piuly 
in Judosa Ihal openly favoured union wiih Ihe Gentiles 
and the adoption of Ihe new culture. See. e.g. . i Mace. 
Irii4ij a Mace. 47-1] : etc. On the other hand, as 
was natural, Ihose who held lo Ihe national religion 
redoubled Iheir leal. At Ihe head of these was the 
well-defined extreme legalistic parly of "the Pious'' 
(Di'on, 'AijiJIoisi, see Lovingkindn'ess). Soon alter 
Ihe beginning of the reign of Antiochus (IV.) EpiphanM 
(175-164 B.C.) matters came lo a crisb (see Israel, 
S 70^ ; Abomination of Desolation). It u-as not, 
however, at Jerusalem, but in one of (he smaller towns 
of Judfea that the revolt broke out. When the king's 
oflicer. who compelled Ihe people lo sacrifice lo ihe 
heathen gi>ds. came to Modein {KuSttr ; see MoDJN), 
a village in the mountains near Lydda, a man of that 
place named Maltalhias (n'ra^, 'Gilt of Yahw^'; see 
of John, a priest of the order of 
(iMacc. 2i), offered resistance lo the king's 
nd ; he slew the officer and a Jew who was 
offering Ihe sacrifice, pulled down the altar, and fled, 
wiih his five sons and many others who Joined Ihem, 
into Ihe mountains. Mulliiudes followed, and Ihe 
revolt very soon assumed formidable f«oportions, Mal- 
talhias and his companions also went through Ihe land, 
pulling down Ihe heathen altars, putting lo death the 
apostates, and stirring up the remainder of Ihe people 
In this same year, however (SeL 146 : 



107, 166 B.C. ), Mailalhias died ; lirst having commilled 
the leadership of (he insurgeni people 10 his jon Judas. 

Thui began the suptemac/ of Ihe ' Hasmonxan,' 
or ' Maccabiean,' house which was to play such 
an impOTtani part in Jewish hisioiy. Cp Historical 
LlTEBATUUtt, g 17. Two of the five sons, John and 
Eleazar. did not long survive their folher. 

1. Jahn,lbc(lden,Drigiiul1y(FKc|i)<3llR]Ciuldi, ■IJ,! wu 

l>« mumn' ^StW^t 

«s afitr Jona,h. 


forc« of I.y 

wn* r«oJcni«cd ** inferior 10 hii bterhren. 

liic hcra_or ihc haltk (kal by thrjiwi) uainst Ihe 

iHBiy's host was furnished with Lhe royal 
uH|jvHiiy», 4LJU LiciKvuif ihcrefore thar ihe king Tode upon it, he 

w^htTl Mace sVj-^ He iKeivs'n'o'f^™ ^lion i/tlw 

The following table exhibits the genealogy of the 
Hasmonzans, with the dale at which each died (as 
given in Schllrer) : — 

Haltalhias (■67.166X 


John Hyrcanui I' (105) 

(>«') 1 

(163) Joiuihui 

IS [. (t04> Altnuider JwinBU (;B) - Salon 



IS II. (6j) 

Arinobalia thigfa-prislj (33) 

Judas (.TTm;). the third s 
leader of Ihe Jewish people i 
_> JndM ^^"5; a 

mme [wife of Herod] (J9) 
Matlalhias, and Ihe 

r struggle for religious 

On his name Malckabi, Maccabteus, 
see § I. If the view there advocated, thai (his was his 
oiiginal name, and that he and his brethren were given 
special names as the pinces of Israel, is correct, il is 
not unlikely that he received ihe name Judah because of 
his mi lilaiy prowess (cpGen.499. etc, |. According to 
Ihe account given in i Macc.2M. Mattathias at the 
time of his death appointed Judas captain of the hosts 
of Israel, because he had been ' strong and mighty from 
iat louth. ' The army ... - 

t made up chiefly of the adherent 

party, s 

o be asserled in 

1 Mace. Hi. I 

cruited from all classes and parties in Judiea. [i is 
tme, the 'AsiJhiui (see the precedingg) were foremost 
JD the movement which Judas led ; but neither he nor 
his brethren were ever ideniified with that sect. 

Marvellous success attended Judas from the lirsl. 
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 Ux campaigns against the Edomiles and the 

1 The mne -u. which hu i diuincdy heUhin sound (tee 



W of the I 

lut Idler froin i. 

•Iln ,Mi«. 
oiled JOK^I 

> The ongiiul rbrm and pi 
in rwo pl»ce», 1 Mace 2 5 and o<Ji are quiie unccnam. ] 
Greek MSS ^ve (he form Isirapai' (i-r.. E^wa4mp i Xovapa 
br tide with EAHJ^i^H Avafr), which is also pmsible. 
Sjniac. indeed, writei (he word wilh inilial n I bul il m 
ipieniofKd whether (his fact should be Kllowed any weight 
ID the case of tha name Makkabi, it seenu probable (hz 
Syrian inuukuar on have had aothint biu the Creek (0 



Ammonites ; also in Galilee, Gilead. and the rfailisiine 
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. StB-6j, and the 
summary of the history given below under Maccabees, 
First. 9 a [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 parly 
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 AlciMus), succeeded through mis- 
representations in catling in the help of a Syrian army. 
Judas' valour as a military captain, houever. was again 
dis|dayed. and the Jewish arms triumphed. After the 
decisive ballle near Belh-horon, in 161, Judlts was 
again viriually the political head of Ihe Jewish people, 
wilh more power than ever before. It does not appear, 
however, that he exercised the office of high priest, as 
did. Probably it did not occur to him to 

It was at this time that Judas look at last (he 
momentous step of asserting (he political independence 
of the Jewish nation. Two ambassadors were sent to 
Rome 1 1^ •?f^]- in the not unreasonable hope 
of gaining Ihe support of the Romans against the Syrians, 
and thus securing the permanent triumph of the Jewish 
national party. The Romans did in fact return a 
favourable answer (i Macc.Sii^), but it came too 
la(e to be of any assistance to the Jews. Only about 
two months after the victory which Judas had gained 
over Ihe Syrian captain Nicanor near Beth-horon, the 
king (Demetrius I.) sent against him an army in com- 
parison wilh 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 u((erly routed. 
andhehimselfwBSslain(iMBcc. 9i-i9). 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 bom captain. The enthusi- 
asm of the writer of i Mace. (33-9) is shared by the 
writer of a Mace. , who had otherwise no inlarest in the 
Hasmonxan house. Devout and lealous for the law, 
OS 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 bv a peculiar combination of cir- 
cumstances, that the Je^iish nation under Ihe Hasmon- 
teans achieved such successes in Ihe decades following : 
though these later gains also were due chiefly to the 

9 5), and were necessarily only temporary. 

Jonathan ('luFaSor, (njii;). the fifth son of Mattathias. 

borealsolhenameApphQs.'Air^att, 1 Macc.2j(seeS 1). 
The original form and meaning of the 
latler name are quite unknown. 

word began, w what Sendiic coMonant the tSeek t reprtsenn. 
placed ; see pceceding col,, n. 3. 

Jonathan is mentioned occasionally in i Mace. 
(5 17 14 5^) in connection with Judas and Simon as taking 
a prominent pari in the earlier Mnccabiean campaigns ; 
and upon the death of Judns, he was unanimously chosen 
to succeed him as leader of the national party ( i Mace. 



led by Ihe Syrians. UKd every means to secure ita 

inn cause (v. ^\. and lha» who lenuined 

Ltb his comparativety hw (ottowtn, waa compc 
an lo keep in ihe background » al nrst, as a fro 

ifully punued b>^ a Syri& 


Meadily gained in numben u 
— —- 'oubledly due largely i 

U the I 

licb he represenle 
an<:i ibe deatk of 

. uhI to tbe bcl 


At length the scales were turned completely in 
Jonathan's favour in sai uneip«ted va.y. Demetrius 

was compelled to contest Ihe poisession of Ihe Syrian 
Ibrone with a poweiful rival, Alexander Balas, Both 

finally espoused the cause of Balas, in return for which 
service he was made the head of Ihe Jewish people, with 
considerable power, and was also appointed high priest 
of the nation. This (153 B.C.) was the real beginning 
of the Hasmon^ean rale in Jerosalem. Jonathan con- 
tinued to hold Ihe office of high priest (vacani, ap- 
parently, since the death of Alcimus), and to increase. 
little by little, the advantage already gained. He was 
conflrmed in his authority by Balas, when Ihe latter 
became king (i Mace. lO^s): was recnved with high 
honours at Plolemais by Balas and Ptolemy Philometor, 
king of Egypt (Uiil. v, 59#): and finally, when Deme- 
trius 11, became king of Syria, succeeded by a daring 
stroke in obtaining a series of most important con- 
cessions to Judaea. See Ihe interesting account in 
:. lljo-3Ti and cp SchQrer, C/F(»li8a^; 

ET 1 


During all this time Jonathan showed himself a wise 
d leader, both in peace and in war. The Syrian 
onlinued to be divided amoi^ rival aspirants 10 
one. so that not only Jonathan, but also his 
Wi, 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 eheriihed by Judas — was not lost sight of by 
Jonathan. He sent ambassadors with letters of friend- 
ship to Rome, Sparta, and other places (144B.C.7), at 
(he same lime working diligenlly to strengthen Judaa 
in every possible way {see esp, i Mace 11 js/ I231-38). 
Soon afier Ihis, however. Jonathan fell a victim to 
Syrian treachery. Trypho, ihe chief captain of the 
young Anliochua VI. who was now contending wiih 
Demeirius II. for the supremacy, became himself nn 
aspirant to the throne. Fearing Jonathan for some 
reason, and wishing to put him out of the way. Trypho 
enticed him into Plolemais and there put him 10 dealh 
(l Maec 1239-53). This was at the close of 143. 

Simon (Zijmit.' pjFOr) was the second son of 
Mattalhias ; according to i Mace. 83 called also Thassi 
1. Simon, f^."''-! :»«?'■ ,1?* Semitic form and 
■""""• cwiginal meaning of ihe 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 
617"/: B67/ llSj/ lajj/ 38/ During ihe reign 
of Jonallian, Anliochus VI. appointed Simon general 
{rrpantyit) over an important district (IIjb). In 265 
Mattalhias is represented as singling him out as Ihe 
wisest of the brethren, and appointing him their 
counsellor.' 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 ihe people. 
He continued 10 carry out with energy the policy pursued 
by Jonathan, building up and fortifying Jerusalem and 



il. i860, pat. (j)l 


the other strongholds of Judasa(13 10 3j ,3.48 55 1*7 31-34), 
extending the lorritory 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 bis reign was a. 
glorious one for the Jewish people. 

In 143, soon after the accession of Simon, the Syriao 
yoke was at last removed from Israel. Demetrius IL, 
yielding to Smon's demand, formally recognised the 
independence of JudaBa (see the trivimphant words of 
the historian, i MacclSti/.). Soon after Ihis, Simon 
succeeded in gaining possession of Ihe Acra. or citadel 
of Jerusalem, which had been occupied by a Syrian 
garrison for iwenty-six years, ever since Ibe banning 
of the Maccabxan struggle' {I3tg-si). In the brief 
season of peace and prosperity which followed ( i Mace. 
l*4-'l).* Simon's services to his people were given im- 
portant recognition. A solemn assembly held at 
jemsalem in 141 confirmed him in the offices of govranar 
and high priest ,* and made both these offices hereditary. 
Thus, a Hasmonsan dynasty was formally established. 
An inscription in Simon's honour (col. 2864 [i]) was 
composed and put in a conspicuous place.* At about 
this time, also, embassies were sent to Rome (coL 
3S63 [a]) and to the Spartans (ii. ), which resulted suc- 
cessfully (col. 3864 [f]), I Mace. 14.6-a4 lS.i-a4. Soon, 
however, Simon became involved in other wars, as tlw 
Syrian throne changed hands and his help was needed. 
Moreover. Anliochus (VI I. )Sideies sent an army against 
Judsa, in the hope of recovering some of Ihe posses- 
sions which the Jews had gained ; but his captain was 
defeated and driven from the country by two oif Simon's 
sons. Judas and John. Near Ihe beginning of 135. 

Ptolemy, 'captain of Ihe plain of Jericho,' who svisfied 
to obtain Ihe power for himself. With two of fiis 
sons. Mattalhias and Judas, Simon was received bj 
Ptolemy inio the fortress DoK (?-»-), near Jericho, and 
there treacherously murdered.' 

John, son of Simon, generally C»lled Hyrcanus. 
'Tpntntt,' is said in i Mace. 1853 to have been put in 
_ - . charge of the fortress Gasata by his father 
J;,i™^in.4>. John also took a prominent part in 
UTTMIitU. ,^g j^^ ^( ^^^ ^^^^^ general Cendebtcus 
(16j^ 9/.). Immediately after the murder of Simoo, 
Ptolemy sent men to Gaxara to kill John, who was now 
the legitimate successor to the leadership of Israel. John 
was informed of the plot, however, and with true 
Maccabxan 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 vvas temporarily humbled by Anliochus 
Sidetes. who besieged Jerusalem with success, obtaining 
importanl concessions from the Jews, besides breaking 
down Ihe city wall. These losses were soon repaired, 
however, as the Syrian government was again involved 
in sore difficulties. Hyrcanus rebuilt Ihe city wall 
(i Mace. 16>j), and liegan in laS, immediatdy upon 
the death of Anliochus, a series of important campaigns, 
one fruit of which was Ihe 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 
thdr independence completely restored. 

I [On I Mace 1847.501414^6, see Che. <?/>!. «S«i,n.«; and 
""ilSiacOPi"' „" ereneei m p. 40, r. 


iinbeced that Jonathan re 
people, but from Ihr 
nn, Cr/Sifn; but 

nady been 

y Google 


In several respects the reign of Hyrcanus maiks a 
departure frvm the simpler ways (and perhaps the ideals) 
of bis predecessors. Hyrcanus waged war with the aid 
of foreign mercenaries, for example, and had his own 
name engraved on the coins of his lei^. Tt 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. OPi. 34/ 39). Concerning the events of the 
latta' pan of hi* reign w« have little informalioa. He 

a losB. 

FiSST Maixabbes. 
Tide, Cantenu (| i y., coL 


Many cf <hc trorki doling with the hiuory of (hit period ue 

refEind to below (Maccabeis [Hooks]}. Merc nuy he men- 

tioned :— Clinton, Fiuli Hcllmici. 'ol. iii. At, 

8. Utenttira. iSji, pp. jid-j^; riuhc. Qiuk. Mmi- 

nr riisi. ,1 latiisr.'UU P11'. iMj; 'MnddtT." C™ ij'lii 
Jral, iBSi ; Dc Siulcy. Hilt. Ja Mack^ii an frintii dt la 

inifuwUlM. i.pI 'Anli'ochiu IV.'; SchOre'r, C/F0ll*i^.34i'^ 

eictlknt B™unt"of th»»un;a)°'i:mld, C»'m™3Bf-s";'E" 
1BS7-18M, ftait-iQ.; Grill, Gisck.dtrJi^tH, voIl f a S ; Slade- 
HollEinxnn. r.vliiiibff. : Wdlh. IJCK*I ijtk See ilw Uw 
warlurefoTcd to in Scharer, It^g 117/ ; ETlt-ia, i;o. 


Second Maccabses. 

I^neuand 3, (sL 1858^). HutnridiyU 3. caL atjrn). 

ADlEDr,I>iIe<|4/,i»l.ig«^). lilETuy diuuter (| t, mL 
Lilcncy chuacler (| C, coL Mri/-)- 


iUndpoinI d j, coL 
rily(|o,«.l. .B*3-s). 


Third Maccabees. 

Conieni. (I a ™l. iB,g). 
Becuining k>« (| 3, cd. 

LanKuaic, Styli (I 4, col. 

HiHoridn-di «J..88oy}. 

Author, Due (1 6. cot. iBSii 
Aruauiiond,, col. jMi). 
Bibliography (I S, col. iBSi). 

BiWosnp)iyUi>,i»1.i<64A Biblibgnpliy (i g, coL 1679). 


By bf the most important of the several writings 

known as the ' Boolu of the Maccabees ' (Muni^uw 

-jy ^(flXJo, or Muia^cUnd) is the history 

^"'* commonly entitled ' Maccabees.' The title 

borne by the book in its original Hebrew form (see 

below, I 3) is not known. 

Many tcholan have tried 10 recocniK it In n well-known 
Dotun quDlvd by Eojebiiu (N£ 6 aO from Orinn. Orinn 
enumeriM the (l<nnly-lwo) booVi of iht Hebrew canon, 

Sdluf -Be^ih^ ih^b!"ihe'M»ccl»t<^." -hS il™iiil" 
Sarbiih Sabaniiel.'i II it beyond dm 

Linguase, Style (| 6, coL 

Thouik(l7,col. =385/). 
Alienation, Text (| t, coL 

special Iv Cunui, Tk 

<facAaia,ii76,p.3ai.' On ll ,...._ 

pTopoKd by Dajman (Crjimm. 6\ accordina lo which the 
two Arangc words in ibdr oricinal fonq ttaof] for ibe Aramaic 
"■IDpn n'3 ^C. Menu very pboaible. The litle 'Book of the 

and the >clusJ wperscription of the Uier Aramaic compodtion 
dealing with the biilory of Ihit time : Ke below, f ri) I and it il 
easy lo lee how. by the aid of common scribal blunden,> the 

trifimii Htli of i Mace Thi. pEnly Aramaic fonn"of wordi 

Hebrew : & i< niDch more pro^ble'lLl^be ^,^01^ kn^^lby 
bsrsay only?) 10 Origen wni >n Aramaic tranilalion .uch aJ 

<| . .X all the cvidencc°go«lo tho* that the KErMr i Mftct™ 

ihe a^ove cKplanatlon of the mime recorded by Origen iscorreci, 
there would ilill remain the pouihilily that (as frequently 
happened) ihe litle borne by the IranAMIion wai quite inde- 
pendent of that borne t>y the original. 

The book is a history of the Jewish struggle toT 
religious freedom and for independence under the 
*. Contanta. M""*'***' '' covers the period of forty 
*'*■*•"*■■ years beginning with the accession of 
Antiochus (IV, ) Epiphanes, 175 B.C., and ending with 
Ihe death ijl Simon, Ihe third of the Maccabxan ' 

13s B 

IS for Ibe IT 

LO their chronological ortier, attention being gi 

■e of ei 

r !»(*•«.*, w 



liognphy d 9, col. 1BS6). 

The narrative is continuous, and the treatment 
uniform throughout the book. The material may be 
divided conveniently as follows : — 

1. <1 1.9) Tbe briefnt pouihle biUoduction, befinnini with 
the contiueflE of Alexander, and deKribing in general tenm the 
oHfin of Ibe Seleudd empire, a. (1 10-64) Uetperale condition 
oflbe lewi under Antiochui Epiphanes. HiBnriempIiloabolisik 
the Je-iih religion- 1. (S i-jo) Tbe uprijing at Modein 
(161 B.C.) and Ibe growth of Ihe rebellion led ^ Matlnlhiaa. 
4. C«i-4js> The firmi vinoriei gained by the Jew. under the 
leadership of Judai MaciabKui. ;- (436-4i) PurilicatiDn of the 
temple and dedicalion of the new altar (16] b.c.X d- (l^i-M) 
Campaigns conducted by^JudatagainAl Ihe jurrtKinding nacicou. 
7. C^i-it) Dealb of Epipbanet, in Penia, and acceaaton of 

Concessitin of nligtous freedom to ihe Jews, in return for their 
lubmiasion. o. (11-50) DemetriuigaintpoitieMion t^the throne 
(i«j B.c). Death of Nicanor. 10. (8. -Baa) Treaty with the 
Roinani. Death of Judu(i«i B.C.). ti. <Ri3-ll)«6) Jonathan 

, Death of Jonathan fend of 143 a.< 
"-'-■- 'HunderSimon. rtey t 

of Ihe lews (14. 
Antiochui SidI 
Murder of Si 

' E™. i >lole"r^»."_.,. 
by Jonathan ; a 

er battles fought by Jonathan; and hii relations 

independence (ijj a-c). The Si 

in Jemialem. Peace in the land. ij. (M is-^g) Renewal erf 
friendly rdalioni with Ihe Spartani and with Rome. A formal 
record is drawn up by Ihe people and put in a conspicuoua 
place in honour of Sitnon. who is thus publicly declared ruler 
-'■■-'—-' ' -■ (l*i-lflw)8elationsorSimoiiwith 

« Syria 

As to Ihe language in which i Mace was written, 
there is no room for doubt. Menlion has been made 
a.Origlll«l f '^^ leslimony of Origen (Si) and 
LmS^ J""™ ''°': "*SO. towards end), which 
'^ "' testimony, though less valuable than it at 
first appears to be, shows at least that each of Ihose 
great scholars regarded it as an undisputed fact that the 
book was uritten in Hebrew. Internal evidence proves 
beyond question that this opinion (or church tradition) 

That the lingua^ wna Semitic b evident. Semitic idionu 
explidble in n Greek compojiilion : tee. for 


Dndentood), 240 4i S30-31 Bii (<f a^rw | 
Ihe verb; »> also 7l^ U 9^^ eic. ; and 

♦uAiffTwm; Ihe names in 11 34 (Schlli. GJV\ le^'-'ET 1 g,;/)' 

l,uiA.«„ (ItVl for 13^', 11 39(seeSeh<lr. U. ; We. IJ&i). g;o), 



etc JnUtj.tmp-ui^lA 
II s>3^) is plainly the tm 
wbicii Ibe liuislalot did n> 



The iwigbty e 
■lion, or by renderings whicb isn only b> 
Ajll of misunderalanding ar iccidenlal ca 


Hebiew perrecl 
ee the Mlowing 
in 14 le, iynifumi- iu" Ibf ij;r 
»a4,*«A(Wnfbt Op): 10 1. 

c: 'theRonu 


nn; 'we mail /rxlamaliim'); 
i 'Errifunfi inilud of nu 'Bn- 
r very ea^y by the Semitic uuge 
in regard to inch adjective) ; 10 ji, ai watipn vv (Tnian instead 
of TP'SS f" jmitai). ' ihine armies 1 ; 1* g, mUt ntJinr (I) 

Thut Uie Seitiltic language \vas Hebrew, not Aramaic, 

is everywhere manifest. 
See the evidence furnished by many of the passages cited 

Nothing is known concerning the author of i Mace. , 
beyond Ihe facts that can be gathered by inference from 

- ._,., his book. Kewas certainlya devout and 

4. AaOua. p^^,.,^,^^ j^ 

It can hardly be doubted, moreover, thai the author 
lived and wrote in Palestine. It is plain from eveiy 
pan of the book that his personal interests were all in 
that land. 

His aaiuainuinoe with the gtagraphy aibd topography of Ihe 

country is strikingly minule; when, an rhe rMilnrv. hr ha* 

>reign lands, 

12 3*/ IS 

Kribed. See, for < 


The writer of this 



must have 

stood nenr lo Ihe centre of Jewish political aflairs. 

There ii, to be sure, nothing to require as lo suppoK Ihal he 
blmself look an active pan in the events be recoc'c^but he is 
nwic plainly in his element when he is dealing with affairs of 

The author shows himself a loyal adherent of the 

Hflsmon^ean houise : 

it was 1 

this fami 

y that Israel 

No* the rest of Ihe acu of John, and of hi 

p 133 t4>E 

6 16.. 

especially 66i, and 

That he should eiiol the char- 
d deeds of Judas was ol course to be ejtpecled, 
but his admiration of Ihe other Hasmonxan leaders is 
hardly less emphatically eiipressed. 

123SS'/('»oii«»So lOe™ 3™;' of'Jimci' 18^'^ 41/^14^^ 
1« 14 ; and of John, 1»S3 l*Jj/ 

When in addition to these Gicts it is observed in what 
a fainiurable light the Jewish priesthood is exhibited 
throughout the book — Ihe renegade high priests Jason 
and Menelaus. for etample. are not mentioned at all 
(contrast a Maec. 47-5a3) — the conjecture of Geiger 
\Ursckrifl, m6_^) thai the author of i Mace, was a 
Sadducee seems not improbable (see SADDt;cRes).* 

i. Tbedateoflhecompositionof I Mace, canbedeter- 
mined approximately. If we assume the book to be the 
, _ . work of a single writer, as seems necessary 

D. UKM. jj^ ,^[jj^ g ^, j, jj pi^ijj ,^^ lB,-a4 
that it must have been linished after Ihe beginning of 
the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-106 B.C. ). It is also 
evident from Ihe way in which the writer speaks of the 
Romans that the days of Pompey and the Roman rule 

Romans' fidelity as allies (81 n 12i Uio). and implies 
everywhere that they are friends to be pmud of, although 
outside the horirjjn of ordinary Jewish affiiirs (Si# i>)). 
The book must, therefore, have been completed Ijefore 
the year 63 B.C. 

ii. There are grouiHls for bringing the dale of com- 
position within narrower limits. 

(il The passage Idas/, in particular, has afforded 
H basis fur argument. It reads as follows : — 

I Thei 


ision of IheH 
iuJBL. i3. 

the chronicles of hit high-priesthood, from the lime thai be waa 

It has been customary 10 conclude from this mentioa 
of the ' rest of Ihe deeds ' of John, and especially from 
the reference to the ' chronicle of his bigh-prieslliood.' 
that his leign must have been far advanced.* or even 
ended (so most scholars since Eichhom], at the time 
when these words were written. The cogency of this 
reasoning may be doubled, however; the more so. as 
every particle of the remaining evidence points to a 
dilTereni coodu^on. 

It is evidenl that the writer wished lo brine his bUtory to an 
end with the clo« of Simon'i ni^n. If this had been his only 
purpcse^ boivever, he would hardly have followed lfl»T with 

were inierfcjed merely to serve as the necetiary bridge from Ihe 
reign of Simon 10 ibal of John, does not explain them Mtis- 
faclorily ; and Ihe greater the interval of time suppovd to have 
elapsed between these events and the writing of the history, the 
greater Ihe dilhcuhy becomes. 

On ihe supposition that the historian finished his 
work soon after the beginning of the reign of Hyrcantis. 
and wished to conclude it with complimentary mention 
of his sovcrdgn, every part of the closing passage 
ISiS-94 is at once satisfactorily explained. 

It ubU precisely what we should eiped. The evoiu fbllow- 

i>ecessary to lead up to the slalemeni of John's prompt action 
(r-. »a), and then to add the customary formula : ' ibe rest of 
his great deeds,' etc For the only deeds Ihat are specially 
menfioned— the carrying on of war, and the building of ^v^b— 

reign ; the wars Ibal brought him his chief glory, and the re- 
buildinic of the wall that W been raxed by Antiochus SidSIes, 
were both begun, it would seem, during or immedialely after 
the year iiS (see col. atsS. | ;X As lor the 'chronicle of 

a mere cotnplimem).' (he hislorian could have referred to 11 
equally well at any lime after the beginning of Ihe reign. If 
there leally was such a chronicle, it was probably the conlinua- 
tion of the record of Ihe preceding reigns; seethe latter pan of 

(a) The impression thus gained from Ihe closing verses 
of Ihe book, that it was completed during Ihe 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 Uist oentiuy 

(3) On the other hand, there are indications that the 
historian iegan his work during the reign of Simon. 
The striking passage II4-1;, in particular, points distuictly 

Even if documenls a^ coins <t) were dated in this way (Ke 
SchOr. CJVXt^ff.; ETIa57jKX the custom can have con- 
tinued only fi>r a very short time. The only hislofiatu who 
would be likely to wnle such a verM as Ibu would be those of 
Simon's own day. Cp on Ihe other hand 14 17, which is equally 
tigDificanl whether wriuen by Ihe author of 1 Mace, or by tome 
one else. The com^riimenl paid to Simon in Si; may also be 
taken as evidence -. there is nowhere in Ihe sequel anyihing that 
could be rc^rded as e.special]y itlusirating the quality here 
ascribed to him, or as implying thai be waaloofced upon as the 
counsellor of his brethren. 

iii. The theory best accounting for all Ihe facts (see 
also below} — and no really plausible argument tan 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 thai it was 
finished in the early part of Ihe relgti of John Hyrcanus. 
That Is, Ihe book u-as probably wrillen between 140 

The passage IA30 can give us no additional help. The words 
' unto tills day ' are the indispensable (01") formula added to ibe 

case, wiielher the lime that had elapsed were two years or 
Iwenty. This is umply oneof Ibe many illustrations of the way 

older Hebrew sciiptuie* ; Ihe use of Ihe formula \tm serving 

than Ihis. See below, | g. 




Ow wrength he ^va lo thoH who all upon bim Mjik In 
itiull ofjupfrhuman Kienph givin him in rnsuw to pcayer. 


of proportion and with skill in the arrange- 
ment or the nuiierial. The style, which is strongly 
marked, is plainly his own, Ihough formed on the 
classics] Hebreu models. Reminiscences of OT phrase- 
ology are of course frequenl. and certain familiar formulas 
iiom ibe older Hebrew history are occasionally intro- 
duced (f./.. 269/ Sjo-jj 13i6 16=3/); but there is no 
further evidence of any imitation, conscious or uncon- 
sctODS. of the older writers. The chief characierislics 
of the style are terseness and simplicily. At the same 
time. Ihe narrative is full of lively details, and is never 
suflered to lag. 

The reserve of the writer is worthy of especial notice. 
Though it is evident that be is intensely intercsled in 
all Ihe history he is recording, he generally conlenls 
himself with giving a purely objective view of Ihe course 
of events, keeping his reflections lo 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 a Mace* It cannol be said, however, that he does 
noi display enthusiasm. It breaks out into momentary 
expession again and again, all through the book. 

Sec, tiw eunple, S4f 8j-9 <;4. SS,S'3y; "-'■--■ -- 

n &n w 

T diew 


le people in Syt^., And of ' ' ' 


In all pans of the book we meet ih 
combination of dignity and naivel^, Ihe ! 
of style. We may well believe that in i 
it was a tine specimen of Helnew prose. 

Regarding the religious standpoint of the amhor, it 
to be said that in this respect also the book deserves 
■ ■ ■ 1 high place in J. ' ^ - ' 

lIso the two oddieues 
original form 


word. Hebeii 
The aulbo t. 

in the 1> 

n (br d 

le chosen of God. 

14i4/«c), for theboly •cnplure!(ls«a*«12oS for 
'U/'-i- He refen repealBlly to God'i deliverance of liiaelin 
he pan (3^9/. tfj: ,lD7iO,.nd eipmus hii firm fiilh lh»[ 
« alaiy 10 he»r ind help now .l», at of old O ,9/ t .0/ 

imi(lh-««.).'' lnlsS(cp''.'4/8M«c-)12'!lht>ucceHe. 
fhrcved hy the Jews under Ihe MauaDjtaD leaders are ascribed 


:ved hy the Te» 

Efelp ihroueh miiamloui inter^'entlon, indeed. Is neither oaVcA 

human power uid wisdom, is put (&17 ; cp 44d I441 I^.T4q 
Dan-Sn (Song of the Three Children, «. i*). Eira n^ (Nth. 
745Di* hul God now work* deliverance for bis people Ihrough 

Ihro^lt ™ wf, a 
allowed ro stand for * 

I ' before ■ wnler o> 
' where it idll stand 

Eipecially in those eventful 

i monument al Modern had been 
■y hrief period. 

OioXand oFAldmui by Ihe adjective airtB^c <T 9), are certainly 

* The fact (hat Ibe writer put! these utlerancei into the moulh 
of tus heroes, Maltalbiat. JutUs, Jonalhan. and Simon, renders 
then no lr» bi< awn, of coune. 

■ It is doubtful how much ugniliCBnce should be attached (o 
this phrase in iu varioiu tormL See Jerus. ^iJdSrAlnt, 4 [near 
the beginninBl. 


of such genuine fcilh and 
sverjwhere manifests, 
end should avoid all 

3'nSll), nor ■ Lo 
nally employed 

in the'o 

O'DpX which a so employed as to be the full equivaleni 
une 'God'; thus. S is/i yj 4 104055*44 His 1*3: cp 
. In some of these pastages, this use of the word 

'^'°- ^hi "'^ *'"'°j>^ ^i™"«™^3."!r/) 

od IS dlrediy addressed, Ihe pronoun ' Ihou is used 
being preceded by any noun. Similarly, in !«i the 

ihal God is 

J. 1*3, 'by /* 

As Ihe tendency thus illustrated begins lo 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 ihis writer. 

The use of Ihe OT in the book may be noticed, finally. 
The repetition of certain formulas from Ihe historical 
books has already received tnention. Apart from 
these, Ihereare allusions in 2 s=-6o 10 Genesis, Numbers, 
Joshua, Samuel. Kings. Daniel ; in 14 n ihe words of 
Mic. 44 are repealed ; 4 14 contains a femiliar verse from 
Ibe Psalms, cp I Ch. 1034 41 Ezra3ii ; in7iTPs.T9i/ 
is formally cited. Other quotations or allusions are 
found in 2a6 49 30^ Tsj. 

Those who suppose that Ihe author of this history 
wrote in Ihe early decades of the last century B.C., find 
necessary to assume thai he made c( 

• siderable 

f the 

of wril 

n Ihei 

It is 
ion to suppose that on 

irralivE of Ihe first years 
rf,o, - 

basis of oral tradition and personal recollection, after 
such a lapse of time. Nor would Ihe hypothesis that 
the written sources used by Ihe 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 thai day could have t^mbined Ihem 
with such marvellous skill. Nor would any such pro- 
cess have jHoduced this book. If, however, as has been 
argued above, Ihe book was written soon after the middle 
of the second century, the necessity of postulating ex- 


fidence of any such s 
book itself, and the character and manner of the whole 
narrative, make il by Sar the most probable theory that 
what we have here is Ihe account of one who had wit- 
nessed [he whole Maccabxan struggle from its beginning, 
and had had exceptional opportunities of information. 

The only passages in i Mace in which there might 
appear 10 be reference 10 written sources known lo the 
author are Sii and 1634. In both cases Ihe writer is 
making use of Ihe familiar OT formula used in closing 
Ihe history of a king ; ■ The rest of his acts, and his 
nighty deeds, behold, they are written.' etc. The reason 

r his employing it in only these two places is obvious. 


mplimentis paid to ><las as 
finished {see above, i si Ac 

I The words ' God ' and ' Lord ' have frequently been inserted, 
however, both in many of Ihe GreeV tens and in the versions. 
Thu!. f^., in theEnglbh AV, Sji m8 I8ij6o4s5eio. 


which h«d only reeenlly btgui 
WDrdi he could ha vv employed ' 
ond^ That mcb a ' bink of t 
(beulv been wiiiten. is Ibeti 
only A ll, ihu he »u ODC ■ 

As fot the question whether we may not find in these 
words at least a bint as to one of the xourca at tbe 
command of the writer, namely, a chronicle of tbe reign 
of Simon (and possibly also of the rdgn of Jonathan), 

ing any such conclusion from the words of Ihu stock 
phrase, (a) There is not a grain of evidence, nor any 
great intrinsic probabiliiy, that the record of any of the 
Hasmonxan reigns was officially kepc' (3) There is 
tiothing whatever to indicate that the sources used by 
tbe writer for his account of the reign of Simon were in 
any way diflerent from the sources at his disposal for 
the history of Judas. It may be added, though the hd 
has little signilicance, that the only Jewish source for 
tbe history of these Hasmonasan rulers known t □ Josephus 
was our i Mace. Moreover, regarding the history of 
the period 175-161 B.C., there is do evidence that 
I Mace, and a Mace. (Jnson of Cyreoe) made lae of any 
common source, or that the lattei had any extensive 
documents at his disposal (se« MacCABKEs, SbCONC, 

|3, col. 3869/). 

In connection with this lack of evidence for tbe exist- 
ence of other important records of the Maccabsean 
period, it should be observed fiuiber, that i Mace. 
shows no sign of being a compilation ; it ii, on the 
contrary, remarkably homogeneous in all its parts. It 
would be difficult to imagine greater uniformity of style 
and method, from beginning 10 end, in a work of this 

As for the many official documents which ore embodied 
m the history, it is not likely that tbe author of i Maec. 
look them from a collection already made. It seems 
much more probable, from Itteir character, and the way 
in which they are used, that Ihey were partly collected 
by him, but chiefly composed or freely reproduced by 
him in accordance with his own taste aided by memory. 
On these doeumenls, see also § gf, 

By the earlier investigators of i Mace, the integrity 
of the book was generally unquestioned. In recetil 
■ IntH^ts ti™*Si however, the attempt has been 
'■ »™"»"»J- made by some schoUrs to show thai the 
history as we have it 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. 

{a) Some l^ve gone so for as to claim that the whole 
concluding portion, from near the beginning of the 
fourteenth chapter to the end of Ihe book, is a later 
addition by another hand. 

Deslinnn, Bii Qmlltn Jti Joufkia, iMi, pp. to jf; MJued 
thai the farm of i Mace known lo Josephus did not conlain 
diapi. H.ia. He alio advixaled lh» Iheory. formerly held by 
J. b. Michaelii, ihal Josephiu used a Hebrew i .'itacc. (the 
original fonn) ditferiiur m other important pariiculan from our 
Greek version </.c., pp. «i-So), 

As for tbe form of i Mace, which is reprodu«d in the 
AntiquitUt. il may be regarded as certain, in spite of the 
arguments of Desiinon and others, that il was identical 
with our I3reek version. 

See, for eumple, the Mighty evidence inddenlally noted in | 
II, below. The reason urged by Desiinon for legarding the last 


thai «ie d 

would have fouod Utile 

lhi« portion of the hiEIory, giving it hardly any : 
loufth these chapters contain abundant mareri 


I. allhough 

» See SchOrer, C/fS ^f. 

s The greater frequency of po 
of the book, noticed by We^icotl , 
the difleience in characler of the subjec 
(kc above, \ 6), and ouuiol be used at 

etical pouagea En the finl hi 
(SpilhT^S), is simply due 

(see SchOr. TLZ, lUi, 

has >>ie th 

In style and manner, as in contents, chaps. 14-lS are 
in perfect harmony with the rest of the book. I617. to 
lake a single instance, cannot foil to remind tbe r«uter 
of the author of the earlier chapters. See also what 
has been said above ({J 5, 8) regarding the close of tbe 

(^) The question of tbe doctuneni 14 17-47, the inscrip- 
tion in honour of Simon, is more diffit^lL The mantier 
in which itt representation of tbe course of events seems 
to run counter to that contained in the preceding and 
tbe following portions of the history has long attracted 
attention.* Il is urged that there is a serious contra- 
diction here in regard to the onler of events, Ihe chief 
point of difference being the accoiml of Simon's embassy 

occurred before the liroe when Demeiiius tecognised the 
aurboriiy of Simon, and to have beien one of the things that led 
him En take that «Epp. In the earlier pan of this kame chapter, 
the beginning of Demetrius' long captivity 

chap. It. the nlum of 

tnlbasBy ia siveu (11.74): ant 

m Ihe CO 

aiids, to have 

■. ts) woul 

Ihe begion ing of Ihe rtign of Aniiochus (V 1 1 . ) SidCIes. 
It is I7 no means certain, however, [hat the author 
of I Mace, should be cited as dating the events of lii'j 
earlier tlian those of vf. \tiff. %tff. Nor are we justified 
in any case in giving such waghl to a verse of tbe nature 
of H+j, belonging to a document whose chief aim was 
by no means lo record history exactly, but latber to 
glorify Simon in every possible way. The whole question 
of the dales 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 thai was put in the court of the temple, tfie 
difficulty might still be adjusted by supposing tbe author 
of I Mace. 10 have been mistaken in regard to the dale' 
in ]4i.* It is far more likely, however, thai what we 
have here (t. »7-49l is a free reproduction of the substance 
of the proclamalion. after tbe manner customary ttmn^h- 

g officia 


next section). The difficulty with the slaiemeni in H^j 
is thus most probably to be charged to the author's 
own inaccuracy, which is of a kind ttial is very easy of 
explanation, under Ihe circumstances. There is. there- 
fore, no sufficient reason for regarding 1435-49 as a 
later interpolation, ' Notice also Ihe fact thai this pass- 
age formed a part of Ihe Hebrew ■ Mace, ; see especially 
V. nf. (above, % 3}. 

(r) Thesectionl5i5-'4. which norrales the return of 
the above-mentioned embassy, and contains the letter 
sent by the Romans in the year tyq B.C. to Ptolemy 
Physkon and Simon, has also been suspected of being 
an interpolation (see Wellh., ibid. ; Willrich, /adta a. 
Gritclun. 69^). 

"^S«^h?'n^ t'orimmrc.™™,, aTfhr^dTf'S^^^ 
D«jii™. U ^ ; Wel)h. ,./. "'. «= /.. «■ i Willrich, /«& -. 

• See, r^., SchOrer, 1 131*; ET 1 ijtjf 

* Another allernalive would be id teuard v. 40 as the jnterpol- 

> The difficulties which tome have found In Ihe foim of Ihe 

reproduced. In v. 2B tbe original rea 
claini'(«e|3X Inr..4. the word 
and the result of scrtbal caieleuneu. 

I 10 the IT 

^e hereby pro- 



It 'a Ecncnny umntd ihil ihil illcgcd Roman 
idminl with ihU nvcdin ]{». Awt. jiiv. 6( (in the ILm 

cwiiu II.). the lewmblincs bcins too uriliinE to be u. 

S« Ihe very eilensive lilnxlure of ihc lubjecl, in SchQt 
1 loo/l, 370 / : ET J I, pp. ^iff.. vflf- It hu b«n nim 
byliommwnCDer StnM»b«cfilual«lji«phn. Am. «v.8;- 
.«m~-i, »(.87Sl pP- >B.-^t>ltuit ih. d«un«nl in Joj. lally 
beknigi, al ioiit in patt^ to the timt of Kyrtsnus UJ But 


I than L. Calpumiui Pi 

B hearing of the Ci 
jiliuchiu Sidltu. 

„ -.., — .. _..CH[^irwd lact that 'Numcniul, son of Axitiochui' 
Mnd tbe ' £aldvn khicld of a IhoutAFul pounds weight ' appear in 
both documenis. The Mnlanation o( thi> latter fact, howtvtt, il 
cciuinly thii : JoKphus. fat llie reaHnis i^ven alieady (above, «) 

Numeniiu and^M golden ihield, but look oixuion to itiitoducc 

neil opportunity. The two documenll veielhui f>ri|ii^1yquUe 
dutinct. The fact must alto be emphuiHd that the pauage 
l&i)-34 bean ^trilling evidctice of havins been written very Eioon 
after ibe lime when ihcKevenUDccumil. The ' roniul Luciui ' 
(Al^iA v>Jm) of c. 1 6 can be m> other (RiuchI, Rluh 

JTiumm, voL 28, iflji; Momnuen,/. '"'--- ' "' = - "^- 

»bowa.iRa™rcon<uiini3y. Tte 

muH in ncl have L>een 

of DemMiiui and the 

■gain il itrilttitg evidence inai we oave nere toe accouni oc ■ 

conlemporary (fo Grimm, Caww.); so alio i» the manner in 

vhidi thu nanative ia inserted in the midit of events of the 

Bloty of the mihiary operaiioni at Dot ii intemipieil. An 
katcrpolator could not pouihly have inlroditced ith*Te(u argued 
br Wellhauocn, Lc.V, on the contrary, the author of i Mace 
nuat have written from hii own recoUectioa <£ the acliul order 

The historical accuracy of the whole accouDt, a9 well 
U the fact that il formed a pirt of the original i Mocc , 
woulil therefore seem (o be beyond question. That wa 
have in this dotrumenl the actual words of a Roman 
edtct. however, may be strongly doubled. Tbe only 
conclusioD (hat ran certainly be drawn is that the 
Romans, under L_ C. Piso, accepted the present of 
the Jewish ambassadors, and returned an answer thai 
: least polite and was addresseil lo King 

(rf) Still other of Ihe incorporated documents have 
occasionally been suspected of being interpolations, the 
stispicion being probably due in all cases lo 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 caM of the document 10is-4S, f™ eiample, it hasjuslly 
been obteroed (Wellh. nf. cil. iiG, n. ; cp Willrich, }«} that 
il canrtot be regarded ai a genuine letter of Demetiitia. But 
we are certainly not therefore jutli lied in concluding that It was 
not put in ill prescnl place by the careful and conacientious 
author of T Mace. On the contrary, it wat probably conkpoHd 

of which it uadoubtedly givei a taJr idea, in tbe main. Whether 
any conuderable pottion of ilt contents may be regarded as 
reproducing acIUU utterances of the king, is quite autither 

The great importance of i Mace, as a source few the 
history of the Jews is now generally acknowledged.' 

»...._. 1 Besides beinE the only detailed accoi:nt 
"J™*™* which we have of Ihe events of the 
^^ 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 lo the Seleticid era (reckoned from the spring of 
31a B.C. ; see iichQrer, 1]3, ET I44), the accuracy of 
the dales given being in the main bt^trnd 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 lo the book as a 
whole. Both in the account which it gives of the 
general cmirse of events, and in its narmlive of details. 
il bears the unmistakable stamp of truth. In the pre- 
ceding paragraphs {^ 4. S- 8) we have maintained 
Ihe view that the author of i Mace, records in this 
1 See his cooduding words, igi ; and tbe comiBenls ui Will- 


!>rlter di 

lest™, especi 

p. KXU-/ 

:iaUy in the 

book events of his own lifelinve, which he had bad ex- 
ceptional opportunities of observing. There are, in fact, 
many indications of this apart from those already 
mentioned.' For example, the details given in 639/, 
733 etc., and especially in 819 (the 'long journey' of 
the ambassadors to Rome), 934 tj (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. Ihe 
details being frequently such as oite who had not 
witnessed the events, or who wrote a considerable lime 
after their occurrence, could have had no reason lor 
adding. It is jilain that the author was excellently well 
informed as to the progress of afbirs in general, the 
character and n 

i. place 

i4). = 

thai he shows himself a true historian both lo the choic« 
of his material and in the manner of using it. In the 
choice of material, especially, his pre-eminence appears. 
It cannot be said o! him Ihal he purposely distorts 
facts, or invents them. It is true that he was a warm 
adherent of the Hasmonnan house, and probably a 
persinal friend of its leaders, as well as a sincere 
patriot : but his hislory is not written in a partisan 
spirit." No one will blame him fr>r passing over in 
sil«ice the shameful conduct of the high priests Jason 
and Menelaus, or for making only brief mention of tbe 
defeats suffered by the Jews. To ttim such defeats into 
victories, as is done, for example, in a Mace. IS^-it (con- 
trasl 1 Mace. fliS^j), would nevo- have occurred lo him. 


nnot a 

occasionally be pronounced mislaken, or 
Especially when he has occasion to touch 
upon the geography or ]X}lilit:al conditions of foreign 

ignoiance which is all the mote noticeable because o 


if Palesi 

where displays. lOial his numerical estimates (size of 
armies, number of the slain, etc. ) are often exaggerated, 
is a. matter of course. Such statements woe generally 
the merest guesses, in Ihe early histories. Regarding 
tbe incorporated documents Ihe case is somewhat 
similar. They are not to be taken loo seriously. There 
was no thoughl of ' authenticity ' here, any more than 
in Ihe matter of recording the speeches made by 
Maiuihias 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 lo the task of the 
historian. Jn general it may he 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 verllilble 

On the whole, the book must be pronounced a work ct 
the highest value, comparing favourably, in point of 
trualworlhiness, with the best Greek and Roman 

i. Htbrtvi Uit <f \ Maic. — The original Hebrew tem 
of I Mace, seems to have disappeared at a very early 
tlate. There is no evidence of its use by any eaily 
writer, not even by Joscphus. Nor Is there any 
sure testimony to its existence afler the time when 
the Greek trnnskition was made (re- 
garding the equivocal words of Origen 
and Jerome, see above, g§ 1, 3). What 
is more important, there Is no euldence of correction from 
Ihe Hebrew, either in the Greek or in any other of the 
versions (all of whicli 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 Ihe Hebrew i Mace, can have been widely 

11. Taxt uid „ 

I See above, esp. H 4/. c 
1 See the excellent charact 
n Schlatter, >»« vhh A>n 



y Google 

circulated it anj' time ; there wa< 
tendency amODg Ihe PalesliniaD ] 
the collection <^ 'sacred wiitingi 
below, on later Hebrew writings.] 

il. Translalions ^ \ Mace, (a) Grcri. — Fonunately, 
the Greek translation is an excellent piece of work of its 
kind, Itaimslirstorallal giving a closely lileral 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 K, A, and V, conuin 

books of Maccabees. The MSS show no great variation 
among themselves ; in general, the tenl represented by K 
and V (which resemble one another closely) seems to 
be the oldest and best.' Many passages furnish 
evidence of the fact thai all our lexis and versions of 
the book come from a single Greek MS whose text had 


s certainly never any 

jews to include it in 

[See (uriher, iv. 



A):cp lyi. Slmilul) 

Slmiluly intta H-«7<iJ 


ujlly « 

with K 

There an 

of these 

It is especially to be noticed that 
cases Joiephas alio contains the corrupt reading. 

t^)Zd/i<i.~ThercarelwoUitin versions of I Mace.; 
the one represented by the Vulgate, and the other (ei- 
tending as far as the end of chap. 13) contained in a 
single MS [Saagcnmtntasis).^ 

The Vulgate version is in the main a faithful render- 
ing of the Greelt ; the Sangermancnsis version is the 
result of a recension designed to conform to the Greek 
closely as possible (cp the two Latin versions of 

3 Mac 

re likewise tv 


i-A. iv. («.! 


it:'iAtiKryifliaSjrriacri\itti; snd uHjthcr (mending u 

viiuui. byC>i>uii, 1876-188^. Trendelenburg (in Eichbam'i ffc- 
ptriBrium, I& 1 17B4] pp. »ff.) proved condiuivtly thai IhecDminon 

old. lu readings cnrrttpond in general with Itiote of codd. 
i9i fli 9}(K *n3 ^\ Eenerally rcco^ued u ^Lucian' MSS; 
and it must be renrded as fonning with these a icparaie recen- 
sion. See apecully G. Schmidt, Dii btid. tjrr. Udtrt. dV( 
»-ir™ MaccaiiltritKiiii in 2ArtV lJi-J7, i33-«a ('B^X 
Schmidt concludes (934 /) thu the veruon of iht cod. Ambr^. 

m Greek I 

u of the older Syriac according 

These are the only important versions of the book. 
According to Dillmann.* the Ethiopic version of i and 
a Mace (not yet published) was made from the Latin 
Vulgate in the siiieenih or the seventeenth century. 

iii. TraHslaiiom ^ a Mac(. — What is said of the 
Greek MSS and the versions of i Mace, applies in 
general 10 a Mace, also ; for the two arc usually found 
together, and the history of their transmission seems 
to have been nearly always the same. Cod. K, how- 
ever, contains i Mace. . but not a Mace 

iv. Later work] bated en Mace. — Mention may also 
be made here of certain later I'ersions of the Maccalwean 
history, for the most part based on the books of the 
Maccabees, but having little or no independent value. 

1. The Aramaic DjiTHK jiSjD. Mrgillatk Antieckui : 
or Ntflcrn -la nSm. Scroll of Uie Hasmoaaani. 

See opecially Guier. rti Scrvll cf Ike Hasmim^ane 
(TnnB. o<h Internat. Crnisr. of Orien.aTists, London, 2 i.^jO, 

< the 

I 10 Ihe 1 

> The Hebrew 

* rviaiii\Ki\eSa.\a.iai,BitlleriiiitiaertnuitLmliiuetieriitnet 

* The ieii'iifiiiennuimler,14M.ie94ii> Ihe common veiwon. 

* LiM VT A^acrjfil ^lHuifiicr, 1894, preface. 
> See alw ScbOier, Tiaj (ET, \ 1 .65?^ '^ 

ha-Midrask, 1 <iS;3), wtiere alio aiKJthci fbcm of Ihe Anmuc 

The book is a very brief Mitlrashic composition, not 
based directly on 1 Mace., nor (apparently) on any 

character that it was written long after the Maccabsean 

a. The Jewish history of 'Joseph ben Gorion' 
(Josippus). This work (of about the loth cent. ?) con- 
tains a history of Ihe Jews from Adam down to the time 
of the destruction of the Temple by Titus. 

iDir araiialU JmiffKi, - ■ - - 


a the ! 

a thai of the ' 

nen pamgnph), ai . . _ 

iir.aftv the addilioiK from the /»»:«( Ifurhad been made. 
The chief sources of the hook in its onaiiul form were 3 Mace 
■nd a secondary (Latin) recension of the Jnvuk War of 
Jotephus. The author, who seemi to have wrilHn in luly, 

mailer of his own. As history, (he book is absolulely WDclfaleM. 
See, further, Wellh., U. \ and Ilie liienuun in SchOrct,! iti/. 
(ETl.. P..65/). 

3. The so-called Arah'c Maccabtes, ta AraUc a Maa. , 
printed in ihe Paris Polyglot, vol. ii,, and in Ihe London 
Polyglot, vol. iv, , with a Latin translation made by 
Gabnel Sionita. This work, which very closely re- 
beginning with the story of Heliodorus (a Macc.3), and 
continuing down to the end of the Hasmonxan house, 
in the time of Herod. According to WcUhausen 
{op. cil.. 46/), this book, the Arabic Josippus. and 
the Hebrew Gorionides, are to be regarded as three 
separate recensions of the same work ; Ihe ' Arabic 

e Maccabees,' though of n 

truly a ' Book of II 
historical value. 

An English iranslacion of the worku 'jMacc.,'! wasgiTen 
by Gallon in his Fhf Btekt t/ Mfciahai, lin ; and a descrip 

the Aia^c lent, from which aL«ie the book is known 10 us. if 
bears the title 'sMacc' A note at the end of chathlO, mis- 
understDod by Sionita, who repeats his ipiatakc in the preface 
lo the b«dc. uys : -Tbiis tu the i Mace, of the Hebrews ' 
(which, in fact, docs end a( Ihal poini). After chap. IR, with 

W.»t Mlow JoMphus very closely. See ibe labie in Bissetl! 

Cyc/rfixJia. The book deserves inore aitenlion than ii hii 

lAmong these later works we m 

complete fragments of a Hebvtw 

try Chwolion, and more recently by Schi 


: the in- 

fragrnenii io question cover chaps. 1-4T 77.^79 3073 and A 1. 15. 
I 11) comes 10 the conclusion Ihai it is based -> - -- ■ 

Ism of the readings of 
( only secondary. Th* 

>. Crmmentaria.—J. D. Michaelii, l/ctcneli. Jer t Maee. 
mil AnJturkit., mf. Cnmm, Dot ertit SkA der Mace. 

{KioTgtfaata ixegttiukei HanJi. h dm 
13. UUnttOn. ^M^., 3le Lieferung), iSji ; Keil, Cem- 

mcHtar aierdlt [•'. <«idii.] Sgck. d. Mall*., 

School^X iSf7. 

(W^, ■Sai,lhe' 

(see below, col. 9 

AfBcr., (BSD, contains a tnuisUtion of 

Hum.! Zackler'i 'Die Apokrypben do AT' 
ume. with the addition of a piJrliiinof4Macc. 
». coi. 9SS6, I o). The comra. of Grimm, though 
LI of dale, is 1^ C^ the beat work of the kind that we 
tistell's work i> Uirgely a tranilalion oflhis. ~ 

1, A/vkr. H. Puudcfi, 

fatff. ; Ro 

1, Da, ■■■ • 
. . -e ; Set 

1 Makkab 

wild. Crak.n iv 


■ {ZKW, 1884. pp. es-io 

1 Gastcr tries 10 mske a veir eaHy date seem probable. 

3 This title, ' s Mace.,' is also borne by a SyriRC version 
losephus. BtU./Kd., vi., found in thscnrt ^n^wMoiof ifa< 
Peihilla (ed. Cetiani). See Schiirer, 1 75. 



boolitDrOT Innvdnnion which conuiii 

I»57, pp. Joo-ijo (i 
MaeDniti. ttrfii SchI 
(ET fi3-.3); Wei"-- - 


Cyri«.j3 (ET1» «) »J79-sa4 
I/GI*I jsS ^ ; Wiilricl, Jmln -. 

B^s; Bloch, hit QMitIi 

. M^kiaAA^^t^ck (BeHin. 1901). 

EniltOi tninslalloiu of 1-4 Mace, in Coilon, five Baati 
" ■' ' Afocry^ka, Crtik and 

aitd After. Scriitmm. 
'dttffUdnvtr^tnat, 1874, 
'3 Mocc-; AoaliD Reusa. La BibUt v^ vii.> 1879, aiuj 


1884; Ttyta\ndt,Dtap0en'tfe/veken- 
conuinji'iMocc.; walnRcuis. Zji ... 

Dasallt Trilamrnl, laX. viL, 1894. The best Gci 

k ihai itf Kauuscb in iit AfBC. n, Pttitdtfi 


hislory of 

The book known as ' a Maccabees ' ' is 
the HasmoiKEan uprising, diftering widely 
, c_,t_,*. '""h '" i" general character and in its 
^^ conlenls. The evenu with which it deals 

aicall included in a period ol tinrdly more than fifteen 
jears. from a lime shortly before the accession of 
Aniiochus Epiphones (175 B.C.) down to the year 161. 
Il is thus in the main parallel 10 1 Mace. 1-7. Prefixed 
to the history is an intensling supplement (li.2iS), 
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 Ihe main body of the 
book, and are pl-iinly not the work of its author, they 
will be discussed separately (§ 7). 

The contents of Ihe history proper, which begins at 
2 ig. are as follows :— 

\ preT^ice, uii»uncing ih« subject of his work, the 

-■---'- ■-- ----^^ hi, malenal, uhI the character 

run (319.11). Story of Helkajotui, 

_ _^h U obolned 

d aim of his own laboan 

K hisb-pricsthood changed hands. el'pcciaJly the m 
«on knd Jiienelam {chap. «> ' -^-^ - -'----i- -' 

of ibe inbaUiai 
Judas and hii t 

i,.(S^). Th.. 

Eleanr, and a!' ihe k>^ ynulhs with their noiher (chapa. S/). 
The icmainder of Ihe book(cbapi. SOS) is laken upwith rha 
b'MOTT of Ihe wan waged bjr Judas Maccabcui. The corre- 
■pmdences with iMacc (oftenofonly a very general character) 
are Ihe fbtlowing;— chap. 8=1 Mace 8i-4i7; B=t Macc.S 
i-n: 10i4=iMac<i4i6-u: IOi4-3>-iMace, t; 11- 1 Mace. 4 

at-u;* i3io-4;-iMacc^fii4.«i is^iMacc«iT-«3: Hy:- 

ihUccT. ThebeokchHeawiihthedeaihoribe haled Syrian 

leader, Nicuar, in Ihe taltk of Beth-honm, 161 b.c Epilogua 

of the author (li37-3»>- 

According lo the author's own slalement (2a3^), 

a Mace, is merely an epitome of a larger work, consist- 
a. SABnM. '"B of 'fi™ books,' composed by one 
a, aoBivH. j^^ij i^f C)Tcne. Beyond this statement 

nothing is known concerning this Jason 

His n 


o fqrtber evidence of the use of his history t^ other 
writers. The words of the epitomist plainly imply that 
his own labours consisted solely in abridging and 
popularising Ihe work of Jason, upon which he relied 
for all Ihe ^cls narrated. As the book ilself contains 
no evidence 10 Ihe contrary, it is only necessary to ask 
what woe Ihe sources used by the older writer in com* 
piling his history. 

It is evident, first, (hat 'Jason' was not acquainted 
with [ Mace,* This iaa appears both from the frequent 


181. I 7; 




id in the. book a c 
also faek>w, 1 6, first note. 

and very noticeable disagreement with thai book, la 
order of events, chronology, and statements of fact ; 
and also from Ihe absence of considerable interesting 
and imponani material contained in iMacc,, which 
could hardly have been thus omitled altogether in a 
work of this character, if it had been known 10 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 lo the two books 
where (he hypothesis of a single document underlying 
both accounts seems probable. Moreover, from the 
character of the narrative of a Mace. , most modem 
scholars have concluded that the sources at Jason's dis- 
posal were mainly oral.' The accoiml he gives is fre- 

often bearing Ihe marks that point to an eye-witness. 

vnled in a Hue as havini' occuned afler ihe'deaih arAnliocliui 
Epiphan^- -^■---■- .-.:.--.i— -...- ■- . .. 

.ilh'^ <l 

I Mac 


Iter expedition of Lyua& In 1*3 fi.c. — vii., the o 
^ligious freedom to the Jews. Thcsioryof ihisrtcc 



that 1 Macc. eiveg ihe Irue hisroiy ai>d cbrctnoloay of these 
opedilions ; Ihe way in which ihey are confui^ fn sMacc 
is (hen best eiplained by luppwing ihal Jason relied for hii 

having written records at bis disposaL 

There are many other indications pointing in the 
same direction. 

are lurraini out of then- proper place arid 
rnis regarding Ihe Syrian leader Timatheui. 
d : yel he appear! again repentedly in the 

m likely ihal Iht 



the character of the history of which 3 Macc. 
the abridgment can best be explained by supposing 

e Mac 


depend mainly on oral accounts ; that he did 
not receive his information directly from those who had 
themselves taken pan in these events, but only after it 
had passed through other hands ; and Ihal he was 
often unequal 10 Ihe task of criticising and arranging 
the material thus obtained. As for the 'lellers' tran- 
scribed in 919-37 1116-38, il is plain that Ihey were 
manufactured entire. 

The question to what extent the work before us is to 
be regarded as (hat of Ihe epitomist is one of consider- 
aUedifficulty. Il seems probable, on the whole, thai the 
method generally pursued by him in abridging the work 
of Jason was to omit lai^ portions entire, and to write 
out others wilh little or no alteration. (See especially 
Grimm, 16 f. ; Willrich, Judtn a. Griaien, 66. ) 

original wording, laiher than 


lo Ibc t 

le older 

.f the f 


what has just been said concerning the sources 
at Jason's disposal, and the way in which be used them, 

s. mMM i;'/^';,'" ■ """■ 

lo a decidedly unfavourable 
1 So Grimm, SchOier, ZOckler, Wil 



regard. In the large part that runs parallel to 
J Mace , comparison affords an excellent basis for 
judgment Hi to the relative value of the two accounts. 

Id the cases where they disagree in slaiements of fact, 
it ti generally beyond question that ttte rqiresenlatioa 
in a Mace, is incorrect. The order of events in 
a 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 conasient 
■ucount of I Mace to be in reality sadly confused. ' 
The careful chronology of the first book, moreover, 
has no pamllel in the second. Events are indeed 
occasionally dated according to the Seleucid era. and on 
the whole correctly ; but the distorted order of events 

leading (see Conims. on 11 33 and 11 1 4). so that many 
have been led to assume a peculiar way of reckoning 
the Seleucid era for the chronology of this book.' In 
13i (i Maca 610) the dale given is certainly incorrect. 

The contrast in selection and treatment of materia] 
caused by the diflerence of aim in the two books is also 
strongly marked. The mm o( the writer of i Mace, is 
limply that of a historian 1 the epitomist of Jason, on 
the other hand, had in view primarily the edifitation and 
entenainmenl of his rellow^counirymeo. So he himself 
informs us {2is-^'- cp 611^, etc.), and the fact ii 
abundantly illustrated in the book. It may be partly 
due to this parenetic aim of the epitomijt that certain 
incidents of minor importance receive so much space, 
and are so overdrawn ; the fact must be emphasised, 
however, that most of the e]taggeration of statement 
and description which is so prominent a feature of 
9 Mace, was probably due to the oMer work. It is 
plain that Jason was a iralous Jew, and thai his book 
wai intended chiefly for his Jewish brethren. It svould 
■eem that to him. as 10 the epilomisl, the probability of 
a story was a matter of little imporianc*. provided it 
were interesting and patriotic (see Willrich, 64 JT). 
Examples are plentiful. 

Thus, ilic long dHcription of the tonurs and death of the 

The iKounl of the dt^Tof Ihe palrin ^^- <M j"-1!i^is°in the 

t death, othn to become a Jew (f. 17). 
iiioni u lilt l«ii. Tbnl the 

UhMf. fl), -I 

■mplei, Mse eipeciilly Suio IVtiii lIsiKMt [S« ■]» 
OK1A5, |l7/:.<..»] , _ 

suiemrnti (already referred to in | a) leArdlng Lyuu nnd hu 
upediiioni ; the Riiileading accounts of ihecafnpufnt of Jodu 

the year T64 (chap. 10), alihouKh he U made to play an important 

Philip in >>9iiflulyconlradicled in ISa), itie nuuer ui quei- 
lion being one of connderable imponance, luch as only a his- 
torian udH was neither well.infDrmed nor careful could thus deal 
whh. In 11 11^ we have ■ (spurious) letler wriiitn by 
Anliocbus Eupalor, the incceMorof Epiphanes, jiving the officer 
Lysiasui^ruclionsconcemihff his firM campaign in ]udsa<cpalw 
ItJiiX We know from I Mace (* M J^iowevti. thai this 
lanM eipedilian of Ly>ia> was ended Ihe year before the death 
of Enphaius. In lOjil ii Haled thai the rededicaiion of the 

the conliary, fmni 1 Mace. 4 ca.ij (cp 1 ;^ that the length of the 
interval wMthre. yen (i6S-.6s B.C.). In 16 ji js it i» plainly 
assumed that the Acta was in Ilic possession of the Jews at the 
lime of Ihe death of Nicanor. In reality, it was occupied by 
the Syrians until the tinu of SinHn. 

The passage 13 'S'^i affords a striking example of perversion 
of the truth (or the sake of Elorifying the lews. The successive 
defeats eiperienced by Juilai and hi< allie* in 163, as a result 
of which they were reduced ta dire evlremiljcs (1 Alace 047-s^), 
appear in iMacc. as a succession of brilliant and decisive 

Still another feature of the book not calculated to increase 

I!ii9-t6. How far thii feature may^ due to the epitomist, 
rather than to Jason, is a legitimate queition. It teemi most 
probable, however, from what we know both of the taste and 
of the aim of Jason, and of Ihe method of the epitomist, that all 

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 (g 3) it is evident 
that be must have preserved sonte 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 olho' 
points its statements are confirmed by those of Josephus 



1 from 

. (Ra. 

many parts of the history c 
which we are atrrady well informed, a Mace adds 

reason to doubt. If used with great caution, it ihiu 
furnishes a welcome supplement to our oiher sources of 
information. There is hardly a chapter in the book 
that does not yield something that can be utilised. It 
is probable thai too much confidence has been placed 
in chaps. 8^ by commentators and historians. The 
temptation to this is very strong, inasmuch as our 
information regarding the period just preceding Ihe 
Maccabaean wars is almosl entirely Kmited to the 
statements of this book. There is really do ground 
whatever (apart from this very lack of the means of 
correcting the statements of the writer) for supposing 
that the book is more irustwonhy here than elsewhere' 
It is. on the contrary, only with the greatest leserve 
that this portion may be used at alL 

That our a Mace, was written in Greek is beyond 
question. The words of Jerome. ' The second book of 

t. UtOTUT ^ 

'en Unguis 

rally,' ■ 


to the contrary. It follows, in view of what has been 
said regardmg Ihe method of the epitomist (g a), 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 a 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 (219-31 1637-39) as to 
Ihe main body of the book. The vocabulary is exten- 
sive ; iwai Xryd/ura and words or phrases employed in 
an unusual way are frequently met with ; see Grimm, 
7, and Ihe list (compiled by Westcoil) in Rawlinson, 
540. The style is generally ensy and flowing, idio- 
matic, and well-balanced. fioth in the construction 
of periods and in the use of the favourite rhetorical 
devices of Ihe .Mexandrine writers, a considerable dcEiee 
of skill is shown. On the other hand, the most common 
faults of this school of writers, an overloaded and art!- 
licial style, and an ill-judged striving after rhetorical 
eflect , 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, thoi^h Sai superior to the former.' An un- 
pleasant peculiarity, which appears in all parts of the 
history, is Ihe use of abusive epithets or phrases when 
enemies of the Jews, or others of whom the writer dis- 
approves, are mentioned. Sec 831 15 3. As a narrator. 
It Is hardly permissible, however, to draw this conchiiioa 

wonit Tit - 

^n Ab-cli 

« (16) is 

. See Willrich, Bj^ 

,ts diejcnigen, die fur die sifter 

quouue . 

IS est, quod ex ipoa 



tbe wriler displays no remarkable pUs. He is fond of 
eiaggerating details, of painting scenes bI undue length 
(see. e.g., 3ij-3i), and of introducing Ills own reflections, 
not conienl with simple slatemenis of fact. The way 
ID which (he lortures of the manyn are depicled at 
length, in chaps. 0/ , is an especially unpleasant feature 
of the book to modem readers. TTiere is occasionally 
a lack of conneclion between the parts of the narrative, 
and an appearance of awkwardness of composition, due 
in part no doubi lo the omission of considerable portions 
of tbe original work. The arrangement of the material 
is purely chronological (the passage lOi-S seems, il is 
true, to have been inienlionally removed from its proper 
place : cp v. g/. ), and in our epitome, si least, there is no 
formal indication of successive divisions, except el IO9/' 

Tbe aim of (he book to edify and instruct the Greek- 
Speaking Jews—an aim which seems to have chaiaclerised 
. «.ii_i-_, Jason's work as well as this epitome— has 
^*S£^ r„i™i m».l.. .,™d, II ,). Tl; 
* ^r^_^ *nter wished to strengthen Ihe faith of 
■»* "^ his fellows ; lo glorify the Jevfs, as the 
chosen people under God's espedal proleclion, and tbe 
templeat Jerusalem, as the holiest of all places : toshow 
how unbilbfulness to Ihe national religion brought sure 
desirnction (413-17 1239-49), and how through Judas 
Maccabeeus, Ihe leader of (he faithful of (he people and 
the ins(rumen( of God's providence, (he delivetance of 
tbe nation was wrought. In all parts of Ihe book this 
didactic purpose appears prominently in one form or 
another. The altitude of Ihe writer is, in general, not 
thai of a historian, but rather (and professedly) (hat of 
a. religious teacher: see especially 3i^ i'S-'j G'7-» 
6n-i7 85/ 1243-H5 18?/. I6J-1D. The mos( interes(- 
ing feature of the religious teaching of Ihe book is its 
eipiession of faith ia (he resurrection of ihe dead (cp 
EscHATOLOGV, § 6g) ; see especially 12tj-4S, and cp 
79 II T4)S I44A. In no other of (he few passages in 
pie-Christian Jewish literature in which this belief 
appears is it so clearlj and emphatically expressed. 
Some have thought (o find in 3 Mace, a Pharisee party 
documen( (Bertboldt. £ini. 1S13, p. 1069; Geiger. 
l/niir.. a.g /:].* arguing especially from 146, 
where Judas is represented as Ihe leader of Ihe 
Assideans, but also from (he religions tone of (he book, 
and from (he ungende way in which (he priests are 
tiandled (con(ras( i Mace). Il is beyond question that 
all (he sympslhies of the writer, both in religious and 
in political matters, must have been wi(h the Pharisees ; 
but we are hardly justified in going beyond this general 
conclusion. There is no evidence of any polemic 
against the Saddueees (such as Bertholdt saw in 1243/.); 
and (he book, whatever else may be said of i(, is cer- 
(ainl)r not a party document. 

One chief aim of Ihe writer, beyond doubt, was to 
bring about a more perfect uni(y of (he Jews by 
strengthening, especially among (he Jews of Egyp(, Ihe 
feeling of nadoiial pride and of enthusiasm for the 
orthodox religion and worship ; in this way and in other 
ways be sought to keep tbem in close connection with 
their brethren of Palestine.' This purpose explains in 
the mos( satisfaHoiy way the prefixing of (he two teders 
to the book (see below, g 7). It also accounts for 
another exlernal peculiarity of a Mace. Many scholars 
since Ewald (C V/ 4&16, n. ) have remarked the promin- 
ence given in tlie plan of the book not only to (he feas( 
celebrating Ihe death of Nicanor. wi(h (he inslilulion of 
which Ihe whole history comes to an end, bul also to 
the feast of the rededicalion of the temple, the descrip- 

- , - -r.- .. '. !") """ 

be purely vbiinnr- 

* Cp alio Wellh., P>. ■>. SadJ., gi. 

I It may berwnaiktdthit there ii no concluiive evidence that 
Miiim w» ihiml by luDn. It it ptrbipiinod likely (hai in 
an tbe BHBireitatioiu of it vhich ire lo noticeable in i Mmcc. 
aba band of tin mkomist is to be recof^nised; and Ibatthtiis 

ortant comnbudon to (he bode 

tion of which closes tbe first half of Ihe book, Ihe 
passage lOi-Sapparendy being removed for this purposa 
from its proper place. The account of the inslilution 

point for Jason lo bring his book to a close al, in any case. 
This would have been just the kind of ending best suited 
to his general purpose; cptheendingof 3 Mace. (7ig/), 
afK3ther.andofJudith(Lal.Vulg.). The author's aim not 
being thai ofa historian, there vias no need for him to go 
on and narratetbedeath ofjudas ; his purposewas fully 
accomplished without (hat. The transposition of ]Oi-a. 
however, is probably lo be attributed to (heepiiomist, who 
saw how the plan of the book could thus be made sub- 
servient (0 his more definite aim, increased significanca 
being thereby given both to the Nicapor feast and to 
the feast of Ihe Dedication, I'hese were l/u two Mac- 
caiaan /easts, by Ihe observance of which the Jews of 
the Diaspora could share, as in no other outward way, 
in the national glory of thai siniggle.* Further evidence 
of (his same purpose may very likely be found in (he 
manner in which (he wri(er takes every opportunity (o 
magnify the temple at Jerusalem ; see. for example, 2 19 
3i9 5is 14i3 31 15 iB, also S>/. Git-» ISu IGsi. etc. 
Thus 10 dwell upon the indisputable fact (hat the (rue 
centre of Judaism was at Jerusalem, was (o emphasize 
the national unity, and Ihe ground of it. That the 
purpose of (he writer was (o impress upon the Egyptian 
Jews the duty of worshipping at Jerusalem, or lo dis- 
parage (he worship ax the temple of Leonlopolis (Raw- 
linson, 544 ; Willrich. 66), there seems (a be no 
sufficient reason to su[q>ose. 

There is good ground for believing that (he epi(omist 
lived and wrote in Alexandria. His maxery of (he best 

A AnlLhnr f^feek languageand style of the (ime, 8 

MidDftU. , 

; evidence he gives of i 


schools, would not. indeed, of themselves be sufficient lo 
establish the conclusion. Such training, more or less 
thorough, was 10 be bad in all parts of Ihe ' Hellen- 
istic* world. The presence of ihelellers addressed lo the 
Jews of Egypt at the beginning of this book, however, 
combined with the fact that all the earliest allusions to 
a Mace, (see g 8) come directly or indirectly from 
Alexandria, must be regarded as very strong evidence. 
' Regarding Ihe dale of the epitome, no very dcRnile 

male to argue from I637, ' the dty from Ihat time on- 
wards being in Ihehands of (he Hebrews.' Ihat the al}ridg- 
ment was completed before r33 (when Jerusalem was 
taken by Aniiochus SidBes) ; for these words are a mere 
flourish, designed lo give the book a proper close. Il 
is to be observed (hat in ISji there is a reference to the 
book of Esther, which was written probably not earlier 
than 130 B.C. (so Cornill, Kauttsch. Wellh. //CW, 
30a/). It follows Ihat even Ihe work of Jason (10 
which (his verse certainly belonged) musi have been 
written later Ihan this. This conclusion, i( may be 
added, is confirmed ' by tbe internal evidence of the 
book ; the author ap[>earing everywhere as one who 
was al some distance, both in place and time, from 
■he events he describes. On the olher hand, our 
3 Mace was known both 10 Phito and 10 the wriler 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see 3 B). though unknown 
lo Josephus. It seems therefore most probable, on 
Ihe whole, that the epitomisi put forth his work near 
the close of Ihe ' .... 

hieh SI 


iXeuTlhe }emt ofPales'^ utT^oseatv-zyft. The" 
iaing of this feuti howtver, wggonlya unek fealurt(fi 
very promiixnt one) of the writer't ^nerafplui, mnd it 
torted view of 1 Mace that pnHuuncei il * tia Chanul 
(Wiltricb, 67% 


y Google 


It is due to the fscl of Jason's distance from the scene 

aim, Ihat he shows so lillle interest in the family to 
which Judas belonged, and in its subsequent history. 
In ii}. 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 ihem.' Maltathias is nowliere mentioned. 
The fact Is, the fortunes of the Hasmonsan house were 
not in any way connected with the purpose of Jason's 
book, or with his own interests. The case of Ihe writer 
of I Mace. aBbrds a striking contrast in this respect, 
for he not only lived in Palestine, but also seems to 
have been B personal friend of the Hasmon^an leaders. 
It has already (g i) been noticed that there stands 
at (he beginning of the book of a Mace. (lt-2ie) what 
_, -tj,, __. purports to be the copy of certain official 
«™i ilL™ '«»'«" «"' "T *e J^s of Palestine to 
nxea lemn. ,jj^ ^^ ^^^ j^^ professed aim of 
these lelten. as appears from I91S 2i6(cp 108), is to 
stir up Ihe Egyptian Jews to observe (he feast of the 
Dedication. The character of the Greek in which the 
letters are written shows Ihat they cannot be attributed 
either (o Jason of Cyrene or to the epitomist : on the 
other hand, (hey are joined as closely as possible [0 the 
epi(oniis(*s prologue, 2 19 beginning with 'Now as con- 
cerning Judas.' etc. (liSiKaTiTir'IoOlav, it.T.X.}, and 
making mention imniediately of the ' purificaiion of the 
great temple, and the dedication of the aliar.' 

i TheJSnt Ittter, 1 1-9 (regarding the precise point 
at which it ends, see next par.), contains little more than 
the request (hat the feast be kep(.< It is plain Ihat the 
writer did nol have in mind the_^rif iaitilulinH of this 
feast in Egypt. On the contrary, as is evident from v. 
g, and from the ^t that not a word is said about the 
observance of the feast in Palestine, those (o whom the 
letter was addressed were supposed (o l)C already 
familiar with the ctislom. and 10 have themselves 
observed it ; the letter is merely a reminder. The real 
diflicultf is wilh the interpretation 0( v. }/., especially 
the words 'We have written (o you in the extremity, 
etc' (■yrypd^owr iiAb t¥ rj ffHif-a, «.r.\.). 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 Aniiochus Epipbanes ; and this 
probability is confirmed by v. 8, which evidently refers 
to the restoration of the worship of the temple In 
i6s B.C. 'In (he reign of Demetrius (11.), in (he 
(Seleucid) year 169' ( = 144-143 B.C.), these (imes were 
long past. Moreover, nothing is said about the contenis 
of (hat former letter (on the supposition that yeypi^iitr 
b to be translated by a past tense, as is generally done). 
The reader who supposes that he is hearing abont events 
of 143 B.C., suddoily finds himself back in the year 
165. without knowing where Ihe transition occurred. 

These difficulties have been vaslly increased by the 
custom now in vogue of joining the date at the end of 
V. 9 (otherwise the beginning of o. lojtolhis first letter (so 
Grimm; Fritische, .,4/0cr. Cr.,- Reuss, £)ai .,4 T,- English 
RV ; Swele, OT in Greek: and most recent comms. ). 
In this way the Seleucid year 188 ( = 114 B. c. ) is made the 
date of the letter 1 1-9 ; that is (o say, Ihe writer reminds 
his readers of a leKer sent to Ihem nineteen years before, 
without characterising it, or showing that it stood In any 
connection wilh Ihe present letter or with the insiitution 
of the Dedication feast ! The dale must, however, on 
the contrary, be joined to the second letter, as is done by 
the well-nigh universal tradition of [he early church, 
represented by the best Greek MSS, and the Syriac and 

1 The m 

ic uainsl Ihe Hu 


lion, ^ATWWll 

>ff. <iB9o), alleinpts to t 


Latin versions. (See further below, ) As for v. j. the 
obvious solution of all the difficulties mentioned is to 
put a peiiod after ' you ' \liiu»). The verb (-yeypd^- 
a-iur") is to be translated In the only natural way, as 
epistolary perfect,' and the whole verse as far as ' you ' 
(^iwiXtiiorrDi ■ . . u>iii>) is to be regarded as the date 
of the letter 1 1-9. With 'in the extremity' (it ri 
e\i^iij begins the real business of the letter ; the writer 
reminding his readers, in a fe«' well-chosen «tmls, of 
the circumstances under which this important feast was 
instituted. The whole document is (hus perfectly com- 
prehensible, and in everyway well suited to its purpose, 
ii. The second letter. lio-2.8, has generally seemed 
even more troublesome than the first. Acconling to the 
accepted view, it purports 10 have been sent to the Jews 
of Egypt by Judas Mnccabeeus and others in authority 
al Jerusalem, soon after the death of Aniiochus Epi- 
pbanes, its purpose being to announce the institution of 
ihe Dedication feast. It thus becomes necessary al once 
lo tirand it as a shameless forgery, because of ihe many 
things it contains which are incongruous with the 
supposidon of such an origin, and especially, because of 
the strange story of the death of Antiochus (lij-i6), 
which flatly contradicts all the other accounts of that 

Ii may be doubted, howe^'cr. whether the current 
view of this leiier 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 injlilutiim of the 
Hanukka in ^ypl. There is no account given of the 
purification of the temple and Ihe restoration of (he wor- 
ship by Judas ; (here is nothing to indicate Ihat a new 
feast is being instituted ; nothing definite is said about 
Ihe particular manner of observing It. On the contrary, 
it is taken for granted (just as in the former letter) that 
Ihe feast, and the mode of celebrating it. have long been 

Ihe fact that all mention of the celebration is confined 
to the two verses 1 18 2ii, both of which have plainly 
the air of dealing with matters of course. The im- 
pression naturally made by 2it, besides, is Ihat the war 
menlioned is a thing of the past ; Judas MaccatKeus Is 
thought of as one who has already passed off Ihe stage. 
As for the 'Antiochus' of I ij-i6, it is quite incredible 
that Epipbanes should have been intended by the writer 
It is nol likely that any story of Ihe Maccabiean struggle 
was more widely familiar than that of the manner of 
Epipbanes' death. It is a most significant fact, more- 
over, that shortly before the dale prefixed 10 this letter. 
IS4B.C., Antiochus VII. SidEIes. who had been a bitter 
enemy of Ihe Jews (see SchUrer, 1 mo-mi), had perished 
in an expedition against the Parthians.* Nor is this the 
only coincidence to be noted. At Ihe end ot the year 
135 B.C. (three years after Ihe death of Antiochus 
Sideles), the allies of Ptolemy Physkon triumphed at 
last in Palestine. Alexander Zablnas, who came to (he 
(brone at thai lime, had been introduced into the struggle 
by Ptolemy, and was himself an Egyptian. He at once 
mode friends wilh John Hyrcanus and (he Jews (Jos. 
Ant. liii. 9-}}. So the year 134 B.C. was a singularly 
appropriate one for the sending (or forging) of such a. 
leller as this from (he Jews of Palestine (o those of Egypt. 
It would seem lo be the reasonable hypothesis, therefore, 
that the writer (or forger) of this letter intended it as a 
reminder lo the Egyptian Jews of the same kind as the 
preceding one ; and Ihat he gave il the date (134 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 Iheir present order certainly re- 
garded Ihe second as belonging to a. later dale than the 
first. As for ihe names menlioned in 1 la. ' Arislobutus ' 
is probably the well-known Jewish sage, who flourished 

1 Thtr 



s ofttn been fd 

1 eipTCBcd. S«< 
K SchOter, 1 308, 




in ihesecoDd centtuy B.C.' We do not know, however, 
that be wu \a any sense Ihe 'preceptor' either or 
Ptolemy PhiLometor (181-146) or of Ptolemy Physkon 

(146-117}. The 'Judas' in this verse i£ probably due 
to Ibe blunder of a translator or scribe. What is re- 
quired at this point is 'the council of the Jews' (^ 
ftfovaia tUt 'louiufur). as the Syriac actually reads 
{probably a fortunate conjecture). If our Greek letter 

seems not unlikely (see next coL, begin. )i the mistake 
would be very easy. 

Thii second letter is, moreover, fmm beginning to 
end a documeol of very considerable interest. Its 
several parts.* which seem at hrst sight to have little to 
do with one another or with tbe avowed purpose of the 
whole, are all found on closer examination to be written 
with the aim of showing tbe true importance of the 
Maccabtean feast of the Dedicaiioo. The writer sets 
himself the task of demonstrating at length i/i hisloricat 
rating ai the same lime in other ways 
m Che Maccabcean period and the other 
Ffincipal epochs of the nation's life. In fact, the whole 
letter might well be entitled :— The Antecedents of tbe 
H^ukka 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 die Dedication {^oins'/i^) as a 
mlaraliOH of Ihc mcrtdArt to tbe altar and ibe temple.* 
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 feasL 
Apparently, also, the writer could take it for granted 
that his imdos were perfectly bmiliar with this fiaiture 
of tbe restoration of Ihe worship by Judas, as well as 
with the manner of observing the feast. In Ibe passage 
2S-I4 Ihe nature of the writer's argument can best be 
seen as be attempts to establish the series : Moses, 
Solomon. Nehemiah, Jutlas Maccabceos ; each of whom 
was connected with the miraculous appearance or re- 
□ewral of the sacred fire. See also 2 t, cp 1 T9 (Jeremiah, 
Nehemiah. Judas). Another point in which Judas is 
the legitimate successor of Jeremiah and Nehemiah, 
namely, the presfrving and handing down of Ihe sacred 
writings, is emphasised in 2i^ 13/. 

Tbe question of the authenticity of Ihe two letters Is 
not easily answered. It has been shown in g 70 thai 

Th. Tlwir '^ contents of each correspond pafedly 
urthMtUdtr. «;"''*»«*' respective dales (.43 B.C. for 
auiuaiiuuiijr. ^j^ ^^^_ ^^^ ^^ j^ ^j^^ Second), and 

with their avowed purpose. It can hardly be doubted, 
moreover, thai the motive which produced these 
writings was fell as strongly in Jerusalem as in 
Egypt. There is nothing improbable in the supposition 
that many such letters were actually sent. Regarding 
Ibe Gnt letter, it must be said thai ill very common- 
place character argues in its bvour. It can best be 
tmderstood on tbe supposition that it is in fact Just 
what it professes to be. Tbe second letter is for Ihe 
most part a collection of incredible stories ; and this 
bet makes it less likely that it was official in any true 
■ense. Sdll, it could hardly be claimed that all i^cial 
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 
sc^ioeit views of those whom be represented. Perhaps 
tbe most thai can be said of this letter is that it may 
well lie genuine, in spile Of the appearances against it ; 
and that it undoubtedly had been influential among 
tbe Jews of Egypt 
Scholar* have generally agreed thai the two letters 

t 5a GfrOnr, Fhih, «. diijidiici 

]a DtrmrmUicit 

T of what follows ; 

are of diverse authorship (see Grimm, 04 ; Koslerl, 
Th.T, 1B98, p. 76); regarding the language in which 
each was written, on the other hand, there has been 
great diRerence of opinion. See Grimm. 33/ ; Ewald, 
Oesch., 4 610. Whilst it has not been shown in the case 
of either letter that the character of the Greek necessi- 
tates the conclusion that il is a translation, yet in view 
of the large number of Semitic idioms, and the fre- 
quency of such obscure eipres.<iions 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 lext. In 1 69 xol tit was pronounced by Ewald 
[I.e.) ' absichtliche Nachbildung der hebraischen Farbe.' 
In 1 16 ' hewed in [neces ' (luCkt wtxiitarret] reminds us 
of the Aramaic phrase {ytra lapl in Dan. Us S19. The 
difficulties in 1 iS are probably to be solved by making 
tbe verse end with the word 'feasl of tabernacles' 
((TKi^ronry'at)' ^nd taking tbe remaining words (lal 
ToB rupit . . . fftvioi) as the supersiriplim of the 
long discussion which occupies the remainder of the 
letter (so the Syr., quite correctly).' This and Ihe 
following sentences have then a dislinclly Semitic sound. 
See also tbe (doubtful) evidence of such passages as 
I719.J 26 (connection of clauses) ij / Ewald {I.e.) 
regarded it as certain that the translator of the second 
letter was Ihe epitomist himself. For a fuller discussion 
of this whole question, see ZATW 20iyl>i^ 

There seems to be no good reason for doubting that 
it was the epiiomisi himself that prefixed these two 
letters to Ihe book. It is of course possible to suppose 
that it was a later editor who at the same lime inserted 
the conjunction («, EV 'now-) in Si* But the rest 
of V. 19 certainly belongs to If 
and ils fitness to establish a 
letters and the history is very evident When we take 
into account Ihe tastes of the epitomist. his definite 
aim in all this work (g 5), tbe date and address of these 
letters compared with the probabledate and place of com- 
position of his book, and the fact that all copies and re- 
censions of Ihe work contain the tellers in this position 
and order, it must be pronounced extremely probable 
that the epitomist himself prefixed them to a Mace. 

The earliest attestation of a Maec, is in Philo's work 
enlitled Qued omnis frotas libtr. in which undoubted 
8. AttMUtbUL <i'f«"'^"«« on il may be recognised, 

tSr„T^ as has been fully demonstrated by 

^2^ Lucius (£r««^«*„ 37 J^). Evidence 
.«>«nu>. ^ ^^ mfluence next appears in the 
EfBStle 10 the Hebrews, 11 35/^ where the writer has 
in mind, beyond question, the narrative of a Mace. 6 iS- 
7*1. The word 'tortured' (irufiirarfoflijira.), v. jj. is 
derived from a Macc.6i9»a ; ' obtain a better resurrec- 
tion ' (fro tpelrTorot innrriatut nJ^BWif) strongly re- 
minds us of 3 Maee.Ts; and Ibe word 'mockings' 
(iiaruyitiir), v. 36, was very likely su^esled by a Mace. 
7710. where il stands in close proximity 10 the phrase 
just referred to. (See Bleek, Si. 11. Ar., 1S53, p. 339.) 
Again, the author of 3 Maec. shows himself acquainted 
with Ihe book (see col. aBSi. g 6)^ whilst 4 Mace. 
is wholly based upon it (see coL aSBa. § a). Il is 
cited further by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, v. Hgj). 
Hippolytus {De Chrislo tl Anlichriilo. chap. 49), 
Origen (see reff. in SchUrer. 741/ ), and very frequently 
by later writers. The stories of the martyrs, especially, 
exercised an important influence among both J^ws and 
Christians. For references 10 Jewish literature seeZuni, 
GolliiditHitlicke Vorirdgc. 133; and for the later Chris- 
tian lilerature see Grimm, Comm. 133 /, and the refer-' 
ences in SchUrer, 74a (ETii.S.i,/). J osephus appears 
to have been unacquainted wiih ihe book. 

For tbe Greek MSS containing a Mace., and for 

tbe Syriac translation, see above, col. aSfiy, § 11, iii. 

' The Greek Kit of this verse in FiiUKbe b 


y Google 


fragiifala, S(ullg:art, 1S14, pp. 7I' 
n closer examiiunion 10 be merely 

rendering 1 

■f the standard Greek t( 

■ ■*''.<?; 

e Biblioteta Ambrosiana 
ediied by A. Peyron 
fn TuUiD. . . . 
•13%). Il appears 
a painfully Uieral 

», III. TherDllow 

>. UtMatura. w.H.1c« 

boek der MakkabeSn- (/-*./■ II «I-JS8 
(iSiBD; SchlKltt,/«K» nm Crw"'. 1891 (w TiZ, 1&3. p. 
in) ; and on Ihc i«Kr> ; CtSii, ' Ou SendKhrribcn An F^lii- 
tilKlucr an die EgyfUiidi -judSischcn Uemcinden' (MGiVJ, 
'»77. PP- ■■■6. 49*1): Btuilon, 'Tctrii lEtlm da iuifs de 
Vii\aiaat'<,ZATH^\Dtioff. (1890D: Kmers, 'SlrFkElng dcr 
l™veninaM»kk.-(r*.7-,I.n. .898, pp. W-jft); C C Torrty, 
''aOiijy lioml: B. NiEH, 
Kriiikdtrb4l<Un AfaJitaMitiatitr, 1900. In K>u., £h /tA>*r. 
- - - -- . ' - ^,i_K.mph.iB™. 

•It Ttiiadm u. dit 

_ VwM«p-., 18 

Oa Iba hluorica] conlenu cp A 
Oidadt» im II. MaUaUirliuii 





The title ' 3 Maccabees ' is unronunate, for the book 

professes to record events which occurred during Ihe 

ign of Ptolemy (IV.) Philopator (933-904 

a y That il ^uld have been classed 

is due to its being a narrative of per- 

seculion of Ihe Jews by a foreign king. ' 

The book is a religious novel having for iu subject 
the triumph of the Jews over their enemies through 
fl />._•„!. divine intervention. Their persecutor is 
i OmtMlte. ,(^ Eg^p,i„ king, ™, „( ^^ hand, 

they are delivered by a series of marvellous occurrences. 
The narrative runs as follows : — 

Alt<r hii victory ova- Antiochu) Iht GrsI lU Raphia (917 
B.C.), Pinleinv vIiiB Jeroulem, and tna u enicr Ihe leniple, in 
iptte of the fnolic oppotition of priotii and people- Just ai 
bg b 00 ihg point of eiecuiing bit purpme, he ii uriditn from 
tieaven^ uid falls 10 tiK ffround (I t-ft 94). RetDmlng 10 Alex- 
andria, bent on rev«n|c» ne u»inblei all the feivi of Egypt 

be butchered loflelher. It is necesury, however, fiisl to writ* 
down their namee. Tbii piovei ui endlts tuk because of 

wiitiiu Diuerials in Egi-pt 

tie let \t 

^'■^f'f* ">■ 


Jews hi* 

and ausinv ttie ckphaus to turn upon the 1 

■nd irumpfi them to d^ (S >■« >.>.'^The «,,. „ no. ^«D- 

plelelir turned in favoui of the Jews. They are >el free ul once; 

' 1 so^mn proclamuion in their favour is leni out. wZb 

the royal perm 

ion. they kill 

ry of iheii de 
ai effected to 

settinff apart the days o 

It is plam from this synopsis that the book contains 
little more than a collection of the most incredible 
fables. Moreovea-, the details of the narratire are for 
the most part so absurd and so self-contradictory as to 
be merely grotesque. The story is not told with Ihe 
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 banning is missing. This appears not only from 
. —. the operir^ words ■ Now when Philo- 

WliXlOrt. P='"' '*" *^"<'™/')^t also from 
"'»""^' iw»». disiinct aJlusions to a preceding portion 
of narrative which the book no Umger contains. The 
most slrikinj{ examples are It, ' from those who re- 
turned ' ; 1 3, 'the [above menlioi«d] plot " ; 2aj, ■ the 
1 Some have thought to find another title in the problematic 
nnAifute^ which appein in axinection with Hun^iA 
MUa in the ' Synopsu of Athanaiius.' See below, | ;. 

boon companions already mentioned.' The character 
and extent of the missing portioD can be inferred with 
probability from the indicatiotis afforded by the book 
in its present form. The story is concerned mainly 
with the triumph of Ihe Jews over their persecutors. 
This part of the narrative seems to be complete ; there 
is nothing to indicate that any other tale of persecution 
bad preceded, whilst the contrary impression is plainly 
given by IB ^ 2is .^. etc. The missing portion was 
probably of the same general character as li-7 — i.e., 
it formed with it the introduction to the story of Ihe 

following items: — fi) Character of Ptolemy and his 
companions, (i) Coiidition of the Jews in Egypt (prob- 
•Ifly)- (3) Antecedents of Ihe war with Antiochus. 
(4) The plot against Ptolemy's life. All this mighl 
have been contained in a single short chapter ; and il 
is probable that this much, and no TBon. has been 
accidentally lost. On this supposition, the book, with 
elaborate hblorical introt" 

! been a 

TOimded composition, complete 
mem of a larger work.' 

The original language of 3 Mocc. was Greek, beyond 
question. Its author had at bis command an unusually 
4. Lumua '"^* vocabulary (see the introduclion in 
Jzy Zji Grimm) and considerable resources of 
""^ '*y>* rhetori^ 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 
eiaggeraled. The impression made by the literary 
form of the book is thus similar to that gained from its 
contents ; il is an in5i[Hd and wearisome production, 
with hardly any redeeming features. 

The question whether Ihe narrative of 3 Mace, is to 
any considerable extent to be taken seriously can hardly 
■ nirf«d~.i ""S*- Ths beginning of the book sounds 

^^!^ '""^ *^'""^ • ^"^ '^' Ptoviding of some 
necessary feature of the construction of any historical 
romance. It is quite anotho' 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 Ihe story 
of the Jews' deliverance from the intoxicated elephants 
and the account given by Josephus (t. Af.2i). 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 Alei- 
andria. and exposed them to be trampled upon by his 
elephants, which be had made drunk. The elephants. 

them. Moreover, the king saw a 'fearful apparition' 
which caused him to cesise from his purpose. Il 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 diHerent king, Il must 
be remarked, also, that the fabulous character of Ihe 
story is not done away with even in the form given by 
Josephus ;* 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- 



fiction of the o 
There is thus 
book regarding 

That the author of 3 Mace, was an Alexandrine Jew 
is made exceedingly piobable both by ihe contents 
, »_.i„i_ ""d I*)' 'Ix evidence of language and style, 
ind^! The knowledge of I^plian affairs displayed 

' is also worthy of not 
in JQS. Oct. 1896. 3<»#) Re 
composition, no very defini 
To look for a ■ historical occasion ' f< 
edifying story such as this is quite 
at all necessary to suppose that the J 
in any especial need of comfort or en 
lime when 3 Mace, was composed. The author gives 
evidence of acquaintance with a Meicc (see the proof in 
Grimm, 914. S3o), and once (66) cites the Book of 
Daniel in its later form, with the apocryphal additions. 
It is therefore quite unlikely that Ihe book was written 
earlier than Ihe last century B.C. ; on the other hand, 
i can hardly have been written later than the first 
cemury A. □. 

The book ' 3 Mace.' is found in most MSS of the 
LXX, including the two uncials A and V. It was also 
_ .„ _i i, _ included in Ihe Syriac translation of 
7. AttMUOon. ,. «^nM„« nn th- nlh-r hnnd. it 

{See Abraha 
ng the dale 01 
is possible. 

;less.* It is not 
;s of Egypt were 


n for a long ti 

1 of 

Lny I 

le made (or the Complutenslan 
Polyglot (.SI7)- 

No early Jewish writer shows any sigrt of acquaintance 
wilh 3 Mace. The earliest witness to it in Christian 
literature is the catalogue of biblical books in the Codex 
Claromonlanus (probably third cent.).' 

Id the liHnh century 3 Mace ii sltcucd (hen also indlreclty) 
by Cod. K. which contains ■ . Mace' and ■ , Mace.,' but niithn 
of tlu- IWD intcnncdiali boxtii. ll is n»I menlionid ■hy Fhilo- 
b' E[^iDme,l i)and Thcodorcl tOwxi. M Dti. 

bocAa (but never in any list o 
Thus it appean in canon Ss 

the lialy cuunlcal bo<^^ a 


n Easier 

. The «btr 

le OT 

d Synoprii 

The Greek text of 3 Mace has been printed re- 
in Hdi'oki and Pi»ons. VT Cntaim, vol. s: Banter's 

FriUKbe. /.TftT ■*«,. r?; S-eieii LXX, vol. 3 (text of A, 
cotlatcdwilbV): and in most of the other ediliomof LXX or 

The Syriac iransLttion. which is quite free, seems to 
have been the only old version of the book made from 
Ihe Greek. Printed in the London Polyglot, vol. 4, 
and in Lagarde*s Afacr, Syriace. 

by Bissell, iSBo, ai^ZOckler, 1S91 ; irans- 
a. Iitanitlll«. lalioM in Collon, BicMer, Ckunon, Dyic 

rinck, Reiiss. and Kauttscn (see above, col. 
itM, I lA S™ alto Eivald, Cf'/W4*.i*y; ScKorer.C/f 
3743^ (ETii., 3ii6^.): Abiahoms. 'The 'Hiinl Bookofihc 
lia-xabKa;jQR, Oct. iB9ii,pp. 39-5". "S^J. PP- iiS • Wllrich, 

»Bok,AlirahaiininllM/p;?, Oct. iSoS.pp. jsjf: Qi alao Ueiis- 
Bunn, BibtUlnJim, 1S9;, pp. ajS^ 

™h''a^^S«;,''«'GZ'm *"6#*"^h 

» Tbrough some acddent' the "liher v 
brTorelhe^liberquanai'l but il i< none I 
Zkhn. CtKh. dtt NT Kamna, t i^ff- 

* Zahn. cf. cil.. 195 i Funk, AfstUl. . 

hu"lal'len out 
aiiesied. See 

_ . .CKIof thLslast pBsaage is trouoletoi 
!!«r CitcM. da Kanani (1E17). p. 141, and Zahn. s*. cil.. 11;. 
The reading is MaiuffitH ^e«fs t' llTMitfcuii. Cmlnei 

uy, wouldretain the J* and rod 

/•idn, M. Griiilm 
&r Apocrypha, 

141^. ; Deism 
:t^b5oks of Int 

nn, BHiltftKUeH, jim 


The so-called Four 
position of homiletical character, receiving its title from 
1 Tltla 'he faci that the principal part of its material 
is based on the story of the ' Maccabcean ' 
martyrs told in a Macc6ie-74a. By many early 
Christian writers (see g 4) the work was attributed to 
the Jewish historian Flavins 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." Finally, 
as it partakes of Ihe nature of a treatise, and has a 
definitely stated subject (an unusual circumstance), it 
appears at an early date with the appropriate super- 
scription lepi afTMjjdropot Xoyio^e,' ' On the Supreme 
Power of Reason ' (see % a). The oldest form of 
the title, however, seems to have been simply Maciia- 
;Saf»r 3' i the form found in the oldest MSS of I.XX 
(including the three imcials which contain the book), 
and attested by Ihe list of Ihe Cod. ClaromoDt., 
Eusebius (indirectly),' and Philostorgius. 

The author states his subject, or ' thesis,' plainly at 
Ihe start. He wishes to show that ' Ihe pious reason is 
of the passions' (1 1, cp 



Tn a brief introductory pa.uan, he indicates the scope of the 
quslion, and the nature of the chief illuiiralion which be 
intends 10 use for his argument (I i-ii). He further siues. in a 

philHophLCa] d""' 

HI alToTded by the history tif the m 

terms are deDiied, and one after another Ihe passions 
are considered, with the attempt lo show that all are 
under Ihe control of Ihe reason, (iL) The story of Ihe 

martyrs, with the lessons 10 belearnred from it (8 19-end). 

.:i,X. the 


:ourje on the sufferings and triumph of the 
Jewish manyrs. constituting three-fourths of the whole 
book, to which the preceding is merely inttoduclory, 
begins with chap, 5. Its frame-work is an expanded 
version of 9 Mace. B iB-7 41. 
The follomng divisions are more or less distinctly marked :— 
r. Narrative of ttic trial and Itiniire tif the aged priest Eleuai 

a. Leuonsflrawnby Iheauihorfrom this najTalivefAii-TaO. 
3. Description of the lonun of the seven youth. (8 t.12 »>. 

5. ReHeciioni on 1h< guSerings and constancy of the mother 

6. Conclusion (II r-18a4). 

The integrity of the last chapter has generally been 
called in question by scholars of the present century, 

9. fatwritr. 1" "^""^ ■"■^J? ^PP^ '' "^'l' ^8''' "* 

a"«^"V' be strong. The mothers ejihortation, 
I86-III. seems to be a disconnected piece, joined ndther 
to Ihe preceding nor to what follows. It is, moreover, 
in some respects a repetition of Ihe similar exhotlalion 
contained in le.fraj. Accordingly, W. Lowth (see 
Hudson's Mtphusn. 14 ,1 [1730]] and mhne (see 
" ' ;luded that the book originally ended 

with las (6a]. Other 

and c 

s belwf 


The . 

on. It was argued that the latter passage, 
' as il is parallel in contents with the former, is 
Huoits, whilst Ihe stalemeni regarding Antiochtis 
.5 is not in keeping with that found in 17jj/. 
s further obsen-ed ihat in MSS and editions of 
see GHmm, Csmm. tg,/. ; Fteu- 




e story of Heliodorus, the e 


Jawpbus the last chapter begins with I83. and that in 
fad with ISi a stopping-place seems to be reached. 
Accordingly, Hudson (/ok^hi ii. 14 n). Gfrorcr {see 
below, g g), and Grimm,' followed in recent times by 
most of those who have discussed 4 Maec," regarded 
18> as Ibe original close of the book, and all that 
follows as a later addition. 

The evidence is far from conclusive. ISi would 
make a weak and unsatisractory ending for such a 
homily as this : on the other hand, the passage ISia-14, 
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.' The 
incongruity between 17x1-14 and 18]-5>^ 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 ISj sounds 
atirupt : but it must be borne in mind that the writer 
was addressing those who were perfectly familiar with 
the story of Aniiochus's death in Persia ; tlie barest 
allusion to it would be sufficient As for the mother's 
exhortation, 18«-iq, 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 
I616-1].* 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 
IHirpose. Having finished his argument, the author 
wished lo construct a peroration that should be as 
impressive as possible. This he accomplished with 
skill, by causing to pass before the mind of his heaiera, 
in Ibe passage IS6-19, 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. 

Thai the author of 4 Mace, was a Jew. who is here 

addressing his countrymen, is everywhere manifest {see, 

4.AnUiar '/'- =P 1" ^'^M- ";>■ '^•= 

and d>ta. "1""'°" °'. "'^7 "^Ir "'■'*" """* *■' 


n Flavii 



of any resent t>lance to 
the fact that 3 Mace., 
used, was plainly unknown 10 Josephus. The reason 
why the ascription was made can only be conjectured." 
From the character of the language of 4 Mace, (see g 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 {]• i 
cp S6-tr, etc.), and the training which he evidently 
presupposes in his hearers, it is possible lo draw at 
least the conclusion, that it was written in some city 
where the Jews were for the most pan completely 
Hellenised. It is most natural to think of Alexandria, 
especially in view of the importance given in the book 
to a Mace., nearly or quite all of the earliest references 
10 which come, directly or indirectly, from that city 
(Philo, 3 Mace. Hebrews. Clem. Alex., Origen : see 
> See hii aieumenu in the excursus at the uid of hit Comin., 

polationi, and that in Ihoe placn considerable puuga of Iht 
Oriainal have been loit- 

l^So alio Frtudenthal. 

* It cKPriot bv said, however, thai the one pauage makes 

as pwible. It Khouid also be cbierved (wh 
iked>tbatfvfr4«r is properly ihefullilnKnl o 

Id the fact that (be u 

iL 3874. % 6). There is nothing in the book, 
ever, that could be called specifically Alexandrine, 
it is quite possible that its author lived and wrote 

IS for If 


a conclusiot 

If.v.}. It was probably written fflther shortly before, 

or shortly after, Ihe beginning of the Christian era. 

tn form, as in contents. 4 Mace, is a sermon, or 
homily. The attitude of its author is everywhere that 

, , ,, of one who is delivering a formal address 

^i"™^ to an audience. In the opening words. 
O"*"^*"- he speaks of himself in the first person 
and of his hearers in Ihe second person, and continues 
to do this in Ihe sequel. In ISi 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— ir.^. , 819 76f: 15m'J 
17e^. etc. Moreover, it is plain from the words of 
111, 'I will now speak . . . as I havt bern taont la do.' 
that the author at least wishes to represent himself as 
before those whom he is accuslomed to address in this 
same formal way. It is quite evident from the manner 
and tone of Ihe 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 Ihe discourse of a Jewish preacher, who was a 
man of culture, and (apparently) one accuslomed to 
speak with authority. It Is not, however, a 'homily* 
of Ihe 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 Ibe manner in which it 
combines Greek and Jewish literary forms.' It is indeed 
based on Scripture (a Mace, was certainly regarded by 
Ihe author as belonging 10 ihenalional sacred literature), 
as its true foundation ; but at the same lime, 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 Ibe 
Jewish and the Greek elements appear at their best, 
and are handled in a masterly nvinner, we may regard 
the book as a characterisdc product of Hellenistic 
culture of the best type. Whether it may be taken 
as a specimen of sermons adually delivered in Ihe 
synagogue is a question Ihat cannot be answered with 
certainty, bucause of our very meagre knowledge of 
Greek-Jewish custonis in this regard. We know of 
nothing to forbid Ihe supposition, howei-er ; and Ihe 
writing before us must be regarded as furnishing very 
strong evidence for the affirmative. 

The plan of Ihe discourse is carefully thought out, 
and follows in general the rules of the Greek rhetori- 
cians.* The liiemry 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 b very considerable. 
The one great blemish in the book, from Ihe modem 
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 tasle 
of that day (cp especially the abundant examples of the 
kind in Ihe early Christian literature), they are quite 
intolerable now ; and as a considerable part of the 
book is thus occupied, the defect is fat.1l. 

In literary style and use of language, the writer of 

'JJbEIu" ^'I* Ihrsi^mens'THeheni^irGreefc 

ua osjiB. iijjj, ^^^^ j^^ preserved, this stands 

among the very foremost in point of excellence. The 

1 Tl.» 

The nearcK parallel- 


f h. AfKr. K. I'midif. S i 

I'l HoKd-tiiiKiitmtMrtl, 6_f:\ 



ponions. and rhetorical wbere this quality is in place. 
It is smooth, flowing, and vigorous, always highly 
Bfiished. and rarely overloaded. Well consttucled 
periods abound. In the use of classical constructions 
{t.g.. the optative mood).' the writer stands almost 
•koie among Jewish Greek authors. His style and 
diction do not seem to hare been inlluenced bj the LXX. 
though he occasionally quotes from it (2; '9 17 19): 
Hebraisms ore almost totally wanting; ds-af \iy6titra, 
arc unnsuallj abundant (see the list in Grinun, 387 ; 
supi^emented by Fmideiiihal, a8, n.). 

It has already been observed that 4 Mace, partakes 
of the nature of a philosophical treatise. It has for its 

T. Phflft- ^"i"g:I»i"t » f"-™' "«*^. *"»'"> ="'" 


'•'^«*^ d^e whote 

~——'~- geneml plan and in its phraseology it 
shows plainly the influence of ibe Creek schools. 
Moreover, its author consciously assumes the altitude 
of a cbam|Hon of the study of ' philosophy' {li), and 
il is plain that be wishes 10 make prominent the philo- 
so(4iical side of his discourse, though aiming primarily 
at giving religious instruction. See, for example. T i 
5«-ii 7'». etc. The decidedly Stoic colouring of hia 
philosophy is worthy of notice, moreover. Seeespecialty 
the ' four cardinal virtues' {^pdrtimi, Ju:aio(n)r>i. irSptta, 
rtt^poadry. liB; cpl3-6 2i3 6aa/ 167), and for 

37^ On Ibe other hand, il is plain thai 4 Mace Is 
br from representing any particular school ; nor does 
its author appear as the advocate of any 'system' 
TTiade 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 Done the less loyal. His chief aim in this discourse 
is 10 inspire his hearers by the example of the constancy 
and devotion of the Maccabtean manyrs. In drawing 
•be lesson he displays the most ardent patrtoiism. and 
a ical for the ceremonial law worthy of any Pharisee. 
The motive that actuated Ibese heroes was not so much 
the hope of gaining eternal life as the purpose to 
perform thwr duly (12ii ; cp 6ifi^ 814^ 7? fljj 
]3i6). They died in behalf of a cause, in support of 
Ihe law. in obedience to God ; by Iheit death, more- 
over, Ihey wrought deliverance for their nation (In 
17I9-J3 I84). In Ihis connection the writer gives 
expression to a doctrine which is one of the most 
inleresling features in the book on the side of its 
theol<^y ; namely the belirf that the death of a martyr 
is in some way on expiatory offering for bis people 
(8«,17«; cp jMacc. Tjj/). 

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 Ihe writer, however, is not Ihe 
belief in the resurrection from the dead, as in a Mace, 
but rather the doctrine that all souls, whether righteous 
or wicked, exist for ever alter death. The good shall 
be in eternal happiness together (17 iS). with the fathers 
of Israel (Sjj). and with God (98 17.8). The wicked 
shall be in eternal torment (99 lOn 12 13 ISis), burning 
in eternal lire ({I9 ISii). Cp Eschatology. % 77. 

The posonal earnestness and enthusiasm of the 
writer are manifest al every poinL He is a true 
preacher. Dot a mere rhetorician, and Ihe present dis- 
course is something very different from a formal 
exercise. He shows himself thoroughly acquainted 
wilh the Hebrew scriptures, and assumes that his 
bearers are. The reference in 18S lo the serpent, the 
ml spirif (cp Wisd. 2Mt of Gen. 8, is worthy of notice ; 
so also is tbe expression ' the rib that was built up ' 
> S« Grimn, i"^/. 

(referring lo the slory of Eve), in IS7. The whole 
passage 186^ gives us very interesting glimpses of 
Je«lsh family life of the writer's own day. 

The verdict of Freudenlhal. who Ihoughl 10 find in 
4 Mace, a good many 'Christian interpolations.' ha* 
created a somewhat erroneous impression of it in this 
respect. As a mailer of lad, the only apparent 
instances of Ihe kind worthy of notice are 7 19 ISi; (cp> 
however, I63) and ISi; (three words). These seem to 
be mere eipanslons of the text by Christian scribes, 
without importance of their own and adding nothii^ 

%. Aii»uu«i.' 7S?hr,Si^S-i;,f;i™S2; 

Text and AAynrfUV. i nm UuH^iu'chr Mtfljiar 
UflVflD^ouoic utTfyp^^anx uWf> *^ fit V^ 

06> J.r. 

, (MM- 

ip. TaQtBtphui) 

nr valde denns fiabel 
rhe bvak- GitKOjy Nai, 

ir lir Urr-a^r fnAixroi^Tii.'^ In Photiui' Epitome of 
Mk ippors u ' 4 Mucc,' hut % 1) in Ihe liM of the Cod. 

Por infomuiion rciarding ihc MSS 

MSS both of iht LXX uia of JoM(^i 
iM#, and especially KieudenihaJ. ijo-i 
rix Ant pnnled Kit of the book, thai 

Bibles of lb< NiKenih 

of Ifac Sltuburg LXX 
1 MS (FreudemluJ, 

cctiluiies, ind in numy cdiliont of Joiephiis; i^., thai of 
Bisel. 1U4; IhoM of Uoyd (Luidui), Oi&Td, tt^; Hud»n, 
%-im: afiTihe luer edidou bued Ml Ihe Hud»n leil (Uin- 
' lly Beklter |i8s5>sCl, improYed il tflo- 
inerinc fTom ihi% bued on Ihe Alex- 
DKd by lh< LXX editions of Gist^ 

A .8j. (. decided bnpro«me„. u, 
4 Mace) : and in Swele'i LXX (Cod. 
V). The t«.t of the hook ii ^iHl in 

1731 \ and by Apcl, 

)k hit been printed 


oil precedio 

n Baguet'i 
LOri after. 
editioDI of 







Latin version of 4 Mace, or 

widely'fr'oni'ourGreet ie!ft. St« 
Ij ; Churlon, 564. The old Syiiae 

... ihe IVihilla, tW. Ambrttmiia 

(published by Ceriani, 1876-83), and hai recently been edited 
Kam nine MSS in Benily'i Tki Faurllt Bunk a/Maceaiai amJ 
Kimfrrd UxHmturi in Sjriac, ig^j. Iliitinuislaiion, which is 
generally fiiihrul and well eieculed, is Ken to agree with ■ 
nihet thnn »hh A (Btn<ly. 14); <>»■ >ts >non cava nlaiion 

9. UUntnn. 

'hole book is that of Grirnm, 
, ZOcklei'i Afckryflltn. 396- 

' ' " e book, 1 .-s'n 


in Cotlon, Bagiler, wid Chun 

duciion. Enaliih Iianslai 

(see above, col. iSftS. | n, _ _ _. . 

Iktk dtr frirc»iK»eM n. rSmiickin Sckri/lilltltr tlbtrjtiden- 
ItrKt K. /kJih, vol. ii. (1867). and (by Dnramann, with auaij 
useful notes) in Kauioch's A*Kr. ■. Piaddifir. A uery 
Ihorough monoEcaph by Freudenlhal, Dil Ft. feitflms tti- 
glhgU Slkrifl i/^^itHtrrjck^/l dtr Vmtitifl^ (1869). 


itcht Tktotupkir, 

li£iM-pkUsu»kit. »19 
Crair, MGWJ (18,7), I 
Cr,'„^™Cl.ila(.aBi, p 


Dit iaditik-altxao, . 

9, (1834); Ewald, (7r/«, 4(] 

■ - " ; Zeller, iliV Philosefk! 


: anSiKlext-booin'of IniroducLion. 

See I Maccabees, g 11. 



]CA0EI>0inA(M&KE^ONi&. Actsl6io»«lc Com- 
Uosd wilhmcDlian or Achii[>— AailR^i Raiii.l»aiiiCor.0i 
lTbeii.17 )^ The ethnic 19 MuriBI— AcU I69 IBsg 27 3 
iCo[.»t iMaccli 61 aMacc.S»: ipplicd lo Hudu ui 

Tbe Macedonians were of Greek stock, as Iheir 
tradilioDS and remains of Iheir language prove. In its 
1 v.d<_ original sense. Macedonia was simply Ihe 
\,™™ plains of the lovrer Haliacmon {/fara-Su) 
'™**^- and Anius ( rardar). on the N. and NW. 
of the Thermaic Gulf (Gulf of Salmica). The old 
capital was Edessa. or JEgx, on a terrace above the river 
Lydias, overlooking the sea. Gradually Ibe Macedonians 
extended their power westward and northward oi'er the 
hill'lribes of lllyrian race, Ihe Oresiians. Lyneestians, 
etc The key lo early Macedonian history lies in this 
absence of community ot tradition and race between the 
highlanders and tbe lowlanders {see brilliant sketch by 
Hogarth, Pliilip and Alexander. 8/.}. Not until the 
accession of Philip II. (359 B.C.) was the unilicalion of 
Macedonia effected ; the conquest of Ihe Greek cities of 
Ihe Chalcidic peninsula opened Ihe door of the .£gean 
and made her a laclor in Greek politics. The supremacy 
of Macedonia over Greece was realised during Philip's 
lifelime; whilst that of his son saw the Macedonian 
kingdom convened into a world-wide empire (cp Ihe 
sketch of tbe achievements of Alexander Ihe Great with 
which the history of the years 175-135 opens, i Mace, 
li). Macedonia came al last into conflict with Rome. 
The battle of Cynoscephalie (197 B.C.) broke Ihe power 
of Philip v., and Ihat of Pydna (16B B.C.), in which his 
son P«seus was defeased, brought the Macedonian 
kingdom 10 an'end (ref. in i Mace. 8j), 

The ■Micedoniaiu' dfiMwx.SioBre probably Ihe Mace- 
doninns tn tb< Krvke of the Scleucid kinn. PethsH the word 

l^e ' Macedonia' of Ihe NT is the Roman province 
of that name. This was not consliluted immediately 
after Ihe victory al Pydna ; the country 
' was for a time allowed to retain a certain 
degree of independence. It was broken up into four 
divisions: (i) Xtaadmia Prima: between the Nestus 
and the Strymon — capilal.Amphipolis. (j) M. Stcunda; 
belween the Strymon and the Axius— capital, Thessa- 
lonica. (3) M. Terlia : between Ihe Axius and Ihe 
Peneius in Thessaly— capital. Pelta, (4) M- Quaria : 
the mountain lands on the W.^-capital, Pelagonia (cp 
Livy. iiigf. ; for details, see Mommsen. Hilt. Ham. 
ET2im/ ; silver and bronze coins MAKEAOSllN 
nPOTHS, etc., Head. Hut. Num. 308/.). In 146 B.C. 
Macedonia received a provincial ot^anisalion. It is not 
clear that the fourfold division was entirely abolished : * 
bul the country was henceforth under the control of a 
residenl official, whose bcadquariers were in Thessa- 
lonica. The province included Thessaly. and in Ihe 
other direction extended lo Thrace and the river Nestus. 
East and west it ran from sea to sea, for that pari of 
Illyria which lay between the Driki (Driit) and the Aous 
fell 10 it. so that Ihe ports of Dyrrhachium and Apollonia 
were Macedonian. The province also contained the 

— the fVa Egnatia, which connected those ports with 
Thessalonica atid Amphipdis, 

In the WTtilkm of tbe provinces (37 lc) Ma-xdonia fell 10 Ibe 
Kiule (Sir. 840, UioCau-Mii); but in is a. d. it was handed 

lored it to Ihe ^nue (Suei. C/aud. ij. Dio 

^ ^nmlorul province it wu aovenked by fl pro. 

of pnelDriin rank. £uch wu Macedonia when Paul 

eniercd it (in jo a.p-T; cp CHROHotncv. | ;i). 

The entr.ince into Macedonia and the visit to Rome 
are Ihe two most important stages in Paul's missionary 
_ 0. 1 career ; hence, looking back in Ihe ' afternoon ' 
8. raw. ^ j|,j ,|f.^_ ijj ^^ ^p^j^ ^f ijj^ ^^^.^ .^ y^j^. 

donia as ilie • buginning of the Rospel ' (PhiL 4 is). The 


Senate (Sir. 840, Dio Cau. S3 
over » Ihe emperar (Tac. A, 

&u.6i>14>, Asas 

e, IfoHluTn Grn 

9 4??./ uid cp tbe c 


jaurney is given in great dciail in Acts ]6g/. A new 
meaning is given lo Ihe phrase 'a man of Macedonia' 
(lirJip Moxciib') which had sounded like a kneU \a Ihe 
ears of the greatest Greek orator (cp Demostb. Pkil. 
I43). If we accept Ramsay's conjecture that Luke 
himself was the man seen in his vision by Paul [St. Paul 
Ihe Traveller, aoa/). this explains also the 'emphasis 
laid on the passage lo Macedonia.' for which Ramsay 
thinks ' it is not easy to account on strictly historical 
grounds' [pp. cil. 198 /). Il is hardly true 10 assert 
thai ' a broad distinction between the Iwo opposite sides 
of Lbe Hellespont as belonging 10 two different continents 
bad no exislence in the thought of those who lived in 
the .^ean lands. ' In the second place, il was the after 
events that unfolded the importance of the step now 
taken ; and Uc writes with Ihese results in bis mind. 
Lastly, if Luke himself was the instrument used lo direct 
Paul upon his new path, we can see how even al the 
moment the incident al Troaa might seem Ihe climai: of 
Ihe whole journey and Ihe entry into Macedonia bulk 
largely in the w-riler's mind. 

Paul visited Macedonia many times. Five or six yean 
after the foundation of the churches he revisits them 


ir (Acts 19a. 

r. Ifls 


id yet again, 

Si Sat). Perhaps he saw Ihem immediately after t 
■ iprisonment (cp Phiiem. aa Phil. 2j4). 

before he came to Nicopolis (1 Tim. 1 i\. 

ided by representatives sent by the three 
Macedonian churches — Arisiarchus and Secundus from 
Thessalonica. Gains (.\cls I9ig 2O4 27>), Sopaler from 
Berosa (Acts 304). Epaphroditus from Philippi ( Phil. 2as). 
The distinguishing mark of the Macedonians is thdr 
loyally to Paul's teaching, and Iheir intense affectiiHi 
for himself (iThess.l}S 36 4^ iThess. I3 3 Cor. II9 
PhiLii is/)- a characteristic of Macedonia, as (rf 
Asia Minor, is Ihe prominence of women (cp the story 
of Lydia, ActslSij/. at Philippi; also at Beroea and 
Thessalonica women arc specially mentioned among the 
converls. Acisl74n Phil.4a/. 'those women which 
labotu-ed with me in the gospel,'} W. J. W. 

KACHjEBVS (m&xaiPOYC- in Talm. "WSO. 
or. according to Ihe 'Aruck. -Qpo ; but Jasirow \Dict. 

<f Targ. etc. 781] disputes the itienlificalion).' the most 
southern point of Ihe dominions of Aniipas the Tetrarch, 
on the E. of the Dead Sea; according lo Pliny 
{'ji). Ihe strongest Jewish castle next lo Jeru- 
salem. It had been fortified by Alexander JannJeus 
(to6-79 B.C.), and afterwards by Herod Ihe Great, who 
there buill a city. There Ihe suspicious Aniipas con- 
fined John the Baptist [?.f.], and ihere the great 
prophet was executed. 

irrespective of tbe Jewish garrison, a populalion of at least 

cp ii. lBs''IiKtiiH»> t4 nk-ffioty It is the modem Mkaui ijlni 
ft. above the level of the Dead Sea, and 1381 0. above thai 

SeeZBimTH-SHAHAR,'andcpKeim,y«>M«' A'b«™,S33S^; 
^cUat. Uisl.i.i-vtiff. -.G/A HG^fi^.;»iao<Jui.iJa,Aiilimrdi 

MACEBANAI, RV Hachbannmi (>}3??), one of 
David's wniriors; i Ch. 12i3+ (MeAj&BiNNftI [B], 

-NNeA= [N], M41(4BiNai [A], -NEI [L]. Pesb. fCJldS 

'Shcjihitiah'), See David, § 11, n. c. 

HACm ('39 ; AMkKtxll [B'^AL], M4KOCI tB^l 

< We, GGA. iStq. no. B. p. 606/., nggeut the ideniilicalian 
of the name with Ihe Mosbiie mno (Ml, I. ti). 

» «»K may derive from lire, and .Tja (cp Benatah [1I.THX or 
could be eully confused in Ihe old^r scriprd.' A° Cook). 



MM€lp IF])' f"*!'"' of Genel r Nu.l8ist> B«uJprob- 
ably Machir— !.<., Jerahmed (Che.). 

B (T3D ; MftxW'P [BADFL]). i. Son of 
son of Josepb (Gen. SO33. E). The name. 
bowever, la properl? elbnographic. Either the gens 
which bore this name was the most important ol the 
piUa of Manasseh — this is expressed by representing 
Machir as Manasseh's firslbora (Josh. 17 > 1 Ch. 7 ".) '. 
at else (be whole of Manasseh sras one great gns nf 
Machir — this is symbolised by the statement that .Machir 
iras the only son of Manasseh (Nu.2eJ9/^ ; ^p Gen. 
BOaj). Thelatler view is extremely plausible. In Gen. 
50a} E tells us that 'Joseph sa* Ephraim's children of 
the third generation ' the children also of Machir, the 
son of Manasseh. were bom upon Joseph's knees.'' 
Clearlf Ephmim and Machir are put upon the same 
footing. Similarly in the Song of Deborah (Judg. G14) 
we find Epbraim and Machir mentioned instrad of 
Ephraim and Manasseh. The tradition is that Machir 
(i.e. the gens of Machir) went from the W. lo the E. 
side of Jordan and conquered Gilead (Nu. SSjg JE) ; 
this is even placed in the lime of Moses (cp Nu. SSfo 
IX 3 IS. late passages). Other writers add Bashan 
(Josb. ISji. P : 17i^. K ; a gloss in the former passage 
carefully says, 'half Gilead'). It is also stated that 
Gilead was the son of Machir (Nu.27i, P; i Ch.23i; 
cp Josh. \ltb, R, where Machir is y^y\ '3{i, ' father of 
Ihi Gikad.' i.e.. the land of Gilead).' This of course 
simply means that Gilead was occupied by Machirite 
(Manassile) clans. Cp Kuencn. T"*, rii(i877) pp. 
4»}^, and notes in Oxf. Hex. voL ii. 

Was the conquest of Gilead reetly so ancient as to 
be loosely referred to the time of Moses? Judg. Sit is 
opposed 10 this ; ' Machir ' is there equivalent to 
(weston) Manasseh. It is possible that we may assign 
the conquest of N. Gilead to the dan of Abieier, whose 
representative in l^end is Gideon \_q.v.\ 

This hero it n?pr«ented In u the amqueTor of 
SoccDth 1 BOH Succuh ii explained cliewhere (SuccnTH) u a 
comipliiin of S^ecih oc ^lljad, UiE fronliEi-cilv of Buh*n 
lowxnli the E. Silccah ■' 

(luf in lOLTtt 'Machicihei: 

been the »» of ManaHeh by 

(RV), 'Gileui' ifaould here, u in kxik olhcr paiuEu. be 

'§«lb»<l'.(=SllleaJli: the refHrnce 10 Ihe concubiiM i> u »ym- 

mihc|iapu1uianarNE.GIItadlot)Klimcliliih. In NilMi^ 
(P) we read of the family of the HMbMM (n'» 1 i«X«f»)' 
Sec (nnhcr Gilead, Manasseh. 

As 10 the name Machir. Has it some conrtecljon. as 
has been suggested {EPHRAiu. g i), with the story of 
Joseph? Rather it is one of the many corruptions and 
abbreviations of ' Jerabmeel ' : the Machirites may have 
been partly of Jeiahmeelite origin. Now perhaps we 

(Jodg. 8) is called not only Gideon, but also Jerubbaal ; 
iat Jeruhbaal loo is very possibly an ancient oorruption 
of Jerahmed. ' Manasseh ' may pwhapa be a title of 
the god once worshipped in the Machirite lerrilory W. 
<A Jordan. Cp Gad. and see Manasseh, g 4. 

a. Son of Ammiel, residing at Lo-debar. commonly 
snpposed 10 be a place on the E. of the Jordan (see 
Lo-DEBAR). 9 S.94/ Ylvi. It has been inferred 
from these two passages that Machir was a wealthy 
landowner, who remained faithful lo the house of Saul, 
and gave a refuge to Meribbaal or Mephiboshetb, chough 
■I a later lime be was oslenlaliously loyal to David, 
whose army he supplied with ample supplies at Maha- 
naim, during the rrtiellion of Absalom. There is 
1 On lb< idiom, w S»dc, ZA TWf, (law) ttfi/. 


reason, however, 10 suspecl that the text of both 
passages has been so seriously corrupted that no reliance 
can be placed on these inferences. See Sauu § 6. and 
cp Mahanaim, Memiibosheth. t. k. c 

(i Mace. 9j3), RV MtCHUASH, q.V. 
MACHITASEBAI ('3*1339? a corruption either of 
m: 'J?lp (Che. ) or of lirOD. ■ possession of Nebo ' 
[Ass. namkur= ' possession '] ; see G. B. Gray, Exp. T, 
Feb. 1899, p, 331/ ; but cp Nebo|, one of the b'ne 
BaNI in list of those with foreign wives (see EiRA i.. 
g S end). Eira IO40+. MT is practically supported by 
Haxr^^'aP"" ' [B], ax- [K], fiaxvoitan. [A] ; but a read- 
ing 'Nadab' (^-u) is suggested by fti- (ku raiafiou 
[Lag,], cp r. nU^ov [19], .. «eo(3ou [93. ioB]).« 
II I Esd.934 reads rol tx lur </lwt liapa. (OZORA. KV 
EiokA)ffto-«i t. T. \. [BAJ'wilb which cp the Com- 
plul. in Eira I.e. nil iiaxyaSa nil frapoin Ksl ttaei 
whence it appears to be not improbable [hat 0" read 
■wr le (for -a-nac) 'jao; stc Sharai. ['Barnabas' 
may idtimalely come from Bar-nodabu (Che.).] 

KAOHPELiH (n^B30n, ■ the Machpelah '), a piece 
of land (mi?) and a cave near Heln-oD (Gen. 239 "7 '9 
2B9«3o60.3. flllP). 

« (rb Lir/BCf). Vg. Wt,fhi\ Tg. Onk., and pt.Jon. derive 
from ^a Moubic,' the Aiiggniion being thai this, like other 
!pulchial cavemi, had two chamben. This it pliuuble : but 

^ ... .,.. fEphronb'inMKhpelah.' 'MBch- 

ifeired to, and P's date ii lale. Slilt, 

n >8.7.(cp 

sloolde. ... ._ .. ._ 

doubt thdl the nune ' ifu Machpelah ' (putting aside (he ques. 
lion u Eo the r^uHnj;) bek>nged properly to the whole district in 

Few points of t^blical geography are more inleresUng 
and more difficult than thai connected with Machpelah. 
The statements in Genesis— i.e., those of P — can only 

and E respecting the death and biuial of the three 

I. We have first 10 assume ihe general correctness of 
the geography of Ihe lives of the patriarchs as given in 
the traditional text. According lo P (Gen. 23 19 25g 
50 13) Abraham, Sarah, and Jacobwere buried ' in the cave 
of Ihe Reld of Machpelah,' and il is implied in Sfiif 
that Isaac also was buried Ihere. Turning lo JE, we 
notice thai Ihe account of Ihe death and burial of 
Abraham and Isaac has been lost. But we may asstime 
that J placed Abraham's tomb at Hebron, where he 
considered Ihe patriarch to have resided ; Isaac's grave, 
however, may possibly have been put knher south, 
viz., at BeeR'Lahai-roi [q.v.'\ On Ibe death of 
Jacob J appears at first sight 10 be inconsistent. In 
4730 Jacob directs Joseph lo biuy bim where his fathers 
were buried, but GOs (J) points to a tomb specially his 
own, for Jacob says that he bad digged, or less prob- 
ably bought,* one for himself in Canaan. It must be 
admitted, however,' that 47 30 ij) has been manipulated 
by R lo make it accord with P (see We, CHda; 
Oif. Hex.27^). In Gen.eOn J places the burial of 
Jacob at Abel-Miiraim or rather Abel-minim, a place in 
Ihe far SW. of Canaan (see Abel-MURAIm). Whether 
E's account agreed with thai of J must be left unccr- 
lain. This narrator (tinless. indeed, we suppose the 
original document lo have had a S. Paleslinian geo- 
graphical selling) must be held lo have placed Rachels 
death and burial ne-ir Becroth (35i6i9? ciil. emend.; 
see Rachel), and Dinah's death and burial near Bethel, 

1 Cp Mach>anai, or Nebo in n. 13. 

> TO. 93. and ToS in Holmes >nd Pusou exhibit Luciin ; cp 
Ceriani. Las., and >ee FieM, Hix. HT. 
■ S>- retains »'• Hiit»n u in Eon. 

ch>H,' is rare, and if Jacob had referred to the ireaiiljr of hil 
acquisition of ■ tomb, he would have nid from whom he had 
puichiuediUcpMTsPJ. Seer».22ii. 

s Driver's analysis of Gen. 47 77-31 does not lecoKnise this. 
Constquenlly he can repruent Gfn. 47 39.31 a* puallel in JE 10 



He also menlions(83i9/) Jacob's purchase of a piece 
of ground from Ihe Shechemites. All ihis seems adverse 
lo (he choice of such a remote spot for Jacob's burial as 
Abel-miErim. On the other hand, (he burial of Rachel 
had ptobably the same location in J as in E. fel J places 
the funeml of Jacob in tha( very remote spot Possibl)' 
more than one place boasted of being the guardian of 
the tomb of Jacob,' and from the tide of the altar (or 
rather massfiba) at Shechem in Gen. 33io (see El,. 
ELOHE-israel) we may perhaps assume that the lomb 
at Shechem (which must surely have eiisied, perhaps 
near (he sacred tree, (3eii.354 Josh.21»S. both E) was 
known originally as ' Israel's grave.' and (hat at Abel- 
minim as 'Jacob's grave.' A confusion of luimes 
would, of course, arise very early. ' Jacob's well ' (near 
Shechem) is no dotibt la(e in its attestation ; but the 
name in the Kamalt list of Thotmes III., usually ioier- 
preted ' Jacob-el,' may conceivably ((hoi^h no( at all 
probably) be explained ' Jacob-befir' — i.e. • Jacob'Well ? ' 
(so apparently C. Niebuhr). Wc have now done our best 
lo make the traditional geography intelligible, but must 
confess that all is not as satisfactory as we could wish. 

(«xi. It it mSmiintd elstwhm (hc RKHoBorH, and cp Cril. 
gii.) thml ' Hebron- and ' Xiijatli-uba ' in pobablv in umc 
posHgei coriupliwis of ' Rchoboth ' and ' Kirjaih.'irbiiu ' (city 

to umc pan of the fkme approprialvd tiy Hr' 
ISAju;) Ibal Bwr-bhai-roi a » mminiinn nf 
«nd(Ke Shechem) that 'Hunoi, 

. Thetn 

Dinah '4 buna] -place loo 
Ethel,"' dine ID I^dn^ih 
n> of lh« lepullure of Ihe 

lulKuiahed fn 

) both lived and died. 

o the name ' hjun-machpeliih ' (nSosO'^ 

Ihii »ine Cuihan- 
iejahmeeKKTO'^Mn* If we uk. ihiiviewinconnectior 
with other lunUar recUHcaliont of ancient but not pninitive 
it will readily be seen how plausible, nay, how vitis. 

of Rehoboth and Halusih are Ihe gai 


Exodus win quickly adapt IhemAelves Id Ihe inier iheory. 
3. The tnditiDnal ' Machpelah ' hai a claim to be consldi 

'The cave of Machpelah in concealed, bei'ond all reason 
doubt, by Ihe mosque al Hebron,' are the woidl of [ 
Stanley. The same opinion has b«n often expreued, am 
deference (o ihe antiquiiy of Ihe tradition, we are bound to 
mounts of early pilgrims, beginning' 
Viv.»),IS3")t>ia' the monunwnl 

Abnm and bi« som 

id their ' 



the fbnn of a chu 

The most ciicumsianTial account of the cave, t 
of Rid)bi Benjamin of Tudela<ii«] a.D.). He 
(ee a Jewish viHlor a allowed by th> Genliles to 
*Hedescmdiintoafint cave which ia empty, til 

in Ihe same stale, and at last reaches a thud wfa 

Kpolchrcj— those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of 

If Leah, one opposite the other. All these sepulchr 
leoi inscriptions.' Ii improbable enough Ihal R. Benjnr'- ' 



g about the caves except 

nd U^'erTu'lhiHilies! the 
ins, and P-lttHni HmJer 
'saclicle, •Hachpelah.'in 

Hastinp'Z .. _ _, 

Cp W, Slaeik, Staditn mur RtligUni. va^ SftmkeiMch, da 
AT\bt.2y, C. Bruston, 'La oiort el la sepulture de Jacob,' 

1 CpC. Niebuhr, And. tisi. 

« For I'yif'itejh nnnp ibe original document iiswl b; 

vn had nSslni- 

lUDU Cip). the third son of Japhelh (Gen.lOi. 
MAiAl [ADL], maAai [E], M&iMM [B}. 

MiiAltAL]). SeeGEOGKAPHV, §19; Elam; Persia- 
The same Hebrew word is rendered by EV (o) 'Medes' 
<Mit«)in a K.lTelSii Is. 19 17 Jet. tSij (nvn»|BIIAQl, 
Mit3.r|(}>C.UEira«i and eltewhen, (*)' the Mede ' (na.n) !■ 
Dan.lli. and (c) 'Media' in Is.31t (« n'sm) Dan.tia 
(Mi(»)ICsth.l3lO»|Mi»o.>. Inls.3l3and '-"'-- '- — 

dilTeran. In the case of Jei. if, ihb is virtus , ___ 

Shesh*cm, cm. Bii. 

and EliaduN (RV IliAduH ; [c]l\l«iAoYN [BA], eK. 
[L]), two names of Leviies, i Esd, 65B (II EiraSs)- 

Prohably 'Jesus' On the same verse) and 'Madiabun' an 

douMelslo'Joda'and'Eliadun.' 'Eliadun' (BAL) « 

represent Henadad (read £NADOufi°i^yiT)^ a 

perhaps arose from the form iitrtMl (see Hinaoad). < 
... , M.. i- „ E„) „^ ^ , ^,„ H,™ 



lUDIAII(Acts7^), RVMl0lAN(?.c.). 

MADKAHHAH (n^tpfO). i. A remote dtr at 
Judah towards Edotn. mentioned with Ziklag and 
Sansannah Josh. ISji, P (m&)&P€im [B], BC&EBHrML 
[A], M&RApeiM [L])- The name, hoa-ever, is corrupt 
(cp Madmen). In Josh. 19; iu place is taken bf 
Beth-marcaboth : Madmannah (from ;T3rel musi be ■ 
comiplion of Marcabolh, which is iiself certainly a 
distortion of Rehoboth. See Marcaboth. That 
Eusebius and Jerome connect the tvanie Medebena or 
Medemana with a village near Gaza called Menoeis 
{OS^ 279a4 13»iot is no objeclion lo (his view. Cp 


1. The eponym of the city Madi 
&«Wiil« [B], ^f.. [A], ^Im. ILD. 

Madnuninh, 1 Ql 2 49, s 

: RV 

MADHEN (1019), a supposed Moabite city, Jer. itt 
(nftTCiN{BKAQ]; cpPesh.Vg.). Tbename ('dung- 
heap' : cp Del. /aj6a/) is most improbable, and since 
(i) the conlext is suggested by Is. l&i. and (a) (here is 
a very similar comiplion in Is. IB* (see DlMON), we 
can safely for Madmen read o-TM, NiMBIM (^.f.f, 
which in Is. 16s/ occtirsjusl after Horonaim. 

HAOHEVAH (n^-lQi M&&eBHM& [BttAQ]), a 
supposed vilLige of Benjamin, mentioned with Gebim, 
Is. lOji. ' No trace of the locality is left ' (Di.-Ki(tel). 
Probably the name is corrupt (cp Madmen), and we 
should read nlbi, Rimmonah : for a parallel see DIM- 
NAH. This Rimmonah was not ' (he rock Rimmon' 
of Judg.204;, but nearer to Jerusalem. See Che. 
'Geographical Gains, elc..' £3/111., Sept. 1899, and cp 

KADNESS (lUr^IT), KADMAN {W^j;ia). 
The Hebrew i»I V}^, Idga', which ibe 'nad' of ibc RV 

■to prophesy ' Qa. ft ») and den^es'^eitho'lK 

1. Tarmi. nvingof the madman(iS.21u/.[l]/l3K3Sf 

IBiD)or Ihe orophetieecmsjr 0101,65).^ Tia 

excitement?'' Set™ in? 63^ Arabic iyVa means ""be 

developeifa secondat) 

ling to . 

o wilh 11; 

c loan-words from the Hebrew. 

rly mad, 
Ihis would accnunt for the anomalous comspondence ol g 
and Arab, /, Cp Banh, Ar/rm- Sind. .7. 

Another rnol also rendered by 'mad' in RV (Is-Uij 
Jer.SSi6) is V}!J, kJllai, the root meaning of which fcp Ar„ 
Asi.) is 'to crv aloud.' The nouns -irAt, or wWn aia 
lynonyms of mVpp, folly (see Fool). The loot-neaning of 
^^iSna (Piov. Mis) is not clear. (The final n itdiUogiaphed ; 
read ^nno [Frankenb., Toy], '(As) a madman.1 

Gre^ words rendered ' madness ' in Ihe RV are imU <Acu 
Mi4i npa^MH'a (a Pel. Sis), imi* (Lk.Sii; 0>s. 'AmIisIi- 


y Google 

a nr °^ disobedience to the Uw {Dt 2StS), 

of inianity a 

D the 

the case of Saul as Ibe most bislorical, occurring 
docs Id the course of a narrative which no one can deny 
to conlain a kernel of facl ; yet even here we cannot 
be sure, without strid invesiigation, that the notices of 
Saul's fnriij do not belong to the las historical stratum 
(see Saul, g 4). This does not. however, involve our 
rejection of these nolices as malerial for an article on 
Madness in OT and NT. As the narrator represents, 
Ibe successes of DavidawakenedSaurs jealousy, and ' al 
last the turbulent ferment of passion broke forth into 
wild freniy . . . With the tenacity peculiar 10 one 
haunted 1^ an illusion, he devotes himself henceforth 
almosfciciusively to his puipose of avenging himself on 
his supposed mortal enemy and persecutor' (Kiltel, 
Jfiil. 2iai). Saul's reported breach with Samuel also, 
according to the narrator, contributed to unhinge the 
mind of Saul ; ■ he feels himseli forsaken by God . . . 
sees spectres everywhere which are batching mischief 
against him' ((/'eje*. 2 lost- Looking at the notices of 
his state from a non-crilical point of view, we may 
peirhaps say that the malady of Saul was an idiopathic 
insanity, exhibiting the usual mental symptoms of 
melancholia ( I S. 2S3i>) and delusion (^Ojo). with homi- 
cidal and suiridal mania (IS II 20]}Slj)- 

A second instance of insanity in the OT, the • lycan- 
. —^ , thf opy ' ' (or ' boanthropy ' ) of Nebu- 

BsuiwuHu T . B^^j jj_ in jpite of the testimony 
of AbjnJenus (ap. Eus. Prof. Ev. S41), most probably 
Tbc pasufc is translated in Intl by Beyin (Damirl, 87/} ; the 

' « clw, would thai ht might bcUkc hinuclf 10 umc other 
plicc and miiFhl be driven Ibrouffh the detm. whuv i» no city 
n>r Rack of men, where wild beasts Kck their food and biidi 
9- and thither, would thai among rocka and nuHintiin 

nitn this we have to cocnpuc Dan. la^ 

' The tains hour wai the ihii^ fullillecrupan Nebuchadneuar : 

body was wet with the dew aiT heaven, lilt his hair was grown 
like agUa' <feathenX and hii nails like birds' (clawi),' 

Prince {Daniel. 1899. pp. 33-35) is of opinion that 
the great king may have been ' afflicted by a form of 
insanity which incapacitated him from governing, and 
necessitated the succes»an of his son. ' 

Bevan {Daniel. 1S93. p. 89) can only say thai prob- 
ably ' some Babylonian legend on the subject of 
Nebuchadneiiar hitd, perhaps in a very distorted form, 
reached the eats of the author of Daniel.' Wiih this. 
Driver {Daniel. 1900, pp. 59/) appears to agree. See 
also Schrader, ' Die Sage vom Wahnsinn Nebukad- 
aexars. /Pn [1881], pp. 618X* 

Madness is conceived of in the OT as a kindred 
phenomenon to the prophetic 'furor' ; see PkOPHECV. 

JVSf^^" the agency at work (cp 1 S. I614 with 
■I-?^K^ I K. 22i/x ). and, Uilsl some of the 
contemptuous pity which the lunatic 
could not but evoke attaches at limes to the prophet 
(3 K. Sii), the superstitious awe with which the prophet 
was regarded serves 10 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 ACKISH {f.i:) to interfere with David when he 

By hiih 

s INtbu 

inBiinileTstanamg, if th« words of Dan. 4 35 are borrov^ frop 
Babylonian long m which 'eaibie giMi' was a symbolic eipr 
(km for 'living in miMiy' (» WinckUt, OL2, iS^a, p. ; 
AO/'iit*,n.a;cpGanka,Ceii. ij).] 


feigned madness (1S.2I13 [i3l# ; cp Ewald, Of/ 
S116). It would seem too that, according to the 
narratives. Saul forfeited the allegiance of neither court 
(lSi5.^)norpeople(a6i 284; bulcp22i7). 

The madmen of the NT are not kings but common 
folk, and their malady is attributed not to a spirit sent 
from God (cpSAUL). but to inferior deities or 'demons' 
entering into them — a conception of madness, as <rf 
disease generally, which the Jews brought back with 
them from Babylon (see Demoks. Sii). The influence 
of music is no longer invoked to calm and soothe ( i S. 
1616). nor is the lunatic's person sacred; he wanders 
about at large, or, if dangerous, is bound in chains 
(Lk. 819), It is hard to say how many of the lai/un- 
(Afiftai healed by Jesus may be reckoned as insane ; 
see further Demons, g 8/., LuNATtC. In Jn. lOao we 
have madness expressly connected with demoniacal 

MADON {\\-n^). a royal city of the Canaanites, 
perhaps on the W. of the Waters of Merom. Josh. 1 1 1 
{nappuir [BF), nalur [AL]) : 12 19 {[Xaiuipuw [L] ; for 
BF see ShiMKON). 

Bui is th< leu right? Following • (cp Eus. Ci'OI 178 7, 
ILof,^) we might reul nriD or ,n; («* MaaoM). Tbit Kcm. 
better Iban identifying with Maiiln near Haipn.Vl. t/Tibciiai 
(.PEFMi^ii Kur^ei study is needed. See Shihion. 

KAELOB (MftMAoc [A]), i Esd. 9a« = EiralOij. 
MljAMiN a. 

HAOASAN (MAfAii^M} i^ *■'' 'jading in Mt. 1G» 
of KBD Ti. WH, RV, etc. , for the MAri*A&' Magdala 
[f.i'.], 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, 8ia has Dalhanutha [j.v.\ 
which is equally uncertain. Eusebius {Onom. ed. Lag.) 
spells it yia.ytSiu and identifies it with the Wnyeiwii 
of his time 'in the neighbourhood of Gerasa,' that 
is, on the E, shore of the lake |cp I.ightibot, Of. Past. 
•jot. on the site of Magdala). But Jesus is said to 
have embarked from it for 'the other' (i.e., eastern) 
'Side' {thT6wipaii. Mk.813). Ewald (//irf. ETfij+B) 
suggests Megiddo (MayJu in Jos. Anl.\\\\.ti): 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 
Megi<ido was near Beisan, it becomes almost im- 
possible if we adopt theusu.1l and best supported theory 
which places Mkciddo [q.v.] at Lejjiin in the phiin of 
Esdraelon. c. A. s. 

lUQBISH (E^ajl? ; MinBeiC [L]), a name in one 
of the post-exilic lists : the b'ne Magbish returned with 
Zerubbabel to the number of 156; Eira23o (M&reBcoC 
[B], -BiC (A]) = i Esd.6si, Nephis. RV Nifhis 
(ni^ii [B]. <«t«i [A]). The name is absent from || 
Neb. 7. Cp Macpiash, which, as Meyer {Enl. 156) 
sees, represents the same name. Almost certainly that 
name is ffB'SU [□■r'W?]. NepHISIM (?.»-). The neil 
name in Eira {I.e.) is in* oS-jr, which is a corruption of 
^KDm'- See also Mkshullah. t. k. c. 

MAODALA (MAri^A*)' •''« reading of TR in 
Ml. 1539 where KBD Ti. WH have MAraiaN. Maga- 
DAN[?,1'.J. Whilst 'Magadan' is the besi supported 
reading and Magdala is supposed to be a siilistitution 
due 10 the ignorance of later scribes with regard to 
Magadan, it ought to be pointed oui that tHayaiar 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. % 36), and by the testimony of Jewish writers. 
The Talm. Jerus. places a Magdala, (tVijo, within a 
sabbath day's foumey of Tiberias ('frii^fn Si), and 
indeed within the same distance of the hot baths of 
Hamata, to the S. of Tiberias {id. 284) : and the same 


(Rob. BX S 979 
,i, Miiatlamta, < 

(liing* which some Talmudic wriiers assign to Magdala 
others assign to a Migdal Sebo'ayya, K'pa» 'raa. ' Dytn- 
Tower,' (ep Midrash, SAlr ha-skirlm 1 iS wilh Talin. 
Jems. Plsdlffm 4 1 : and Midrash 'Ekhdk 3 3 wilh 
Talm. Jerus. Ma'diiT Shinib^\ which accordingly 
Neubaueridenlificaasaparlof Magdalala^jfT. Tslm. 
aiS). The Babylonian Talmud spealis of a k'W VijD. 
Migdal Nunya or ' Fish-Tower,' one mile from Tiberias 
{Pfsd/iim 46 i). [Cp Gaui^e (Sea), % 5. where il is 
suggested that Magadan, Magdala, and Dalmanutha 
are all corruptions of this compound name Migdal 
Nunya- — Ed.] 

Magdala was a place or some wealth (Talm. Jer. 
Ta'dsi/i 48) and is said to have been destroyed '^gp 
nnn, ' because of licentiousness ' {M'«iraih'£JUdAii). 
The name does not occur in other early wiileri, nor in 
Josephus (for the reading MaYJaXa in Fila 24 on which 
some older scholars depend for their location of 
Magdala on the E. of the Lake should be ro/uXo) ; 
DOT even in Eusebius and Jerome; 

Wlllibald (about 7311) passed fiam Tibciiu 'round the xa, 
Uld by the vilLaKC of Magdalum 10 tbv villue of Capnruum.' 
Whtliwr this wu Ihc Mugdalum Cutium of Brucaidui is less 

fi^bLiWi «t!l^9 ijuE d^°i^ IVIkgdall 
who Rfen for the ciurion to SHpb^ Baiiuii, jnitavawna, 
iy^, Puris, I7"j). Qu«re.iniu. (28») mentioni a Mejd< 
Gcnnenjei io bii tunc and idcnlinei it wiib Mudala. ine 

dtofUt iaM'n?"N.*to niit Ih" Tilmudic sutement tbu 
Uagdili wu wilhin a Subbtlli da/i journey of Tiberiu. 

On the Lalie. in the SE. comer of the plain of 
Geniiesarel, 3 m. NW. of Tiberias, near a stream which 
conies down from the Wfidjr el-Hamim, el-Mejdel is a 
miserable litlie village, with ■ some indications of ancient 
ruins both of walls and foundations' (Wilson, Lands 
<f tkt BibU.ii^), probably a watch-tower guarding 
the entrance to the plain (Stanley, Sin. and Pal. 38a). 
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 
MlODAL-EL{f.f.] of Josh. 19 j«. 

Benidet ihe aulhorilie* quoted. >ee LicbifoDl. Op, PHl.fai; 
FEFQ. i%Ti, p. ■»■/ ; Buhl, P^l. =15/ ; SchiV, G/y^ 1 jij 
= ET 3 134 (on > pcDpoitd idenliScBlion witb Tuicbev). 

BUODALENS. See coL 3894, end ; also MAsr, 

HAODIEL P¥'^?P. § 38: 'God is my costly 
possession'? cp perhaps the Palmyrene miD "Ja. the 
Sab. fem. natne^mia, and nj^Di.aSia; iwArC^IHA 
[AL]) a 'duke' of Edom in rrgimt Oebalena' (OS 
187 ij), Gen.36« (MiroiiHA [ADi"-]. maAeXih^ 
[E]; iCh-ls*. MEiiHA [Bl, «4,rieHX \\.^)■ «"'s 
reading (cp Maual^leel) suggests an original Jerah- 

HAOGD (1 Mace S^a), RV Makep. 

MAGI, MAQOB (MAroi, MApoc [Ti. WHJ). Ml 

2i ActslSfit. RV"!. (KV wise men,' 'sorcerer*). Cp 
Macic, Stars. See also ZOROASTBiAtdiSM, Simon 


(Theod. bui « 4<X«ni^), « 1 17 CTheod.. ^<i|w«w'}, b 7 
(Tbeod., S •im««^ lai^apfULnin). Cp fuyiiiiiv, 'lapnctics 


Definilion (I i). OT ternu (| j). 

Fwlor in Hebrew Kfe (| 3 a\ In NT (| A 

In B;d>ylDiuan rdigion (| i Si. Bibllogruphy (| s). 
Magic may be briefly described as the attempt 00 
man's part to influence, persuade, or compel spiritual 
1. Dididtlon. ^°P '" =°"'Pl>' ^'"^ «rtaio requests 


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 b«ng com- 
parable to thai between miracles and prophecy. At 
the beginning, and at the present time among savage 
people, this distinction is not drawn. Similarly, at Ihe 
first, good spirits and bad spirits were not distinguished.' 

There are. no doubt, many cases in which spirits are 
lillle, 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 ddiy or 
deities ihey were originally lielieved 10 conciliate. Never- 
theless, however much the invocation or other chano 
may appear as cosmic means of influencing the forces 
of the universe as such, there was originally, as Ihere 
still is at bottom implied, an acknowledgment of spiritual 
beings who are influenced in these w.iys.' 

Such an acknowledgment is certainly made by the 
ancient narralive (JE) of (he story of Balaam (see 
«■ A fantAT Bl-ESSINCS). That Balaam is a magician, 
la Httorw " '^' '" "" ''^' "^ ancient Arabian 
Ufa. customs, impossible 10 deny ; and it is 

^^ equally clear that the reality of the pow'er 
claimed by Balaam is acknowledged in the biblical 
account, F.lse why should Yahwt be represented as 
transferring Balaam's service to the cause of Israel?* 
Nor can we overlook the same acknowledgment in P's 
account of the Egyptian plagues* (Ex. 7-11). Moses 
throws down his joA and it becomes a serpent ; the 
magicians do the same (Ex. 7 11/). The reality of the 
transformation accomplished is not so much as doubted 
(see Serpent, g 3). Moses, by his rod. turns the water 
of Egypt into blood ; the mapcians ' by their cnchanl- 
menu ' do the same (Ex. 7io-ii). The case is similar 
with the plague of frogs. The power of the magicians 
fails indeed when it is a question of producing gnats 
(Ek. 8.7[.3l/. ; EVLiCE[?.i;.]). Even here, however, 

The word rendered inigi(dani(a<E^-TI, bartMmmlm)* u found 
in OIK of the older lourcei <Gen.41B»'tEJ)^ xliere il denotes 
the dream interprelers of Egypt — thoie wh«n the Pharaoh 

band. Ll Alandi for EnnKiciani in the nairawer and stricter wiue. 
The only othtr puugei in which the word ii ined »re in Dan., 

iHiI u the book w*i wriircn in Pontine, and Gen. and ii. in 

for believing that the writer bonDwed tiie word from uie old 

A [race of a belief in the eflicacy of a plant is clearly 
seen in Gen. 30 14 [J] where Reuben brings IjeaYi didd' im 
or Makdrakrs {i/.v. ). This plant was known among 
the northern Semites as Baaras (cp Jos-it/ vii. 8j). and 
was supposed by the Arabs and by the ai ' " 

plied in Ihe Ant definition given 
discovering the willof spirirual bd 
Magic, rtc.^ft- ^/. Divination haj 


n Ihe 1 



ever (jjp. 67.^ thai in actual fact, iuai at 


'Ihough magic Is . . . fbnnd 10 fuiie and amalfamaie with 
reli^on in many aoes and inmany lands. Ibcie are some grounds 
for thinking thai (his fusion \% not primitive,' 

) See Blessings and Clrsincs, and far Aiabinn illuUnlieni 
see CoMiiher <,Abh. : Arak. Philel. 1 -aff. |iBi|6j), who has 

magical words of ble»ing and of curbing played a pmninent 
part. In war. the poet by curbing Ihe enemy rendered fervic« 
not HCond lo that of the warrior himwir^ the uttered word 
was. in fact, a moil potent 'fetish' (Goldiihei. 38). The jews 
1^ Medina brought into their i^Tia^ogueftimues or iheir arch foe 

they came logelhvr. 

« In JE no luch reference to the magiriani occun. 

■ For a Babylonian conneclioo (gaidamu) see HomnKl, 
£i/.r, Feb. 190D, p. 1J4. 



to be inhalnted by a spirit which gave it extraordinary 
powers {see WRS ^W. 5m. CI 443, and cp Long. Cuslom 
and Mytk. 143^). Tbe biblical nairaiive ascribes lo 
this plant effects which could not be supposed lo follow 
from its natural propertia ; but no disapproval of its 
magical use is expre^ed either by the author or by the 
redactor. [Wliitehouse. in Hastings' DB S aio^, 
connects dadd'lm with the fnn of Mesha's inscription, 
L la. cp also Issachad. | 3.] 

There is another incident recorded in (he same chapter 
which belongs to Ihe category of magic, though it is 
magic of the sympathetic or symbohc kind. (For a 
description of this see Jevons, Inir. to Hut. of Rtligion. 
»%f,.YraiXT.GoliknBmgh.»\i^f.), The peeled ■ 


.put ii 

■,( the 3 

T, caused those that were pregnant 
bring forth young that were spotted and striped (Gen. 
3037/ [J]) ; the natural esplanatbn may be adequate, 
but it is probable that more than this was in the mind 
of the writer. 

There is a good denl of uncertainty as 10 the teraphim 
which Rachel stole when she and Jacob left het father's 
bouse. Gen. 31 19^ [E] (see TkRAfhih). They 
wereof human form (iS.lSij). and were looked upon as 
gods (Gen. Sljoand Judg. 18»i). though iheir possession 
is regarded as illegitimate. (Josiah put them away with 
(be wiairds, etc, 3K.2314; ep Zech.lOi when they 
are associated with diviners. ) 

Among the Assyrians images of gods were kept in the 
bouse because they were believed to have the power of 
warding off evil spirits. A certain exorcist is said to 
have had statues of Ihe gods Lugalgira and AEamu put 
one on each sid« of the main entrance lo his bouse, and 
in consequence, he felt perfectly impregnable against all 
enl spirits (see Tallqvist, Aayr. Bescka. aa). 

It is probable that in Gen. and elsewhere we should 
construe ttrapkim as a plural of 'excellence' or of 
'majesty,' answering to [jm'tk (ElShIm). o'liii (AdOolm). 
The (eraphim were kept in the house as a guarantee of 
good luck : though originally perhaps idols, they were 
■Aerwards. and in biblical times almost exclusively, a 
kind of charm. That they had a magical import is 
tuggesled by Zech.lOi, where teraphim. diviners, and 
tellers of tilse dreams are put in Ihe same category. The 
Genesis narrative, and also Hos. 3 4. show that teraphim 

In the prohibition ' Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its 
mother's milk ■ ( Eji. 23 19 31 »6 Dt. li«), many scholars, 
fromSpencer(i^. Htb. Kit. Ijjj^ [i73a])downwards, 
have seen an allusion to a magical broth, prepared in 
order to give fertility to the fields ; ' more probably the 
reference is to an ancient form of sacrifice — similar to 
tbe sacrifice of blood (WRS .ff<!/.&n.n aai, n.). 

In Is.Si the K£s£m (magician or diviner) is named 
■long with the knight and the warrior, the judge, the 
prophet, and the elder, among Ihe stays and supports of 
the nation ; of none of them is any disapproval implied. 

One great fact which induced the Hebrews lo con- 
demn magic and the like was that it was so closely 
connected with idolatry ; in 1 K. B n it seems identified 

1. Piaa of magic in Babylonian rtligion, — In the 

rdigion of the ^bylonians magic always had a pro- 

— . T_ D.i minent place. Every misfortune, and 

•wuu '.•"B""^ as arising from some malign spell, 
a ban {mamflji). 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. 

' Miunonidu, 

uinnncHa in which the ban can be incurred ue 
Kl forth in Ihe second, third, nnd dghlh tablets' 
UbltU. Thus for eiunpk, wa 
he [ihehewitghtdpenonfunned 
ainuiut hiiEod. been jniUiy lowinli hij goddess f . . . Has ht 
d'ltunound his fathti and DiolhaT . . . Hu ht uhhI fj>l» 
welghi^ circulnted ttitx money T . . . Hu he npproached bii 
ueighbaur ■ wife, shed his neighbour's blood, tlolen hia nvigh> 
bonis gannenll The wnie tabLei, hoi- -— -'- ■'- 

10 bed of ■' 
, drunk fion 

Alongside of this conception of a more or less im- 
personal visilaiion we find that other — doubtless more 
primitive — in which malevolent divine beings, demons, 
or else human beings, wicards 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.8a Mk.169 Mt. 124s)— is 
vividly depicted in the Babylonian exorcism texts. 
*" rguded, u the spawn of hell. The wildetr 


e Iheir 

^ror bolt being able 10 oxcludo ihm 

Their hoslilliy to men is unTiparing ; their influence is specially 
seen in Ihe Sivoc they work on familr life. They alioHte 
husbund vid wife, father and soa, partiKTS and fnendn. Of 
ibHe habylonian demons we meet with two representatives in 
the OT ; Llliiu (see Lilith) ind the Udu (Heb. IMim, see 

The activity of wintrds and witches is in like manner 
fully and vividly set forth in the exorcism texts, especially 
in the exorcism tablets of Ma^IG.' Day and night the 
witches — for in this field tbe female plays a much more 
conspicuous pert than the male — dc^ the steps of their 

« streets and public places, beset tl 


. _. ief, by means of figures of clay, wood, dough, 

le like. The lying of wiich-knots wu also lurgdy rcwtled 
The mosl usual Bibykmiui irord Ibr witch is laiiaflu ; 
cp Heb. .iBf ;□ (belov, | 3 [i]). 

3. Afelkadx of counitrading l)u evii power ^ — In corre- 
spondence with this deep and widespread belief in tbe 
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 countetspell. an exorcism. This was sought in a great 
variety of ways ; and the main part of the business of 
the Kxntaaa lay in finding out which particular charm 
could be used against each particular spell. 

Sprinklings Bml washinfis wilh pure WAIe 
om the sacred rivers, the Euphrates and 1 

■ ofeioKism. Simi'lar^. the power of bitak 

it a areat viriepr c^ substanceR so ns 10 represent symbolically 
and minerals of real « supposed healing vitjoe were brought 

The evil demons who had l^d 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 Ihe witches death by fire was regarded 
as the only appropriate punishmenL 

Whether .as mailer of fact witch-burning was actually 
practised by the Babylonians cannot indeed, as yet, be quire 
clearly made out. At all avenls the witches were burned in 

divinity whose help he wished to invoke. The form taken by 
these witch-adjuTatLons is in many respects quite similar to that 
of a legal procesri in which the IjewilcJied person 11 tbe accuser, 
the witch the accused, and the divinity the judge. 

' Translated by H. Zimmem ia Btitr. tur Ktnntmt drr 

s Translated, with a useful introduction on Babylonian magic 
in general, in K. Tallttvisi's Dii Ainriicki Bticiviinmgturit 
Ma^ra (1895). 

y Google 


A mailer of prime imponance — and id this, relatively, 
Babylonian magic presents a good side — always was lo 
secure the assistance of one or more of the good greater 
deities in counleraciing these assaults of demons and 
witches ; hence the frequent and fervent prayers still 
preserved to us in the magical liiemture of Bal^lon. 

No n 

r of I S. 21 

t the 


something qui 
Gilgame^-Niinrod epic in the summoning of the spirit 
of Eabani by GilgameS with the assistance of Nergal 
(god of the under world},' At all events the Babylonians 
bad quite ihe same ideas as (he Israelites about the 
sfHrit of the departed {eiimmui and the possibility of 
causing it lo appear. 
TbB B pi.- ■ ■ 

bb 13 plainly ahovn hy the repealed menllo 
QB {nmiHa la lilmmu, lilerany, ' he who 1= 
3int up') in Babylonian lisu of official nanii 
-- in mnnection wiih Ibc Babylonian no) 
ni)>odled ipiTit i> a text' conuining Ihc 
d by A gho&E along with ihe petition ' 



3. Soolksaying. — Alongside of magic, soothsaying 
also had an importanl place in the Babylonian •Assyrian 
religion. Through the agency of the seer (bftrH) — a 
class of priest held in special esteem — the effort nas 
made to obtain information as lo the future from all 
sorts of occurrences. The clay tablets recovered at 
Nineveh from the library of Aiur-biini-pal. the last of 
Ihe great Assyrian kings, are full of teits conlaining 
omens of Ihis description — which were taken from ihe 
flight of birds, from anomalous birth of man and beast, 
from tlie behaviour of certain animals, such ; 



terpretation of dreams, and especially the hepaloscopy, 
are important departments of soolluaying. and these 
two can be most clearly shown to have existed from 
the earliest limes. l-astly, ihe cuneiform literature 
shows thai astrology. Ihe observing of Ihe positions and 
combinations of Ihe 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 ihe 
highest degree. The Assyrian kings made extensive use 
of all the methods of divination menlioned above, in de- 
termining their policy (cpEiek. 21 ai [j6]).' H. Z. 

For the many terms used in Ihe OT. several of which 
include both magic and divination, cp Divination, 
«. OT Ttm^ I 3^ ^ ^*"' ""^ appear never to 
have bad any exclusive reference to 
one or the other. These are Mkirolm (avsn ; ro^of, 
eaitKiml) 'wise men' and hartummlm {otMrin I E-V 

■ ■ .-i. 



an court 



X CPl). »nd 


The specific terms, of which Ihe commonest is kdteai, 
are in some cases obscure. They are Ihe following : — 
I. Kiiim (o^g). This word probably had originally 
a magical reference (Fleischer), though the secondary 
sense (see Divination, % a [1]) has almost driven out 
the primarj'. 
Cp Ar. tatoKia, which (in S and 4^ as well a* the noun 

id thrn~>o'maC 

Ihe Gr. i)KW T>>r. 

at Willi.- W. R. E 

lilh, h< 

=r (/. P. 

1 See leremias, Itduiar-Ximrai <i89<), p. 41 ; Jei 
Schrader s KB, vi. 1 g&i, 

* L, W. ¥.\nti. MaiylimiH Sfat^ic and Ssrcfyitt^. 
spaUo B. MeiMner in ZDMG bO, jjoOeoS). 

* OBin i» derived by C, HofTnuuin f.?,47'If 8») ' 
(t)>tni)'oDw,'and«plained as aieaninK ' one who 
lownaaal lone'(dpl3llfn.DiviNATio«, |», and yi<, 
% *i- * givei varioujty itvnni (expoundersi, •wu 
(chaniers, IhoM who say incanlaiioni), taid 4<mm<ih (duBC 
UK drugs for magical ends). 

Wellhauien (//«,/.(■), 118. //«</.«, tji, b. ;), boi 
iiaiyview; Smith making 'deciiiun'CcpPro». It 

The primary sense may be one which includes both 
the special ones. Of the two senses Ihat of magic 
seems much more likely to be Ihe original, 

3. From Jilp. .^pj (a Ch. 336 ' lo use witchcraft," 
RV 'practice sorcery') are derived kaiidfk (irj I 
Jer.27»)and»'^»^(>]V39, Ex. 7it Dan. 2> Mai. 35) 
nmdered by EV 'sorcerer' (in DLI810, and Ex. 22 ■8[i7l; 
fem, ,Tti»i33, AV -wilch,' RV 'sorceress'). 

W. R."Sm'ilh derive* from Al. *«»/!., ' to cut,' Ihe 
word having in it the idta of cuiiiiu oneself in corainf; 10 lb* 

penliince. The noun UsklfJilm (□■rti) he i«k« to niean 
'herbj or drug:i shredded into a magic brew.' (Cp Ai, kif/a, 
'bits of thingi.') The mnning of verb and noun, however, an 

lhe™™i^g "''nlJi°™l dtX t!l tI'1°?^A^,\!\ , (EV 
' witchcraft*), i<ca"i"» have thai meaning, nalwiibstanding • 
*if,uu^ tJ^oti>thUKn»HiiuibleinIs.tIii, norinNu.133 
(where we should perhaps read with Kue, VBTsS T^l). 

The present writer follows Fleischer, who argues for 
its derivation from Ar. (liuo^) ' lo obscure.' of the sun 
and moon 'toeclipse,' If ihe derii-ation just suggested 
were adopted, the Hebrew might denote first of all ' lo 
have darkappearance,' then 'to be gloomy,' 'distressed.' 
and Anally ' lo be a suppliant,' ' lo seek something from 
the deity ' ; cp Ihe Syriac tthkisktph lo entreat,' 

The Syriac word, in all the twelve inttuncra in OT -here 
kaifkA^ (']E*x)i in one or other of iU forma occurs ia Arrrsi. 

.ilrain one's voice. InihePi-andAphit nuan^iopiaciisenuigicsl 
r«lnun,' then 'to keep one's voice untler,' 'to speak in ■ low 



10 women in child.b. 

.bearing, which was a 
drjg, thua agreeing exactly with ^ ft iai r a. 

3. £iAaJ(tfr6). 'enchanlment'(cpls.S3, ^*^^]^w, RV 
' a skilful enchanter ' ) is used more specifically of serpent- 
charming (Jer-Sir Eccles. lOti i cp prtSo Ps. S8 s [6] 
'charmer'), and hence of any charm which could be 
worn, cp Is.8» (oWS. RV ■amulets').* 

The primary meaning of the word may perhapi be seen in 
aS. 12i»rs.4l7(gl. not however in li. U iHiet SBOTy U 
has been Ihoujtthi that fa^aUffn^) znd ■■a^ldJ(pn>) may have a 
kindred origin, and it b at any rale aingular that the Arabic 
equivalent! o(bath>nre used in the sense of unlucky. 

4. ///f<T(13nXr«indon[yinpl.(Is.4T9ii 'eachulments > 
or in connect'ion with ^Mr, 1?>l (Dt. I811 PlM; (6], 
'charmer'), is eiqilained by Ges. (TAfs.l^t^ to mean binding 
or tying— /.^., of magical knota.4 Similarly Smith, wbo aa>-a ii 
ii used to denote the ty]n|e loKeihcr of words in order to con- 
,.<\uu,- ^ ioaniaiion. He (Followed by Gs.ll>l-Buhl«. uul 

by Slade, Cf/ 1 spf, and Dr, peul., mdlcc: 

.act 10 th 

4oie Ihe panllelii 

10 Ihe Rabbinical j/jnM'(P'ej3), '. 




s Similarly ttf^ ■?) (fl.). AV ' tablets,' RV ' perfume boxes,' 
is taken by Smith lo be a kind of amulet. 

* Zfffeifti (asMjfcigj, 'unlucky') and wrt^gf j(wjAj,'anhicky'\ 


* Cp Ar. ftd^^r, a narrative — /.e-t asenesof word* bound to* 



for ptajrlacRria ; k« Fj^opttli 

uplained by ihe great nujon 

i«yV ™ Ih. like (w 
the Conun,); bui ihe 

Among the ancients the employment of certain fonnube 
was considered efficacious in proportion to Ibe number 
4.InHT of "P«'''"o'«- In India to-day if an ascetic 
says in one month the name of Rodba, 
Krishna, or Rom 100,000 limes, he cannot Tail to 
obtain what he wanU : 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 niglit, saying 'Baal, bear us,' 
1 K. UA 

The words of Jesus ' say not the same tiling over and 
over again ' {Mt. 87 fi1| ^rreXryimtTt^f have reference 

In a Tiro. 3i} ySitra (from yoiu. 'to sigh," "to utler 
low moaning tones') is used of a class of magicians who 
uttered cenain magical formulae in a low deep voice. 
They were to be found, according to Herodotus, in 
£g}'pt (233) and elsewhere (4ios 7i9i) ; Ihej are 
mentioned also by Euripides and Plato. 

Paul, in addressing the Galalians (Gao). names among 
the works of the flesh ^afiiuuitia [EV ' sorcery '] ; Syr. 
tarrdiAntMii ; Heb. versions of Salk. and Del. O'Oit 
[i/iAdftlm], which is closely connected with idolatry 
by being placed next afler it. It is not possible here to 
do more than mention Simon Magus <AcIs8g/.) and 
Bar-jesus, the sorcerer whom Lk. calls also Elyroas 
(Acts 138). This name the writer explains by ^iyot ; 
it is really the Arabic ('Alim), ' learned,' which is much 
Ibe same in sense as ^'ri>i(cp SiHON Magus. Elvuas). 

Cp Exorcists. t. w. d. 

F. B. u™», /Mlnxt. If HUl. ^Ril, i>9«; A. C. Lyall, 
Atialic SImiia, clup.4; E. B. Trior, an. 'Magic,' £in>l; 

FiUEi, GsUm AnvA<*) l;-iis; W. R. 
S. nilllop^pliy. Snuth'i anicla in /. rUL (IS 173-w 

14tii-im) tKHl ably oa Ibe piibcipal 
bibliail lermi. Cp alio RrL Sim. 346 417, 'I taaim ; Ehivri 
on Deut. ISiqXEV; T. Witlon Daviei. Magic. DHiina- 
//mi. anJ DemtmaTogy amen* Mf Hf^rtfBt aitd nitsttd 
ftlfltl (1698): Sdt6U,(Mum&ml amd Zmidiminstn hii dm 
ffttrStm, 1B17 (uncriticaD 1 D. Joel, Dtr Aitrtiatiit und ait 
StilUmtdtiJ^nlkKmt u dtmitlbcn (1U1-83X 

On (be Bab. Mftpc.cptbewoTkof Lenocmani— nowofcourM 
sDaieshil anliquued (Lk magji ckel la CkaMrni tllli irii inil 
Anaditana, 1814 : Ckaldtaa Matrir. ia arigia attd deiuli^ 

H'al^aer-KamldtrC>uUddtr,a'!«y' Lenormanl 19 lo be sup- 

^S'reb!'!'™'^^^--*'-^^" ""^'" ""' ' ""^ '" ' ' " 

KtV (ffiitni' t - 

K. Sfraltra, iBBS ; (by F. leremiai) in Chiniepie de la Saui- 
laye ( L/tri. dtr RtL.fiith.C, 1B97 ; and in Ja«row, Rfl. sf 
Bat. amd An., 1B9S1 L. W. King, Bafylrmiaa Magic amj 
Sfntry ittalii: Zinunem. ' Beilrige lur Kennlnis dcT bob. Re- 
ligion in Atmiirliig. SiiHaliti., Bd. lii., with 1_ W. King's 
review io ^5Z 18 i4ajK H.Z., g a*; T. W, □. 

K&fflSTR&TE. See generally Govebkhekt, Law 

1. CBf J^tUf<Dt.l«i>e>c.>. S«JvH 
». *«?^.>*^i'.VUu'is-l87t)RV'i 

10 Ih« N, Arabian 

1 Ges.iu>.Bu.n (foU 

shall ct 

d by Che. 'lu 

oi able t< 


ml.' NolE the use of the 
{vnllelismoTiet and Tip inprov.ea;. 

5 From Battus. a Buttering Greek poel (see Herod. 1 15s). Cp 
Fi-.-1ti« 7 If 'Repeat not dij words in (hy prayer '(^17 4wrapw«^ 
fHffrvxi? m/\ For refereiKes relating to ballology 
ig hlollems aod ollien, see l^nge in Henog, IS 39s. 

**)"• •'fjx^xS 


pljons of a ditlDgraphed n^ (/.#. 
I the land (of) 'precedes. The dl> 
u apparently in the far south (sec 

^i»ri, ik. 1I..AV;. 
|. a^x^f, Lk.l9;e;cpl 

lUOOG. See Gog and Magog. 
lUQOB-HISSABIB. See Pashkur (1}. 
IU.0PIA8B (tf^'BlQ. cp Macbish?), signatory tc 



(seeEZRAi.,g7); Neh. 10»[«](Bdkr*- 
. [Aj. MCr&IOC [L]). 
S«aRV=«). SeeBAR-]ESi;s, Magic, 

See Marl AH. 

M iW^hnO. 834, 
as r- praise of God ' ; but S"*^'-, m&AeAchA, suggests 
Sd^PID, ■praiserofCSod'[Gray,^>'A'aoi,vrilhReds- 
lob and Nestle]; but see below). 

I. Fourth in descent fromSeth.Gen.S»jr! iCh.lif 
(Bk. Jubilees, Mamiil). Cp Cainites, Mehujael. 

3. One of the bnS Jiidah in a posl-eiulic list, Neh. 
Il4t ifMktXi,^ [B«]). See Perez. 

The judahile name, if not alio die Sediile. ii probably to 
be upfained, like jKHALLBLaL, as one of the many popular 
corruptions of the tribal nanie Jerahmeel. Cp &t\t^rn^, OS 
iCb. Hi, a fuller form of the Benjamile name Bela, which, like 
Balaam, aeenu also 10 come from JenhinecL See alio Magdikl- 
, T. K. C. 

MAEALA.TE (npnp, §$74.78: also asa proper name 
inTahn. Bab.Pei. iia'a. Thenamepossiblycomesfnnn 
ti-SKcn^', Jershme'elidi =' a woman of Jerahmeel ' [Che. ]>. 

I.' Esau's ishmaelite wife: Gen. 289 [P] (M&eAefl 
[ADEL]|. called Bashi^math {f.v.) in chap. 36. For 
an explanation of the double name see Salmah. 

3. Dau^ter of Jerimolh b. David, and wife of Refao- 
boam : 3 C^u-. 11 .B (MoX[X]afl [BA], /uiAXifl [L]). 

MAHALATH upon [AV], or set to [RV] (nVnpV. 
YTiep MAcAee [B((ART]; eni x^PO^ [Aq]. \u. 
l(opoY[Sym.], Ynep thc yopeiftc [Theod.. QuiniaJ; 
fro ckara. ftr durum [Jer,]), Ps. 63. 88 (headings). 
Ibn Eira suggested that Mabalath was the tirsi word of 
a song, 10 the mne of which these two psalms were sec. 
Ewald and Wellhausen adopt this view ; the 'sickrvess' 
might be that of God's people. Rashi. however, thought 
that the flute, Gesenius and Lagarde that the cilhara or 
cithern, was meant Jerome and the Greek versions 
except LXX imply the pointing rf'jnD, mihitilk, 'dances': 
cp heading of Ps. 88, where Leannolh (perhaps= 'for 
singing ') follows. None of these vieus 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 Grkti has seen, a 
better reading is almost certainly 'upon Alauuth' 
\3.v\ Leannotk (rAiipV ; foC d»«piSiji'iu [S] ; tbS 
'ff'pX*"' [Aq.l ; ad r/sfondtndum {Jer. J) is also prob- 
ably a mis-written n&Vp. originally intended as a correc- 
tion of nSno: see Psalms [Book], giai (on'Atamoib'). 

See Mahli. 

(D^jnp, 'encampment,' cpiffi/7-o).' A 

L O T *''^ "" ''"' ^' °^ ]<"''la"p placed by P on 
I. U.r. ijjj frontier of Gad and Maiiasseh (Josh. 
■•TMUM. ]3^j„) and mentioned by him again 
' city of refuge ' together with ' Ramoth in Gilead ' 


Mahanath (»e Ml^NtTH)L Mote the sporadic 
Bso (B), as well as the cases where 9 render 



Heshbon, and Jaaier {ii. 21iS[36]. cp i Cb. eBii[6j]). 
There was doubiless an ancienl sanctuary there, (or 
Jacob, so E represents, wben he came (o the place 
after parting from Laban. met there a ' host {naidntA) 
of divine ones': a sicilful application of the obvious 
■- find a second reference la the etv- 
n Gen. 32? (J), where 'two hosts' (BiflAdii<iM) 
are spoken of; but there are difficulties in supposing 
that the scene of Gen. Z2aJ: (J) is N. of the Jabbok, 
where E rightly, of course, places Mahanaim (see 
Holzinger, ad Ix., and GlLKAD, § 4). On two great 
occasions the security of the position of Mahanaim 
seems 10 have led royal personages to malce it Iheir 
residence, 'tshbosheih' resided there during his short 
reign (a S. 2Su), and David retired thither in bis flight 
from Absalom (a S. Urm, ; cp 19}> i K, 28). Under 
Solomon. Mahanaim was (he adniinistratiTe centre of a 
department (iK. in); see Ahikadab. The name 
occurs in the list of Palestinian cities taken by Shishak 
(Maspero, Struggle cf lie Natiims, 773), and is finally 
met with [if the arlicle prefixed to c'lnK is no objection) 
in Cant. 6i} [7i], where the Shulammite is somehow 
brought into connection with tbe ' dance of Mahanaim ' 
(XD|»'»^i''0(M^oXi3i', AV, 'company of twoarmies'); 
criliciara, however, throws much doubt upon the teit' 
(see Canticles, g 9 ; Dancb, % 7). 

Reference ii probably made to 4 rc<conqueit of Mahanaim in 
Am. 8 13 ; for □■J:a read O'JTO. ">d render, ' Huve we nol, by 
our ttrength. lakeii Matutnaim ' ! The luiiiie of the other town 
mi hardly Lo-debir, but Jabuh-gilsd (of which the MT n^ 

The exact site of Mahanaim is uncertain. Conder's 
reasons for pladng it to the east of es-Sali.' beyond 
■ basin of the Bukei' will 
hardly bear examination. The critical 
"™^ analysis of Gen. 32 seems to show thai 

Mahanaim lay N. of the Jabbok. but where, is disputed. 
Merrill {East of Iht Jordan. 437) thinks of the ruin 
called Suleikhat, 300 !l. above the Jordan TalJey, in 
the Wady "Ajmn, Robinson, van Kasteren (ZDPV 
ia»s/ ), and Buhl (Pal. 357), however, urge the claims 
of Mihni or Mahnfi in the Jebel 'Ajlan, a little to the 
NEl of the town of 'AjIQn, whilst Porter and, according 
to Gautier, Germer-Durand, suggest that Cerasa rose 
on the ruins of Mahanaim. 

In 1 S. ivt, Ahner and his men, an leaving Gibeon, arc lud 
to have puKd over Jordan, aod gone Ifaiviigh all Bithron, and 
Prof. H, P. Smiib eiplaini |*in3.1, n 
er name of one of the tide valleys up which 

S. Uentiflca- X, 

probably ' 1' 


t ; the r 

iiStjX 1 

way from thia ' wood ' or copK-bnd 10 the city wna by the ^9 
(EV 'jdain'X orraiher, linct no ulisfactory upLuialinn of itili 
reading (f. 13) has been ofleced,* by ibe Sni—lhac is to Dy, (he 

I to look for 

le of the very best sites for such a city in N. Gilead. 
must also, as Gen. 82 shows, have been easily acces- 

I Plaiulbte 01 Ihc '(' theory may be, there ii 10 
to IhalpropuKd for Cam. 6 11 (lee TiriahX Read, 

' What do you xx in the Shu] 

(o-pgirij n^jtan). Thii |> ( 

J Hith ami MtaB. 180^ 

00; Triaram, JV/^S jSj). Thi 

s 'nvine' wll hardly hear txamini 

■1Q3 (E^V Btlcmim), a pUoe b Gad, 

ilead<P«I, P£^, tI 


sible ftara Miipah. which we have elsewhere provision- 
ally identified with Suf. Pulling 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, g 7). and 
with an unequalled site for 3 fortress not far oH, which 
is still occupied by the imposing Kal 'at er-Kabaij. At 
some distance to the N. is still found the name of Mlhn^ 
or Mahni, and some of the best geographers ( Robinson, 
van Kasteren,' and Buhl) would therefore place Maha- 
naim there. It seems better, however, to suppose that 
the ' wood of Mahanaim ' extended as far as Mihn£, and 
that the name of Mihn* is really an abbreviation of that 

critical ctgtsis. The idea that -Ajllln inighl be Mshanaini has 
also occurred 10 Prof. G. A. Smith (WtfsSj; cp jjsn.. iS6); 

the biWicoldata, rig1illyyiewed,'TlOh'uu(R^'I^'54Kee£ 

le Jordan Valley. 

. .„, ^(B.bJ,,.„,.4.(Al,^aa.. 

Joi SI 38 l3»l ..(.'." IB), 
ibovt. I Ch. eso [65] (lupoi* [B], -UM |A], 
eiPeih.). iS.Xfi»Tii(invtM0<>Aiit[BALI, 


B add •!' 
(L); Jos. 


**>• (BAJ. ir.^, 

■ ■ K.IStvwPi^-cIRALI; < 

,..Aa*L ILI- The ethnic is 

lendX SeeManavr 

Ti?h. \\^Sa. . 


KAHAHEB-DAH or Dan's camp fl^Tljrip ; n&p- 
EmBoAh iAN [BAL]), a place ■ behind '— i.t , W. of— 
KirJRih-jetrim, where the 600 Daniles from Zorah and 
Esbtaol encamped in the cinirse of their advance north- 
wards jjud. 18ia). The explanation of ihe name is 
questionable, and a different localisation of Mahaneh- 
Dan is given in Judg. ISas— vii.. 'between Zorah and 
EIshtaoL' It was there that the spirit of Yahw^ first 
stirred up Samson. The explanation of this discrepancy 
■ found in iCb.2sii • - 


The Manahelhite 

■e partly 

(nrtp, cp Ph. VrmiTD?). a Neto. 

phBihite[oftheZeirahiles], one of David's heroes (3 S. 

239S. Noepe [B], «&ep«LEi [A], m&&pn&n [o toy 
*eArift] [L], iCh.i]jo, Ntepe [Btt, $.e.. nnj], 

MOOpA [A], M&PPI [LJ; 37 11. MCHPA [BJ, MDOP&I 

[A], Mftftpi [L]). 

liti, son of Aiuri king of 
■low : MW.e [BAL]). 
the Kohaihite Samuel : iCh. 
[Brent1y=AHlHOTH {,.(-.) fai 
here); perhaps denved from 

(^ lAl), Cp JAHATH, a, 

GENEAtJwtEsi. Ij, iii.c. Mohathr'Amasai, 'Aarifh are all 
Kohathite (r.r., 5. Palestinian) names. Amasai probably comes 
from 'Ilhml'tUOshnaelile. caiCh-iij). 'Aiariah from 'AHhOri 
(cp AsBHumH): Mahath or Ahimodi a presumably abo an ethnic. 
and perhaps {likt AhijubT), comes from Rehaboihr. A Reho- 
boihiiekingorAshdod.andaLevite connected with Rehobolh 

a. A temple officer temp. HeiekiahfjCh-Sl 13; <a»«i(B; see 
Nahath. 3i. ,u« [LD, perhaps Ihe same as 1, T. K. C. 

BUSATITE. Eliel the Mahavite is ibe EV render- 
ing of the MT DniTSn ^W^t* (t Ch. Il4« . . • o Mier 
[BK], o MftweiN [Al, o Mftwei [L]). " rendering 
which cannot be legitimately obtained from the present 

Read ■Sin^i(qiVg.,MahiinutaX'ainanofBahurim.' Eliel 
ni Bahuriin are both probably Jcrahmeelile names (Che.>. 

Be. (C*™«.) and Barnes (Case*. BH/i) wnuld read -jnain, an 
nhahitantofM:i><UJ:tlH(;.r.). Pesh. presents a fonn t^^oja). 


nCPTH (niK'lTO. ■ visions,' cp Names, 813), 

accirding to Ihe ChrDnicler a son of Heman (iCb. 

25430. MeAzuO "■ 4< MeazuB "- y> [B], maaziuQ 
[AL]. maiatiath IVg.]), see Hehan. 

K&HEB-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ (T? rn ^^^ l.nQ, 


at"! TAX6WC cKyXeycoN, oieuc npONOMercoN 
[BKAQF)). the name given by Isaiah to his son (Is. 813). 

■swiftly Cometh spoil, speedily hasleneth prey' ot, 10 
keep doser lo the abruptness of the Hebrew, ' hasten 
booty, speed spoil.' See Isaiah i.. §4. 

HAHLAH (.1^175 ; maXa [BAL]. „ma* [F]), a 
daughter of Zelophehad [j.v.] (Nu.2633 [jjJ; 27i 
{Lorn, all the names of the daughteis] ; 36ii mmKh 
[B]. MiA&dk lAL]; Josh.l7j M4,i\*, [BLJ). In RV 
of I Ch. 7 iS Mahlah (AV Mahalah) is one of the sons 
of Havmouketh [?,&.], Machir's sister i/iof^a [B], 
fu»\a [A], naa\ae [L]). 

ab^y be tkcovovL ZrloL^ichad ^p^inff9 from Saltiad ; Hamno- 
i-t-.i. t — c-i — 1. / L Z .. .1. ,e plice). ■■-'■■-'■ 

e tiom [Abrll^mthabh ; Ihere w 

-iih J. 

im 'JcTahm«1.' 

KAHU i-hrp. S 74 : MOoMcli [BAL]). a Levitical 
SDbdivision which appears as a distincl family in Nu. 
26s8 (9"^'- om.), but isclsevrben! associated with the 
division Merari. These names seem to appear inde- 
pendently in ExraSiB/ (see Shbkebiah)= i Esd. 84; 
(fuoXXtt [L]) ; more commonly, however, they are 
brought into relationship. Thus Mahli is dlher made 
the son of Merari {and brother of MusHl) in Ex.fliq 
(.^VMaHaLi) Nu.3aD iCh.Si9[4l (^u»XXi [L]) >9[i4] 
(om. B) 28». (/uniX [B in i]) 24=6, or becomes the son 
of Mushi and grandson of Merari. as in i Ch. 633 [47] 
(#uKAXi[L]).cp2333 24]i>(fuM\Xci[B]). See, generally, 
Genealogies L, S 7- 

The scnllUc IlKllUtM C^riB'?) occun only In NU.S3] 

The nunc it poaubly dcrivn] frgm Man ALATH («.".) 1 but mav 
come sini(hi frnn - Jciahmc'di ' (Cbe.) ; i»tc that oic of Mahli'^ 
docendsuiu u named JentanKcl <cp i Ch. 3S 91 M M/.), and tee 

ICAHIiON. See Chilioh, and cp Ruth (Book). 

MAHOL (^mp, S 74 : «eA IB], fM.ot\ [A], M\&\i. 
[L]), the father of Heman, Calcol, and Darda. three 
(forrign) wise men who, together with Ethan the Eira- 
hite. were surpassed in wisdom by Solomon (i K, 4 ji 
[Sti]). These names can all be accounted for on the 
asinmptioD that the wisdom of the Edoniites is referred 
lo. Ethan and Hcman both seem to be corrupt forms 
of Teman [f.v. ] ; Calcol (^0^3) is probably a corruption 
d Caleb (aSa), and Darda {jrm) of Aroer (imi;)- 
EzHAHiTB is certainly another form of 'Zarhite,' and 
Zerah in Gen.3ei} 17 is an Edomile dan. Lastly, 
Mahol. like HAHVt., coma from Jehahmeel (VNorrn'). 
It was really, perhaps, only Aroer that was a son of 
Jerahmeel ; 6"i- give iilil or w6t. nol aioii in i K. I.e. 
The enthusiastic remark of i K, 431 [5ii] now becomes 
laoie striking, for the wisdom of the Edomiles (with 
whom the Jerahmeelites were connected) was proverbial 
(cp Obad. 8), and when we take into consideration that 
in f. 3a we should almost certainly read api 13 (a cor- 
ruption of ^tcenria, 'sons of Jerahmeel') for MTs 
cnp <]3, and thai Job was also ' greater than all the 
Jerahmeelites' (readopn '13 Job I3), the view here offered 
becomes in the highest degree probable. See EAST 
( Children of), Jerahmeel, Mahalath. 

Klo.'i in^tnitxi! theory (kc his hdIes on iK. I.e.) thai ther* 
n4 a poeuc dialo^e, like our Job, in which Ethan and Ihe 
other nga took pan, u baKloEi T^no cannot mean 'around 


of shonaM ipMchofc' Lag. (Or. 2 aj) mora pl«uiLbly thought 
Ihmi Mn^ 'U mesni ' dancers ' (and singen) : cp lis'n p^O, 
Ecelet, 1!4. ' T. IL c " 

mngETAH {n;9nO) RV, Jer.32i> eis9. See 
Maaseiah L 

MAIANEAS, RV M&Unnu (mai&nnm [BA]), 
lEsd. a4e = Neh.87. Maaseiah ii.. 16. 

MAID, MAIDEM (Hp'pif. -almaA. Ex. 28, etc; 
• )flr\2. b/lhuldh. Lam. 6n, etc.). See IHMANUGL. 

§ I. Family, § 4. 

MAKAZ (f^: MAXEM&C [B], MAXM4C [A], 
M4rX*C [L]], mentioned first among the cities of 
the second of the prefectures of the land of Israel, 1 K. 
49. The next three places named being among those 
reckoned to Dan (Josh. 1941-43), it would seem that 
' Makai' should be a corruption of one of the other 
names of Danile towns. Me-]arKon (f.f. ) suggests 
itself as probable. If the site proposed for this place is 
correct, Me-jarkon well deserved lo be so prominently 
mentioned.' .l/<i**,ij. a little lo the NE. of Ascalon. 
once proposed by Conder, is neither in an important 
position, nor would the site be Uanite. T, K. C. 

KAEED (m&KeA [AKVJ ; Vg. Magitk). an unknown 
place in Gilead, mentioned in i Maec. Safi (m&KEB [A]) 
— cp 3« (where AV Mackd) — along with Bosoia aitd 

HAKHELOTH [Tihn^ ; M&KHAue [BAF], m*- 
KH&wQ [L]). a place named in Nu.33is/, probably 
identical with KeheLATHAH ; cp also Mikixith. 

All these fornu are ■ImoH cenilnly comipliont of ' Jenh- 
meeL' Fs list of lUIions if artificml; the lubuntum, how- 
ent, consiils of pbce-names belonging to the jeribnieelite 

See' Wanderings. t, k. c. 

HAKKEDAH {tV^ ; m&khA&n, makhAa : Jos. 

^■(. V. I17 MAKKlift. »■. I MAKKhAa; Pesh. mdidr, 
but in 16^tHtMa). a royal Canaanite city (Josh. 12 16; 
om. [.>] B) in ihe lowland of Jttdah (I641). mentioned 
nt Ihe end of a group of cities together with Belh-dagon 
and Naamah, It was ' in the cave at Makkedah ' that 
Ihe ' live kings of the Amorites,' who had sought refuge 
there after the battle of Beth-horon (IO1016), were 
taken and slain. Makkedah itself was captured after- 
wards (lOii). Eusebiiis places Makkedah S R. m. E. 
from Eleutheropolis {OS27Sgr>: cp 1888). This is 
clearly impossible. Nor is it at all certain (the name 
having disappeared) whether the site proposed by 
Warren at el-MughSr ('the cave'). SW. of Ekron, 
5 m. E. of Naanih (perhaps the Naamah of Josh.), 
and some as m, from Gibeon, is Ihe right one. There 

Conder says that this is the only site in the plain where 
caves are to be found. The Wddy es-Sarir has. in 
fact, made a way here through a bar of sofi sandy stone, 
and the precipitous cliffs are pierced by caverns of 
various sites (PEFMem. 24"). The narrative in Josh, 
points to a single specially large cave (mvcn) which was 
outside of the town. The name may seem to suggest a 
sheep-breeding region (cp ipj and Ur. on Am, li). 
It may, however, have suffered changes, and the original 
name may possibly have had the same origin as Me- 
ctDDO [g.v.\ It has nbt been traced with certainty 
in the Egyptian name-lists. T. K. c. 

[BWAQ]; ere TON 0\mon [Aq.], TtuN OAMtoN 
[Symm.], cn tw BAOCI [Theod.]), usually supposed 
lo be the Dame of a quarter of Jerusalem where mer- 
chants and dealers resided (Zeph.lti), and to be so 
called because in configuration it resembled a mortar 
(RV^'. 'the mortar-); cp Judg, 15.9 'Ihe mortar 
(EV 'hollow place') that is in Lehi.' See Mortar. 

1 In the main as Kloit., who reads Ihe name Me-rakkoD. 



The Tg- thinks of the Valley of the Kidron, moM 
nwdems of the Tyropoeon (see Jerusalem, f 33). 
The name, however, which is bodi odd in itself and 
nowhere else found, is nol improbably cortupl. It is 
best lareadn-nf>Dn-vi(3K. 23i3), or rather o-in^rami 
(see Destruction, Mount of) ; the locality meani 
is tbe Mount of Olives, Observe that Ihe ' gales ' and 
the ' bills ' are mentioned just before. 

This may be !1liisiral#d hy Neb. ISts, vrhweweread, accord- 
Injjloaprobabltcrilicaleinendalioilofacofriiplleiil, IhalMlleri 

iheasnntofibuMohowonliip'CD-^.rM^n n^yca for Dra n'tiic 
-■■V n-is), Probibly Ibeie were housa or shcltcn on the 
Mouni of 01i<m for ikse lellen who could not nium bouie in 
the day. Pomibly. too, ibe phrate oiriiie>a,T njjm i> ihe 
original naoie of the DT'l.Tn (Zeeh. »,): >.<■., c-mColivB) 
may be a corruption of o^^nMS (' those who worship *). In 
>S.li3o we find the phrase OTI'T.T Ji^lO ('"he ascent of the 
olivea '), for which we should perhupa read (cp f, 3s) ^rSyD 
Dnnnpo,!. Cp Olivks, Moubt of. t. K. C. 

BUUCHt According to Ihe title (Mai, It), the last 
book of the Minor Prophets contains ■ the word of 
, „ Yahw* 10 Israel by Maiachi." It would 

1. HUtM. ^^^ jjj^^ ^ proper name is intended here, 
but the difficulty of undersUnding the word nalachi 
('S^TlJ, 'my messenger']' in this way has been felt 
since the earliest times. Even e'tWO has it x"-pi 
iyyf\t\i aimO, 'hy hit mtssenger' ; a translation which 
(whether from -zk^ or -atho) would hardly have been 
possible at a time when the existence of a prophet 
Maiachi was generally reci^nised. In fact, the prevail- 
ing tradition among the Jews for some lime after Christ 
continued to reject the proper name. 

The Jon, Tare. (Mai, 1 1) declares thb 'messenger' to have 
been no other than Eiraihe scribe, and Jerome adopts this 
view.<^7/, IS*, 'rheearliest Church fathers 
sejxrally regsird the word a« an appellative (see Reioke, 
Ma/aM, fr^; KOhler, Niu/uxil. Profk.'uf.- Nesm Stft. 
StaJ. 3 13, and cp 4 Esd. 1 to). In any tame. It u hardly (o be 
doubled that the lupencription is (he 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 'Maiachi' originated 
in a misinterpretation of this word, aided perhaps by 
Hag. 1 13 as well as Mai. 2;, 

The book fatb into two main divisions : (a) a rebuke 
addressed to the priests (I6-29) ; (*) a series of oracles 
». COHMbU. i^j j^^ ,^j^j ^ ^g j^^ introduction 
(l»-s), Israel Gods peculiar people, plays a very im- 
portant part in the book from beginning to end. See 
16 2io 36/, and cp 2;/. That the prophet should 
dioose here .is his sole illustration of this truth a. refer- 
ence 10 calamities that have recently come upon Edom, 
Israel's brother nation, is characteristic of the time at 
which he wrote (see below, g 6). 

Of the charges brought against the priests, the fore- 
most is one of gross misconduct in their performance of 
the temple service (16-ij), They treat the sacred riles 
with indiflerence, and bring the most worihiess offerings 
as good enough for the worship of Yahwi, 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 
torfth (.-nin) or (oral) teaching concerning the religion 
and worship of Yahwi. They have broken their covenant, 
however, and turned aside from the path : their teaching 
has become a stumbling-block to the people. In v. ji, 

pecteiUy introduced, namel]r that of partiality in the 

1 So iar aa the form is concerned, *3itSo m^bt be a con- 
traction of n-MSD«l.T3«^'n.ei«ngerorYohwi.- But tbe 
name is not allkSy one, aiHTlbeie is no evldenct of the occur- 
later Gntk iM^rKti^lim, Ma^anm. i> absurd). 

* Cp especially Zech.Bl(teit incomplete) 12i, 

{t) In the passage 2 10-16. 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 notewonhy variation in f. 16. 
due to the corrupt slate of the Hebrew original : see 
alsoEiBAi.,§ 5). This interpreiBiion fails to meet the 
requirements of the teit (see below, % 4). The rebuke 
is rather directed against the encroachment of foreign 
worship in Israel (so S. 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 coine upon 



re very much 

Tbe two sections 2.7-35 and 3i3 
alike in character and contents. 
of some of the people that Yahwfi does not concern 
himself with human afEiirs is answered by the prophet's 
assurance that the great and terrible day will soon 
come, when the good shall be separated from the eiil 
and the righteous shall finally triumph. These oracles 
are interrupted by a characteristic passage (S6-n) in 
which the people are censured for neglecting to pay 
their tithes. The passage was beguo in a quite different 
strain (see esp, v. ^). suggested by the catalogue of sins 
in f . S. The way in which the prophet seizes upon this 
particular delinquency as it occtu^ to him, abandoning 
tbe main line of his reasoning altogether, illustrates 
both the hasty looseness of style into which he some. 

with the public worship. 

It is probable that S 99-34 14 4^1 is a later appendii to tbe book.! 
It has no natural conneclion with the pceceding, but has all ihe 

nher ^d 

se for the collectkon 


„,,, .._ „ Jfardly by ac 

Elijah, the two greil representatives of Israel's EOlden age, 
aulear together ui tbete uolated venes at the end of the last 
Mall the prophets. 

The most interesting passage in the book from the 
theological point of view is 1 11. with its assertion that 
1 VaatliHi ^' *'"^*'* worship of the one God, even 
■~^V^ among the heathen, is accepted by 
WOMhlp. ^^^_^^ ^^^ j,^^^ jj ^j, |,„„o„Hi 

(cp in the NT Rom.1.9/ [cp 2.d/.; Wisd.l86-9l: 
103s). This interpretation, which is now adopted 


.1 OTs. 

s the o 

! requi 


U the 

(isea). p. 180/. ; G.^Sm. 
Tht Twelve Fivfhil! (iZgS). p. ssbJt Bui the passage 
stands alone in the OT. In Ps, SSj [i], which is perhaps 
the nearest approach to a parallel, the language is much 
less definite. Still, remarkable as the expression is, tbe 
idea was certainly not foreign to Judaism — it is quite in 
the spirit of the ■ Wisdom ' literature, for eiample— nor 
can it be said to be out of keeping with the character of 
this prophet as it appears in the rest of Ihe book. 

It has been remarked above that the current inter- 
pretation of 2io-i6 is untenable. The text of the 
a -,___.„„ passage is. unfortunately, corrupt;" hut 
I .I!S?« it IS nol difficult to recognise the nature 
n'l!!™!^'" of 'he charge brought by the prophet 
ItfdlTltrM. ^pii^^j jjjj fellow-countrymen. The 
sin which he is attacking is one of unfaithfulness, of 
false dealing (verb iagad]. The acciuaiion is staled 
definitely in v,tit; 'Judah has pn^aned the lanctuary 
of Yakwi. which he loves, and has espoused a bath 'H 
fLlkiir' (15) Stina, 'daughter of a foreign god'). A few 
verses farther on i^fv. 1,/ ) the charge is made ; ■ Thou 
bast dealt falsely with the wife of thy youth, the wife of 

I ITbe phraseological evidence for thii> 
by BShme, ZA 

Hloiical evidi 

y Google 


treat these exl^euuiDS lileitiUjr, u 
referring to actual mairioge and divorce.' involves us ia 
insuperable difliculties. To assume, in Ihe first place. 
that divorce of Israelilish wives stood in anji necessary 
or even probable connection wiih the wedding of women 
fiiini other nations is unreasonable. Many modem 
conunentaiois. in the desire to avoid this difficult}', 
suppose a change of subject, from intermarriage wilh 
Gentiles lo divorce in general (Kohler, OreUi, Wellh.. 
elc. ). It is not possible, however, thus lo separate w. 
T3-ifi from m. lo-u. The phrase ' wife of thy cmiaianl- 
nligioH- (Ihal ■titlk himhlki [in-a atk] cannot mean 
'wife of thy marriage vows,' Kraelischmar, Bundis- 
vonlttluHg. 340/. has shown conclusively) is plainly 
contraiied with ' daughter of a foreign god ' ; ' with 
whom thou hast falselj dealt' {v. 14) refers to the 
charge made with the same word in v, it ; Mrllh in 
IT. 14 IS repealed from i'. in. Better evidence of COU' 
tinuity could hardly be desired.' Another attempt to 
remove the apparent incongruities of the passage is that 
df G. A. Smith {The Tvithie Prophiii, 234° *l). who 
proposes to strike out w. ii and la — 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 

The figure employed by the prophet is very natural and 
efleclive. certainty belter suited 10 bis lime than that 
introduod bji Hosea. 

The bocA of Malachi gives us in small compass a 
many-sided view of the religious conditions in which the 

». Cnidltlau. ^"^H^^J'^ hr'm^'indma'le 
acquaintance with the great nations round about. The 
world had grown larger, and Ihe perspective had 
changed. A new lype of ' free thinkers ' had arisen 
(2t; 3i}^): a class loo numerous, and perhaps loo 
siocete, to be ignored. The feeling was gaining ground 
that Ihe old beliefs and rites were outgrown. Hence 
Ihe shameful conduct of some of the priests, and the 
readiness of many influential men among the people to 
'betray' the nalion (as the prophet insists. 2it>) by 
openly espousing foreign culls. On the other hand, the 
ortbodoi. Ihe ' God-fearing,' formed a sort of church or 
paity by themselves (3i6) in opposition 10 these tend- 
encies. The silualioD closely resembles thai which pro- 
duced Ihe two parties of Ihe Pharisees and Ihe Sadducees 
at a later day. The prophet's own position is that of 
ooe who can welcome (he broader view, while remaining 
thoroughly loyal lo the national religion. He declares 
without hesitation Ihal heathen worship is accepted 1^ 
Vahwt, but in the neit breath appeals lo the patriotism 
of his hearers, and to (heir hope of a Messianic time. 

As for the dale of Malachi. il was certainly writleo in 
the Per^an period (allusion lo the 'governor' in IB) 
- Data ^^''' **•* completion of the temjrfe (3iof. 
"•»•■ Regarding ihe other criteria it may be said 
that tbey all poinl distinctly to a lale tnther than an 
early dal&' The remarkaUe passage I1-5 (Edom tht 

I IThe lual idvocKT of the literal intsprtution U to be 
bund in Nowack'i Kl. Ptsf*. jS? *'<•£■, uid Che. Inn. Rit. 
Li/H6a\ The moupliiiublcrecooitruclionorthe wboleback- 
rroaQd cf the pas&au (MaL3io-ra)on t' 
Stade(Cr/2 ,3»y:), who remarhj, 'The 
Ihe wmer has 10 -■- '- -■- '— -' ^-' 

- _i ibe Ant place with lu 
anben of Ih* '~- 

of Iheir »ciaJ pcsilion. 

itTBcLed wilh rich and in 



re already married, 

ith wife' Afunst this, how- 
nay appear lo break the con- 
sul it JB urged that reformers 


areh enemy of Israel) is to be classed wiih Am. 9 ■> and 
Ob. «;' Ihe apocalyptic passages 3 1^ "9 (*■)#, with 
Iheir conception of Ihe day of judgment as Ihe day when 
•the wicked' (o'tm) shall be destroyed out of Israel, 
remind us of Ihe Psalms (Wellh.); the theological 
development presupposed by the book finds ils nearest 
parallels in ihe Psalter and the Wisdom literature ; and 
finally, Ihe position of Mai. at Ihe end of Ihe collection 
of ihc Prophets may be adduced, though the argumeol 
is not weighty. We may. Iherefore, assign the book 
wilh some confidence 10 the first half of the fourth centUT7. 
'la argue froni the fact thil Ma), calls Ihe priests ' son of 
Levi.' Ihat he was not acauainled wilh Ihe pnFStly Imr-book 
iNow. loijishaidlypermisiible. It 
he book, Ihal the wniet [like tnany 
liMiglyinflumcedbyDt. Nodi'ing 

I »4l (probably by a 
of Horeh in^iend of 

tre, ofco 


Luni'oTViKra) i> 


..-■--- ^^^ already codified, as 

4S;Ps.lOat9. rroni3ii><cp 
poie that the prieilly bw of 

The diction of Mai. is pure. Ihe style vigorous, Ihongh 
often prosaic and sometimes awkward. In more than 
_ n*_]. o"' place, the meaning is seriously obscured 
" by an abrupt transition, due apparently to 
Ibe writer's impulsive haste, A personal peculiarity of 
bis style is seen in his fovourite way of opening an 
argument, by introducing the supposed objections of his 
hearers, which he then refutes (la^ bf. 2i7 87/ 
ij^).' Originality and eameslness are ntarked char- 
acteristics of Ihe book in all its parts. The estimate 
that pronounces it a monument of the degeneracy of 
Hebrew prophecy, the produci of an age whose religious 
teachers could only imitate, but not atlain 10, the 
spiritual fervour of the old prophets (so esp. Duhm, 
Reuss) is decidedly unjust. 
Ansag theip«ial coniin>. on Mai, (li«e of Edward Pococke, 
1677 lltl. 1699), Reinke, lEje. Kohler. 186;, 
- ' - ■ --' -- i&o Slade, Gisck. 

8. Litaneton. may be mentioned. Cp al» S 
/ir. 21K-138; aod JBLVti-w 

views evpreued in this -^--— j — 


ISee al» W. BAhme, Z.^T'W 7 (iBSr) 3>o.#.: 
AOFiiixg.] w. k. s.— c C. T, 

MALCHAM, RV lUloun (D^Sc). 

l9,'u,fl), .Cb.8sit{t..Ax«IBl, -^lAI, -o^ILD. 

3. In (rm flw.AJ-1 -v-i. IBHAQl, («Aox IQ"«H 
RVav. has 'their king,' as in s S, 12ia RVdv. has Malcah (bl 
EV's -their king.' See MiLCOH. 

HALCHIAH. See Malchijah. 

KALCHIEL (Va^?' '^"^ '^ '^■"B (o"n7Ung)' 
S§ 34. 36 ; on early history of name see Malchijah ; 
MeAx(e)lHA [ADFL] ; but in Nu. MefcAiMA(B"], in Ch. 
meAAcim [B]). an Asheriie family, Gen.iSr? Nu. 
26 4S (where also 'VsH'. lUloUrtiU, m€AAih\. [B], 
MeAl((e)iHA(£). [B-fAFL]) 1 Ch.73r. The same 
name is prominent in the correspondence of the 
Amama Ubleis. Milkil ( = Malchlel) was one of the 
chief enemies of the governor of Jerusalem (cp Jaslrow, 
JBLWiia; Sayce. Pal. Pal 135, elc). SeeASHEHi., 



corruption of Jerahme'd ; Hanmielech and Karini 
(24-6) seem (o be corrupUons of Jerahme'el. Note 
also Malchijah Ihe Rechabite {;. t) ; cp MaLCHiel. 
That no9. 4-6. 7 and 8, and 9-11 represent oniy three 
Individuals is highly probable. iit\jiie]ia [BKA^ ^\- 

Fvher of Pishhitr, f.v.; Ja.iii Melchiah 
CHiAH (RV| (^Ax<m {BMAQD, Jcr.gSi EV Mal 
Thwd., in Q-«.|). 

';J^i.Kt ^ Ma" 


J. b, H»iiiinrl«h {kV 
0«»»(.]™ IBHAQj). 

I^niiStd with 

Iwcrny-four prieitly lou^ 1 ai.249 0»Ax<v^ (LD: cp civ 
owuirence erf ihe nanK in the Asaphite gsnuilogy in t Ch 
«4o (as), AV Malchiah (»«*™ f 1.1). 

, ,.., kd -jiiAHj b. Pan»h, b. ParDnh ucumi$ts, am 

" rim, laymen in li» of Ihoae with ftuvip 

end); EiralOis l«'<1, 10 3' (BMA om 


arim, laymvn 1 
< ; Eira II 

thcucoiid Malctaiiah in 10 ajand add i»^><> [HLavs^islj 
%H AsiBiAS: t faTihc nm readi f<x>w- In I K«l. - .- 
MblchiasX Malchijah b. Harim waa one of the npidrer! of 
Ihe wall: N«h. Sii Ox^ti'MH^BAlX 

T,g. (AV Malchiah)\ Rechah.nilMofthediHricIofBelh- 
hacchemn, Neh.Sw: and 'one of Ihe noldwiths,' Neh.Sjr, 
boih repair«n. If Ben^rechab, Ihe dnigiution of the former, 

Cp Bt-Ry*. ad Ix. ; E. Meyer, Entil. lijT And certainly 
' RechabLre ' ir the meaning, if in an^ndance with pamllelt 
almMl innumiiable, -BTln-ia <b»7t/"m) it a comiplion of -|a 
. viB-s. 'tonofaZaiephalhilE.' Ohierve ibai in Neh. I ji (by 
a ' necessary ' eniendalion) the Zarephatliitei (D^nBnsfl) and the 
Jerahmeeliiej (o'SlQnTn fo'_D'^nn> "• menlioned as co- 
operating in the repairs. See ZArEPHATK, 

B, 10, It. A supporter of Esa >I the rudinE of the law (see 
Eaulu. l.j/Tipi-ia. ii., 1 .6[s], ii- 1 'i [ilA Neh.S* 
(uiAyiiH IBKAQ, cp T Rid. 944 Ueixhias: priestly swnatofy 
10 Ihe covenant (kc F,«a i., I j). Neb. lOj [4T: and ajiriest in 
proceuion al dedication of wall (see ElSAiL, | 1)^) Neb. Wis 
(^X'w I"^ ■ "■■ ; BKA om-D. T. K. C 

HALCHIEAII (DTsVP' i ■*'■ ' •"' ^'"B '^ ^""'"^ ' ■ 
perhaps an adaptation of a name corrupted (<^ Hamhe- 
l^CH, MAi.CHijAH)rroin jEAAHMEELtChe.), one oT the 
sonsofjeconiah; i Ch.3.B (MeAx[e]ipftM [BAl,]). 

MALCmJlHOA {Ifar'SJO. or in one word (Bab. 
MSS] as in . S. ; Names, g 41 ; m€Ax'COY€ [KAL] 
butMcAxiPOYe [A]. 1 S.81a; mcAviccAAi (LJ. 1 S. 
1149; MeXx€IC0r6 [B], I Ch. 939 10.; MCAxtC. [B], 
TCh.833: MEXxEic&tB], iS.ll493la; MGAmceAcK 
[tt], I Ch. lOi}, son of Saul, said to have fallen with his 
father (i S.8I1). Both fact and name, however, are 

As 10 Ihe (set, aee Saul, | 4. As lo tlie name, the second 
element pp is a ccrruplloii of ^mp, the Aral three letters of fnitff 
ditioaraphed. 313 in Ihe preceding name 31] is evidenily a 
variant of im in [niT- The name of Saul's second ion may hoTe 
been either ■\ho-iK (Abimelech) oi, if -311 is merely a varunt of 
)• (Marq.), 'jSo i" most probaUy a eorrupiion of Sk-iKJ 
(Uahrie^-SMDm' (Jerahnie'elX Tfie lallet view is preferable. 

Cp METMiaoSHETH 1 SaUL, | 6. T. k. C 

■ALCHITS (m&AxOC [Ti.WHl}, the name of the 
bond-servant of the high -priest whose right ear was 
struck off by Peler (Jn.18io). The name is of Semitic 
origin and not unfrequent {cp MAU.t;CH and See 
Namrs, i S7f. 

L(U(.S3jl, RVMAHALALEEI,(y.I'.). 
B(9 Macciao), RV MALLUS (;.!>.). 

MALLOTHI Cn^W S "i: '■-«. 'I have fulfilled'; 
maAAhBi [L]; but in i Ch.264 MeaAioBi [AJ. 
M&NSei [B] ; and in v. j6+ MeAAHfll [A]. me6&0€I 
[B]J, one of the ' sons of Heman.' See H km AN. 

HALIiOWS. RVailt-wort{malmA. ni^.&Aiw&> 
JobSOt+j. The abject wretches who make Job their 
mock are described as cave-dwellers who feed miserably 
on the mallu'lf and other desert plants. [See further 


Juniper, arkd for a recovered parallel to Job304 (Job 
66)seePuRSLAiN.] .l/ti//Btl^ comes fromn/foA, 'salt,' 
and il is ihiw agreed that the plant is that called AXi^ios 
or A\(>ur by the Greeks, vis. the sea orache. AtripUx 
Halimui, L. This was firsi shown by Bochait ( //icfbi. 
3i6). who quoted the slatemeni of Ibn Baitar (d. 1348 
A.D, f that the people of Syria in his time gave Ihe name 
mallilUi to the dX^uv. 
The plant is described by Dioacor. (1 im) as ' a hedge shrub, 

According 10 Tristram {NUB 466) Ihe sen orache 
' grows abundantly on Ihe shores of the Medi terra neaii. 
in sail marshes, and also on Ihe shores of ihe Dead 
Sea siill more luxuriantly. . . . Ii forms a dense mnss 
lira, has very minute purple 

I, and small, t 

MALLtrOH C^h}. g 57 ; maAoy): [BKA]. -k [L])- 

1. A Merariie: ■ Ch.(l44la9l (|.aA_x IBALD; aee Gene. 

Eiaai., lseiid);Einl(l»(a*«,^(Bl,HA<>i«i(KJ)-,Esd.R}s 
Mauucmus Oumwjcdi [BAfl. 

3. b. Haiim, a layman in same list; EiralOja (iialn); Ul. 
!»«*-■ II.I); Neh.l057iM|0io«*iwji U'*^.]). 

4. A pneiily signatory to the covenant (see E»A i,. 1 7); 
Neh.lO* (5I; Ihe name occurs alia in the lift of those rto 
relumedwithZeruhbabel; t4eh.l3a(Ma;i<»A|BD. The head 
of the Talheis' house' of Malluchi or Ihe Malluchiles in 
Joiakim's tine was Joniuhan(>ce Eiia ii., I (,b. In), Neb. II 14 
Cpi^ Kt.. but »->D ^r. RVnw. Melicu). See Mau-uchi. 
Both 'Harrm'anl 'Malluchi' surest ' Jerahineer(Che.). 

KALLDCHI, seeMALi,UCH,4. (SeeEziiAii.,|96f. 

(maAAwt&I 3 Maec. ijo). Mallui re- 
belled, along with Tarsus, against Aniiochus Epiphanes 
about t7i B.C. Its earliest Greek name was Marios 
(cp coins) ; in the Middle Ages it was called Malo, tl 
was a town of some importance, lying on a height {4^' 
Ofotu miUni. Stmbo, 675). on the E. of the Pyramui 
(/iAko), for Aleiander the Great had to bridge the river 
before reaching (he town in his advance to Issus. The 
site lies about 1 hour SW. of the small village of Kara- 
laih. 'T\k Pyramus divides near lis mouth into two 
arms, which flow respectively E. and W. of the shon 
range of hills extending along the coast NE. of Kara- 
important ; but now it is almost dry and the real moulfa 
of Ihe river is lU Ihe opposite end of the chain, al the 
bay of Ayash (anc. -Eg*)- 

The contlusion ai to the site given above, which is that ot 
Ramiay (HUI. GngT-. n/AM, iSj ; cp Murray's HamiOaak It 
AM. 19D, with map^ u conlrovened by Heberdey. Ibe nost 

ancient Ma^«'(Stiabo, S7«X Mallus l™ing lyi'^id^faRber 
inland, Juii al the piunt al which Ihe Pyiamut lories. Some 


. Thei 

A Mallus 

s E. it 

in«:rip.ion. of M 

... . ..„.iin*i ibis vie* — Ihongh 

Ibe SlaJiaimui in saying that Mallus lay i^ 
Magarsais gmily inernir. w. j. w. 

IIALOBATHB01T(Cant.2i7tRV°v.). SeeBCTHEK. 
KALTAHHEUS (m&At&nnwoc [BJ), i Esd.Pjj 
RV=EiraI033. Mattenai, 3. 

■AMAIAS, RV SmuIm (c&mman [BA]). i Esd. 
844 = EEra8i6, Shkmmah, 17. 

MAMDAI (mamAaiEB]). 1 Esd.»j4RV=Ettal0js. 
Benaiah, 9. 

HAHMOH. The word occurs four times in the NT 

in two passages, Mt.634 Lk. 16g n 13, the last of these 

1 SiMlUiiff ""'*' '*'"S parallel to Mt.6a4. AV 

"i~"™»' everywhere •Mammon,' in LI1.I69 II mg. 

'Or, riches;' RV 'mammon.' Yet no criiical editor 



of the Greek now sanctions the mm ; /la/ugtS is found 
as enrly as the Complutensian Polyglot and the fasi two 
edJiioDs of Erasmus ; it is in editions 3-5 of Erasmus, 
in Stephens, and in Elievir that we first find fio/vwra, 
and this not in Lk.. but only io Ml., 'c min. ul vid. 

Thouih nol fourd u yet in uiy uncial HS, this ipelling is 
BIustHl by »v<!ral ancicni vmtons, tspccuUy MSS or the O. 
I^lin c, f, ITit gl, h, UlALu in Mi. (raammortiHy with the 
nurnnal ^^loaf^StU'^riu'kiuffrcumit; the lalier woni s(Mi>d' 
lug in Lk. in (lie Mil); the official Vulgate, with sane ten of 
the U5S of Jerome as collated b>- Wordswonh. White, who now, 
wiih the greater number of ol<Ier MSS, write mananm: ihe 
Sahidic (though in the Catena published by La^arde everywhere 
Xj limesj uiifiuHi, p. 15, itoy In eccleNaalkal literatun 
the pi^valcfii ipelling <Zahn,£Ai/. 1 19); but Ihe 

"or.'S I ; cEm.AI. led Dindoif, ■'. 98 jJii^U^ 
..83>6(ed. KoeiKhau, ii. «las, W8.3): Adam, 
ran de &inde BakhuyieD, Wij/ £84 t); AfotI, 
(ed. Lag:wde, lOSi^n; I^tra in botb paiugq 
re IS an btereuing pasoge bi the newly du. 
tin Didaiioiia (cS. Haoler, _p._4«X 'De »lo 

.^.f>«":. .Or>l 

BJlOCn. ' they aie only of (==for) 1 
pnraeand the belly' (p. 65, fi, ti); 

KJoM^mann, iiL Ha). )t6, cm) 

The question or spelling is more important bets than 
elsewhere because of ihe eiymology (see below, §93,4): 
for the Greek the single ^ seems to be certain (cp also 
Edward ■ Miller, Tfr/ua/ Csmmtnlaty 47, /ui^^o, 
Burgon. 'All Uncials and most Cunives'): the Latin 
' ram ' may be influencisl by the anaJogy of mamma and 
annOKa ; cp also graUa/um for graiallum, Barmbat 
for Barabias, and similar cases. 

The question of aiaatualiam is also of unusual im- 
ponaoce.^ All modem editors write /xartuv^ in the 
• dative, vrith ' iota subseriptutn.' As 
t. AcMnttUtion. ^ „,j^ ^,33 ^f ,he NT have no 
accents we cannot tell how (ai this iota rests on MSS 
authority ; but the nominative ^^wrai is found in the 
Onomnstica Vaticana (Lag. 194, $g, jiaiiurai rXoOrot ^ 
fiufuif , Sapa 4 ri/iiiara with { [irmj i' m. at the lost 
word); in Siiidas (ed. Bemhardy, :I6;9) ^ KaiunrSt 
XpBc6t, ■yitiViM ■'XoC'toi o^l 6 it toS Sarua. JW t 
refurtAt Kol irip r^f j(petar. As Ihe word is already 
inflected in the earliest Latin writers {e.g., Tertullian) we 
Deed not doubt that the nominative v-'os /la/iufdr (not 
-d), like SaTarSt.* Certainly to Greek readers fmiu-irit 
must have had the ring of a masuuline proper name, 
at least insuch a connection as that of Ml.fla4 = Lk.1fli3. 
Tlie latest editor, Fr. Blass {Evangelium lecuadum 
ifalthOHm aim varia lalionii dtUctu, Lipsiie, 
Teubner, MCMI) relums to Ihe spelling with a capital 
as WH had printed in their privately - distributed 
Gospels. As an impersonal neater it would have been 
spelt fio/Mra like fiirra, wisx"- That il really is mas- 
culine as the dictioftaries mostly slate is shown by Ihe 
passage from Origen, Ssj, quoted in g i.* 

Kblicol Hebrew does nol contain a word I'CD or 

> Beagel qunlei for ,li,umi the cunin MSS 8], 84, S6, So, 
R>:ir34,eln»/<faiV/.-fbriuiM>. unly'edilione.' 
* Kautsich {.4m«. Gramm. to) iiate) ihat WH accentuate 


1, that Baljt 

> the qiieilion whether Lagardi 

that a word like : 

ux ad diviiias ti^tlicaiidas de 


\tD ; it is met with, however, in MH, 

thee as thy own ' ; or .npij j:oo nto, ' the salt of mamon 

Kelt Suack VDcaliies |^ eren in the it. atr., whilst 
Delllach puncnatea ilSlp.! J\BO in Lk-lOii [bul In ed. 1891 
nViyW Maay. Pagniniu' gav4 fiao MltUI, Dalnun (Gntm. 
'35) ii«« t"^ ^- *1 3° (Onk.). In the Syriac i-eniont il ii 
uniformly Ij'eJOJB (if), Ihougb Kamuedinoyo in the Tbti- 
anna Syriatv mentions Ihe ipelling U OJAJ^ (,0 in the lint 
lyllable. In the Palestinian Syriac we have the spellings 
tJajaJ0 cod. B (in Mi.X C (in Lk. iii3X |ja^I>M cod. B 
(in Lk. II ij), lAASufi C (in Mt.X AC(Lk. 11 n). On the 
Mandate tawmt muhq and k;i|-c (with i), see Natdeke, ^falllL 

The LXX seems to have found the word in Ps. S6 (37 ) 3 
for njWK. ' The word is especially frequent in the Tar- 
gums and sometimes supplemented there by •yptn { =1% 
iSmlat of Lk. ). The passages of this kind are uiailed 
in the following list with a star. 

It cmespands to Heb. yf^ !n(>en.fiT as El. I831 Judg. E 19 
•lS.83-Pn.v.lSi7-Eiek.i2i7. [)n in Pi. M i](w] Pror.Sj. 
pa;, Eiclei. S9, Tg. and Pedi., Targ. wiib the additioo l-n-; 
cp t m^rrit in Suidu above, 1 1. Vn in Pi. 40 11 lio]. Ifi in 
Ex.!l3a(alsaPeth.): Nu. liji 'iS.12} •Amcatii. litCI in 
D1.O3 Onk. 033 (wherewith cp Ecclu&5>, ^w •Q3j=;tp4fui7A 
U&DccX VnD in Is.»i. IIin*Hoi.5ii. ^ITIin C^en. Um 
Uon.). nrtfin'Ii. MislStj.) In the PeUiIitaof Ecclus.ihe 
word il found 10s Hi (•, ™iii«™)i Sis" (•■ xpniBiar). In 
the Hebrew Eccluiastleui it » now Ibund » 9, not in U 3 (when 
pin)- On the proposal to read TTCOO ™ poD* also 40 aiSc (#, 
ein|«iiar) see Scheehler-Taykir, 5;. In Vig we have 3mV n3 
-ipV lUDOD (marj., [1B0D)-«. (wyarnp nrplaeificpii^ ayf"- 
vu. Pesh. •a.^flS \;tAt. Stiange Ihat in Tg. it standi 

for psoo ag. 1 
jJobSaiProi. a. 


4. EqrtnolOKy. 


The following are the chief etymologies which have 

been proposed, (i) From ^pit, Ihe thing in which 

■ r what is ««/f*jfcrfto man, 

or that which support) and nourishes 

men. 1 ne aynac lexicographers favour the last view. 

In Lk, IS 11 there is an apparent play of words with 

this root (tiotoJ, t4 dX7j9«i». rioreiion). 

3. From ■^nDn = jic<n)D, Eccl. 69 Ps. 37 16. 

3. From ,,/jw). as eontiaclion of \exa- This ei- 
pUnation is much older than Gesenius {Tlu!.\, being 
already quoted by Calovius and Coslell-Michaelts. II 
is maintained also by Dalman {.Gram. 135), who thinks 
Ihat ltB9=|kDW came as a Hebrew word to the 
Aramteans, and thai its origin was txinsidered to be 
of Ihe form katol and consequently vocalised with i 
and without dagesh. 

4. From ^/[iD in Ihe sense of ,-i»=the allalttd par- 
Ho«: thus Fri. Deliiisch (ZZ.r, 1876, p. 600). For a 
different view see Michaelis (Cast. Ltx. Syr.). 

5. Lagarde ( MiVcifiV. Inland UiersichI) maintained 
that it is = ptrD = Arab. madmin. 

6. It was even connected in early times with nHitat 
(see Oaomaslica and Buxtorf); with /uufuAw (see Bux- 
lorf, C:asleil) ; and in modem limes, by G. Hoffmann, 
with cifufffw (see details in his FhDa. Inschrifttti. 43}. 

Nevertheless this passage is 
ul>>Iv■^)((n1l^lt) later in tbeverse 
at in LkJ 

slnflj. The plural 

re distinguished from 



Hoffnuuin'i objeciion lo Lagarde's explanation, that it 
does not lit the Punic meaning Iiuram, known lo 
Augustine (' Luciura Punice mammon dicitur,' on tbe 
Sermon on the Mount, ii. 14 17) is scarcely to the point. 

Thai there was a god (or as Nic. de Lyra said [g 3, 
n. 3], a demon) called Mammon or Manion, like the 
nXoiirvi of Ibe Greeks, does not follow from the words 
of Ten. adv. Mate. 4]], ' iniustilia; enim autorem el 
dominatorem tolius lasculi auminiim scimus omnes ' ; 
DOT from those quoted above from the Didaicalia. 
' quorum Deus est taaului. ' The personilicalion of 
rtches lies dose al band. 

Lulha a ippucDIly the lint German iianslator of the Bible 
■o sin ■Mammon'; Ihe euly Inuulvon Oikt UlAlu, uid 

'i«MPM- joj n ; ' And of Mara- 
ly frendej' (lla?). The wide 
non i> tbe name of a god i> -lue 

te ; the Dictionaries oT Levy and 

curtency of Ihe idea Ihal Mac 

to Milion (W. H. Bennett, in 

See Thayer-Grimm, Aatilt 

bpKlH SlvJun, 40/ 1 ZA i 

KAHHtTAMAimrs, RV HunnlUiiainiu [mam- 

[L]), a corruption in 1 ELsd. 934 of • Maltaniah, Mat- 
tcnaJ. and Jaasu' (RzralOjT). 

KAWtE (tnppi MdkMBpH [ADELj). a name 
closely connected with the legends o( Abiraham. Tbe 
1 n.f»...u. 'oal"' (or ralher perhaps ' oak ' ; so 
l.B«f«nilOM s, p^V,p(«„.i8,, .,hetree')-of 
Mamre,' for which AV constantly gives 'plains' (see 
Plain) are mentioned in Gen. 13ig H13 ISi (all J. 
except 14 13). In 14 13, as also in v. n. Mamre is 
described as an Amorite. and as Ihe brother of Aner 
andESHCOL. In P (Gen.23i; 19 S59 SSi; 403° SOij) 
Mamre is connected with Al>raiuun's burial place, and 
is idenlified (23i9 8617) with Hebron [y.t;.]. Jos. 
{BJii.ii) speaks of a large terebinth, as old as tbe 
world, which stood in his lime six stadia from the 
city : doubtless it was Iraditionally associated with the 
oak of Mamre, and in Ihe Jewish legends which sprang 
up later, Mamre plays a prominent pan. Soiomen 
Slates Ihal in his time il was called Ttpi^f»ot.* and 
was Ihe scene of a yearly feast and fair (cp WRS Rtl. 
~ HI.!'' 177. 193}. We may admit, then, that Josephus's 


jf tnilh ; the old. heathenish tree^worship survived, in 
an innocent form, even 10 Christian times. See further. 
NatukE' Worship, g 1, and. on the name, cp Mary. 

Wincltler,however_(C/«3«/), thinks thaithe connection of 
Kirjalhwbe wen uoniKCIed : but Kirjaih^arU was in ihe fu 

N.. I 

y have been Dan. . 
' CI of the I 

3. Textual 

its readings, 
gesled in othei 

I the assumption that MT 
In Ihe light of emenda- 
which have been sug. 
passages, we can hardly 
neip emenaing tcca -trnz (Gen. 13 iB 14 13 
18 1| into iwiDnTa 'in Jerahmeel,' or 'm' -waa 'by Ihe 
wellofjerahmeel.' Thisand the related critical emenda- 
tions pour a flood of ligbl on the legends of Abram or 
, Abraham, whose name indeed possibly means "The 
(divine) father loves' (properly Ab-raham). indicating that 
be represented originally the tribe of Jerahmeel ( ' God 
loves'?). The brothers of Mamre are Aner and Eshcol. 
For -1)1), Aner. read iram, Arba' (probably from aip. 
' Arabia.' and for S^e'h. Eshcol. read mVn. Hal^sah (re- 
membering thai pm: ' Isaac.' not impiobably comes 
from f*>irnK. Ahiheles ; see Isaac). 
< ThenfK^ti«)iin<7J'[>l»T^nlha(afGen.U4(Sbecheni}. 

■eally asSl, 

Aphrodite sel^ier^t upon (be 
:ph. Byi. uys, Tjirfi>#D^ is Cypnole for 
"■-- mneclion of the Icreliinlh with 
(WRS, HS note), 
•y Wi. (f;/a40)a* ■ possitnliiy; 

MufHtei were noted Ibr Ibeir Harare (tee Miiraih). Reho- 
bolh, HaUfab. and Beer Jeiafameel were all important placet in 
ibeNeoeb. and&ioout in legend {tee Nboeb, Hamtoiiy 

HAMDOHira (mamoyXOC [BA]), i Esd.9y.: see 


■f^MTFit (^TptJ). This word, probably of popular 
origin (see below), became a technical terra in later 
Judaism for one bom of related persons between whom 
marriage is illegal (see Bastard). Ad old Talmudic 
tradition, however, defines a Marnier differently, as 
meaning a child bom of a marriage of a non-Jew or a 
slave with a Jewess (see references in Geiger. Urschrift. 
54). Geiger thinks that this is the original meaning, 
and that this is proved by Zech. 96, 'a smini^r shall 
dwell in Ashdod ' (cp Neh.lSij/). Il is highly 
probable, however, thai itoo in that passage is a cor- 
ruption of an Assyrian loan-word mindldv, ' measuring- 
clerk' (see Screbe). so that the passage means that 
Ashdod shall be subject to Assyrian functionaries. If 
so. the only OT passage containing mamtir is Dl. 23 = ; 
the ideas which gathered round the word, however, are 
alluded 10 in Jn. 7*9, which Nestle is probably right 
(against B. Weiss) in paraphrasing thus, ' We are no 
heathen, but the legitimate members of tbe assembly (rf 
God- {Exf.T. Feb. rgoo, p. a3s). 

not be an old popular eomiptioo, not of IJ DfD, u Geiger 
thought, but of (be lengthy Hebi 
49)! Dt. SSjjK can 


iwn of.'amlUinf 
""eiLlie. Neil' 

WSD- Cp the 

MAN, HEN. FiveHebrewv.'ordsaiethustendered:- 

I. DIM, '.liMiT (on possible Tonl.iee Adah and Eve,|][. 

and cp'Oel. /'rW. 103/; Muu.-Atn. .4h. Z)n-f. 30; Di.Gn^ 

lerm (properly with an.) for ' mankiwl ' (Gen. S i j) or ' men ' 
- " "'PJ>;[Is.ai7,and,withounrt.,»ii 

Also, '. 


iryf, 'a living man,' Lain.S}^ (but lee Lauentatioks, 
|~4,'end>: f^CfiK. 'oicked man' UobSOi} !Ti] Pro*. 
«.ill7X In hue usage, OIK can mean 'any nun' (Neh.iio). 
If emendaliont suggested elsewhere are accepted, it » re- 
tome very doutxful meanings have found Iheir way into 
Ihe lexicons. E-amples are, Gen.ieii (we Ishhael); It 
4J4 ]ti.Siaa H>K.iy (tee LoviMiKiKDHESs); JobSlj) Pi. 
lT4B!7]l«ii. In J't narrative of creation, cnHn ii the Snl 
created tnan (see Adah and F.vk). On Ihe phnie 'ton of 
man,' see special anicle. Cp Maui AH. 

a. ^1t, 'U (root umsnain ; tbe plur, O'tfp it evidently 
connected with B'tw I}]). Tbe word ii uted ai a dsjignalion 

Also, foe an inhabilanl of a dly or country (Judg. 10 1 1 S. 7 11, 
etc.); generally as a collective (Josh. »«"judg.ri3, cp /Uf 

phrase 'man of God '^prophet. Wbeiber E'tT-jf and h^K-'ll 
■men of low degree,' and 'men of high degrw' (so EV), b 

3. ^ilM, -/ndl (possibly connected by Ihe Hebrews with 
v'rjRi '10^ be weak': a_ mere IWiit/yn^afit) i cp Am. 
■ iff. 'people.' Propeil>-a collectiiw^ihe' human race {Dl.S3« 
JobTi7 1St4 Pt.84[5D; so also pSjjns (Pt. IM 3)- Rare* 
ofiBdividuals(Is.5«jJer.MioPt.Mi3[i4l JobSijlJ?). lo 
IlSi ItnUt D^'aman'tpen'-'inconunonchataclen'CRVioc.). 
In alluuon 10 lit luppoted etymology c^it can mean '(nil 
(mortal) man,' as opposed to God ; so in lob. Psalms. It. 51 7 11 
iCh-UioIll]. Dr and Dei. would thuteiplainEnas(Ejioth)in 
Gen. 4«: btit see Exos.^nd on, let Cnl.Bii. 

*■ TJi, /!»*»■ (AnuB. Ipf : MIMti. pa] and niai. 'men" 



"All. 'a ffioHB min'). In tbc ling, onlyonn in prow— viz., 
iiiDLllsCoiipiHcd to TVfK, 'wom.ia'); inplur. Ei.lOii 1X37 
Jath-Ti,!-;}: I Ch.2S3 t*, Mii. Onj| (ihE pt, bnn) ii 
moR diliniu thu O'C^ tx* >>. wbich includEi uen, wonwD, 
■nd childicn. ^{ ii M-i'-K— 1'.(., umply 'nun' (?>■ M9IBJ 
«>SU1 6*9l7l M" Jer.lTj';); (*) 'jlronB nuM.,' lilw ■l\aJ 
(JobMi ItMij); W-V;. 'mJe' CJn.SO* SI =>), .Lm ofa 
male child OohS 3) :W ' hushimd ■ (Prov. fl 3,) ; (i) 'wanior' 
(J>«lg.**>); (/)'niai.-< = DW), at oppcHed U God OobllJ 
10 s It ID 14 Ptdv. iO 14 Lam. S 3^ 

3- D^r^i ■t//j(ljV (njig. inD,CpperhaplMETHmAML,METHV< 

>aL>H ; cp Ah. m/ii. Eih. Mf/. boib mcuung ' hiuband *). 
especially in Ihc phrue 'OfO Vi^, 'f(wp(ap]e'(Gen.S43oI>t. 
4i>7Pi.lCaiiiCh.l«i9),orIhe>yiK>iiy]naut Sfrs 'no (D1.M5 

a ibould be lead for DhO. 

lid paaHBC u It 
Jiidg.!6 ,<(.«. 

(O'grft). Jer.40.AV»e-; EV, Chains 
(?■<■■ a)- 

■ANAEN (m&nahn [Tl.WHJ, i.t.. Dnpp ; cp 
readings of Menahrm), a Chdstiao prophet or teacher 
a.1 Aniioch called [RV] Ihe - roaler-brolher ' [Vg. col- 
lattaniui] of Herod Ihe tetrarch, Acls 13 ■ (HpifSov ToD 
TtTpaApxiv irvrrpix^). ' Fosler-brother,' however, 
leeins to say loo much ; siVrpo^oi is well attested 
as a court-title in Hcllenislic Greek {Frflnkel. ^Urr- 
thMmtervanPirgamnH. viii, 1, pp. Ill/, quoling inscrip- 
tions and Polyb. v.94 xxxii. SEio; Deissmann. Bibtl- 
ifuditn. iSo/, cp 173). Manaen, then, was in the 
confidence of (lerod Antipas ; (he lille implies nothing 
as to his early life. 

Le of ad Ettene whn fnm^tl J ilui 


Hillet a 

'I'i t 

ntiAed -^ 


jediin tChailri.lT, Ueigii 

tj<,/.\ But th» (nincUTmcf i. acciden 

OTUoliilujnof ^iratrtLl^isJ "cp ' NI«naTm° (Isbael, T'oiC 
a RilcH. Aoc. >o Talm. Jtr. Jff. Hi, Midr. an Lam. 1 ift, one 

MAHAHATH (HnJI?, S 78 ; MAN*xAe [ADL]). 

I. One of the sons of Shobal Ihe Horile. Gen. 36a3 
{itawnxae fA]. ^laaxn [E]) : 1 Ch. 1 ,0 ((«ixa»a« [B], 
fUHod [L]). Cp ihe origin assigned 10 the Mana- 
bathitei of judah, i Ch. Bsi S4. 

3. A pL-ice to which the Benjamites of Geba were 
compelled by other Benjamite clans to migrate, i Ch. 
86 (jiax«mfl« IB], WMX"*' [A], (xiwora* [L]). This 
Manahath may be assunic<l to be the chief town or 
village of the ManakathiteS of Judah [?.<'.], and may 
reasonably be idenlified with (3). 

3. (fuuoxu [BAL], im-oax [ms* etc.]. /tacMj; \n-fi 
etc.], Mdaak [Syrohex. ]. J One of the cities of Judah 
added by S in Josh. 1S» (cp S30T) ; it follows Bether 
(y.p. I as the last in Ihe list. Fierhaps Ihe niodem 
ifdlita in and / confounded, as often}, a large village 
SW. of Jerusalem, near Bil/ir (Bether). SoCl.-Gan. 
PEFQ. 1874, p. i6a. See above, a. 

MAHAHETHITES (>>i^n?9^> : M&A&eei [B], 
M&N&e {!<]. -I IL]|, 1 Ch.2s4. and, by a vinual cor- 
rection of the teit, V. 5a, RV ■ MenuHOTH ' (Jlinijpn : 
MWN&ib> [B], AMMANie [A] ■ om. L). AV's (virtual) 
harmonisation of v. ja and v. 54 is fully justified (see Ki. 
SBOT) : bul the English form HaiwlutUtM in RV is 
preferable to Manahethiles. ■ Manahaihite ' is a gentilic 
noun from MAt^AHATH [q-v.\ The clan so called had 
Calehite affinities. The origin of oiw half of it is traced 
to the tribal hero Shobol. that of the other half to Salma. 
The locality of Salma's half is at and near Zorah— (he 
well-known town of Manoah [j. v.]— that of Shotel's 


is nol m«Dlioned, bul presuniably it wasDanile. Shobal 
[, ], il should be remembered, is both Edomite and 
Judahite. There was also an Edomite Manahath 
{q.v.. i). Note, too, that Salma (called in 1 Ch. 2;i. 
'the father of Beth-lehem,'~->.(..Beih-jerBhmeel?[Che.]) 
is properly N. Arabian. See Salmah. 

IUKA88EA8 (manacchac [BA]|. i Esd. Sji = 
Ena IO3D, Manasskh (2}. 

AppUcalion of name (| 1). OT references (| j/). 

Reblion 10 Ephnim (| a/) Probable hisioTv <| i). 
Muning of nune (| A P's geognfjiicid data <i I). 

Manasseh ( riB'Jtp ; g 6a : on etymology see below, 
I 4 ; gentilic ■uimMit*, Vjp [see g 4, end] 

1. AppUcaUott "^ 

adjeclive alike. m&n&CCH [BAEDFL]. 
u. ™™. «*■"'•■ (■*]■ Mftf-iCCHC [BAQRTJI is 

mentioned in Is. Ban as a part of Israel, 
engaged, or about to be engaged (Marti, ad &k. ). in 
strife with Ephiaim ' (cp Ephhaim, g 5, i. end). Then- 
is no other contemporary reference of a hislorical char- 
acter.* In the genealogical schemes Manasseh ranks 
as a brother of Ephraim. Since liphraim is practically 
synonymous with Israel (see EPHRAIM. g i), if we 
could feel sure that the seniority ascribed by J, E 
(virtually), and P (see below, g a) to Manasseh repre- 
sented a real tradition, we should be tempted to believe 
that the people who held Ihe highlands of N. Israel at 
an early dale were called Manasseh.' Machir. who in 
Judg, 6 14 seems to represent Manasseh, is in Josh. 17 1 
Manasseb's eldest son, and in Nu.26j9^ (cp Gen. 
50aj) his only son. nnd is theiefoic perhaps Manasseh 
himself (cp Machir, and below, % 5, end). It is not im- 
possible, if 'Benjamin' was nol originally mentioned 
in Judg.Gi4* (cp Brnjamin, % 4). that Ephraim and 
iseh (or Machir] were by poetical parallelism 



ould explaii 

a later date (Graf, Geuk. dei 


mmf, Si 



Western Isra 


es plantei 


Machir- Mannss. 

h E. of Jordan 


IH, Machir). 

raphical name 



^-, S a] 


If tt 


the geo| 
vailed in 

(there is no definile territory : Efhraih. § 11) in Josh. 
173 be token to make probable tbe existence of some 
special Manassite clan or clans forming part of the 
population of the Ephtaini country Ihey may, before 
most of them migrated eastwards, have been inHuential 
enough 10 lend their name sometimes to the whole. 
How welt M.ichir as an equivalent for Joseph would 
suit Ihe Genesis narrative has been pointed out else- 
where (Ephraim. g i). It may have been Ihe com- 
paratively early migration of most of these seltlers that 
led to the western story of the seniority of Manasseh. 

Whatever may have been the real history of the name 
(see g 1). then, at some time or other Manasseh was 
9.BSUU011 ""! id^entifiedwlth Ephraim. was in fact 
to Epbralm. ^ 

'' Ephrai 

held to be the effect of the laying of the right hand of 
the blind old Jacob-Israel on the head of tbe epoiiymos 
of Ephraim (Gen.4Si4a, J). J, however, evidently 
felt that there was something strange about the dis- 
tinction falling to the lot of Ephraim. His explanation 
is the quaint story told in Gen. 48 ; Ephraim nol 
always been first. 
^ 1 Che.. _ho"ever f Iiaiah,' Heb. SBOT, 104), tWnki^ ^ibal 


ihst'JTudah «l 

n, for V 

lid have 

n bttvjren Ephraim and Man 



Original precedence is deRriitely ascribed (o Manasseh 
by J (U^n. 48 14 and proclically is), and rirtually by E 
{v, 10 : folloued by P, p. s) in •be adoption story, and 
by P quile explicitly (-nsa) in Josh. 17 1. perhaps to 
account for Monasseh's inheritance being originally 
described by P (ep 164) before that of Ephraini {v. j). 
Dot, as in our present book of Joshua, after it (17i). 

Apart from these passages there is no evidence 
excepting (i) the order in which the names of the two 
tribes occur in statemenls mnde about them, and (3) 
the order in which they are dealt with when all the 
tribes are treated in succession. 
(1) In the cue of pasago doling with the two tribn, 

.. .. ^_^, i^loundfoact) in P poHibly (Jo"- '- " ■— - 

in 14 4 anainly. Not iKcd J be □{ 


(J) I 

linking, the order (Eptuair 





(9) In the cue of pusngei treating of all the Iribo, ManuMh 
b again tint in the gen^ogical luts of ihii kind In P (which 
may belong to tuppnmentary iLrandi: Gen.40— Nu.SOX in 
Filiu of dividen 01 Pileuine, and in the airangeinent adnjied 
bv the Chroniclei in the lint lecticm of hii book: Manuieh 
(iCb.TM), Ephnini (d.»):< perhnpi alu in Jf AU the 
other liui in P and in Chroniclei give Ephraim fine* 

There may possibly have been from the flr$t. as 
Slaerk [Sladtet, itj) si^gesls, two orden in use : but 
if those who repeated the story told bv 
J and implied by E saw no uni 
meaning, it would have been ent ^ . 
WinckW remarks, simply 10 say thai Ephraim was 
the (irsl-born. When a Vedic hymn says ' The Brah- 
mana was his mouth, the Kaganya was made his arms. 
etc,' the explanation may explain nothing; but there 
was something to explain, in addition to what is said 
elsewhere (Ephraem, § 5, i. : Joseph i.. g a), some 

In favour of Jacobs'™ u 
Tight' from a puloial period (£phrai 

being preferred,' Ii ia doubiful, however, whether the 1 
logical lyueni ii quite old enough 10 have retained a cual 
aoiii|ue, Siill, though ihe whole question of the meanin 

E vailed ii diDiciili, the tucgoi 


leahyical rrlaiionahipt ar 


Joseph, ■ 

ar character (above, coL siSs, n. 3), re^ — - - 

.1.- ._^_ '-■* -L-- -■--■- exchange of place* refers 10 

n decidedly IT 

In the mode of cakulaiing tt 
occurred (Month, I 3). 'Tbit t« 

Wnckler hinuelf offen another' 

Winckler suggests that there was much more than 
the story of Gideon -Abimelech to indicate an early 
importance of Manasseh. The fact thai in one account 
the career of Saul began at Jabesh in Gilead he regards 
as one of severs! indications [GlZisfi) thai SauV was 
from across the Jordan, probably a Manasslte leader of 
a band of warriors who made ihe chieftainship of 
Benjamin a stepping-stone to the kinphip of a 
1 So MT, 


in Ihe San. text it ulcen by 

* I Ch. 83 (dwellen at 
Jeruwlem: temp, A»), W 
Heiekiah's pauover : dejlru 


of the trih<^Jn' JudTTx 

dPeih.; but «BA gives Ephraini rir 
: in Joih. IT ■ j the phrase is a gl 
lumf in • (•Ml.i 


lid cannot.. 

rihetrihes in Judg. IX maybe due 'to R; and what 10 make 
f Judg. i (EilphmimlBimaminl Machir) a not clear. 



^ \ Josh.SU-=iCh.r«# , 
Xil»9;-iCh.(i>s(when Ephiaim is omitledl (priest 
. ,). 1 Ch. IS joyC (dsKtiets (0 David), 1 Ch. 3; 10/ (David 
•ithal rulen Imllfl'in. 

T Jacohs- list (A*/. .4rr*. 50) ii: Abraham, riaac, Belhu. 
Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, JuJah, Joseph, Benjamin, Ephrair 

• Ewn r.unkel in hit interesting note (Cm. 171^:) does n. 

> Cp Gunkel, CtHtiu^ p. liv, n. i. 


Benjamiti monarchy, which, through the expulsion of 
(he Philistines, became a state of considerable dimen- 
sions (161 1S4). A forecast of this is given in ttte 
vicloiy of Jephihah over E^phraim {2 141), whjdi 
Winckler thinks originally made Jephthab king in 
Shechem (141J, and with this he connects the story 
of Abimelech. Manasseh had thus the supremacy in 
a very real sense before it passed to Ephraim with 
Jeroboam. The theory thai Saul's home was across 
Ihe Jordan is strongly defended by Winckler. For 
(Jbeyne's reasons for rejecting it. and Ihe emendations 
of the text on which bis Own theory partly rests, see 

Naliually the 
was popularl) 
«. Heulng 


• as well as the status of Manasseh 

ned. It was connected with Ihe 
1 forget. Josephus says that Ihe 


o forget' {Am. 

Diums. j. g^^ g ^j iWXijSw); Josepli's present 
happiness made him forget his former misfortunes. 
The explanation intended by Josephus occurs In Gen. 
4151 (E), alongside of another version IJ 7 so Gunkel) 
which makes the thing forgotten not Joseph's [rouble 
('tov [E]) but his father's house. 

It is not very dear what is the point of the emphasis laid 
(41 JO IEl>on Manasseh and Ephraim being bom in the fhiitfid 
years b^ort [he yeara of famine : il is doubtful whether it 
implies a special interpretation of the names — Manuseha 

JijOT Such a popular eiymology would fit admirably Winckler'. 
from JuJ^n t"^rhl^ fc^^VMBrHTIlK'bnt ihe"^i>^ 

The real etymology of the name is unknown. The 
abnormal vocalisation (l^) *"' ^^ ""'* expressing E'l 
explanation would confirm the tradiliontU vocalisation 
of the name if we anii, be sure that it is not (so Ball, 
ad loc. ) accidetital. Kortunately Manasseh is one of 
the few tribe names that were eariy used by individuals, 
and so we have seventh-cenluiy evidence of the pn>- 
nunciation.' II is. however, not quite decisive. In 
Esarhaddon's list of tributary princes Ihe name is 
(<ii-e) { but in that of ASur-bani-pal il4s 
■- ■ i-e). 

un other names ending in sa {(ir), Sieg- 
suggested that Matiasseh was a compound 
a^a (cp S*. narwaiKni). 'Men sustulit' 

Minse (Mi-ii 

: Men- 

os). Men 

'-. Gad, S I, end), 
found worshippers in Israel even in very late limes (Is. 
aSii. RV). If Meni has been shortened into -man in 
Ahiman, as FUrst ai^gesled (cp AhiMAn), it is possible 
thai it might be treated similarly even al the banning 
of a word. It is not certain, however, that Ihe names 
ending in js support the theory, in> in nvo-n may be a 
divine name like Duiara in trTrnoTi, and in tivrhm it 
may be like IJOl in S3:iSk (EXa^^m).' 

It would thus be possible, indeed, to regard Ihe name 
Manasseh aa one of a class by no means small, the 
class namely of names that contain two divine titles. 

1 The suggestion of G. H. R. Wright (Ifni /mi/ in ^7//^ 
»;) that we shouUl connect the name with the iiory of a lur- 
viving remnant of Ephraim in Judg. 13 4 (Dint wSb. BSot»in« 

^elii wiih1?l^Kori>iii«i'^il» iiuTdee'M^, Bu., Nwrw 
Av.lthallherciLtorrhepa^itgeiscornipt- (The use Sleuemafel 

U there more u be said for a connection (Wright, l.r.'i with 0), 

Josh. 23 may owe iu> origin to (see col. i^m, n. jX il is hardly 
possible that a x'jHHandard had anything to do with It \ and 
moreover, even if wc should incline 10 accept Steuemagel's 
■nir* Kiinestion (£/jvfnsvaEmrj*r, 96) that originally it was 

in JoNephits chat were blamed (see Rruhen). ' Manas. 

not seem to have been mentioned in (he story ori^nally. 
' we must remember, however, the piHsibiliry that the 

adi"i?^of°ihe''ttiha'l n^."° """' ""^ " " 

> ZPTi'tnt^/- He U followed by C.Niebuhr(C(K*.£*»-. 

* On n^el in » see S. A. Cook, £,./ T 10 s»s/ (■S99X 





t Hebrew equJTilent 

n ihu ihtn 

li Kr'bocn'iUB. 

Mio-le. whtcb would be the exac 

of Ainr-bani- pal's Mirue, would ._ 

tbe two dinne names Men and Sa (cp Baasha). 

It voold b* iMtunJ then to conject""" """"" """" """"" 

iDuodcT of ihc ibird gnmt pcdt-Diividic notl 
thin be oiled 'ben Minihe'— I Manuiile. 
(eued ekeirben (IsucHAR. I 4) Ihu Iben 

« rcDopiition oTh dvilr S* in N. Ephnir— _. _,,., — . 

ddicrfaaad, weivm^edlhonkconlhceAVoftbe Jordnn. Ihecom- 

Mcnahem, who »u probably s Glidilt(b«i Cad[; see Gadi, 
Gad, f 10). rn»y haire bome the nunc of the »ame deity : to. 
jodfe from the spelling of the king's name in Tiglatb^piLeaer's 
contemponry List of Crihutariei (Me-ni-t^-un-nrf), MeaAhem 
■Ay vtuid telAted to Hamual [f -D-l u JoAB to Abiel. 

If on tbe other hand we are willing 10 follow the old 
Hebrew etymology in regarding Monasseh as a parti- 
dfual form (see below), it will be plausible lo Bnd in il 
Ibe name or title of a divine being hooouied by 
Manacle clans. The unnamed god who vanished 
with tbe appearance of morning (Gen. S2i4['i]^. ]E) 
inflicted an injuiy in wbal v. ij [96] i;alls nfin i-i ' |EV, 
'the sinew of' tbe 'hip'). In Amlua nmijia is to 
(uffer. andimitl, to inflict, such an injuiy. Manasseh(the 
piel paniciple) would thus be the name of a super- 
Dalural being of whom the infUcling of such an injuiy 
was chaiBclerislic (so Land, De Gids, Oct. 1871, ' De 
wonting van siaat en godsdienst in bet oude Israel,' 
30).* Gunkd suggests Ihal the story is connected with 
■ local religious dance of a peculinr halting kind. It is 
worth noting that taf^tlvj, ' walking in a loose manner, 
as though disjointed, . . . as though dragging a thing' 
B the effect of contnct with ginn \Hawt. p. 30, /. 4 ; 
cnmpoie the slory in Abulf. Ann, Sui). Il is not 
eertain, however, who it was that was lamed. Gen. 
3!i6a (E. Gtinkel} certainly suggests that it was Jacob's 
antagonist, and 'Jacob' in v. *b (J? Gunkel) may 
.ery well he an erroneous gloss. W. M. MQller {As. u. 
Eur, 163, n, I ) well compnres /A'oif , 3311%-}!} (Odysseus' 
■uifair wrestling). That this Is really the view of J 
seems to be borne out by i>. 39 (J) where Jacob ha5 
'prevailed with gods and men.'* II would appear, 
tberefoie, that in the original story the epithet Manasseh 
was a. Riling title of Jacob himself, which might be bome 
by bis worshippers, as in the case of Gad. According 
10 1 K. I816 the N. Israelite jR'ophets (priests?) were 
accuslomed 10 perform certain religious daoces which 
could be called limping* (RV°«' ; inw^). There may 
have been something similar east of Ihe Jordan, where it 
is commonly held that the wrestling scene is laid, 
Bemh. Luther, however, ai^uei with some plausibility 
fZ^7'H'2l69[i90i]) thai ii really belongs to Bethel 
(Gea 28). The queslioo is of less importance in the 
present inquiry, since, if the story is connected with a 
real tradition of some kind, it refers 10 settlers on their 

u of this last explanation that 
ie evidence that the name Maiutsseh was 
participle, therefore in a sense an adjective, 
ently capable of being used wilh Ihe article. 
'n Ihe Heuleuch with Ihe ~ 

U »Dd PX in 

; •(?)!. 

T the c( 

> The critical aulru of ibe 

» Cp H^n^G' ' 



ApanJIel loE't MAhmnaim fnxginenl ft^a/, which perhaps 

inally laid of a (oucceHfult) conflict of Jacob wilh divine 

li«i>i» CunktIX 

OriXH, Al leui if the leal ii right (bul cp Dance, I * UDl 
■ AAer nes (in), on tbe other hand, the article ii never 

• Of course aljo in Nu. 8833 before ^CV [3- 

a icnlal m^TJ^Xibly hSSimf '"-'" '"■-■-I ™ ™ 
tLiirrii. 2i, | isc) iuelT needs ei 
fdaiBtiYTti (/rrnwTT, I la^if, tL)iBat 



nd J ishua ^longer thai 

ndnued ir 

This gentilic 

with (he anide ■ and alwayi of the Irani- Jordan Iribe. 

Reference has been made to the representation in 
Judg. B of a Machir ( = Manasseh) settled in the bigb- 
- i-__,j, -» landsof Ephraimandtherepresentation 
o, Mffnai <» ^ J according to which the Machititei 
■ssed the Jordan (?) and established 
:lves (Nu. 82 m 4' / ) i" Gilead, the land of Ihe 
les. See further Jair, Nobah. Gad and 
Reuben, however, having been described in JE (Nu. 82) 
as being assigned their homes before iheir kinsmen 
settled in W. Palestine (cp Gad, % ii). it came to be 
said thai Machir loo received Gilead from Moses (v, 40). 
Wilh this is connected the view of the Deuleronomio 
wrileis that the whole country from the Jabbok north- 
wards— tbe half of Gilead (Josh. 12>s ISji), >'.(., the 
pan not given to Gad (DI. 8»), and all BashAN. all 
the region of Abgob. the kingdom of Oq (DI. Sij)— wb» 
given by Moses IoManasailes(cpDt. 268 Josh. 126 IBS 
IS, Di. etc.] 30/ 187 22;; for Baahan Dl. 1 « Josh. 20 1 
21«i7). who come to be called regularly 'half the tribe 
of Manasseh.' Naluiully it became necessary lo asso- 
ciate these Manassiles with Gad and Reuben in helping 
their kinsmen (menlioned alone in Nu.32) lo effect a 
settlement in Ihe west*(Josh.lii4ii [DJ) and in the 
obscure story of the altar (Josh. 22 ; see Gad. g ii.and 
especially Reuben). The view of P has often been 
supposed to be similar (cp Josh, 13 39 143?}. 

According to Steuemagel, however, E and (so now 
also HoUinger, /asiua, p. lii) P recognise only Reuben 
and Gad in the east {/mi. api} : his vieu' being based 
on the P parts of Nu.32 and on the genealogy (916). 
From the fact that the Manas^te genealogies in Nu. 
28i9 J'and Josh. 17i.^ differ only in their account of 
MachirandGilead,'Steuemagel argues that Machir and 
Gilead are a later insertion into P which knows nothing 
of any Machir — an insertion woriced in in two ways 

The confijuon on this subject is perhaps past repair ; 
but we venture lo make the following suggestions. Il 
appears that in Josh. ITiJi as it pow Stands the soiu 
— being called ' Ihe rest ' in opposition to Machir who 
figures as the father of Gilead — an: regarded as settling 
in W. Palestine. Steuemagel reaches the same result, 
for when he cuts out the mention of Machir he cuts out 
also the words 'the rest of.' On the other hand it is 
just as certain thai in Fs list (Nu.2e34) the sons are 
assigned lo Ihe east (on Nu. 27 1 iltl i see below}. Kuenen 
argues that Gen. GOij (E) also held Machir lo be tbe 
only son of Manasseh. Is it necessary, however, to 
suppose that E would have called Machir ' father of 
Gilead'? May not the 'sons of Machir' mean tbe 
■tribe of Machir,' and Ihe 'adoption' (St. ZATtV 
tuifi [1886]) be E's acknowledgment of the equiva- 
lence of Manasseh and Machir ? (so practically Gunkel). 
The names of some of the sons certainly suggest the west. 
That is true of Abieier. Shechern, and Hepher ; perhaps also 
of Shtmida (pTDrX wliich may be connected in jomt way whh 
Shamir, Shiirion. Shomnn : « rtndt (motlly) r lor .^.< None 

1 In 1 Ch. !T 91 occun npKjn -m- 

s Dt. 1 43 ''^f'p, 2 K. 10 3j '>'l3?i, and twice with b3v ITk 
nt. »e[T| I Ch, » 31. In each case Reuben/n precedes. 

• On ihe poHibllity of Jonw historical reminiKence undetlyinf 
this story <Sleueniagel, Kinwandemv, 94) see Keuhen. 

« Gen. « » give. iBgeaeaJogy of hfanaMch (E.H.Am. | ij, 
n. I, and see below). SaAL inserl! a notice agreeing wilh i Ch. 
T 14 : by an Aramzan concubine Manaaeh bcgal Machir, wlw 
begat Gilead. 

f Machir-s relation lo Hepher. etc., u in Nu. ihal of Brand. 


enringcr, d(/£v.)eapecially if the | 


ikkijunltnownandufisAATiel, if indeed il 
IT il Kcnis on Ihe whole as probable as n« 

«) foi ihe daughicn of Mana&xh received 

lo conclude that, as 
Ihe wriltT who is responsible for ihe menlitm of Gilead 
had lost al] hold of the geographical meaning of the 
name Gilead. or. believing that Gilead was conquered 
liTsi. r^arded the W. M.inassiles as offshoots of Ihe 
E. Manassiles7' It is oil the whole more likely that 
the source of confusion is the word Machir. Sons were 
assigned lo Machir- Manosseh (e.g.. Gen. 5O13. E), who 
wa» then mistaken for Machir -Gilead, and therefore 
called in a gloss - father of Gilead ' (see below, n. 3). 

Il seems natural lo suppose that the hve daughters 
(Nu.2S») are lo be judged like the sons. 

37^ does not s»lhal Moieiaclually^ve Ihe daughters Iheir 

oul*^ Jorfiua— 1.°., in W pjteu!^ The'cw hadlo be 

d«i>H)n ihouM be atlribuled"^ 'M^'"Thrm»i natural ei- 
plonation of the postponement of the carrying out to Josh. 17 

k nothing in the five names as they appear in the present tevc 


We It 

. who the 



e Man 

On the assumption, which is universal, thai 
I is a real tribe name, it is generally supposed 
Ihat when the curlain rises the Manassites are pun of 
the inhabilanls of Ml. Ephraim. 

Winckler's suggestion thai the Gideon -Abimelech 
story is a monument of the arrival of Manasseh from 
the east has been mentioned above (g 3). Sieuemagel, 
conversely, remarks thai Gideon's claim on Succolh and 
Pcniel suggests that part of what he calls Ihe Jacob-tribe 
— i.e., what afterwards became Joseph ( — Ephraim. 
Benjamin, and Manasseh) — may have remained E of 
the Jordan when Ihe others entered Palestine IJiin- 
vntnikrung, 64). 

Although it is also commonly supposed that Benjamin 
had already been constiluled whrn Manasseh or Machir 
became dislinci from Ephraim.* this is by no means 
certain (see Benjamin. g| i /. s, Ephraim. % 5, ii., 
Joseph, % a). The expatislon of Joseph seems to be 
dealt with in a much discussed pa^isage in Josh. 
(17i4-i8). The house of Joseph (see the comm. ) 
complains that the blessing of Yahw^ has made it too 
large for a single tribal portion : it finds Ihe highlands 
too narrow and the plain inaccessible. I'he answer is : 
clear the forest and force a way into the plain. Al the 
same time it is admitted to be entitled lo more than one 
portion- If Iheplausiblelheoryof Budde(A^', Sa. isjf.). 
adopted by Kitlel {GtscA. Nti. 1 no}, that the forest to 
be cleared was in Gilead' (cp Ephh.scm. § 3I. be 
adopted, it is natural to regard the spread of Machlr- 
Manasseh 10 the E (Nu. 3239) as a further stage of 
the same enpansion which produced West Manasseh. 
Sleuemagel (/iifwatn/triiiif, 97) finds an echo of the 
birih of Manasseh in thcslnry of the advance of Joseph 10 

I Thee 


>, Hastings' DSSijgi ai 

> InNu-SS it 'ig hewla of Ihe fathers' houses of the famil] 
tbe children of Gilead (v. 1) that call Zebphehad iheir bioi 
l«. .1 ■ h«t in V. s Ihc speakers are called ^he tribe of Ihe s 
' Gifead ' and * Machir,' therefbr*. in b. i are pi 

of Jose^.' 'Gifeai 

ablv not original. . . 
chief men of the tribe of Man 

leh that told Mas- 
e ((7^/56), and 01 

» Hiliig (CK/ loS) fou.._ 

ndStniemageKin/i^.Xia tbe N., Ewald((;K/>>'!i4)/) i' 


Dothan.' He thinks that there were probably struggles 
with the Leah tribes Issachar and Zebulun who were 
making their way from Ihe SW. of Ephraim where they 
bad at first settled (see ZBBfLtiN). 

Judg. 6 seems 10 imply that the whole of Manasseh 
was in West Palestine. When the Machirites are lo be 
supposed to have crossed into Gilead of course we do 
not know. Steuemagel thinks Ihat there was a conflict 
between (W.) Manasseh and Gad {Eimaaitdtrung, 94, 
below) which ended in the conquest of northern Gad 
(Gilead) by the Machirites (expedition of Gideon, conquest 
of Succoth and Peniel ; see, however, Gideon) ; when 
the Gileadiles are called a Machiriie clan they are 
thereby treated as dependent on Machir. 

The 'Blessing of Jacob' contains al present no 
raenlion of Manasseh (or Ephraim), treating it as part 

, Othar °f Jmeph (see, however. Joseph i., $ 3, 
isTarln^ first small type, Ephiaim.Ss. ii-. second 
rainaDBM. paragraph), and there is considerable 
confusion in Ihe blessings connected with the adoption 
of Joseph's sons (see Carpenter - Batiersby and Ihe 
comm. }. In ihe ■ Blessing of Moses ' on Ihe other hand 
Ihe last two lines of Dt. 33i7 where Manasseh is 
ntentiorved are a glosi. Who the 'first -bom' (MT, 
"it* nisa) referred to in tbe first line is, is disputed ; bul 
in any case the reference is not to Manasseh. 

It is improbable ihai iS, 20 m telli us that David had ■ 
Manauite priest— having perhaps (Winckler) carried olT same 



<fi'i^C- '■''>> »^'' />''"<' has a^sen 

northern pan of tiie tians- Jordan country. In Ps. MI7) 
(^ IDS 8) Gilead and Manaueh repre>.ent Ihe trans- Jordan district 
h Ephraim and Judah): inDOiEpliraim, Beniamin.and Manasseh 

It i! 

hind the legends and other data a 

T. Prabkbl* !|r^ f "■; 
•""^l- m historical ti 
It Shechem (Ephrai 

e of e 

of gravity of northern Israel 
ippears lo have been 
There is no him in 
Ihe OT of any iradiiion of ihe southern Leah tribes ever 
having been farther north than Shechem. If we are 10 
connect them, as seems probable, with the f^abiri of the 
Amama lellers.* the settlement of the Israelites proper 
(including ' Manasseh ') in Ihe Ephraim highlands will 
fall later (cp Naphtali, fg t 3). They contributed, as 
we have seen. 10 the struggle sung of in Judg. G. It 
seems probable Ihat Ihe souihem ' Benjamite ' monarchy 
of Saul was made possible by earlier achievements 
farther north. It is not possible to distinguish definitely 
Manasseh from the rest of Ihe Ephraim highlands which 
aredealtwiihelsewhere(EPH«AlM, i. 3/). There can 
be little doubt ihal there was always more or less com- 
munication with the trans- Jordan lands. The history of 
the northern portion of ihc trans- Jordan lands, which is 
iradiiionally regarded OS Manassiie, is very obscure. 
JEPHTKAH. The most obvious fact written on Ihe face 
of the records preserved lo us is ibe series of struggles 
with AramiEans. If there were such, as no doubt there 
were, in the earlier days (sec Jacob, Laban), il is ei-en 
more certain Ihat Ihey were frequent later {/.g. , Am. 1 j). 
On tbe conlributions made to the history of Israel by 
the trans -Jordanic division see Gad, | 10. On East 

He combines with ihis Ihe fight M the w 

L'h. followinK lU'27aaq, he place< near Uoln>... 

Either Beniamin or .Manasseh mu-^t beanaddiiion^perhaps 

sellkminl of Israel lEiHwrnKtrrunf, tts-Tij). Oo Ibe 
question tee (bashles Naphtali, I iJSlHBoN. 

if Merociit 
(cp judg. 




repuuiion for valour see Josh. 17 1 i Ch. 
According to the Chioaicler the (easlern] half 
uiisieb irtts tnmsponed by Tiglath-pilner (i Ch. 
aK. 1.119 had said simply 'Gilcad,' on which see 
TALI, g 3, n. In Ihe fraement referred to below 
(neil coL] we are told, if the reading is correct, that 
Geshur and Aram obtained possession of the Harvotb- 
jair (■ Ch.2i)l. The Chronicler is strangely fond of 
introducing references 10 Manasseh (see col, 3919, a. 3). 
There is nothing surprising in the fact that ^e geo- 
graphical data as to where Manassiles were settled are 
■ Vm HO. perplexing. Ps south border is dealt 
KnoUiml dftta. V e'«wnere (tPHHAlM, gs S "I- 
•"•^ u»«. ^^ northern border is omiiled (see 
Joshua. % 9), unless the last clause off. in. which bos no 
grammatical subject, represents it. No list of Manassite 
cities is given (cp Joshua. % 9), only a list of those which 
might have been expected to be Manassile, but were 
not: Tappuah belonged to Ephraim. and hve — vii.. 
Beth-shean near the Jordan. Ibleah. Taanach. 
and Mecidoo on the S. edge of the great plain, and 
Dor' on the coast — remained in the hands of the 
CanaajiitES (on the text off. usee Asher, g 3). What 

know (see Naphtau, § a). Instead of a list of 
Manassile cities we have in v, i a list unparalleled in the 
book of Joshua : each item is ' the sons of—.' Some, 
however, if not all. of the names are names of towns ; 
and the same is true no doubt, as Kuenen saw ( TA. T 
II4U [1877]). of Ihe daughters mentioned in v. ] 
(seeooL 3933, small type). 

i. The list just leferreei 10 (Josh. l/i/). and the equiva- 
lent list in Nu. 26 j*' has been discussed already (col, 

— , . 2933) in its bearing on the Manasseh< 

<***»*«'P*"- Machir-Gilead question. As a gene- 
alc^y it laisci a hirlher question. The brothers among 
vthom the daughters received their inheritance {^nK *pn3 
))-3k; Josh. 17) are nowhere mentioned. The father 
himself is named in five passages (Nu,26 = i Ch. 7 
Nu. 27 Nu. 36 and Josh. 17) ; but nowhere is there any 
hint of his having any brothers. In fact, as Kuenen 
(for another object) has pointed out ( Th. T 11 4S9). only 
if there were no such brothers could the dai^hters 
succeed to Hepher's inheritance. In Nu. 86n. how- 
evo-, it is expressly said that the five daughters married 
ions of their uncles (j-iTi* 'u). If the daughters' 
lather were Hepher instead of being Hepher's son the 
difficulty would disappear. If we suppose that Nu. 
Ztyi originally began ' And Hepher had no sons.' and 
that later Hepher became corrupted into Zelophehad 
(iBnVi becoming theSii), necessitating the gloss "son of 
Hepher.' we clear up the matter and also get rid of the 
diflicult name ' Zelophehad.' Cheyne very acutely 
treats Zelophehad as a cormpiion of a supposed Salhad 
(see Salecah) ; but that assumes that we are 10 look 
in the £.. and that view, it has been urged above (g 5, 
mid.), is not without difficulty. 

ij. The 10 ( 1 1 ) Manassite (?) names mentioned before 
(} 5) reappear for the most part, though quite differ- 

main Manassite genealogy (i Ch. 7u-i«): it comes 
between Naphiali and Ephraim. The passage seems 
to be deeply corrupt (see 
Abicttr is > >«i (lui (n un. 
bust R usterX of Milcah who i 



litl-Shemhl, Ulun (Bcnilmiu ir 
m, ] ask. liiTJ, and Bcdin) can 

wned, u a ngiftler of ' half llic iHl 
the land.' 10 supplement Ihe Reub 

Judg. IO3, appears t 

in the genealogies. The Chronicler has perhaps re- 
paired the omission : a fragment (i Ch. 3>i-i)) wedged 
into the Jtidah genealogy tells thai a daughter of Machir 
had a grandson named Jair who had twenly-three cities 
in the land of Gilead. The closing words of v. 13 
suggest that the fragment belongs to Ihe obscure gene- 
alogy in 7 14/:' Whatever be the real meaning of that 
genc^ogy, however, it is not quite certain that anywhere 

1, Jail 


Dt. 3 14 is not a reliable passage ; but it may mean this : 
no doubt Moses had given the territory mentioned in 
the context to half the tribe of Manasseh. but (read 
■m-iwith 0) Jair took all the region, etc. 'Son of 
Manasseh ' was probably appended to ' Jair ' after 
Nu, 324T had received its present form — i.e., probably 

about Mac 

r was therefore 

it Joih. IS 30 

Wbiihirwemiy vinlui 
was the outcome of a fuBtor 

infer fron 

lilcfcp Ed. Meyu, Emttlri. 
n> »>ti. uiMoue funiHa (M.(« of GikadV 
11 finl umewhat S. in Gilead (Judr. 10 iff-i 
Dvcd noclhwardi (^T), mingling wuh 
ManuMUes tw sieuemmfiL JUimttmirrmur, as). Is leu certain. 
SeeREUBKH. IfSEfiUB, Jair'>'ruher'(iCb.3»), isicomip- 
lion of Argob, whicb Jair ja said (O havcamquered (L>L S 14), Iheie 
may have been a theory 10 that effect- 
On the [loblera connected with Manasseh see in 
addition to the commentaries, the histories, end the 
dictionaries. Kuenen. ' De ^tam Manasse' {Tk.T 
11478-496 [1S77]) and Stcuemagel. ZVr Eimaandening 
dir i$tTietiti!cktit Stimvti in Kanaan (1901). especially 
ai-aB. H. w. H. 

MAHASSEHinfTJE); m&n&cch(c) [BKAL]). 

I. King of Judah (693-639 B,c,). son of Heiekiah, 
and father of Amon ; on his mother's name see Heph- 
ZIBAH. Very little is recorded of his long and, it would 
seem, extremely prosperous reign. As we approach 
Ihe final catastrophe, the editor feels it less important 10 
communicate details, becauseof the reactionary character 
of the religion favoured by Ihe latest kings. The sins 
of Manasseh. so we are assured — i.t., lirsl. bis patronage 
of heathenish cults, and next, his shedding of innocent 
blood (bs a persecutor of the prophets?)— were the irtie 
causes of the captivity. But how could this wickedness 
of the king be consistent with Ihe long-continued pros- 
periiy nhich the annnls appear to have recorded ? 

According to a long-assumed critical result (see 
Graf. SI. Kr.. 1859. pp. \f>T ff. ; Kue. Oad.W i, 473 ; 
Wellh. /*™/.ffl 315 [ET 307]. and cp CHBONICLBS, 
S a (<)), the Chronicler found a way of reconciling this 
inconsistency, which seemed to threaien his dogma of 
prompt retribution for sin, by supposing a Babylonian 
captivity of Manasseh (a sort of prophecy of the later 
captivity under Nebuchadreiiar). from which the king 
was only delivered through his repentance (a Ch. 3S 
11-13). Schrader. however (/iTjITI^ 367^), has 

given highly plausible arguments in favour of the accuracy 
of the Chronicler, so far as his facts are concerned, (i, ) 
In the lists of twenty-two tributary kings of Canaan and 
the small neighbouring countries given alike by Esarhad- 
don and by Aiur-bSni-pal we find Ihe name of Menassd 
king of Jaudu— i,e.. Judah {ATB ii, I4S939). (ii. ) Whelt 
Sama5-sum-ukln, king or viceroy of Babylon, rebelled 
against his royal brother (cp ASvubahipal, % 7), he 
obtained the support of Ihe kings of the very region 10 

1 See col, 1161, n. t, and especially Zelophkhad. ' 

» So also CSeyne (Jxphthah, | 3). 

y Google 


Vbichihelributaries oD thelisubeloiiged(A'S2iSj; cp 

ifs). ll is not known whether Manasseb wai mon 
cautious than the rest : but we have no reason to suppose 
tbis. (iii.) Even if we grant that Manasseh was suspected 
of being implicated in the revoli, he would certainly have 
been summoned by Aiur-bani-pal to give an account of 
his actions, and there are iuscriptions to prove that after 
the overthrow of £ania£-£um-ukin (647 B.C.), A£ur-biiii- 
pal received both kings and ambassadors in Babylon. 
Knowing, as we do. much better than Graf, bow the 
Chronicler generally worked — vii., by adopting and 
modifying or supplementing earlier traditional material 
— we have no sufficient reason to doubt thai Manasseb 
did go 10 Babylon at the call of his suzerain. Whelhcr 
he was carried thithCT in diains, like Pharaoh Necho I.. 
or whether this is a romantic addition 10 the story, we 
cannot venture to say. That the repentance of Manasseh 
was a fad, no historian could assert The whole course 
of the later history is opposed to such a view (cp Israel. 
S 36; Wi. AT Unt IM/; M'Curdy, Hill. Pn/fk. 
Mbh.Zs^. who boldly corT«:ts 'Babylon' in Ch. into 
■ Nineveh ' ; Driver, in Hogarth, Anther. ai%d Archaet. 



as df the OironiclEr's lUtcnMnt in 3 Ch. SS 11 mxf 
-I the idea thai ihc nuiaiivi ii an edilying fiction, 
isuenesi alwuvB there 7 One exprt^^n may lead 
i^— vii., 'look him uilt knoki' (» RV°W. for 
, expression mjgbt pau in poetry (see i K. lOaa 
Iob40>i|41il),but hardlyinsoberpnse. Y<[ 
'In chains' (RV; m ». Vg. .Tg.jdr- ■--• ■- 

A parallel pasiage (a K. 55 O suagesls thai n-mn n 
Ihe name 01 a place, and further, thai Che latent place 
be Jericho (in'T3 ; nu>'™"en ■mn3=q'mn3)- If", 
fled to Jenchnon the capture of Jerusalem, and was I. 

id the 1 

of the B'ne Pahath-moib in liu of those with foreign 
~ ■.11.K., f t, end). Erra lOjot (fi»a«4 [BatU-r Ksd. 
lac IISai). 
^ uneoi [he B'ne Huhum in unw list. EoalOsjI-i Eid. 

(.' In Judg. 18 JO [MT] OiorHirini [AD. anceuor of Jonathan 

I Eld. 8 

^ ( 



4.M[.lio. 'SeeMAHASSEHlii(i). ~ 
5. Rev. 7 6. Sea Manasseh i. 

■AVABSES, PBATER OF. See Apckrypha, g 6. 

lUMASSITE[>^]1p). Di.443etc SeeMAHASSEHL 


ICAHDKAKES, RV-c- Lovcapplbs (D^^niif ; 
mhA& M&N^p&ropoYi Gen. 3O14: M&NAp&roPAl 
(-OI AZ) once). Gen. SOij/ Cam. 7 .3 [.4] [-peC A]t). 

The Hebrew name, dUdSlm. was no doubt popularly 
assodaied vrith didim, n-rtii. 'love'; but its real ety- 
mology (like that of iiartpayipia) is obscure. It de- 
notes the fruit— in Cant. T 13 [14] possibly the flowers^ 
i>f a plant of the same genus as the belladonna plant 
(Alropts BtUadnniia, L.). A Greek description of the 
mandrake will be found in Dioscorides (476) ; among 
its names he mentions cifuofa, ' Wetistein, who on 
9th May (1860) found the already ripe fruits growing 
profusely on a mountain in HanrSn (cp Del. Hakeiied 
H. KohiUlh. 439#), argues for the plant of the OT 
being the au/umn mandrake {Afandragora aatamnalis. 
BertoL), rather than the spring mandrake {M. ogici- 
Karum, L.), because in Palestine the spring mandrake 
would have disappeared long before the time of wheat 
harvest (ii. 444/). It appears, however, that Af. 
aiihtmnalii is not a Palestinian plant at alt ; and the 
other species, which flowers from February to March, or 
in warm situations as early as Christmas, has, according 
to Tristram (NHB 468), the time of wheat harvest as its 


Tristram describes the 
-ich purple colour. The 
truii IS D[ me sue ot a large plum, quite round, yellow, 
and full of soft pulp, II has a peculiar, but decidedly not 
unpleasant, smell, and a pleasant, sweet taste.' Tristram 
adds that the belief still survives in Palestine that the 
fruit when eaten ensures conception. A quite distinct 
tradition is that on which rests the use of the plant as 
an aphrodisiac (see Welistein, Lc. and Urw. rfiS). Cp 
Magic, 3 a a, and see Starr, Wm. Antig. attdOr. /aunt., 
82ji9.j68 (rgoi). 
(The connect ion of the slory in Gtn.Mi4y: (00 the or~- ' 

Like the mallow, the niiAdra 
liantment (see Muoionides in i.;nwol»n, ^ftatntf 
; noiel). The German name of the plant (Altaun 
. Alrllna) indicates the prophetic power stipposed to ti 
eimagesmadefraailhisToot which were cherished as oncted 
ossession of such roots was lucky (see Ducange, j.f. * Man 
rai'imd Litltt).) k. M. — w. T. T.-D. 


kiii^'tf en 


_iven in EV o 
njip (^/i13D. cp Mene ; MM 

UM^). In all other places where mane/t or fira occurs 
(1 K.10.7 Eira269Neh.7ji/. 1 Esd. B4S i Macc.l*»4 
ISig Lk.l9r3i6iangt/)i EV has 'pound.' See 

'Weights and Measures, Kesitah. PofND. 

thai in 8A (so Co.). 
explained the nuxive 1 
which ' succeeds after 

prediction with fact-' 
plairf. "The (troel X, 

iilriTiiindefenNble: thet 

kicl say that uu; 

Ll of Enkiel places ihi 
> have been the old H< 

I the fiab>'l 

c[BA]). tEsd.8. 

y shekels.' 

MANES (ma 
Maaseiah (f.U. 

MANQEEfttiATNH), Lk.27»i«EV; alsoLk.l3ii 
RV""-, EV 'slalL' See Cattle, g 5 ; Inn, end. 

KAHIfw&Nt [BA]). I Esd.e3o = Ezral099.BANl,a. 

MAHTOS (man.OC [AV]), aMactllM KV, AV 

HANLIUS. RV MANitJS, TiTtJS (titoc M*nioc 
[AV], so Syr. and Vg. ; mAnAiOC l"'])- the name ot 
one of the ambassadors who is said to have written a 
letter to the Jews, confirmii^ whatever concession 
Lysias had granted them (a Mace. II34). Four letters 
were written to the Jews, of which the last is from 
■Quinlus Memmius and Titus Manlius. ambassadors 
(vpetr^tiTiu) of the Romans.' There is not much doubt 
that the letter is a fabrication, as history is entirely 
ignorant of these names. Polyblus (xixL 96), in- 
deed, mentions C. Sulpitius and Manim Sergius. who 
were sent to Antiochus IV. Epiphanes about 163 B.C.. 
and also (xixi. 12») Cn. Octavius. Spurius Lucretius. 

in consequence of the contention for the guardianship 
of the young king Antiochus V. Eupator ; but he entirely 
ignores Q. Memmius or T. Manlius. We may. there- 
fore, conclude that legates of these names were never in 
Syria. The true name of T. Manlius may be T. 
ManiKi (cp RV). and, as there is not suflicient time for 

recorded l^ Polybius, the writer may have been thinking 
of the former. 

The letter It dated in the ijBih vear of (he Seleucidan era 
1= i6< ac), and in ihst year there was a consul of the name of 

pinbassy 10 Egypt about 164 kc, to mediate between the two 
'■—■- •"■■■— -■ " ' (Li.y,lSii ; pQlyh. Rtl. 

Seleuddan era ai a date, the absence 
£ict that the first in. 

The employment of 

. Uly ihe & 
if the Jews aivd Romans did not 
years later, when Judu heard of the fan 
(iMacc.Sl, llf.), all prove that the doc 


The 111 

11 16-33 : 

Wctmlorir. Difid. Likr. Maccmi., ■ec W : Griniii, 
" '^ ' Ix,, aim Maccabees, Sbcohd, I3). 
. (fp; manna;' t«"»„j,N 
in this eap. eneepi A in jja] 33 js [composite, P and JE, 
l.M«iiin« '" **■""'■ S 3]. Nu. lien, [JE], Dt 
«^!^ 83.6 [D], Josh-Bi. [P]. Neh.B« Ps. 
•»«">• 78=41 also ]n.aj.« Heb-S, Rev.2,T. 
and, in some MSS. Jn. BsSf). The origin of the 
name is still doubllul, though Ebers's derivation Itdhi 
an Egyptian word of the same meaning {mtuHv) is 
probable {.Uunh daen. aa6/ |. A play on the name 
is suggested in Eji. lei; : there can be little doubt that 
in thai verse [^ = .iQ. 'what,' though the use or an 
Aiamaic pronominal form is peculiar.* The explanation 
of Ges. and others that it is lhere = Ar. mann 'gift.' 
is most unlikely (see Di. ad Ik.): the Arabic use of the 
name mann a almost certainly due to Hebrew. 

According 10 P manna was first given to the Israelites 

in tbe Wilderness of Sin on the 15th day of the and 

«. IdantilU """"'' '^ ^^ Exodus, from which point 

,^^^,„. it continued to form their noiuishmenl 

during the wilderness joiiraey, 

(i.) The indication of place and time and the 
description given of the substance itself have led 
10 its identification as tbc exudation of a tree which is still 
unnmon. and probably was formerly more abundant, in 
tbe E, ot the Sinai peninsula — vis., a species of Tamarix 
gallUa. L., called by Ehiuiberg maaitifera. Eben 
(of. eit. aa^jf.), who visited the peninsula in 1871, 
^umeying from N. to S. along the eastern side accord- 
ing to the recorded route of tbe Israelites, came upon 
these trees first in the W. Gharandel, and found them 
most pleniifid in the W. Feir&n and foirly plentifiil 
in the W. esh-Sbeikh (see StNAi). This agrees with the 
older accounts by Seetzen and Burckhardt. The fmrner, 
visiting tbe district on loth Jtme 1S09, fbond quantities 
of ' manna,' partly adhering to tbe soft twigs of tbe 
tamarisks, and partly fallen beneath the trees. At six 
in tbe morning it was of the consistency of wax ; but the 
sun's rays soon melted it. and later in the day it dis- 
appeared, being absorbed into tbeeanh. A fresh supply 
appears each night during its season (June and July). 
BurekbardI describes its taste as sweet like honey, 
pleasant and aromatic, and its hue as dirty yellow ; 
others say that as it Salli by night it is pure while. (See 
the accounts of these and other travellers collected in 
Ritter, £rdi. llMj^). In 1833 Ehrenberg discovered 
thai the flow of manna from the twigs of the tamarisk 
was due to their being puncluml by a scale insect which 
is now called Geisjtfaria mamii/tra. Hardn. Doubt has 
been tbroBTi on this view by later travellers, who found 
manna al a season when (he trees no longer bore traces 
of the insect ; but there can be little doubt that Ehren- 
berg's eiplanaiioa of the origin of ibis exudation is true. 
Tlie qiEtnlity now produced in the peninsula Is small — 
according to Burckhardt only between 500 and 600 
pounds annually ; but it may once have been much 
greater when the woods were thicker and more extensive. 

(it ) Another kind of ' manna ' said 10 be found in the 
desert of Sinai is thai yielded by the Carael's Thorn — 
Al^agi camitomm, Fisch. — a small spiny plant of the 
order Ligumiiiosa. The ' roanna ' i^ed as a drug is 
derived from quite a diRi:rent tree — viz. , the manna ash, 
PraxinKs Omm. L. On this and olber sons of manna. 
•ee FlUck. and Hanb.W4D9^. and cp ZDAfG 2Si,sJ'., 
iSin on Turkish and Kurdish mannas, 

(iii. ) More recently has been put forward another view 
I us ibe aaie form rcpaKdly in the propbeli to render 

1' Field («i Kx. in t;) dio (fmn B^ a Ck. nrson Mv *in 
(CT> Zenner. ZA'T*, iS^ a, 16;/), 'iithit ininneT' [Pinhey 
'■-" '-• ■-'■--«» Cnpiic word ™M = '«b<«"mili» 

' -z^ 

iyxat. Ci^l.-lal. ic6)jive 

J wing a PaloL Ina. publiib^ l^'oerni 
Arck. Or. !.» ei^ - " "- 

food of the godi (cp below 

o Qta* ■ onS> to 


of tbe nature of tbe biblical manna which identifies it 
with lichen — vii,, Lttanora eatilcnta. Eversm., and 
allied species. A good account is to be found in 
Kerner von Marflaun's Nal. Hist, of Plants. Eng. ed. 
1i\off. It is met with in Arabia and many other parts 
of W. Asia, as well as in the Sahara and deserts lA 
Algeria. It first forms thick wrinkled and waned crusts 
on stones, preferably on small fragments of limestone ; 
the outer colour of the crust is a grayish yellow, whilst 
on breaking it appeara as white as a crushed grain of 
com. As Ibey get older the crusts separate frdm their 
substralum, and become rolled back ; ultimately the 
loosened piece forms an elliptical or spherical warted 
body. Owing to their cxlreme lightness these pieces 
are rolled about by the wind, and are carried hither and 
thither in the air, which in dry countries is the means 
of their distribution. Where, on the other hand, there are 
heavy rains the pieces are washed along by the water and 
deposited in great heaps, from which ' a singla man can 
in a day collect 4-6 kilograms (about ia,ooo to 10,000 
pieces, varying in siie from a pea to a hazel nut). In 
the steppe r^on and in the high lands of south-west 
Asia, the manna lichen is used as a substitute for com 
in yeara of famine— being ground in tbe some way and 
baked into a species of bread. The so-called manna 
rains occur generally between January and March — i.^, 
during the wet season. 

The tamarisk manna consists chiefly of sugar (FIQck. 
and Hanb.'*>4i5) and it isdifjicull to see how this could 
by ilself form the sustenance of human beings for any 
lengthened period. The manna-lichen, on the other 
band, is said 10 be ' dry and insipid ' (Teesdale in Sciente 
Goirip. S133), and so would not answer altogether to the 
description in Ex. 1631 [P] ; but the comparison of its 
taste to that of honey is wanting in JE (Nu. II6-9). It 
is conceivable, however, that both these substances may 
have been known and occasionally used as food by the 

The poiiago relating to tbe gifl of the manna are 
ek.ieandNu.ll«-9. Tbe latter belongs to a chapter 
«. CrIHidam *'''** ** certainly pre-exilic. and of which 
TrfSr^ **• *■'* "*' ""^ iome confidence, to be 
*!JS* ascribed largely to J. Ex. 18, "one of 
"■"*"*"■ tbe most perplexing battle-grounds of 
criticism,' consists of a few oM fragments (4 lyi i6a 19- 
1. 3s), the rest being P and Rp.' 

The &ct (hu ihe nuini wu (iven to uuace die hunger oT 
the people, whereas the preeence of food in ilie fonh of caide u 
expreMly menlioned in E». 1" 3 1*13 44; SS 1*4 3 might help u> 

appearance of the manna, according to P (g 3 above). 
Where the older narrative placed it does not at first 
sight appear ; at all events il conies immediately before 
tbe smiting of tbe rock at Masaah and Meribah. In 
Ihe article MaSSAU and Mekibah {q.v.) the view 
has been taken that these names were originally distinct, 
and since we find that in Nu. 116-g the account of 
the manna is wedged in betneen the events at 
Taberah (1-3), and K i broth - haltaavah (ji-ji).' and 
that in Dt, 9ii Massah is placed between these two 
names, it seems prol»ble ihal in the older narrative 
in Ex. 16, the giving of the manna was located in 
Massah ; cp the punning allusion to tbe name in Ex. 
IS4 ('that I may /nnv them,' inw).* It is noteworthy 
that another tradition in Ex. I??' (gloss), Dl. 616, 

> Dr.<cpalsaKue..Co.> 

< Cpalu Fi.TSia; 'theyiemii 


y Google 

mighiy' (tr\ 


Ihe name not wilh ibe ' proving' of Israel t^ 
Yahw6, bul wilh the ' templing * of Yahwi by Israel (see 
Bacon, i.e.. also Massah and Mehibah). 

'Maniuucalled'fa«iventycoin,'and 'bread of the mighly' 
0>0^, nnd DTait DnS. P^ "8 i4/^,"h«™.ly bnad'Cr 'S, 

4. HJIUmI Wisd. IHio <drW'^>' '/•••HI. lUui (flfi! 
lDtarpTeta,UOIU. P(W.<^_ ')»*,')>. '^ ' Cor. 10 J (nnja 

UilCj' aipvcs the RabbEniul leKCCid ihll ihe manoA odaplcc 

«, F^^K^riJ: N. «:, 8 ./ V s. A. 6. . g 3/ 

MAHOAH (nil^, S 74; -rest' or from 030. 'to 
present a gift,' M&Mue [BAL] ; Jot manuKHc). the 
talher of Sannon, of Zorah (y.u.). ■oftbe clan (see Dan) 
of the Daniies' (Judg. 13j9^ 16ji). See Judges 
[Book], g 11. THEOPHANr. Manoah is obviously 
ihe iegendaiy eponym of the Manahathites of Judah 
(or Dan| ; hence his burying-place can be also Ihat of 
Samson(Judg. I631). The story in which Manoah plays 
a pan should be compared with the parallel nanative in 
Judg. 611-H (Gideon), which is usually assigned to the 
same author. The story is that tirsl Manoah's wife, and 
then Manoah hiniself as well, were visited by a messen- 
ger of Yohw^. who was sent to announce the birth of a 
son, and to give directions respecting his bringing up. 
It was this son (Samson) who should deliver Israel from 
Ihe Philistines. 

On lliE ' misleading ' cdiloriil altenidon in Judg. UjdSf He 

1UN8LA7EB (n^i?' ^"- 35'" ■ &NApO<t>ONOC, 

I Ti. I9). See GOEL. 
KAHTBLET (ip'O), Nah. 2 j, RV. See SiBGC 
KAITTLE. Inaddiliontowhathasbeeniaidgenemllj 

in Ihe article Dress on the clothing of the Isiaeliles 

:r this hcadin) 

not only Ihe words so rendered (sometimes incorrectly) 
by the EV. but also and more especially, those Hebrew 
terms which appear to denote any outer garment, cloak, or 
wrapper. !l will be prudent for the present lo keep the 
arch^ological evidence — Ihe sculptures of Assyria and 
Egypt, and Muhammadan usage — quite distinct from 
the very insufficient evidence afforded by the OT alone. 
One of the difficulties associated with a discussion of 
the kinds of ouler -garment worn by the Israelites is the 
1 i»v«i»,^ question whether it was worn over Ihe 
1. Archeology. J'oi^.^i^jh. or skirt (see GikDI.E) alone. 

iuiligai:iiluMon]y.iind Ihe same, probably, wasfrcquenily 
the cose wilh Ihe Israelite ' mantle. On Iheotherhand. 
the lirst caliph Abu Bekr, distinguished for his simplicity 
of dress, is once described as wearing the famla (cp 
Hmlah. % a [i], below) and 'aia'a — the latter a striped 
and ornamented mantle with short sleeves ; and his 

woollen jvil^ (a garment reaching lo the knees, sewn 
down Ihe front wilh the eiceplion of the 

m) J 

No n 


} do 

Finally. Muhammad himself wore >ldin''^(lunic),* 
rial (trousers), and alnve both ajuiia bordered wilh 
Ik. Among Aiabian ' outer garments of a finer sort 

eectiM to'DlSoi. 'unie (mns). »a ouwr girdl*, and a lurban. 
» Eiymologiciilly Ih( — ' 

, -rally' itory. bUt'~dflaUU d.m>ml d 
t la jfratti (Amileidaia, 1845), H. Almkvisl 


are the Aaiam, specifically a striped and spoiled 
gaiment. and Ihe turd, often simply an oblong dark 
piece of thick woollen cloth, or plain wilh dark stripes 
close together (called muiajiyai). The poorest and 

an oblong clolh, sometimes cut and sewn. 

On the Egyptian outer garmeni see Egypt. § 39. 
Its use was established by the eighteenth dynasty, though 

upper garment was a short shirt sometimes with a left 
sleeve and a slit for the right arm. Gala dresses were 

garments were usually more ornamented than Ihe 
women's, whose earliest clothing consisted of a simple 
foldless garment reaching from below Ihe breasts to the 

In the regions of Assyria and Babylonia, on the other 
hand, so far as can lie judged from the sculptures, Ihe 
ordinary dress is a lunic from neck lo knee, wilh short 
sleeves down to above the ellmw. Very frequently the 

alely omamenled. ' A girdle encircles Ihe waist, and 
nol uncommonly the skirt is so dmped as lo fall below 
the ancle of the right fool, whilst the whole of the left 
from just above the knee-cap do\«'nwards is fjare. 
The upper part of the body is often bare, save only 
' ids of omamenled bands, etc Occasion- 

ally, 1 

>e garmi 

left shoulder (leaving the right arm bare). Most sinking 
is Ihe mantle sculptured upon the royal statue in the 
Louvre (see Perrot and Chipiei. Ar/ in Ais. 2. pi. S). 

Turning finally to representations of the inhabitants 
□f Palestine and Iheir nearer neighbours, w-e note the 
over-garment with cape worn by the princes of Lebanon 
(see above, col. 1235. fig. 5). The Asiatics depicted 
above, col. laai/, fig. 3, wear Ihe garmeni wound 
round their bodies. Jehu's tribute- bearers* show a 
mantle with omamenled borders, and short sleexes, and 

fringed round the bottom. The artist represents the 
people of Lnchish quite differently. They wear a long 
shirl or mantle, which seems to have a slit for the right 
arm. * The people of Tyre and Sidon in Shalmaneser's 
inscription are diessed only with a skin, whilst Aiur- 
bani-pal's Arabians fight in a waisl-clolh. Noiewonhy 

depicted on a Beni-Iiasan tomb.* It reaches from 
neck to ancle, and Ihe right arm is left bare. The men 
on Ihe other hand have simply a skirt, apparently of 

Leaving to ihe article TtfNlc what may have to be re- 
marked upon the under-garmeni of the Israelites, we 

9 T^niu. Pf<*™«l n""* to i"'™"'^'™ of the Hebrew 
*"'™^ terms which fall to be considered 

I. n'Kib {HmO* ; IcufRquendynpSlE-. talmdik; 9, ifunff- 
M^. w*<^ [-Rwn. >a/^««D, Ihe Earmenl of both ki« (of 
women in Ex. In Dt. M 17 Ru. Si C»nl.* 11), Ibough, as Dt. 
13 J implies, there was ■ difletence between them ; probably Ihe 
woman k was loager and perhap* chantderiscd by some colour- 
ing. It wai soineihing more dian a mere lunic. Ruih (3j) 
puu one DD before going ou1-of<U»n, and a man could dispenH 
■enis.Tn ihe daytime {Ei.M«/ pl.aiii). 


'. lit. ' bourn,' £1. 46/ Pioi 

'niv.6i7)were adapted hi 

m Prov. SO4 ; cp Ugcil iK.i }9),< and «e may I 
tberdbie, that ii wiu primaHly nolhing more than a reclangulaT 
piece of cloth- The Hmtak, accordingly, would correspond 
wilh the Roman 1^, or btller Hill, ilie falHum. On ihe 

in general (cp JobB ji Cant. 4 1 1)— (./■., nfa prophel I 

Orieni. Congr. (Siockholm and Chri»tiania, L 1 303 ^, it; ff. 
(Leyden, 1S91D, and L. Bauer, Z/)/>r St j>-j8 (1901). 
t For a specimen SK Peirol and Clupiei, Art. i» Aa. !ijj, 

^ Cpfig. in Moots, J-aOT" Judges," 5B. 

• Cp Hall, LigM/nm tit Eail, 166. 

' Cp Ball. IS3, where, however, this slit doei Dot appeu-. 

* Cp Ball, 74, WMM At. u. Kir. ^. 

t In RmOj I, ji^rn^ and Hi^I/Cve no. 6) BiaDsnedtanllMr. 
Since Ihe m^lfvna certainly a mantle (sec no. 6), i^id mar 
perhaps be used of the inner garmcnL 


y Google 


!t below s). •nd irf « '«" 


Ik cluf ui i> lo 

m may be sur^ would bimlly f 

flowing garK Auxherp probably iimi^ar, Dutcr gBnnenE was tbB 
a* nD3, k'laek (cp Ar, kud, i 1 iboveX used gcneratly (kc 
Ditzss, i I I4I}, bul alu ipedfially £1. S9 16, uid Di, tl », 
where llie appeoding <A Fsinces [^.p. 1 i« eomniandfd. 

3. nraco, miifdJath, RuihSi; (AV-v. 'tbeet, or >pton,' 
«*^ij<#fi« : It. 3 71 ; bul cp A), ■ Luge wnpper, whkh could be 
gAibered up (or beuing loadt- li ij poujble Ihu ihii word is 
10 b* T«d in EielLlSitii, inueid of MnMO <EV wmngly 
■ kerchieft ■), on which see Dmss, col. 1141. 

4. l^jD^ lAAm (cp Ais. fWd^iWjHf), probably ■ rectangular piece 
of 6ne linen clolh ; cp lu^ H II /, when AV ■ iheeu ' <mg. 
■ihins,' RV 'nmenu'}. The sMtn wuan article of domfaiTc 
nanufactun (fiov. SI 34), worn al» by women <1>, 9 ij). In 
Mish- Heb. it ii used of a cunain, wrapper, or shroud. Levy, 
CkmU. WS, I.V., dtea Mm. ^• a where the ja^m u uyled a 
■umider nnncnt, (he IrSsip on the other hand, being used in 
winter, it hai, probably, no connection with (rivMr^ which 
in I Mace. IO&4 it used of Jofialhan'i r^aL gament (0A, but 
Shv nu^vpu, cp Syt.V and in NT of a gvmenl worn neii the 
skia (UL Uji/), or 0(1. ihioud (Mi. K », cp Herod. 2h,X 

^ nTTII, miidintk (lit. * glory 'T or cp Ass. o^m ^purple,' 

of the timpiest description. On Ifae one hand, ii was the dis- 
nnctive gub of the pcopbei (1 K. lUi) i}>K.S)i3^,|i«iWtij): 
il wai of hair (cp Ttw 'dZKh. 114 and iw Sjra PKi>K.l8>.* 
On the other hand, the tdiUrtlk was worn by lungs (Jon. Da, 
EV ' robe ^ irrvAit), and one was found and coveted by Achan in 
ibeapoilof JtrichaUoi-Tii). If the reading in TcKb-Tii is 
correct, the best manlles came fhim BabyloiTia. Possibly we 
ibould lead Itcl for ~S^ (see, however. SHtHAnV 

6. S-pS,iw^I/(dcriv.uncen.,BeeBDB>,Bnauteigainlenlwom 
by men of high degree (1 S. 18 4 St 5 11 [4 11] Job 1 so^ alio by 
SaiDutUi5.l9i7ni4cp3i9),*nd Eiia(E>iaS))). Il had 
flowingendl<tS.lBn,etc.,*ilJiM.seeFRiNqis). IniS-Uia, 
where the w^l/wouLd seem 10 havebeen worn by females, the leal is 
corrupt (read cS^FD, see the Coitiin.), and in I Ch, IS 17 (S-pD 
p^) where Unvid is said lo have worn it before the ark, the 
1 1 S. « 14 dp ^33) warn HI againil accepting Ihe MT too 

Tbeaif^I/<QriH''l/af ihe Ephod) il arecofnised lenn for the 
high-priest's extta gament worn upon tpeciai occauoni- The 
dejcriptioM(E<.JSji.^. MM^Joa..rfiil.iiLT4.*'Bj, cp 
Ecctaa-Ui^ [Heb.]) make it a long teanileu garment of blue 
<nS;)l,M«>«K (Jo*.D, with an open bordered neck. At the 
foot were bells and poobegranatca arranged alternately. See 

7, The predie 
•/ia^, Dt.M9ls.aOa)in . 

o( AiJiidii ( 


of rtx^. mi*3Ui3ik (pi. only), a 
nf fenulMflq.ass) is uncertain. EV 

change of garinenli 

with D-113 Jodg-MnyC, iK-Bj »/); cp 9. Such changes 
were nccestajy for puri£iAtion (Gen. SQi), afiel a period of 
DDuniingfa 5. 1!»X or more eipecially u hofiorific gil^s. In 

own personal dothing, though naturally in course of time 
Hmdiei were kept for Ihe purpose. Such gifts arc ttiU con- 

paitJcuUtly flattering.' 

9- V'rra,/rfA)^(Ii.gi4, EV 'uoniacher,' X'tvr «iiffH^ 
^vpotX usually uilerpreted ' mantle,' 11 obscure. This foreign- 
looking word rcKinblcs the Tg. it)re,'oTer-garmenI,' with which, 
indeed I-evy(C:(a.V. IK«)actual1yconnecuii , Che.(rr^f..AiJ.) 
wpnld r^ul, f1^B<7n (fl and ] GonJbundedX 

w. r^n;!^, maifafkilk, It.3ss <EV 'mantles'), cp Ai. 
ifd/ax^ mT^^f, a long-ftleeved robe. 

"e should probably disttnguiih the rare native 
word lidinS from Ihe fbr^gn uiidms. 

9 tdi«r sn ascetic's garb. The founder of Ihe Jacobite church 
in Asia, Jacob bar Theophilus, vaa. sumaaKd Burdfftna because 
his dress cooiisted of a tarda Oti or ciane horse-cloth (Wright, 

> A connection wilh oi'm ' loins '— •• though primarily a loin- 
doth — «eemsout of rhequ«Tion. 

4 v'to pass away or Gh;inge (of garments. Gen. Ua Ps. 102 97 
1)61). Note, however. Ass, ^aUfti 'be clothed,' ^llnftu 
■covering, flappings' (cp Iron, | i\ 

> Doqghty .^r. i>H.l4t 3J?*i>o3SJS3.">J5l- According 
to Doughty fS 19) an outlii coniists of a luiuc, a coarse wonted 
doth, and a kcrddef for the head. 

ti, T^, pri>*. Gen.246s 
article of dothing (EV 'veil 
jaopeily some square garment 

13. Vpf. tatrli, Esth.81 

etymologically il tneans 
garment,' RV preferaUy 

ij. ttSail, karirU, Dan. 
more likely 'hats' (AV) i 
denom. iCh.l6s7 i^rsB. 

Tl"bah. '* 

Some of the common classic 

cp Tg. for niB'Vr Gen. 46 lai 
priniarily had a general meani 

iS. rJ^vh Revl'^l Ij, EV 
.9. .i,K«*ai. 

Isi, for which RV has 'n.intles,' is 
r 'lurhani' (AVmi.). the supposed 
as though 'wrapped ir a mantle') 
njiao); see/. /•A.Mj.o, and cp 


(AV ■■ 

: RV '. 


to. lAui;!, Mt.ITaji, a military mantle (Rom, tahulit. 
mnHi,m\ fastened by a'buckle on the right shoulder » as to 
hang in a curve across Ihe body. Cp s Mace. ISjjAV 'coat,' 

SI. ♦.Wwft, sTim. 4ij(Ti.WH; prop. ^.>MK==AnWit), 
worn on journeys. [I was a long sleeveless mantle of durable 
doth. Socnetimes, but wroitgly, taken 10 be a receptacle (etp. 
of books, cp S>t.). I. A. — ^S. A. C 

lUOCH (^fUtp), I S. 37 1. See Maacah, 4. 

XAOK (1^9 : M&ciN [AL], MA&N [B] ; but in Josh. 
I6s5 MAWP [B], in I S.28S4/ 25' H €pHMOC H 
ETTHHOOC [I']), a lowti in Ihe hill-country of Judab 

the story of David ( I 8.23*4/ 2Gi/. [if in d, 1 we read 
' Maon ' for ' Panin ' wilh ti' : but see ParanJ). As 
Robinson bu shown, it is the moilem TtU Main, 
which is about 10 m, SSE. from Hebron, and 3 m. S. 
from the ruins of fZ-A'amiH/. Eastward o( the ridge on 
which it siBOds is an eitetislve steppe, called in i S. 2394 
and perhapi (bul see Pahan) 25i [ft»]. 'the wil. 
demess of Maon.' The greater pan of Ihis district 
is waste pasture-land, rough rocks with that diy 
vegetation on which goats and even sheep seem to thrive 
-^though a little com and maize is grown in the valleys 
{Caaiet, PEFQ, 1875, cp p. 46). It slopes towards the 
Dead Sea. Cp the MAON of Chronicles. 

Cenealogiially, Maon (fuur [B]) is represented as a 
descendant of Hebron through Bekem (i.*., Jerahmeel?) 
and Shammai, and as the ' father ' or founder of Belh- 

In Gen. 10 1} (if Ibr tlViV' Anamin, we should tead Q^l^D, 
Meonim) the clan of Maon is represented as a sonof Q'-tvnf'.f.. 
Mi?rim, not Mifiaim). SecMiiRAiii. Otscrve thai, « 
to thL< view, Maoa and Caniiel (see Lut>, LuDm, i)are| 

KAOH (fun;; MAii*M[BAL], ,AN*AN[Synim.]; 
CHANAAN [Vg,]; 'Ammon,' Pesh.), EV [rather 
boldly] llMiIlltw, a people mentioned in Judg. lOta 

early oppressors of Israel. Tradition is silent else- 
where as to Maonite oppressors, and some critics (in- 
cluding Be., Gr.. Kau., Buhl, and \SBOT. bul no'. 
CmtJii,] Moore) would iherefore adopt tfi'^'-s reading 
'Midlan.' To this course, however, there are objeciions. 




. ^ -jss troublesome than .- — -,-„-. 

n EV. II y^ is probably partly made up of co 
, The Zidonians, Amaieiutei, and Maoniles of 


CDTfopond to the M 
of V. .1. The irae 
■ Did nol the MitriK 



lin, the Aniorila. ud the benC AnunaB 
nnd me JnahmeeLiio oppreu you, UM 

, H a comipiion of pSoy (Anulek), and' pSop 
r dislonion of "menT (Jer^hmeel). -)□(( 
for ■^HOnr (Jei»hnl*tliTe) ; O-mt « "" 
<q> \m In I K- ITj, Joel *4 for "miO, Min"' = Mijrim 

• C;.MriiuiM. 

:, if i( be accepted, u highly importuit, mnd must be 
_. niMction with Judff' 10a, where, Ibr ' Anun^ Zidon, 

should certainly read * Jenhmeel, 
enhmeel), uid Z>^pbatb>le>.' . Cp 


roposed by Hdidid 
Sm Naoki. 

MAKA. {K^. ' bluer '), Ruth 1 

IIAKAH (n-yj ; in Ex. 15=3fl * mspra [BAFL] ; 
in ... ^jc niKpiA [BAFL]; In Nu. 388/ ntKRIM 
[BAFLJ; MAMA), the name of a well of brackish water, 
menlioned in connection with the wildeniess of Shur or 
(seeSHuR) Beer-shelia. Cp ExODits L, Ma&sAH And 

Theie ii no need lo trouble about idenliRcalions. Later 

belonip lo the realm of the inuginailan. We are faoilllu with 
k locsUulion (in the Neieb ?) i^ the land Ihal dowi with milk 
■nd honey (lee HoNBV). WL {Gack. 2«, n. i) ha. recenlly 
illustrated ibii by the mythic lake (^uJo-CidliHhenei, 2.]), 

See aliriEe S>-rii "Sijirf^T/iiW 

into the^wyoT ^fna {Hf^5?"Tis 
turn Tittr, 90 ^), azul ue Salt S»a. 


KKHpe, ntdna tikd. Rev. 22ii> makes ii likely that 
some such formula (verb in the imperalive) was in Use 
in early limes, and the Aramaic expression iliielf is found 
Id the Didachi (106), where the invitation lo approach 
the Lord's table runs thus : rf nt irfiin tcrir, tfjf/tt9u ' 
tt TU dOc fffTi, /urarMinif fiaparaSi. ijui)*- 

On (he sUDgeiwd pouibility of a timilar fonoula having been 
in UK among Jew., Me /0«, Oct. 1896,0. iS/. ami '-- ''- 
: r .u- ...k.i .r. N. Sdimidl.yii, la 

uiulet Ban 

, i8w,pp.}o- 

n three passages in the OT the £V 
suggests that in iheir archileclure the Hebrews were 
acquainted wiih the use of marble of dlfCeretit cotouis 
{iCh. agiCanLSijCsth. U). The meotion of marble 
in these late books Deed not surprise us ; but the 
references being so few, and the passages in which they 
occur bearing traces of corruption, the queslion is in- 
volved in great obscurity. 


iarble(AV; RV '; 

; MT^:E*"J3«f, the 

I IsXjirobablycai 


'(Budge), pp. 06, 

I (n^ : M4PAAA [LD, a place on d>e 
SW. border of Zebuluti. and apparently E. of Jokneam, 

Josh. 10..t(Ma.pfireAiA[B]. mariAaIA]}. 

The reality of the name n, however, very doubtful. The 
Paielf {vertical line) beloie n^ wami ui to nupect the lut. 
nSpO)verypDniblyo)iii«lrom njjri njr where na-i>of couth 

lUBANATHA. In RV Hum AUm (maran aSa. 
Ti. [D'L.etc.]. WH; asoDeword[M, etc.] ; maran- 
NAe*[FG»»]. MARANATHA [vet. Ut. ; Vg.]; UARA- 
TUANAlA: IN ADVENTU DOmm\£: Cp *th. Vtli.]). 

an Aramaic expression used in 1 Cor. lfl»it. • 

Although it has been proposed to regard the expres- 
sion as a angle word.' there can be Utile doubt that il 
represents two. and the only question is where to make 
the division, and how to eiplain the component ports. 
Most scholars, however («./.. Dniman, Gram, no, n. 3 ; 
N6ld. GGA, 1884, p. 1033 ; Kau. in Siegfr. ZWTk.. 
1885, 118 ; N. Schmidt, JBL. 1894, 55^, etc.) have 
accepted the explanation propounded in 18S4 by Bickell 
(ZKTh.. 1BB4. p. 403. n. 3). Ihal ii means our Lord, 
coine.' and the restoration, proposed in the same year 
by HaWvy {REJ%^). Wellhausen (NCId. l.c.). and 
Duval {REJ, 1B84, p. 143J, of Hn Kra, mdrSnd Ikd, as 
the original form,' though Schmidt argues strongly for 

1 For exfinple, by Bullinger. 

> For the philological eviaence«Kt)atman(iF/, of. l7j,i/:). 

Coi^lin, o ■. mpttw^rai') 'our Lord is come' (cp Arab, ven. 
• Marin alh» —!.(.. ''the Lord i» already come "0, and iiiiap. 
patently a foelinE thai this doe. not fit welHnio the context that 
hu led to the .uBstitution^ » oAen found in later commentaton 

Sut alw already, r.E., hi Eu.eb. OS9i IDi sjX and reproduced an 

ihe iega pf tile bridegroom to ' pillar, of 
■pillars of white marble'(e'l^ "TnA 

Finally, in Eiih. I s, if with EV we ate to follow MT, three 
other ipecie»oftnajbte(beiidei the nippoted* white marble,' l##> 

Ttrtias roirrSjl -ps: am i«i» nfi -imtri 

of alabuier and iiiothiu--of-pearnike Blone. and Kreeu oif fine 

According to thi. view of the text, only two speds of ftonc 
weieujed for the pavement (i« Pavehkht, | on which the 

Ahaiueiu. (Euh. le). Of theM Uooel, one, Atr (T*), would 
aeem to hai-c poueued the briUiance of ' mothFT^of-pcarl ' uocc 
Ihe ume wotd (i/Mrr, fyrmft in Arabic and Penian means 
'pearl,' or even ' mother.Qf-pearr itself. For in ipite of the 
fact that pearl, were UKd by the ancient! in decorating the 
walls of apartmenu in royal palace*, we have no wnnajit for as- 
.uming their use iq the cau of pavements Wemu.t, therefore, 
with Kuitach (HS^ Wildeboer (AT^O, and the Variorum Bible 

I MJiai (Dna). was probably, a 
iut) ud Kautaai iMS) » 

b (TIVD-13> ate perhaps to bi 
. „ ally only meant to tuggen one 

one, the AUU«4inia of Pliny (flA* S*?")-* Ii 
' rwiih theglouof ■noEher-orpearl-i' It waaloa 
[o Pliny, in the neighbourhood of D 

cloKlytogelher, andi 

' Fco- ^ (Syr. il£0 CJc-Buhl, cp Auyr. iiJ&a ; but, ac- 
cording to Del., the Aaayrian word is of doubtful meaning. 
'IDpn ■■ pro^bly out ^ place and should be read after 
l*p<(bt g'.'rf). "JWl being corrupt for •)'*1, TranJate; 'and 

abundance' (cp Ex. !»ji iK.tty)' See, however, Priciol's 
■ Read -If >t -nisp, the word <n^ being a more likely ponllel 
to a-nN. Set alu bebw on Euh. 1 h. * 

» The words IfplS . . . *lBIS(cp Enk. IT ;> dropped out 
of Ihe text or were illegible, and E*e' and T1 were tranvoaod. 
Ttxi nisjr Is .uggcied by the Syiiac. The addilionaj phrase 
appeant in ft ms eai ffrpiHiiHai AtoAajvil mkufA^K ^itHiVft^vOA 
nleA^ pe*a vv*ae>t^»v — where eeeAtp .hould be read with what 
precede, ^d^ veauffirfva being a glou on H^PT?- ^^ addition 


above i. aUo pienippoicd by Vulg., Syr., 

• (»i™»v *<*ov): Syr. omit.; Targ. (ed. Lag.) has 
K-m.'pearl.- Siegfried (tfA^) baa ' mother of pealL' 

* J. D. Michaeli. uggested that ^ alone wa. lued to deT»t« 
this .tone. ftBK' render. 0.13 by [AiAwrpervv] fffuVT^rVf 
^i^sv (A<*. (rfupaytinm [L^l, Xi». iriia^ytevlALaD: Vulg. hai 
smaragdinut ; Targ. (ed. Lag.) I'l-^wnp, 'crystal,' but Syriac 

apparently omit.. BDB propoier ' "■ ■'— BVm..\ ™.. 

paring Eg. iikili, bihtl, likal. 



KABOABOTH. in the compound name BsTH- 
UABCABOTU [f.v.\ a plsice in ihe lErritory of Simeon 
(Josh. 19] I Cb. 431). Mosi prnbably a coirupl ex- 
pansion or Rdioboth (n^3ln). suggesled by the following 
name Hazar-svsak (or -susm). 

Crrason. The confuiion bti»«o am and 331 wm euy ; cp 
band Recbiib(HC Rahab). SoC. Nichuhr(t;<n'<t.l jjsj. 

KASCHSSHVAH (Il^TTp. Tadn. i. 34 See 
Month, | 5. 

MABCITS (MftpKOC [Ti.WH]). Col. 4.<. Philem. m 
I Pel, 5 13. RV Mark. 

MABDOCHEUS (mapAoxmkhc). » Mace. 15j6. 

HAIffiSHAH (ngrHJ ; wapHC* [A] ; but Josh. 

1544 ^5'^{^^p, b*>pch* [L]; SieMCAR (b]). ihe 

M4PHC4 of Eusebiiis (Oi* 279 a/), a city b the 
shiphelah of Judah. The Chronicler mentions it in 
I Ch. 2tit' (napfura [B}. /wpura [A]), in (fiapura [L}, 
but luuxn [H}}. as having Calebilc and /erahmeelit! 
connections ; for Mareshah is a son of Caleb, on the 
one hand, and, on the other, of Jerahmeel. son of 
Sbelah {.tivS> nJ> '3H is an expansion of fragments of 
^•1311')- 1^ Chronicler also gives Mareshah a genea- 
logical superiority 10 &ph. and even to Hebron (neigh- 
bouring places). Coming down 10 the historical period, 
he stales (3 Ch. US, iiap{€)iira [BAL]| thai More- 
shah was ibrtiiied by Rehoboam, and that Asa won 
his viciory over Zerah. the Cushiie, in a valley defined 
(probably] as north of Mareshah (a Ch. lig/. , iiafitffTiS. 
Iiaptiaa [B], /lapura [L] ; see ZepHaTRaH. Zerah). 
li was the home of one of the Chronicler's prophets. 
E;iiezer b. Dodavah (a Ch. 2O37, ^wpciira [B]. la-ptaa 
[A], iMptaa [L.]) : also of Ihe prophet Micah, if 
'Moreshelh' and 'Mareshah' mean the same lown 
(this, however, depends on a criiical emendation of the 
MT of Mic. 1 14/, on which see Mobasthite, but 
also Moreshbth-Gath). 
■' ■ nt.^-'-. 

period U<».'f-'->"i.»i). ll™ 

John Hjrcwiiu captured Ll 
> :' Giibbiiui'nforiiAcd it {A nl. ay. &i) : ind 

pitindertd by }im 

(M-t.xm.9i; cplOi); Pompey 

l/i.xiy.t,: s/n-,): Gubb-^-- 

liutly the Panhiar- ------- 

it now uken by £1. 

MABIHOTH, a. name in the genealogy of Eira 
(4 Esd. 1 9). See MERAtOTH. i. 

MAKIBBA occurs as a rendering of two Hebrew 

I. n^ malM, Eiek. ST9 Jon. 1 s. 

1. In pi. Cl-t)c',nflj>i, E>ek.II>;bRVandini'.iS'roweTi.' 
See Smt. 

MARI8A (M&piCA [AV]). a Mace I235- See 

IIAKISH(M71). Ezek. 4Tii. See Conduits, g i (a). 

MAKK (a\apkoc [Ti.WH]) is the surname of that 
John whose mother Mary (see Marv. g aj] according 
1 Hmma. '" ^"^^ ^^" ^'^'^ ' house in Jerusalem. 
»"'"■■ fjg jj again referred to by both names in 
Acts 123} IGjT. bul only by that of John in 13;i}, 
while in Acts 1539 Col. 4io Philem. 14 a Tim. 4 it 1 Pet. 
613 he appears only as Mark (AV. ihrice, Marcus). 
The name of Mark, it Is clear, had been assumed only 
for use in noii- Jewish circles (cp Barnabas, g i, end : 
Names, 886). That this name, selected to be borne in 
the Greek f^ion as a sole name, shoukl have been a 

I 'Mamhah'oughl 10 bcreBdalsa;niCh.l49ii, where MT 
has Meshi; ihe conteit, u well hb 0b>, requirM Ihil. How- 
Eilheii.. 41^1 " 

1. of Mar. 

lined. The i 


Roman praenomen need not surprise us ; the name Tilus 

whilst the praenomen Gaius [gv.} is mel with in three 
or perhaps even four cases. That of Marcus is met 
with in a similar way also in inscriptions (cp Swete, 
£j;^i. 1897^, p. Si) : It ought I0 be accented, not as in 
all editions of Ihe NT, M<fp««, but Mfipsoi." 

In Ihe 'captivity' epislies of Paul. Mark figures as 
the apostle's ' fellow-worker ' {aurtfrrii, Philem. 11, 
« R^UfJon Col.tii): he is commended to the good- 
tol^ will of Ihe Colosslans (CoL 4 .0 : ' Mark 
'""' . . . touching whom ye received com- 
mandments ; if he come unto you receive him ') and in 
a Tim. 4 ■., Timothy is bidden ' lake Mark and bring 
him with thee; for he is useful to me for ministering' 
{rOxpV'T'n til Stanniiui). This last statement is 
noticeable because we read (Actsl638; less precisely 
in I3t3) that on the apostle's (irsi journey Mark had 
withdrawn from him bi Pamphylia, for which reason he 
was not taken as a companion on the second journey 
(163j'39). It is, however, quite possible thai in the 
course of the years intervening between the journeys, 
this breach may have been healed and Mark have re- 
instated himself in Paul's confidence. Moreover, the 
story of Ihe separation between Paul and Barnabas on 
Mark's account is not free from suspicion {see Cot;NClL. 
g 3, end). Possibly, Ibeitfore, the cause of the 

slmg al 

In any case the fact mentioned in Col. 4 lo, that 
Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, would supply a 
sufficient explanation why Barnabas should have been 
willing to Cake Mark on the second journey, and ulti- 
mately did take him with him to Cyprus, in spite of his 
premature withdrawal on the first occasion (Acts 1639). 
The epistles 10 the Colossians and Philemon, which 
profess to have been both wrilleii at the same period, 
agree in what they say as to Mark's being with Paul ; 
in a Tim., on the other hand. Mark is represented 
as at a distance frotn him. Even, however, if wc 
assume the genuineness of Ihese epistles, "Or, at leasl. 
in Col., ihat of the personal notices in 47-i} and in 
a Tiro. Ihal of 49-18 — we cannol here discuss, any more 
than in the cose of Luke (see Luke, | i ). the question 
as 10 Ihe captivity to which they respectively belong. 

seems to be vouched for by ' the old church leacher ' 
• Vani.. (* rptr^^ipot) whose words are quoted by 

wftapirTtpot l\riit • Ma/wot /jir iptnirtvr^ 
H^pov '*ftybiA^¥ot iua if/kfijixSrivatw dcpc^wf fypa^tw^ 9& 
fiiifTct Ti^ti, rh itrb toO XparroZ 4) Xr^O^Ta ^ rpaX" 
Wrra. oflr* yip Iftoiiv ToO itupioii oOrt TapijJtoXoiWijirw 
oi>rv, noTtpar W, dt l^if, Itirpif. k.t.X.' (cp GOSPELS, 
g 654). Perhaps the auihoriiy ihus referred 10 by 
Papias may have been Ihe ' presbyter ' John (see John, 
Son of Zebedee, g 4), bul possibly also he may have 
been some olher person ; for we do not possess the 
preceding context. 

True, the wordi jusl quoted have sometimei been qoitt 

Mark became iivrim^ of Peter, that is. the poWisher ofhL 
oral coniinuniailiolis legarding the life of Jeaui. This view of 

) The linph of Ihe ■ is vouched for by Ihe tpelline Maarcui 
tbund both in Lalin and in GrHk intcripiion-'. See Diitcn. 

Hm<t^ Rumitii, J7 '(OiMIingien. iSse); Eckinger, Orlhrtrr. 
laltitt. IVirIrr in gritr*. InteMnfUH, S.11 (ZOrieh, 1891); 
Schweiier, Gramm. i/tr tiiriimrn. Inickriftm, a/. (iSqB); 
Bisu, Gramm. da niuftil. GTltch.. I 4. >. end. 

3 (And ihe 'presbyter' was wont to Ray this : Mark, who had 
been iht inicrpteier of Peter, wiole down accurately as many 
thingi as be retailed to rememSnince (or, repeated byword of 

either laid or done by Chriil. F« he nejiher heard the Lord, 

companied Peter, etc I 
• Most recenlly by Zat 




iba outage pnwnu two gmi idvuiugcs 
iheology. (i) II givH fr« Kope for ih« mppo 
will for Iht grmter pan of hii Time ihe domps 


Auuredly, howevei, ihlt exptvioii 

it v«ry forced lo uy ' Mark havin] 

onlcocnmunicUianiarPeUl.wrgU .... _... 

in ^i, in audi a cue becofnea wht^LyAuperfluoi 

ofda- iraiW be ihe only righl one : ' By hi 

becuK publiiher of the oral coitununicitiDiu of Pcicc' M 

the tuppoAilion thai Mark had tpenlalong rime in thecoma 
of Ptler i for not only are we eipressLy lokl in (he lequel 
Mark did acconipany Peler, bul it lia in the nature of the 
Ihal Mark can nave become tbe ipiatytvr^ of Peier onl; 
be had repeatedly he 

ime tbe publisher of Ihe 
The participiaL clauKi 


' prstiyler ' : in thai caH lu RfeienKCDukI be smifhl 
.^ ...iin the iitnia of the citation, nnce otherwite Fapias 
luld bave ocnititd Ihe Iwa wordi. In fact, they could only be 
Icen u refening to what he has uated at the be^nning of Ihe 
igmenl before us <lp^- n/tpdv -f*r.), and that tn turn would 
.ve the fiame meaning as the words by which the reference is 
" iWip^CwLink). l(ii.howeTerj 

at those which follow beloni lo 

only within the 


belter lo nppos«> 
ch»e with ■pax*' 
Papas, although I 

(i\ryt) ' Ihe presbyter 

ou'gh!' *^Wb!^?^ghi 

wordofmDuthinotinwntinEi the'asIwBssaying' (wc i^r) 

. lomn; 'Mark, who 
preler of Peler, wrote,' etc That wWifUivr can mean 'who had 

suitable to the conicxt— is ihown by Ijnk ^^lo■^li'^. Whether 

a of the ' pres- 

4. Hark'i 

nUtion ' 
toPstM. ; 

As for the credibility of the stau 
byter.' the most important of them 
. gospel rests upon oral 

jslle Peler — does not stand, and the 
, that it was writlen by Mark. 
s doubtful (GosPEi^. § 14S). But 
this does not necessarily involve our giving up the third, 
that Mark was an interpreter of Peter. It may have 
originated independently of the other (wo. and if the 
informant of Papias was a personal disciple of Jesus, or, 
at all evetils. a man of great age, he could very well 
have been adequately informed upon such a fact as this. 
Thus, I Pel, 613 seems to gain in probatHlily when it 
says Ihal al the lime when (he letter was being wrillen. 
Mark was with Peter, and describes him as being Peter's 

If this last exprcsdoD is to be taken literally, the reference 

in a spiritual sense, in accordance 1 
PbiLl» ■Tim.IiiBiTim.lsi 
very williDgly supposes that Mark as n^outh, 
molhcr's house, rnay have had opponuniti— "* 
and e'en may have been convened and b 

ike the word ' ion 


lislenuif to Peter 

id baptised byhiDL^ It i 

1 Lightfoot's view {AfBitc/ir Falhers, 1 o, revised ed. 
that Mark translated thediscontses of Peter into Latin t 
improbable. According 10 GaU 3 g, Peier directed his mi 

of id's 'hfe (CoSil, | s)"; l^ d^Jews e'4n i "r™"" ' 

eliUa In lialy. Moreonr^ even if Peter aSr«sed Mi 
al all to Iht Laltn4peakbg Gentiles, or vinted luly at all 


follower (ir«n»*<»'>t«r)— that is 10 say, accompanied him on 
joumcyi 10 various places. Funhermore, Ihe Second Gospel, 
even if not by Mark, is nererlhelex. notwithstanding the fact 
of its bemg intended for Lalin-npeaking readers (GusreLS,! loS, 
middle^ wrillen in the Greek tanguage. 

* This last is expressly said in lix ' Prdalio vel argunienlum 
Msrci,' from the fim half of tbe third century, given m Words- 

'ahnys UMd ; yet 


II has to 

e borne 

I Pet. c 

IRXUtian of the w»rd ipn 
d. it is 'child '(Wow) Ihal 
. 86 /.^ adding that Mark 

iwever, that (he genuine- 

probaUy it was nD[ written before in A.D. (see 
Christian, %i\ for a less definite da(e, Peter 
[Epistles], g 7), Thus, (he statemen( that Mark was 
with Peter when (he epnstle was being written must be 
given up. Moreover, even if (he doctrinal contents of 
the epistle should not be held to be due lo the desire to 
effect a compromise bemeen Paulinism and primitive 
Christianity, the Tubingen school may still possibly 
be righl in holding thit Iwo well-known companions 
of Paul — Silvanus and Mark — are transferred to (he 
society of Peter with the object of bringing into promin- 
ence thai accord between Peler and Paul, of which Acts 
also b full (see Acts. § 4). The designation of Mark 
as the ' son ' of Peter has [idle independent value, even 
if there is no disposition to question it. 

There is a difficulty in the statement of the ' presbyter' 
that Markeverwasa companion of Peter, even if we leave 

of a 

wfor h 

! Mark 

Paul an interval of several years, in the course of which 
he might very well have been a companion of Peter, and 
Ihere is no necessity even (o assume with Snele {Expos. 
1897 *, pp. 87-89) that he was not so till after the 
death of Paul. Scill less are we compelled to inierprel 
Ihe 'presbyter' or Ihe quotation of Euseblus i,HE 
vi. \i (,) from Ihe Nypolyfesti of Clement of Aleji- 
andria to the eHect that Mark had follou-ed Peter 
lippiaeet ( = from of old) in the sense (hat he had 
accompnnied Peler on all his journeys. In foct. we 
learn from the same authority (Clem. Slrem, vii. 17 m*. 
end) (hal Pe(er had yet another interpreter, Glaukias by 
name. The question of (he idendly of Ihe companion 

of Paul with the companion of Peter becomes more 
serious, however, when we take into account the well- 
of lemperament. of opini< 

of prat 


Did Mark, when in Ihe society of Paul 
regard himself as free from the law of Moses, and when 
in that of Peler as bound by it? In Ihe one case did 
he teaoh that it had ceased 10 be valid, in Ihe olher (hat 
it had not ? By way of softening this List difficulty l( 
can indeed be urged that in Paul's society Mark look 
only a subordinaie place, both according to Acts 13; 
(uin7>i^Tiit), and according to a Tim. 4ii {tttiiatvtiaii), 
and thai thus he perhaps was not called upon (o leach 
at all. Neverihetess, Ihe identity of the companion of 
Paul with the companion of Peler remains surrounded 
vrith such difficuhy, that one is readily inclined to 
suppose (hem to have been distinct persons, if unwilling 
' doubt the statement of the presbyter al 

the la 

ms, mosloflhemqi 

dale we even findin lb 


pscudO'Dorotheus (jih cenl.f, defjgnaled as A by l.ipsius^ 

whran, on accounl of his having been oeniDnally unacquainted 
with Jesus, it gives a place along with Paul and Luke between 



■he Second Gospel, <a view oT the uaeertaiDtyoT his autbor- 
^■P IS 4)> 1^ only be meatioced bere. and do not 
. «__i tall for discussion. He has been identified 
???". with the unnamed youniF man of Mk. 14 si/., 
aa MlUlor. ^ ^.,^ ^^ unnamed waler-bearer of H rj. 
This agrees with Ihai inierpretaiion of the opening 
w«ds of the Miualorian fragment, which takes the 
words ■ quibus tamen inlerfuit el ita posuil ' as warrant' 
ing the inference that Mark, ihough not in any strict 
sense a follower of Jesus, was present ai certain 
incidents in his life. On another interpretation, how- 
ever, it has been held that the incidents at which Miuk 
vas present, in the view of the author of the fragment, 
were events after the resurrection. On this view, the 
words ' e« ita posuil ' are taken as explaining why the 
account of the resurrection in Mk. 1S^» constitutes an 
appendix to the Gospel, Mark as distinguished from 
Luke (L 3 : post ascensum Chrisli) having written his 
gospel it/ert the ascension of Jesus. For other state- 
ments in the fathers regarding the composition of the 
Second Gospel see Gospel.s, 9 147. Most difRcull of 
all is a third interpretation of the Muratorian fragment 
— viz.. that it was at the narratives (of Peter) that Mark 
W7IS sontetimes present, sometimes not. 

Dionysius of Alexandria (af. Euseb. HE vii.SSij) 
bnng unable to attribute the Apocalypse to the apostle 
John, thinks of John Mark as a possible author, but 
rejects the supposition on the ground — a very insufficient 
one, it is true — that Mark trai-elled with Paul and 
Barnabas only so far as to Pamphylia, not as for as 
Epbesus. Hitiig {/b*. Maraii u. stint Schriftin. 1843) 
would have Mark to be really the author of the Apoca- 
lypse. Spilla \0^nb. dts Jok.. 1889, see especially pp. 
501-504) would make him author, at least, of ooe of the 
sources, which he calls ' Urapocalypse' (cp Apocalypse, 


In the n«pu>^ Bapirdfia, wntlen HCCDrdihg to Upaius (iL S, 
f. ^t)i thurliy iftET t>j A.D., Muk coDKi foruud u tlie 

_ , cp LuKK, I 4, n- tl Epiphtiniu* IHaer. li. fl 4Md) 
T. Lkter r^cil« ^ ^^rdi>dpl«l.ip implttd 
tndlUou. in this with Uuk's fAai nWior. 10 Pfiit 
by uplainlng ihu Mark hul been one of the 
Mven»-IWD diidples of Jem, wha accDrdini 10 Jn. Aei. Tell 
away fron lun, but that be wu ancrvardi rectoimed by Peier. 
The (oebnt pralnciie given in WonisirDrib-Whiie (mc above, 
coT. 1039, n. a> ^Maki « Hark as ' incerdoduin in lar«cl ngens, 
Kcundura camen I.e«itii' (ihii ii plmitily ao Infennce mrely 
from his censinship with Barnabas the LevLie, Acts 4 3^, and 

Dt ucerdoHo TtprcJws Ikrel.' E>oubile&« the designaiion jnXv 
paA^KTwtutt giveD 10 Mark in the iKarly conKraporaiy PhitoM' 
*ktmuiiaG 3i\ bcKin.) luurefavnce to thiL AccocdiniE 10 the 
fim prefue m Ibe Codu Tolelanui («/. WordiMXIIvWhtK, 
iftX the defect was a luturatsne.. The vkw of Tr^lea ihii 

Mark's premaluie nlucn from Pampb^a, is riahlly luccted by 
Swtte {Eifai, 1S5J *, p. 176/). The prolofnw fim died 
BOB on lo uy that in >pi» of ibis mutlliliDn, Mark became 
bisbop of Alexandria. Eusebius. in reliance on older sources 

4iA.D"/(r!(n».'ad^i^n.1E^h.>o57[ed.Sch5ne',?r5il: ■:aH£ 
iTlti). According to Enphanius ^.f.l, Mark was uail from 
BoDie to Aleiuidru by Peter after be hai wriiten hlx gospel ; 
accotdinc lo the UmmAh B«pvd^(24-aAX he went ID Alexandria 
fronCyE^utal^thcd«BthofBan>abas(LiHiu9,ii. 2, PP.3B4/). 
Eiuelniishu ii (.Cinm. ad. ann. Abrah. 1077 led. SchOne, S 154] : 
NE 1 94) thai Anianus, or Annianus. succeeded Mark in the hc 
of Alexandria in 6a a.l>. Jerone tvir, Ul. B) pbca the death 
of Mailc in the ivne year. He doa not ipeak of any 
nkanyrdom. Tbe earlieit menlion of a Daanyrdom is in the 

■h o^Ihe 
tr Jlhe 

Wlillen in Aleiandril 

beginning of tbe lifih century. Mark is there ipaliei 

a niuive of the Pcntapolii in Nonh Africa, to which 

belonged. Tbe legend which names h' 

cbuicb at Aquilei* firH niakn its appea 

u still later (LipHoi, ii. *, pp. 346-3J3). p. w. s. 

For the Ooip«I MMrding to Muk, see Gospels. 

KAKEET (2TpO), Ettk.27>3AV, RV 'merchan- 
dise'; (&rop&) Mk.74 etc.; and Markat-Pluls 
(ArORA), Mt. 2O3 etc See Trade and Cumhekce. 


(IfP^P (n?ri?]). Lev. 18=8. SeeCirlTiNOs 

MAEOTH [rtrti: oiyNAC [BAQ], h nAp*niK- 

pAINOYCA [Symm.]). a place mentioned by Micah 
(In)- and supposed by some lo be near Jerusalem (so 
Hi.. Now. ), and by G. A. Smith lo be in the maritime 
plain. Perhaps it is Jarmuih that is meant The 
prophet's paronomasia has been misconceived ; it is not 
'bitterness' that tbe name of the place referred to 
suggests to him. nor can we infer from the following 
words that Jerusalem was close to Marolh. 

Probahly we should emend the text ibu), 'Yea, sick unto 
deathhatJaimBth'fcomniiHiiiy become '(rnCT 'pi' WD^nnVn; 
» tnie. IQK. July, .B51S). G. A. Sniiih (arf /«-.) tend'eii'lhe 
text, ' The inhabiiress of Marolh trembielb foi((ood, for evil has 
come down from Jchovab to Cat waJli of Jemsalem.' 



Ptelimlnaty iiepl (| ify Polygamy, di 

F«liviii«f|3j. wJows.le,i, 

The home (| 4). Lileialure (| 9^ 

Legally considered, the marriage rehiiion was formed 
by the act of betrothal — that is to say. by the pay- 
l. Brtrotlwl ■"^"'' "" ""^ bridegroom's part, rf the 

the bnde ; with this she passed into 

the possession of her husband. To betroth a wife 
to oneself (t-iit. '"■'"'), meant simply to acquire pos- 
session of her by payment of the purchase-money: 
tbe betrothed (^^^. m-Srdii) is a giri tor whom tbe 
purchase-money has been paid {see Family, g 4 ; and 
ep We. GGN, 1893, p. 435). The betrothal once 
effected, the husband can lake his wife home and 
celebrate his nuptials when he will (Gen. 2449^, Judg. 
14?/).' The girl's consent is unnecessary and tbe 
need for it Is nowhere suggested in the law. Ordinary 
human aRection would, no doubt, lead the parents 
generally lo allow their daughters some voice in the 
mailer (Gen. 24sa); but the arrangements about the 
marriage, and especially about ihe mohar. belonged to 
the province of the father or guardian (Gen. 24joX, 
29i3 Sill). The girl herself sometimes (but evidently 
nol always) receives presents (]|«o. malldm] from the 

In ElieHt's negotiaiiiHi lor Rebekab these gifti 
Ihe betrothal and%efo- ■>■ ' .-;—■'■-- — 

bclroihil conltact <» 

to ihi'^I^i' """ "-"-''<'"'">' 


lenlioned (Judg. Is i)^ a 

As to the amount of the mihar we unfortunately have 
but little information. Dt. Ilx,. compared with Ex. 
22i; [16]/, tells us thi« in the time of D the average 
was fifty silver shekels (about £i ; see Shekel). The 
mekar A\i not. howei'er, require to be paid in money. 
It could be paid in personal service (so in Jacob's case. 
Gen. 2990 17). Maidens were given id marri.ige to 
heroes for their prowess in war (Josh. 15 16 Judg. In 
iS. l/Js): Uavid bought Michal for a hundred fore- 
skins [unless this is due 10 corruption of the text ; see 
MosE^. S6n-J.' 

The Homeric htrot 


(iTD^.g. iiA^'J?! 

pan of Keil {ArcUtl. ui') and oibers' 
mDcgengabe preKntsTlo tbe bride. 


rely ill-judged on the 

y Google 


The mShar in time giaduallj lost its original meaning 
of ' purchase moDey ' as (he cuslom arose of giving it, 
not to tbe father bul lo the wife herself. There was a 
similar devetoptneni among the Arabs ; in Ihe Koran it 
is assumed to be usual lo give tbe makr to the wife. 
Even in E (Gen. SI is) i( is mentioned as a reproach 
against Laban thai he had spent entirely upon himself 
Ihe price paid for his daughters. 

The requirement that the bride should bring some- 
thing to her husband al her marriage or should receive 
a dowry from her parents is not according to ancient 
Hebrew custom. The case of Pharaoh's daughter is 
evidence only for Egyptian practice. Al the same lime, 
the genealogical legend of Josh. 15i6^ (cpjudg. ln#) 
shows that parting gifts to the daughter on leaving her 
home were not unknown. Leah and Rachel receive 
their female slaves al their marriage (Gen. 291439; cp 
I61). This, however, is no 'dowry' brought by the 
wife 10 her husband -. such gifts remain tbe personal 
property of the wife. Conveyance of property through 
the wife cannot slricily be made, simply because 
daughters had no right of inheriiance (see Family, 
% $) ; and even al a comparatively late date heiresses 

designed 10 prevent the alienation of land to outside 
clans (see Law and Justice, % 18). In post-exilio 
times a dowry somewhat in Ibe modern sense seems 10 
have been usual (Tob. Sit Ecclus. SSai), and mention 
is also made of wrillen marriage-conlracis (Tob. 7 "i)- 

(i) /h tarly tiaus. — In ancient fsraet Ihe choosing of 
the bride was the business of Ihe man's fulher or, rather, 
. «.j ■ ofIheheadofthefainily(cpGen.24a#, 
^? 88*28./: 21,,)- -n-is is inlemgibi; 
enough when we recollect that Ihe person 
chosen was to become a member of the clan. It was 
r^arded as unbecoming (though noi impossible) thai a 
son should be so self-willed as lo insist on marrying a 
wife whom his family were unwilling to receive (Gen. 
2Sm/- 374A; cp Judg. 143). Now and then it did 
indeed happen Ihal love-malches were made (i S. 18 » 
Judg. 14i/), and thai the inclinations of Ihe parlies 
chletly concerned were consulted. Esau marries as he 
does against the will of his parents (Gen. 2634/); 
Rebek^ is asked by her brother for her consent 10 the 
marringe (Gen. 24}8}. Opportunities for the formation 
of romanlk attachments were not wanting, the social 
relations of the sexes being under no specially severe 
restriciions. In the palriarchal history we find in this 
respect the same customs as are still 10 be seen amongst 
the modem Bedouins : women and girls are kept in no 
severe isolalion. Meetings occur easily and naturally 
where the flocks and herds are being pastured, or al llw 

The fttHng cF a cenain degree of independence and of An 
equaliiy of right with men to piinue their daily nuks irives the 
giiis »nfidence and freedooi; ihey do not sbun contenuion 
with a fltranger, villingly accept uselul help, and arc ready to 
render reciproKil nrvice (Gen.S* 15^ Mio El. ! 16 iS.Bii). 
Ucoh's acqualnuuKe with Rachel lepnat the well (Gen. SO iffi). 

Si6^Gen,Mij?y: but, on the whole, good nuuinen and good 
monh are u cBective safuuatd (cp also Ei.32ii(ij] Di. 
as =3^ =B/X 

In these pictures Ihe manners of tbe naixalor's time 
are reflected ; bul passages like Judg. 14i/ iS.Bn 
189a ^ show 10 what an extent nomadic customs 
conlinued to hold Iheir ground among the settled 

It was in accordance with ancient cuslom for the man 
lo look for his wife in Ihe circle of his own family and 
clan. Such endt^amjr is not original in baal-marriages. 
which at an earlier lime were marriages by capture (see 
Kinship. % 11); but it is easily explicable from ihe 
posiiion of the woman, who became the property of her 
husband. To give away one's daughters into another 
tribe was equivalent losending them beyond Iheproteeling 
influence of their own family ; and a wife married within 
her own clan might naturally be expected to enjoy a 


better position than as an alien abroad. Tbe principle 
is clearly staled by Laban (Gen. 29 19) : • U is better 
thai I give her 10 thee ihan ihal 1 should give her lo a 
strange man.' Marriages outside Ihe tnbe occurred 
indeed, bul were discouraged (Gen. 2834/ 27*6 Judg. 
143). As the coherence of the Iribe depended on the 
sense of kinship (see Kinship), it was also really best 
thai marriage relationships should not be entered into 
with other Inbes, at the risk of embarrassing one's 
feeling of relationship with one's own Iribe. The 
marriage of Moses cannot be quoled against Ihis : he 
was a fugitive and compelled to seek (he sheller of 
another bribe. If, loo. the genealogy-legend allows 
Judah and others to make marriages with Canaaniies, 
(his is in fiill agreement with what we know to have 
been the stale of matters after the settlement, but proves 
nothing as regards ancient exogamy. Tbe many 
instances of marriages of kinsfolk in the patriarchal 
history show Ihat on this point the older views were 
different from those which afterwards became prevalent 
Abraham married his half-sister on the father's side 
(nol on ihe mother's ; see Kinship § 5/ ), and even in 
David's lime such a marriage in the king's family would, 
il seems, have been regarded as unusual, indeed, yel nol 
as wrong or reprehensible (aS. I813). Moses himself 
was the fruit of a marriage between nephew and 
(paternal) aunl (Nu. 2619, P). On marriage with a 
father's wife (other Iban one's own mother} see below 
(S 7). A cousin on Ihe father's skle was considered a 
particularly eligible bridegroom — a view Ihal survives lo 
Ihe present day among Ihe Bedouins and partly also 
among the Syrian peasantry. Compare Ihe cases of 
Isaac aod Rebekah (Gen. 344), Jacob and Leah-Rachel 
(Geo. 29 19). 

(a) Lattr. — At Ihe lime when ihe patriarchal history 
came to be wTillen. mailers had indeed altered in one 
rcspecl ; the settlement, and tbe changes il had wrought 
in Ihe tribal relationship, bad altered the ancieni cuslom 
in regard to marriages also, and alliances wilh Cannan- 
iles and other aliens soon came to be regarded as quite 
natural (Judg. 36). 

In the posi4j(Llic genealogy of David we lind Ihe ruune of 




maniea not only the daughK 
An>inoniupriiKa«e><tlClli): Ahal 
PbtEnicianleiebelfiK.lfllT): Iheto" 

sakl to have 


of Isn 

foreigners — in (be recorded teases doubtless under some 
stipulation thai (he husbands should make Israel iheir 
adopted comilry. Thus Uriah was a Hitlile (a S, 11 1). 
Jether, the husband of David's sister Abigail, an 
Ishmaelite (iCh. 2ij against aS. 17»5; see Jether). 
We know of one instance— doubtless (here were many 
unrecorded — .in which an Israelite woman married 
abroad ; Huram-aW, the Tynan artificer, was the son 
of a Hebrew mother (t K. 7i4: see Hiram). 

Here again with D there comes in a change, which 
allows marriage indeed wilh foreign women taken in 
war (D1.2I10/:}. bul forbids, on the other hand, any 
marriage-alliance with Cannanites (7t_f.) or with other 
heathen peoples ('234 [i]/ ; Ex. 34r5 has probably 

religious ; such women mighl seduce iheir biisbands to 
idolatry. It is conceivable Ihal in actual fact this 

arisen out of a change of feeling under the monarchy — 
friendly tolerance having been gradually superseded by 
flercc anlipalby. Whether (his be so or not. the pro- 
hibition in D cannot be dissociated from a certain 
panicularislic narrowness. We are no longer in posses- 
sion of the reason for the exemption of Edomites and 
Egyptians from the general condemnation (D(.23j/, 
[e/J). Tha( the enforcemenl of the precepts of D mel 
with much opposition, and in (he flrst instance was » 



failure, is shown by the nnrralive in EiraS/ (see 

D also seeks to introduce reforms with regard to Ihe 
marriage of related persons. It expressly prohibits 
marriage wilh a father's wife (22y [23i] '27»), with 
a sister or half-sister (27»), or wilh a mother-in-law 
(S7>3|- Here ag:ain the force of custom proved too 
strong for Ihe law ; in Eiekiel's day marriage with a 
alepraother. with a daughter-in-law, or with a sister. 
seems to have been frequent (Eiek. 22 ic/ ). 

P places among Ihe prohibited degrees marriage with 
(i) mother, or father's wife generally; (s) sister and 
half-sister; (3) granddaughter; (4} maternal and 
paiemal aunt; (;) uncle's wife on ihe father's side: 
(6) mother-in-law; (7) daughter-in-law; (8) brother's 
wife; (9) iwo sisters at the same time (Lev.]86-ia; 
cp 20ri^). The prohibition of marriage with a 
daughter has no doubt fallen out by a copyist's careless- 
ness. Marriage is permitted between uncle and niece, 
between nephew and widow of uncle on the mother's 
side, and between cousins. On the whole these ordi- 
nances come very near the prescriptions of pre- 
Islamic Arab cuslom which were made statutory by 

Here again the motives of the legislation are not quite 
apparent From what has been said above on the 
custom of old Israel il is evident Ihat the prohibitions 
cannot rest on Ihe view that what they prohilwl is 
destniciive of the essence of blood-relationship : just 
as liltle can [hey rest on a perception of the iniurious 

3 of n 

-riage t 


I olher prohibitions with which they appear to be 
classed, it is enough to quote the words of Am. 2?, 
a man and his father ' go unlo the same maid, to 
profane the name' of Yahwi. which doubtless imply 
the formation of some unholy bond between father and 
son. With rq;ard to levirate marriages (see below. 
3 S) no reason is apparent why they should have 
been abolished on moral grounds ; here again it 
is highly probable that some religious idea was at 

As 10 the marriage-festivities our information is but 
' and characteristic feature 


I Ring 


> ber 

»Ljg^2l«" husband's house; 

inHiiHSB. ^npg of oiarriage as an admiision of the 
bride into the clan of her husband found expression. 
In wedding attire (ls.91io: see Dfess). and accom- 
panied by his friends (Judg. 14 n /■ ; cp Jn. 899 and 
paralL ), Ihe bridegroom marched on Ihe festal day to 
the house of the bride. Thence she was led. in bridal 
garments, but veiled (Jer, Sji Is. 40 18. etc. ). accompanied 
by her Lompanions as Ihe bridegroom was by his (Ps. 
45)4 [■;]), 10 his parent's house (Jer.TjilSq ^SioCant. 
36jf ). ll was no doubl al eventide and by the light of 
torches that such processions were held (Ml. 251^^). 
Occasionally — but this was rare — the bride was led to 
meet the Inidegroom (1 Macc.9]7/.). The custom 
□ow is for Ihe guests in ihe procession to sing songs 
in praise of the bride and bridegroom, and this may 
well have descended from antiquity : indeed, the Song 
of Salomon may perhaps be formed out of a collection 
of such marriage lays (see, further., Danc- 
ing). and in Ps. 46 we have a song composed for and 
sung at Ihe marriage of a king. In the bridegroom's 
house was then held ihe great nuptial feast, which with 
the rich and great might last for seven, or even fourteen, 
days (Gen. 203/ Judg. 14i>i; Tob. 810). The same 
cuslom of fetching the bride existed also among the 
ancient Arabs, though as a rule without the pomp thai 
was customary with the Israelites— a survival perhaps 
from the days of marriage by capture (Robertson Smith. 
/Tilts. 81), The consummaiion of the marriage was in 
the home of the bridegroom ; among Hebrews and Arabs 
this, was r^arded as the more civilised arrangement ; 
otherwise the bride was regarded as a mere captive about 



whom lillle ceremony was observed (We. GGjI, 1893, 

As a valuable chattel (to say the least) of her husband 
(see Familv. 9 4) ihe wife was carefully kxiked after. 
Of Ihe strict isolation observed Ihrough- 

L Th* horn*. ^ 


e find, i 

indeed in the 

innermost part of the house their own apartments to 
which access was noi permiited to men (Judg. IB . IB9). 
or, in the case of wealthy people or people of rank, 
Ihey had a separate house to themselves (aS, 13; 
1 K.T8 a K.2415 E:sth.2)i4). This, however, does 
noi hinder them from taking part in the ordinary duties 
of the household ; they spin, sew, weave, make gar- 
ments, fetch water, bake bread, and lend Ihe flocks 
and herds(Gen.299Ex.2.SiS,2.9 8t3aS.13aProv. 
31 laf. ). They are not shut off from the outside world 
of men, and they even take part in feasts (Kx. 21 » Dl. 
25 T. Ruth 25/; .S.8.. aS.20.6 MlOb. I246 267 
Lk. IO3S Jn.2iX 4;}. Women and girls shared in 
public rejoicings with song and dance (Ex. 16»/. Judg. 
ie.7 1S.I86/; Judg21.9ir). Whilst, however, 
fidelity on the husband's pan was in no way enforced, 
law and custom were very strict as regarded the wife 
(cpDt. 229i). Adultery on her port was by very ancient 
tisage punishable by stoning (Dt.22»/ ; cpEzek. ISts 
Jn. 8; j). unless, indeed, Ihe injured husband (as he was 
entitled to do) took the vindication of his honour into 
his own hand. A like punishment befell the wife who 
at her marriage was found not to have been a virgin 
(Dt. 22ji)— a ctisloro which is 10 be interpreted in the 
same sense as the punishment for transgression on the 
part of a beirolhed maiden (see FAMILY. § 4). tlow 
fierce was the jealousy with which men regarded their 
wives is shown by the laws which sought lo protect 
women against false accusations, and by Ihe very in- 
adequacy of these laws. One of them punishes falsf 
accusations brought against a wife with a money fine 
and withdrawal of Ihe right of divorce (Dt.22i3^); 
another, no less naively conceived, lets the man go 
free even after false accusation — he can compel his wife 
lo submit 10 the ordeal of jealousy (see Jeaumisv), 
but, whatever the result. ' Ihe man shall be free from 
blame' (Nu. 6ii->>). ■ MistrusI and jealousy, not 
about love but about a property-right, are conspicuous 
characteristics of the Arabs' (We., /.£., 448). This 
is to a considerable d^ree true of the Hebrews also^ 
Yet. in spile of all this strictness, the prophets have 
lo raise a continual protest against ihe prevalence of 
adultery (Jer.79 23.oHos.4aMal.3s, and often}. 

The man who owns his wife as a chattel con on the 
same pritkciple own as many as he pleases— as many, 

"• ""y*'*"^' and keep. The luxury of a great harem 
was of course atlainable only by the wealthy. These, 
so far as we can judge, made ample use of their 
privilege : witness the notices about Gideon's seventy 
sons (Judg. 830 9a). David's wives (a S. 6 13 etc.), 
Solomon's hatem (1 K.ll.^), and ihe like. The 
law of the kingdom forbidding the possession of many 
wives has manifestly a side-reference lo the actual king 
(Dt. 17 17). The Talmudists formulate the rule that no 
Jew may have more than fotu- wives ; kings may have 
al the most eighteen. The ordinary Israelite at all 
time*, like the modern Syrian peasant, would doubtless 
have 10 be content with one secondary wife in addition 
to Ihe principal wife, or at most with two wives. The 
last-named arrangement seems to receive the sanction 
of widely-dilfused custom ( Dt. 21 15 iCh.243: 
cp the case of Jacob). When the first wife proved 
childless, polreamy, to this extent at least, was regarded 
as a necessity. TTie examples of Sarah, of Leah, and of 

IhiouKhoul Ihe whole oF the ^t>, for sntisfying curiosity u 



Rachel, show haw little the amour froprt of the chlld- 
lesi wife wu wountled bf any 5uch arrangemenl. 

To turn to the other side of ihe picture : polygamy 
carried with it its owD hardships and inconveniences. 
The lot of Ihe childless wife, when she bad lo live unda 
the sanK roof with the mother of sons, was h»td ( i S. 
li^). Even the concubine was sometimes known 
to exalt herself over the wife (Gen. 104^; cp Gen. 30), 
and the situation was not always so simple as in the 
case of Sarah and Hagar. where the mistress could 
lend her rival away ; more usually she had no alter- 
native but to submit. Very eloquent are the words 
thai the language provides for the two wives — ^nsinM, 
Skahdh. 'the loved one.' and iMiir, H^nUdk. ' the hated 
one.' The later legislation found it necessary to inter- 
vene on behalf of the superseded wife (Dt. 21 15-17). 
The prohibition of the old practice of marrying two 

intended to obviate the subversion of sisterly relations 
through jealousy. Such also is the drift of the whale 
development towards the mont^amy which, if never 
legally insisted or. was yet so extensively praclisEd in 
the end. Gen.2i8/. unmistakably discloses the view 
that monogamy, property speaking, is the normal 
arrangement. \Mien the prophets represent the relation 
of Vahw* to his people under the figure of a marriage, 
it is of course a monogamous marriage that is thought 
of : for Yahwi had entered into no similar relation with 
any other nation besides Israel. Finally, the praise of 

references to woman and to marriage, both here and 
in Ecclesiasticus (Ps.l2S Prov.124 18» 19Tt SlioX 
Ecclus.25i S 2Si/ M etc.), show that the practical 
wisdom of the later age had settled that mon<^amy was 
Ihe only ideal kind of marringe. 

The woman being a man's property, his right to 
divorce her follou-s as a matter of courae. As in doing 

s done either to her or to her family. 
The divorcfe returns to her family and can, if circum- 
stances favour, be married a second time from there. 
No moral stigma of any kind arises from the mere 
fact of her being divorced. Yet, we cnn well suppose 

disposed to look with disfavour upon such treatment, 
and the account which the husband was bound to take 
of the views and feelings of the wife's blood-relations 
(see above, § a) laid from the very banning a con- 
siderable restraint upon absolute freedom of divorce. 
The deutcronomic law has unmistakably the intention 
of limiting in some degree the liberty too frequently 
exercised, without at the same time ctmailing in any 
respect the rights of the husband. 

The eiprejuon 1)1 niTf, 'irniati ildidr{fiM ' unclnnnejj,' 
RV 'iiniecmiy thin^') can hardly be uken. with Ihe Hricter 
jcbool of Shamnui, m the elhical lenteand inlerpretnliu mean- 
ing uncluitiiy(ihauKh (his J4 certainly favoured by^uch adfUil 
as the gnng fonh with uncuvend head) : had the Liw intended 
nich a very contiderable conailmenl or the general rielil of the 

to bive been ttated in much more definile (emit. 

Some restriction, however, was at the same time Laid 
npon divorce by the mere fact that a writing (' bill of 
divorcement') was now required by law {Dl.'Hif.). 
Further, it is enacted in D that Ihe divorced wife, if, 
Hfter divorce, she has married again and been separated 
from the second husliand in turn by divorce or by his 
death, cannot again be taken back in marriage by her 
first husband. The old practice as to this was quite 
different (Hos. Sj; cp 3 S, Su), and was similar 10 the 
old Arab custom ; the Koran in fact lays it down as a 
condition that Ihe wife can be taken bock only if in the 
interval she has been the wife of another man. The 
manifest purpose of D and of the Koran alike is to put 
some kind of cheek upon rash and inconsiderate divorce. 
Lastly. D withdrew, as a penalty. Ihe husband's right 
of divorce in two cases — those, namely, in which be hnd 

(. DiTOIM. , 

falsely accused his wife of not having been a virgin when 
he married her (Dt.22ig). or in which he had been 
compelled to marry a virgin whom he had wronged 
(Dt.223e). This last innovation in the law is abo 
directly contiary to the ancient practice, which did not 
even demand marriage as a compensation lor the injury 
done. Here also we see the advance we have already 
noted, point by point, towards the securing of a higher 
position for the wife. Mai. 2 (see MALACHl. Sg a. 4)con- 
demns divorce in the strongest terms. The wife is Ihe 
motha of ' seed of God ' : if there are children the end 
of marriage has been fulfilled. It is to Yahwj: a hateful 
thing that a man should put away the wife of his youth 
and the mother of his children simply because she has 
grown old and has ceased to be personally attractive.' 

The right of divorce belongs of course only to the 
husband. Thewifehas no means of freeing herselffrom 
her husband, apart from the means employed also by 
the Arabs— namely 10 make hersdf so objectionable 10 
her husband as to force him to send her away. We do 
not know whether a thing of common occurrence among 
the Arabs ever happened also among the Hebrews — 
that a man sent his wife away at her own request or at 
the request of her relations on repayment of the mohar. 
Salome Ihe daughter of Herod might Uke the freedom 
of sending a bill of divorce to her husband Costabaros ; 
but this was condemned as a foreign indecency (Jos. 

Traces of evidence are not wanting that with the 
older Hebrews, as with the Arabs before Mohammed, a 
T indowa. "'^"'' "i'^o* could be inherited exactly 
like his other property. The grasping 
Reuben — so ran the legend — sought to seize this inheri- 
tance even in his father's lifetime (Gen. 35"): 'he 
rebellious Absalom comes forward publicly as heir and 
successor lo his father by taking possession of his harem 
(aS.16«.^)— an act which does not in itself at all 
shock the moral sense of the people. Abner by appro- 
priating Saul's concubine Rizpah infringed the rights of 
I^bosheth (a S, 87^^) ; and when Adonijah asks the 
hand of Abishng he is asking a portion of the 
inheritance of Solomon, who at once infers his ulterior 
designs (i K. 2n ; cpc. ij). As already said, in spite 
of the deuteronomic prohibition such marriages of son 
with step-mother were nol unusual down to ELzekJel's 
lime |Eiek.22io). The genealogical register of 
Chronicles mentions a further case : Caleb marries 
Ephrath. the wife of his lather (i Ch.2346; We.. 
DiGinU 14; seeCALEB, EPHRATH, 3). Ontbekindred 
subject of levirate marriage, see below. % 8. 

This inheritance of widou-s. however, was by no 
means a general custom in historical times. As a rule 
the lot d! the widow is even harder than that of the 
divorce. It was always open to her, indeed, to 
go back to her family ; but it is nol lo be supposed 

interests itself 10 the utmost on her behalf. Judgment 
must be executed for her justly, with fairness and 
promptitude (Dt. lOiB 24i7 27 19 : cp the corresponding 
exhortations of the prophets. !s. 1 17 IOj Jer.76 22j 
etc. ). Widows are to be bidden as guests to the 
sacrificial meals and feosu {Dt. U14 I6ti 14 26ii/); 
the gleanings of the fields and vineyards and oliveyards 
are to be left for them (24i»->i: cp Ruth as). Of 
their remarriage the law says nothing, except in the 
case of levlrale marriage. Later usage seems, however, 
to have conceded to the widow certain claims over the 
property of her deceased husband ; the rabbins laid 
down very exact rules as to this (cp Selden, De succea. 
ad Ugem hibr. in iena dtfunct.; Saalschiiti. Mos. Recht, 

proved ineffective. We need only reviall the praclke in the 
lime of Chriu. which <nu entirety in accnn] »ii>i the uhool of 

to which divorce wa« left open to any man on any ground he 
chose, alihouieh specially (of course) on the around of mlicooduct 
(cp alio Ecclus. Tm !& ^ 42 9X 



831 ff. 860/). On widows' gannenti see Mourning 

As a relic of the ancient right to inherit the widow — a 
righl which belonged 10 the son or rather lo the agnates 
_ T*wiT»t« — '*" ^slon* of levirate marriage (which i 
**™»*» no, exclusively Israelitish) survived dowi 
■'*"■«'■ even lopcB[^«iliC times. D, which elevate: 
the cuslom into a law, enacts that when a man die 
without sons (not without children, as the Jews nflerwards 
read it, Ml. 22i4) his brother must marry the wic' 
The first son of this marriage shall be reckoned 
son of the deceased brother, so that his name be 
blotted out of Israel (DlSSs/). In this form the 
tow essentially changes the old custom. The story of 
Jtidah and Tamar (Gen. 38. esp. v. 16) shows tha 
certain circumstances — namely, when there was 
brother — it became the duty erf the Dither of the dead 
■nan 10 come forward and marry his daughter-in-l 
What seems plain from this narrative — that it relate 
■ duty involved in the right of agnates to inherit- 
confirmed by the book of Ruth. The whole eoursi 
■he story \XK rests upon the postulate that the agnate 

together with the land of the deceased ; and in point of 
bet the story deals with somewhat remote kinsmen. 
This certainly is in accordance with the older use^ The 
ttory, however, goes on to represent the whole as a. 
right of inheritance which the man can relinqviish if he 
dioose. Over against this would be the corresponding 
right of the woman to refuse the marriage and to go 
back to her own relations instead (as Orpah does). 
Ancient custom, however, so far as eihibiied in Gen. 
8S, would seem not lo sanction withdrawal on any 
pretest whatever. Which of the two representations is 
Ihe correct one we have no means of delonnining : they 
will harmonise in the end. if we are allowed to suppose 
■hat only the remoter agnates had the right of refusal. 
The origin of this compulsory character, which certainly 
did not attach 10 lite original right of inheritance, 
will appear later. 

According to D, the purpose of the whole custom is 
that Ihe man's name be not blotted out of Israel. This 
is certainly, in Ihe sense which Ihe law attaches to it, 

lion. For what D has in view is the preservation of Ihe 
family property. When the first son of a levirate 
marriage is reckoned son of the deceased brother he 
becomes thereby his heir, he inherils the land, not of 
his actual father bul, ol the deceased. The eRect of 
this is not only that the family property is prevented 
from passing into the hands (rf' outsiders, but also, in 
particular, that il is preserved as such, and the family 
belonging to il does not die out. An interest of this 
kind — to secure the continuance of Ihe property not 
only wilhin the clan but also as an independent family 
property — can, of course, have come into being only 
in connectioti with questions of landed property, in 
other words, after the settlement. The same efibrt led 
on another side 10 this, that anyone who found himself 
compelled to sell his land alwap retained a right of 
redemption and preemption — which right also passed 
over to the agnates entitled lo inherit (Jer. 32S^ ). In 
fhe slory of Ruth this is also what we find ; the near 
kinsman. the^W(see Gokl), must first buy back the 
alienated land in virtue of his right of inheritance and 
redemption (Ruth 43.^). 

Wiih P also this preservation of landed property 
within Ihe family is the one consideration present in its 
revision of Ihe older taw (see below. 9 a). It is 
noticeable that in Ruth a somewhat different matter 
Is placed in the foreground as the object primarily 
aimed at. Naomi's purpose is not lo secure posterity 
for her son, bul to gain a husband for her step-daughter ; 
not the continuance of Ihe name of Mahlon, but the 
well-being of Ruth is her real desire (\n g. 3,). The 
first son of the marriage actually is in Ihe end regarded, 


nol as the son of Ruth's first husband, bul as Ihe son of 
his real &ther Boaz. Here loo we doubtless have a cor- 
rect reminiscence. In the old law about the right of 

contemplated that Ihe heir should in all cases himself 
marry the widow ; it was open to him to marry her lo 
another man. To Ihe right of inheritance, however, was 
always attached the corresponding duty of caring for the 

old IST! 

t Ihe . 

e been 

, Ihe 


looked upon only as a burden, she was simply neglected. 
So with Tamar, and so with Ruth (We.. t.c. 456, and 
compare what has been said already as to the lot of 
widows), Judah nevertheless — notwithstanding alt 
his neglect — holds fasl by his rights ; if Tamar has gone 
aslray with a man of another clan, she has been guilty 
of • adultery ' (Gen. 38 ai /: ). 

The reckoning of the son of such a marriage to the 

not an innovation of D. In D, however, it has under- 
gone a not-unimportanl alteration ; in Gen, 38g all the 
children (not only the first son) are to be reckoned 
to the dead man. Modern scholars explain this for 
the most pan from ancestor-worship. The dead child- 
less man has his right to have this ordinance observed 
(Gen.38B/), and it is tor contempt of il that God 
slays Onan. What the dead man is defrauded of 
by iia non-observance is the reverence and worship of 
his posterity (cp aS.lSiS). Slade ((7/l3»4) points 
out that marriages of this kind are customary preciBcly 
among those peoples who have aneeslor-worship also — 
Indians, Persians, Afghans, and so forth. It was when 
the religious con^deralion was added that the right of 
inheriting (which resulted from Ihe very nature of baal- 
marriage) became also a duty. It is nol necessary 
therefore to resort, wilh Robertson Smith, lo an old 
form of polyandry for an exptanalion (see Kinship, 

D, for whom Ihe old religious meaning of the matter 
has become obscured, is able on that account to relax 
Ihe stringency of Ihe demand and give release from it 
under certain conditions. The refusal lo comply with 
it brings, however, open shame lolhe unwilling brother- 
in-law. The practice here referred lo, which is of veiy 
great antiquity and nol quile rightly understood by D, 
again clearly exhibits the ancient connection with the 
right of inheriting. The contemned sister-in-law is to 
go up to the place of justice before the competent court 
(the elders of Ihe eiiy) and. loosing her's 
shoe from off his foot, is to spit in his face, saying 'So 
shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his 
brother's house,' and ever afier his family is to be called 
the barefoot family. This loosing of the shoe was, 
according to Ruth 47, customary at every Iransaction 
in landed property. The Seller gave his shoe to the 
buyer in token of renuncialion of his right in the 
object sold (see Shof.s, ^ 4), So, i " 

X he plucks < 


to Ihe 

whole family. 

In process of time this class of marriages underwent 
still further restrictions, when daughters became capable 
of inheriting in default of sons. Henceforward they 
could be thought of only in cases where there were no 
children at all : for to marry the widow when the 
inheritance had fallen to the daughters was not in con- 
object of keeping the property within Ihe clan was 
secured by prohibiting heiresses from marrj'ing outsiders. 
Such becomes Ihe law io P (Nu.27i}, and m.trriage 
with abrolber-in-law is forbidden as incestuous (Lev. 



18i6 20>i ; see above. § a). Whatci 

of P as a ~ 


•. UUntura. 1S36. Or 

impbed al all points. In this respecl 
law (cpMt. 2-214)' 

r.. itn: Bmaiy, Dl Hibr^Uviralti. 1835 ; Ktdi- 
, the cusioirs of Ihe Syrian fcllatiTn 

\tlM\ c 

iSOK, pp. iji^; 1000. pp. 171^; 190 r pp. xff. 16 
Hebrews," LfpittcMi, il^^ff. \. b. 

KABS' HILL (Ap[6]iOt nftfOt [Ti- WH]}. Acis 
17b AV, RV Aheomcus ii.v.\. 

K (Kjpn'?. perhaps MaAHCE&p [BKAl/] : 
\|, one of the ' seven princes' at ilie court 
of Ahasueras (Esther 1 14). His name (with which ep 
Mbrks) has been connected with Old Persian Marduniya 
— i.e.. Mirdonius (Ihe name of the commander al 
Maraihon). Compare also the Mardi and Matdanies 
(Herod.lus 7M- Marquan {Fund. 69), howei'er. 
suggesu ¥roa and compares the name Hiarltapot (Dio 
Cass. 87ai). Some scepticism, however, is justified (see 

ESTHEH. % 3; PURIM, g 6). 

WtlUtHAT. For— I. -^pBS, tifiiar. Jer.Sli? Nah. 

ai7RV, and 
J. TBS iJ/Wr, Juiig.Bi4RV('iiiirah»l's>uff'),>mSciiiBEi 

and for 
3. O'lTjO'ST, 3 K. 2(« AVmc., sn Executioner <t) 
MABTSA. (MftpOA (Ti. WH]. S 57 ; Aram. WnQ. 

'lady,' 'mistress'}, sister of Mary, and friend of Jesus 

■•' lOiS^. 12i). 

'Martha- ii pr«ly comnKiii in ihe Tslnnid (Zun 
H:*ri/?MiiWa.irow'. WrW. Si4 *, and cp O^- - - 

Epiph. Hfr, \Vt), In the Ar" 
1. Num. in P^ 11. of the CIS we lind 

tfu Mar'ui 

of thcM would probably be Latiniied u Muiui. tlie laitir as 
Martha. By a eurious .coincidence Martha wu Ihe name of 
the Syrian propheteu who accompanied Martus in hi4 decinive 
-unpaignin Provence apitut^ihe^Cimbri and^Teufona (Plul. 



. Thele)[endi>re>pe<:ting 
."cp'LEp'i«HYri s! "«fr'MAHV, I Jt. 
(a) InLk.lOjB/., we are lold that, as they journeyed. 
Jesus and his disdpli ' . .>. 

t. TradiUou. 

course itol Bethany, cp Lk. I999) wl 

1 Je* 

halt. Here there 

whose sister, named Mary, instead of helping Martha in 
preparing the meat, 'sat at the Lord's feel and heard 
his word.' WH (so. too. B Weiss) give Ihe followir^g 
as the best supported reading of the answer of Jt-sus 
to Martha's complaint : ' Martha. Martha, thou art 
careful and troubled about many things but there is need 
of few things, or of one {i\lyair Ii iarir >^la J| irbf 
Mo^KO^ yip), for Mary has chosen the good part, one 
which will not be taken away from her,' The TR, 
however, to which TrcKclles and Tischendorf adhere, 

is need of one thing' (^;'ii U ion Jjula) — i.e., of 
only one thing. The taller reading seems to have 
b^n framed out of regard to Christian supernaluralism. 
which took offence at the suggestion of a few thitii-s 
(plural) being really needful. The reading, 'of few 
things, or of one,' which Plummer {SL Lute, agaj by 
no means makes prolxible, seems to stand midway be- 
tween the original reading and the more definite reading 
which afterwards became pievalent, and the ori(^na1 
test probably read, 'there is need of few things.' The 
idea that ' few dishes ' are meant, Ihough supported by 
many Greek and some modern interpreters, is unsatis- 
factory. The 'few things' must surely be those of 
which Jesus speaks in the 'Sermon on the Mount.' and 
of which he saj-s that they are not to cause us any anxiety, 
395 « 


Jesus was presumably, according to the intention of Ihe 
evangelist, speaking of the kingdom of God. The 
passage is a gentle reminder that man's earthly wants 
are few, abd that, having a Father in heaven, men need 
mil tie aniious about these wants, and Ihe -good part' 
chosen by Mary is a share in the kingdom of God. It 
is also probable that the answer assigned to Jeius is 
a combination of [wo sayings, one relative to the many 
and the few things, and the other relaii>-e to the truly 
good possession (cp Ps. 166). These sayings were both 
floating in tradition, when the stoiy received its present 
form, and to understand Lk. 104i/ we must analyse it 
into its two component parts. 

A Dutch critic, reviling a very old interpretation, 
supposes that, though very possibly historical, the in- 
between the Pauline doctrine of faith and a Judaising 
doctrine of works (Scholten, Hcl Pautiniick Evangdii. 
334). But this presupposes the reading iirln. 

(i) In Jn. 1 1 1 s "9. etc. , we hear again of ' Martha and 
Mary' Id. i;| or of ' Mary and her sister Martha' (f. ') ; 
but their house is in the ' village of Bethany. ' 

There is a certain similarity between the descriptions 
of Martha in Lk. and Jn. respeetii-ely. In both ^^a^ha 
afqxars as a devoted friend of Jesus, though there is 
tiothiiig in Lk. to suggest that Martha ri^rded Jesus 
as more than a great teacher of the things concerning 
' the kingdom,- whereas in Jn. she professes her belirf 
in Jesus as ' the Christ, the son of God. ' In both, too, 
Martha is the more forward of Ihe sisters. ' Martha was 

IS she I 


Martha, the sister of him Ihnl was dead, saith to him. 
Lord. . . . he hath been dead four days. ' And though 
nothing is said of hospitality in Jn. 11, the omission is 
repaired in Jn. ]2i, where we are loU that ' they made 
him a supper, and Martha ministered.' 

The great difference in Ihe ^\arx of residence usinied to 

discuued- The question ii complicated— for thoH al 1eau,>«ha 

eyan«l'ik'l iradT^-h^e'tSr'ihftlv.^ Jn'., Xo"diH-« 
so widely as to the place of reiddeece of Ibe two stolen, diAer in 

^^(f.T*W°n-"^'"), which l^*^^ by IT^-^in^l^a^^^ 




I. Mother 

JESUS (38 3-3S). 

^fk. and Lk. (II 4.6). 



lory(l iB). 


k. L!l^!^ili.iS.''« 

Other Maries (§§ 33-18). 

a. Motherorjaniesandjci«» ;. Marv Magdalene (| 96X 

3. Mary^anpai(|J4). 7- Mary of Rom. 1»0 (| iB). 

4. Sister of Martha (| j;)- 

MapiAM, in the LXX the name of the sister of 
Moses (see Miriam). reapEiears in Ihe NT as a 
_. , woman's name. One Grsecised form is 

1. BtymolOCT. ^^^ (we 8 2). anoiher is yiapid^^)!,. 
used bv Joscphus. All forms agree in having a in the 
first syllable. According to the Mnssorah to Ihe Targum 
ofOnkelosfed. Berhner, 1875) on En. 15io. Mariam was 

™any ci 

11 which MT has prcserv 


later pronunciatioii {Miriam). Hebrew analogies point 
to the change from a to i. not conversely from i to a. 

It was accordingly quite proper that, from the earliest 
Christian limes, when the aymology of the name was 
being discussed, the form Mariam was assumed. A 
variety of inlETpretalions are already mel with in the 
Oiwmastua Sacra. As might be eipected. they are 
almost all ol them impossible, resting as they do on 
utter ignor^ce of Hetrew. We shall here briefly record 
only a lew of the more important, referring for farther 
details to the excellent monograph of Bardenhewer (see 
below, g a>). 

The name is tikoiu a compound of uljcctii 


[ive in the lenderiaga * d 

ii appeus in all printed editions and 
nM| jind for which support Ku rcccni 
Wp, cp Gen. 1 14^ (althouGh Jerr 



St all MS5 of 

irobibly wrote •Hlla 
■MTIJ), 01 • mynb of the sea ' (q; -C). or ' Ifachn- of the sea ' or 
'jacutatriv maris,' or 'early rain of the sea' (the last three 
rvTHleriD^ assume a derivation from PSTlic — in the first two 
caKiappropriale.obviously. only to a man), or 'lady of the sea' 
(Irom Aram- *13, the fen. of which 11 in fiict Martha) or ' lady of 
ilia day' or 'lady of the sieve' (^ in New Hebrew meaning 

when sonKRab^Hnsinleipreled it as miming 'bitterness' Cv'tid) 
or when others took it 10 mean ' lady ' or ' misireu ' Oin^ itatui 
eapliuinB of Aram. "9, muc.). Whilst in these two iniuncn 

ployedioeaplain the word when itAoompcdle nature is uaujned. 
the other interpretations of it as a single word havt recourse 10 
derilatiocii not hitbena met with. The biphil of iip is mgEHIcd 
by the rendering 'the enlightener' or (with suffix) 'their en- 
lijhtMier ■ ; > the Iwplial by ' the enlightened.' [fn is aiiumcd 
in the rendering ' exalted,' possibly also in the rendering ' gift ' 
(jf norw occaaiotwd the suggestion). 

There are but two alternative roots that can be 
Seriously coiksidered : TV, 'to be rebellious,' and k-c, 
' to be fat' (whence a'p, 'falling' ; Job 39 iS, tbe only 
place where the verb occurs, must be left out of account 
owing to the uncertainty of the sense). The h of rrc^ 
might, before the a of -djw, pass into *, which, iti the 
case of Tc. is alreaily the third consonant. 1'he 
termination -dm indicates substantives of an abstract 

in (he tsise of proper names. Mariam. then, might 
mean either 'the rebellious' or 'the corpulent.' Even 
apart from any theological interest (hat might seem to be 
involved, we may safely say that we can hardly concei\'e 
any possible motive for giving a name of the former mean- 
ing to a girl unless therewereditficulties in her birth. The 
case would be diflerenl if the name had been bestowed on 
the MSler of Moses expressly because it is recorded that 
she was rebellious on one occasion (Nu.l2i'is); that, 
however, is by no means the only t^rcomstance, nor yet the 
most prominent one, which we learn regarding her. The 
derivation Iromirc. on the other hand, accords excellently 
with the whole analogy of tiemitic names ; it is associated 
with the Semitic idea, of feminine beauty. Bardenhewer 
compares al&o the masculine name Mamre ((itc^). 

Both forms. Ma^a>i and Mopia, interchange fre- 
quently and with little seeming regularity in the- NT 

3. »f«flfm ta 


For the m 


T the 

41) Hi^.ot is invariabi 

; the nam« acc-^rdingly, both in Lk 
u Hafifoji (Lnchma-in. bowever, h 

lllR6xb(Sl.trr., iBSB, pp. 9«:-i^, especially 380-181) to eiplain 

the sea,'"^lin tea,™l>dy?-"ardue to combbutim'M Ma^wiib 
the goddeia Astane- 

p6),acc.<Llt.ir634),andvoc.{Ll:,ljQ)lsll«(Miji. Again. lIii^Ha 

genitive (Acts 12 ra), and for the mother of James (the Less) arid 
of Joses, who in all passages (Mt. 27^ &■ Itfi j Mk. IS4047 Iflx 

have Mci^Ha: so also in the case of' the Mary grMltd l^' Paul in 
Korn. lU (ace). Klary Magdalene is generally Hipio ; but 

shei>nanied(Mk.lS4j 19i Lk.Ss i4.p Jn^omTr^S'l'os^ 

always in the no^^n &cl, in Jn.»ia"tas also'in'!0r6"on" 
TR and Lachmann have Hd^xo, ai 

20 T rionlyTi-hasHawui, inMk.l54aonly WHhaveUuu(i, 
in Ml.n^ only WH have (on the mg.l HcuHOfi, in S76i 
WH TL, etc.. have MrusiiM. in 28 r WH (mg.) Ti,, etc, 
"■*■'■ '• 'Martha is met with 

in the gen. U 

only WH (tej 

sister of Ma"^' 

WH in Lit. li 

M.'only WH 21/' 
Tree, and Laohni. only in Lk. lOjg. and wilhTieg. against 

Of course all the women named, with the possible 
eiception of the Mary named in Rom. 166, were reallj 
known as Mariam in the Aramaic surroundings in which 
they lived. Any disiinciion between Mariam and 
Maria, can at the earliest have been introduced by the 
evangelists : but hardly with tbe irregularity which our 
present texts display. Plainly we must reckon with the 
fact that one copyist preferred the otie form, another the 
other, and that in the collation t>f any two codices tbe 
readings of tbe one were introduced into tbe other, yet 
without any fixed system being followed by copyists or 


uniformly preferred Ihe form'M, 

clearly is rather this, that our best codices, in those places wh^re 
two persons of The name are mentioned, for The most part call 
Mary Magdalene Mariam, and the mother of James and josel 
almost invariably Maria, alchough the two women have already 
'^eeti sufficiently distinguished by the additions 10 their names 

(Mt. ; 

All that 1: 

fot £ 

I. The mothar of Janii-— In the case of Maty the 
mother of Jesus our chief interest concentrates itself on 

* !•«■■<»• the doctrine of the virgin birth. Let its 
hll on birth, j^g ,^ ^^ fi„,',hree gospels, to which 
we turn in seeking to ascertain his place in history, we 
find that be never makes any appeal to the manner of 

can be urged that the silence arises from a delicate reserve 
which would be easy to understand. On the other 
hand, however, we finiJ expressions used by him which 
seem directly to eiclude the idea of a virgin birth. 
In M(. 12aB be declares that he casts out devils by 
the spirit of God. This rests upon the conception 
that the spirit i>f God Alls his being, that it has been 
bestowed upon him. but not upon the conception that 
it is by the divine spirit that he has been begotten. 
Surely, too, the hard saying (Mk. 833 = . Ml. 12,8), 'Who 
is my mother, and my brethren?' would h.ive been an 
impossibility if Jesus had possessed the consciousness 
that his mother had been deemed by (iod wonhy of a 
position so exalted and so singular as we are iiou ipe.ik- 
ing nf : and it will hardly be suggested that his mother 
could have concealed from him until now the h.ippy 
secret. In Lk. 8m/ the hard saying is no longer pre- 
served : all the more certainly on this account must it 
be regarded as genuine, for no evangelist would have 

The saying of Jesus just referred lo(Mk.3j3 = Mt.l24a] 



■lands direclly connecled wilh a cin 

j_ only in Mk. (3»/.), *hilsl in" Ml. it ii 

^-^^ hith """='' disguised, and in Lie. altogeiher 
"1^8*" "»*'^ omitled. The -kinsmen' (ol xap' 

be is beside hiinseir' {Gospei^, g 139 and 116 i. end}. 
Who these kinsmen eiaclly were we leam from Mk.331/ 
= Ml. 1246/ = Lk. 819/ ; Ihey were his mother and his 
farelhren. For the passage is the continuation of Mk. 
Sit; (hey set out from Nazareth and reach Jesus 
immediateLy alter he has had a. controversy with the 
scribes (Mk. 3m-3o). Even should we choose 10 regard 
h as pos»ble thai Mary had kept a life-long silence with 
her son regarding the secret of his Inrth, and by Ihis 
assumplion to deprive Mk.Saj ('who is my mother, 
etc.?') of the force assigned lo it in the preceding para- 
graph. Sai ('he is beside himself) would slill be de- 
cisive ; bad Mary known of the supernatural origin of 
Jesus, as set Ibnh in Lk. 1 35, could anything have in- 
duced her to say thai be was beside himself? The 
■family secret,' <^ which apologists speak, did nol exist- 
The saying of Jesus in Mk. 64, 'a prophet is not without 
honour save in his own country and among his own kin 
and in his own house,' is also gtrmone lo the present 
subject. The words ' and among his own kin ' (cbJ if 
TtSt iruYYtriuoir atrov) have very significantly been 
omitted by Ml. (ISs?) and Lk. {i^,). We may also 
T«fer lo the narrative of the baptism of Jesus. Il involves 
the view, which we have aheady (g 3) seen to be that of 
Jesus himself in Mt, 12iB, (hat he first received the holy 
■piril when he was baptized. It is a view that could 
never have arisen if that of the virgin birth had been in 
existence from the first (Nativity, j 15). 

We are able, however, 10 advance a step further. 
Whole sections of the first two chapters of Lk. bear 
B Lk. 3 on *''"*" against Ihe virgin birth, (a) 
_, ■,_ 1.,.^ Were il presupposed it would be indeed 
'*^*"'"'*^ a very singula!?^ that, according 10 
Lk. 23J, the parents of Jesus should have marvelled at 
Ihe words of Sitneon (and according to 2i3/ at those 
of Ihe shepherds), and have been unable (2jo) to under- 
stand his words as a boy of twelve. Still more im- 
portant is it lo notice that in 2i;tM] his 'parents' 
{yoHii), and in 2^] 48 his fathtr and his mother are 

Il is very noieworthy that six old I.atin codices in 
S41 have Joitph el Maria for 'his parents' (r>l 70*111 
B&r«i); most unciab in 233 substitute 'Joseph' ([6] 
utm^) for 'his father' [i waTi]p airoiJ) ; Syr. Cur, has 
■we' instead of 'thy father and I ' (i ra-r^p am Kiyiii) 
in 24B ; and four old Latin codices omit Ihe subject 

{*) In 2ia we read, further, thai the days of /*«> puri- 
fication were fulfilled. This is based upon an arehieo- 
logical error : it was only Ihe mother who was made 
unclean by a birth ; in the case of a male birth, ai-cord- 
ing to Lev. 12i-4, Ihe uncleanness lasted forty days. 
This error, however, serves 10 show that the writer 
regarded Joseph as Ihe actual father of ]c 

rauld n< 

nought o 

It all a 

Thus there is no occasion lo lay stress upon Ihe fui 
consideration that there could have been no thought of 
any uncleanness on the mother's part if the birth had 
been brought about by supernatural means. (f) Still 

clearer on this point thiin either of the preceding con- 
siderations is Ihe indubitably original reading of 2;, 
•wilh Mary his wife' — which is vouched for, not merely 
by old Latin codices, as well as by Syr, sin. , but 

I The gipedimt of uking ibc lerercnce u being to the putifi. 
cation oTmolhernnil child does not hold, Ar no plural immcdi- 
mtely precedes, ' rheir ' (avr^i*) most be reletred bark 10 the sub- 
jtclof the verb (i»TW]«v), wtwre unquealionably Ihe fjlher and 
mother ue Jjilvndeo. Moreover, according (a Lev. 12, no un- 
clnnnea attachn to the child on^ irnre than 10 Ihe foihei. D, 

refer to die ^M, bi» in dung wulinerinlo conll^ widi 'tbe 


even more by the manifest impossibilily of its ever 
having arisen by later correction (see Nativity. % 16, 
middle). The whole of Lk. 2, accordingly, not onljr 
knows nothing of Ihe vii^^ birth, but rests upon ibe 
opposite presupposition. 

Further, it has 10 be pointed oul that even in Lk. I, 

only two verses— mi. nf. — contain the idea of Ihe virgin 

■ Lt 1 and '"'^ clearly and effectively ; and these 

_; ,_ u-iii. disturb the connection so manitesthr 

"W" Mitt- o»l — m con,p.lled to regirt Ihi^ 
as a later insertion. {a] In the first place. Mary's 
question. ' How shall this be. seeing 1 know not a man'? 
is on any assumption inappropriate. ' Know ' [yun^- 
Kur) being here in the present lense, it cannot mean the 
act of conciibilus for which the word is so often em- 
ployed (mostly of the male— Gen. i. Ml. lij etc.— but 
sometimes of Ihe female— Gen. 198 etc., and in Nu. 
31 rjf. , with full explanation of ihe euphemism), AVe 
are equally precluded, however, from taking it in the 
quite genera! sense which it has. for example, in Acta 
IB15 ('Jesus I know . . . but who are ye'?), a sense 
which would be quite meaningless in the present con- 
texL The true interpretation is the intermediate one ; 
I have no such acquaintance with any man as might 
lead to the fulBlment of this prophecy. Bui the exact 
opposite of Ihis is iovotved in the actual situation : Mary 
is betrothed lo Joseph (Lk.l .;) and must necessarily have 
looked to the fulfilment of such a prophecy through her 
marriage with him — unless indeed her doubt had tieen 
not about the birth of a son. but about Ihe high dignity 
that son was to attain in after life. This latter doubl, 
however, is precisely what she does net express. 

(*) Another point which has to be noticed is thai 
Mary lakes Ihe words of Ihe angel as referring lo > 
fulfilment in the way of nature. Had she inierpreled 
them otherwise, then her objection ' 1 know not a man* 
would be meaningless. And the interpretation of the 
angel's words now suggested is nol, as one might be 
tempted to think, unsuitable inasmuch as the angel is 
supposed in I3; (o express only with greater clearness 
what he has already said in Ijo-jj. On Ihe contrary, 
TO. 30-33 admit without any difficulty of being luiderslood 
as referring lo Ihe birth of the Messiah from a human 
marriage. In particular, 'son of the highest' (ulilt 
^I'f^anv, v. 3a) need not mean a son of God in Ihe 
physical sense, bul only a son of God in the ordinary 
OT sense of one who places himself wholly at Ibe service 
of Ihe divine will, and is supplied and supported by God 
with special powers. This is also true of the Messiah. 
Also Ihe endless duration of Ihe dominion of the Messiah 
as an individual person, as distinguished from ihe reign of 
an endless dynasty, announced in v. 33. even if nowhere 
certainly set forth in any of the messianic prophecies when 
historically interpreted, ai any rale lay very close at hand 
in such passages as ls.fls[6] Ezek.STis Sifyll.St^/. 
(under Cleopatra, l|J« J'dyfit ira( xitnjt -yflt irr^wTpa 
Kparfyiar ih alHrai rirrat). WTiat, however, must 
never be lost sight of is thai the notion of a supemaiural 
birth never at any time attached lo the idea of the 
Jewish Messiah. As late as in the Dialogue of Justin 
{circa 15s A. I).) we still find Trypho the Jew saying 
(49 begtn, ). ' We all expect the Christ to be a man of 
men' (xdiTet iguli rhr Hpirrbr itifnarw i( drSp<imi«r 
rpwrSoK&iur -fir^iri<r0ai ). The alternatives before us, 
therefore, are miher to suppose the author of the 
chapter as a whole has put a wholly ioappropriale utter- 
ance into Mary's mouth, or 10 assume thai in vv. 30-33 
an unsupematural birth — a possible interpretation — is 
actually intended, and thai in v.j,/, a supernalural 
birth has been substituted for it by another hntid, and 
accordingly that ' son of God ' (vlis StoO) (f. 35) is to be 
taken in a physical sense, otherwise ihan Ihe 'son of 
the highest' (i«ii infitHTov) in !■. ji. It is well worth 
noticing Ihat Bernh. Weiss, on account of this difference, 
takes Ihe words of Ijsf (Sii ■«!... fleou) lo be an 
addition made by the redactor to his source. Tbe same 


In this B 

which case the virgin birth disappears (roni the source 

{c) The words in 1 31 (o the effect that Dnvid is the 
father of the son to be born of Mar? {rir Sptre* AavlS 
rouiraTpha^rav} could, on the presupposition of a virgin 
birth, have been written only if Marf"s own descent 
were held to be from David. But as, according to 1 36, 
she is a kinswoman {rvyytch) of Eliiabelh, who in turn, 
according to 1 s. is a Levite, the words in 1 31 consliluie 
an independent proof that the [alherhood of Joseph is 

tribe it was that Mary reall/ belonged ; but that the 
BUthiH' of Lk. 1 held her to l>e a Levite is certain. 
The «in}ectute has been haiajrded, it is true, that she 
¥nts Levite on the mother's side, but on the father's 
sde a. liescendant of David. This, however, ought to 
have been expressly stated. Far from this being the 
case, the idea that Mary was a descendant of David is 
expressly excluded by wliat we read in li; {the angel 
Gabriel was sent . . . ' to a virgin betrothed to a man 
whose name was Joseph, of the house of David ') ; for 
otherwise the continuation would not have run, ' and Ihe 
virgin's nanie was Mary,' but simply, ' and her name was 
Maty' {lal t6 Bm/ia afir^ Mopio). In 2*, moreover, 
we are expressly informed of Joseph only that he was 
descended from David, though his descent was a matter 
of no moment on the assumption of the virgin birth, 
ily Syr. sin. thai substitutes 
ere both of the house of 
David.' See further, Nativity, gg 5, 9, end. 

{dj Another ciicumslance that speaks for our regard- 
ing w. 34/. as an interpolation is the fact that Mary's 
speech expresses doubt of the truth of the angel's 
message, and yet she is not 50 much as blamed, whilst 
Zacharias is actually punished for a like doubt (l«i). 
Moreover, ihe case of Elizabeth to which the angel 
pinnts in v. 36 is no evidence of the possibility of a 
supernatural conception : it has evidential value only if 
what has happened to Eliiabeth is mote wonderful than 
what is being promised to Maiy — namely that she, in 
the way of nature, is to become the moiher of the 
Messiah. Note, further, that apart from I34 twtt 
i' since') is not met with either in the third gospel or in 

The two genealogies of Jesus in Mt 1 i-it and Lk. 
813-38 (see GENBAI.OGIES ii.) differ so greatly that re- 

urse has often been had to thesupposi- 

<n that they relate, one to Joseph, the 

— M-iiT" ""'"' "• ^"y- ^''" O"'?' however, is 

""^^ this in flat contradiction to the express 

statements which refer both of them to Joseph ; the 

reference of either 10 Mary is further from the outset 

1 36 Mary is a kinswoman of the Aaronite Eliiabeth {g 61:). 
Even if. however, it were true that one of the two ■ gene- 
alogies' related lo Mary, Ihe other would still be that 
of Joseph, arul thus by the mere fact of its existence 
would furnish Ihe proof which in reality both of them 
afford, that when they were drawn up there was no 
thought of the virgin birth of Jesus. Therefore within 
a gospel which teaches this doctrine Ihe insertion of ' as 
was supposed' (wt iro/ilttro) (Lk.Saj) was quite in- 
di^iensable. But had such an insertion been con- 
templated from the outset, it would not have lieen 

T. OwtNjOgiM ,j 

I Theia 


of l34(cni«i4pa*VTinkWH)liL5«lilDriiilinBeniai^ and usif m 
(o th( demnl of the boty ■pjril upon Maty no olher owialion 
than thai of makinf her child to be from die womb Ailed wiih 

ing u we already (unde 

icrprelaEiDn, howe 


worth while to 


::t the genealogy at all.' On Mt. 

One testimony, that of Paul, is unquestionably older 
than that of our canonical gospels. {a ) At the very 

8. P&id and """'"■ *"' statement in Rom. Ij that 
i.^~i^^ Jesus was bom of the seed of David 
TiTgin mruu (^(^^^nj, ,0 jj^ flgjj,^ jj irreconcilable 
with the virgin birth. <3therwise reference must certainly 
have been made to the share which the Holy Ghost 
(who is also mentioned) had in his generation. Now. 
I4, the antithesis to 'according to the flesh' (xarA 
frdpia) nol being strictly adhered to. proceeds to define 

figure as the author of the beii^ of Jesus at his birth 
but as the higher and, stricdy speaking, ihe abiding 
element of his being — in short, as what in an ordinary 
mortal constitutes the soul. (f) In Rom. 9) God 

sends forth his son ' in the likeness of sinful flesh ' {ir 
iltoiiiliaTt aapiii iimprtat). Since the apostle in Rom. 
Gi9 traces the sinfulness of mankind to its descent from 
Adam, such a statement would certainly be impossible, 
the virgin birth being held. (c] Tlie most impor- 

tant passage, however, is found in Gal, 4*. Not indeed 
because Ihe expression runs ' made of a woman ' 
{yerifirror ix 7u>'B«ii) and not 'made of a virgin' 
{yttifurw it rapdirmi); for after all a 'virgin' 
{rapSiivt) is also a ' woman ' [yvr^) and it could 
reasonaUy be urged thai Paul was under no compelling 
necessity 10 lay emphasis on Ihe idea of xafSiiM. 
The force of the passage for ihe present discussion lies 
in what follows : ' bom under the law. thai he might 
redeem Ihem which were under the law.' Here what is 
shown is that in order to become their redeemer it 
behoved Jesus to be completely like those he came to 
redeem. Thus also the phrase ■ bom of a woman ' 
denotes a turth diflering in no essential particular from 
ordinary human births. 

i/t) ll will perhaps be urg&l iliai, Inuiniicfa as Paul sttHbulei 
prf^kistencc 10 Jesu^ Ihe virgin binb has lot inKieu for bin, 
but Eliat hii silence in the nutter does not prove thai he was 


the doctrine of (he pre4xii 

regards die pr>4jiist«nt 01 
linnc beinE (cp the pmeni 

-„...-/C). If, however, Ihe doci 

been handed down to him. he would hanlly have 

nee of Jtsui it one thai hu <i 


«^nce as biuorioL N 

„P.ul is coached. bc,= 


wbard Ic 

1e wilb su 

•. Ep-to 


Tl^inblitlL " 

The Epistle to the Hebrews in 7 14 gives prominence 
the fact that ' our Lord sprang out of Judah. as to 
which Iribe Moses spake nothing concern- 
ing priests.' In this Ihe sole object is 
t Ihe inferiority of Ihe OT 
priesthood as compared with the high- 
prieslhood of Jesus. We have nothing 10 lead us lo 
suppose that Ihe author wishes any conclusion 10 be 
drawn with respecl to Ihe birth of Jesus ; but for nil 
who find themselves compelled to believe thai Lk. rightly 
attributes a Levitical descent 10 Mary Heb.7i4 testift^ 
unquestionably and with emphasis against the doctrine 
of the virgin birth. 

The Fourth Evangelist n^ards Jesus as being the 

-S^yiSi, have been of less importance in his eyes 
™*" "'"'^ as predicating something far less exalted 
concerning Jesus. (a) At Ihe same time, Jesus 

1 ShauM it prove id be Ibe facl that Syr. sin. and D lake Ihe 
iexiC^wTfalM one (GosrrLS. |'ai », this would^ only, he 
caused by Ibe inseriion of Ibe wf ifttii^fro; the ittiivriiOm 
the original view of the genealogy that Jesus was mlly Ibe son 



1 gospel says ■ greal deal r 

' i[ his ei 

> Ihii taoMf life 
Father. In (hii corn 

been of great importance to have been able to say, in 
sufqxirt of hU exalled dignity, that he had been boro in 
BQ altogether exceptional way. Instead of this, what 
do we find ? That in Jn. 1 ts Philip, in 641 the Je«,s, call 
him the son of Joseph, that in Ij? 7ji/. ji Nasareth Is 
spoken of as his birthplace, whilst yei Bethlehem is said 
lobeofnecessily the birthplace of the Messiah: and Jesus 
says nothing to the contrary. It is acknowledged that 
JD the Fourth Gospel the ob)eclions of the Jews against 
Jesus continually proceed upon misonderstaDdings (see 
John, f 351;). But here the misunderstanding plainly 
lies not in any error as to the actual birthplace of Jesus 
01 as to the manner of his binh. but only in the opinion 
that these facts exclude the Messiahship of Jeius. 

{t) No direct polemic, however, against the virgin 
Irirth of Jesus can be discovered in Jn. 1 13. 

True, k would in fad hive bwii in full tccord with the lubile 
nwnner of the Eva 
•11 the elect thai th 

lir'^Sxiait^ubrukeniri'nBlly. A^^^-mr.l 
declaration with regard to aU the electa who nev 

M of blood 01 

Ihe will < 

. . Ihe> 

in u, niher, of God ' (Win< 

jloK) all polemical 
that the Fourth 

In. 74: 


I 5S U) ; ihil il to uy, it is not Ihcir 
K> much as Iheir provcnienct froir 

(ora AguMi the luppoiiiLoii of the 

{() Nevertheless it is not im 
Gospel contains a tacit rejection 01 tne aocinne in 
question. It would be quite in accordance with the spirit 
of its author if the doctrine appeared to him too slight 
and too external for the Logos— it only we may suppose 
that he knew it. Id favour of Ihe supposition is (i. ) the 
fact that the doctrine is already in full currency in Justin's 
time (151 A. D. ) although he gives some details differently 
from the canonical form [aee/.f-. below. §jr a,n.)\ and, 
further (ii.), the point registered under GOSPELS, g 151, 
end, even though it does not treat directly of the passage 
on the virgin birth. On the other haivd the view put 
forth in Nativity, g 12. is also vet7 attractive, (hat 
Is the hidden path by which Bethlehem 

d found its way into Ihe gospel tradition ' as the birth- 
place of Jesus. We shall do best perhaps if we combine 
both views by the supposition that an older, perhaps 
oral, form of this manner of reasoning gave occasion 
to Ihe rdalive portions of Mt. and Lie. and laid the 
foundation for Jn. 7<i/. 

What has been said in g 3/ renders it antecedently 
probable that from Ml. as well as from Lk. the theory 
11 ftn ■•») of 'lie ifirBiit Wrth of Jesus was originally 
_._! VLiSi absenL The eipression in Mt.ISjs 'Is 
™K» Wrtfc- „o, ,hi, the carpenters son ? ' points in (he 
same direction. Unless Ihe phrase is to be understood 
Inihefirsiof the senses suggested under Joseph (ii..g 9) 
as being exactly equivalent to the parallel in Mk, S3 ' Is 
not this the carpenter?' — and we may perhaps point to 
the continuation in Mt., ' Is not this his mother called 
Mary?' as fovouring (he view that his father is really 
intended — then (he pass.Tge [which is here assumed to 
represent in the main rightly what was originally lold 
of the questionin){s of those in Jesus' 'own country'} 
directly contradicts the theory of (he virgin lHr(h. ' Nay. 
more, even chap. 2 itself admits of a complete under- 
standing without the presupposition of the vii^n birth. 
The fact (hat Bethlehem is not mentioned at all till 2 1 
is reached thus becomes significan(. 1 18-15 "bus appears 
not only to be later than chap, 2, hul also 10 have been 

Aranuic ptiraw for ' Jflnwthecarpenler,' Thv suppoailion that 
Jetuiwaiacarpenlcr might hai-eiu-iKn out ofa mi upitnhcjuion 

KaEaroM' nor, u tome Hipp4>Kd, 'Jesul the carpenter,' but 
'Jesus Ih* Gililaan' {cp Naiarktm, | j),] 

* Bethlehem 


somewhat heedlessly introduced. olherwHi 
would have been mentioned a( an earlier pomi. 

'On M(. 1 1B-15 all that need here be said is that in it 
Ihe theory is set forth from first to last with full delibera- 
tion. Tbe only somewhat indeterrniitale expression in 
it IS the word 'wife' (yvHuiia) in w.toi4. since it is still 
in question whether Joseph is to take (ro^iaXa^u') Mary 
or not. For this expression does not refer to concubitus 
(see, rather, 1 3j) but to the completion of tbe marriage. 
Yet after all the word 'wife' (-yun)) instead of 'be- 
trothed ' {i/iniaTfvtiir^ : cp 1 18) is no( more tinprecise 
than dcij/j (I19) for bridegroom ; both alike rest upon (he 
fact that betrothal already constitutes an obligation 
binding in law, even before the marriage has been con- 
cluded in due form (Edersheim, Lift ami Timis of Jtsas, 

We are now in a position to sum up and complete 
the results arrived at regarding the composition of 

i^ of Ml, liB-.sis nol bvlhe samehand as 
.?Mt 1 / ■'■" " '!■ •""' '" '■" '" '"" "^ "" 

■.—. '•"■'■J" drawn up after Joseph had ceased (o be 
regarded as (he real father of Jesus. Moreover, 2i f. 
would seem to have been wriiien without being pre- 
ceded by liS-aj {% 11). In chap, 2, further, according 
to the statement given in Gospels, § 151 (end), the 
story of the Magi does not seem to have been originally 
present. Further, the words ' in those days ' \t» nut 
iiuifioit txtintt) in Si have absolutely no relation (o 
anything contained in chaps. 1 2, Ihe contents of which 
relate to a period thirty years earlier. Hillmann [IPT, 
1891, 359/1 conjectures that originally immediately 
before these words there stood some note as (o date similar 
to what we now have in Lk.Si/, which was afterwards 
removed when Mt. 1 2 were prefixed. That tbe author of 
Lk. should have made use of Mt. — ^ according to Cos PELS, 
g 137, a very probable hypothesis — becomes all the 
easier to believe if at that time the first (wo chapters of 
our Ml were still wanting, and entirely so ; otherwise 
Lk, who so oflen coincides verbally with Ml would 
not have diverged from him in 1/ so completely as he 

{*) The statement of tbe virgin birth in Lk.. as well 
as that in Ml, was introduced last of all — by Ihe in- 
sertion of 1 34/ (or only I j4*) and of ' as was supposed ' 
{iit in/tlftro) inlo 3 aj {% 6 /.]. Whelher the in- 

□eed not be discussed. In Uc. 2 the contents of IJt. I 

which w 

called by Ihe angel before he was conceived in Ihe 
womb.' This backward reference to Iji can easily 
have been inserted when the two chapters were being 
joined together. On this hypothesis we can imagine 
more readily — what in itself is in accordance with the 
nature of things—that the glorification of Ihe Baptist by 
means of a narrative of his birth took place at a later 
dale than the similar glorification of Jesus, This would 
hold good also if with Volter (see below, g aa) we were 
to assume the kernel of Ihe ■ Bened ictus '—i.e. , l68;i-;s 
?*/. 79* — 'n tie drawn from an "Apocalypse trf 
Zacharias ' in which Zacharias sang the praises of his 
son John as forerunner of Ihe day of Yahwe (not of the 
Messiah). As in the case of Mt. with regard 10 chap. 2, 
so also in that of Lk. wiih regard to chap. 1 particularly, 
Ihe question has to be asked (though it cannot be ex- 
haustively discussed here) wheiher certain portions 
may not have been later 

in ihe fact Ihal Ihe niarriago of Mary wiih jMCph, and the 
lioiied. Both ought to conn belw«n 1 3« and 1 39, Wiih Ihis 
cilSK^'l™l^''S_«ili UlfOth«l,7n 2s she is wife (| 5*; 

1 HanuuJi UUcir. fTBclU Wiutnsck. 1001, p. 56I "o«ld 
delete 'virgin'^(iii^'>w) (and alu nn n^rsv?) by the tide 



Finally, a$ in the case of Mc. so also in that of Lk. 
we iniui conjec(ui« that (he gospel once was without the 
first iwo chapters (Ij-2si). Lk.'s proem (I1-4) speaks 
in tavour of this presumption (see NATIVITY, g 13) as 
also do the faclslhal (he Bapltsi is id 3a introduced like 
a person who has never yel been menlioned, and that 
Jesus at Naiarelh (4 16-30) appeals in his own vindication 
simply to his possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit ; so 
■|e further fact that the Baptist (7 18/) ' 

whether Jesi 

.e Mes! 

not. without knowing nnylhing of the complete informa- 
tion which, according to 1 41-4S. his mother possessed. 
See. especially. Thomas (below, g aa), 364-400. 

As in the Third Gospel it is in 3jj (g 7}, so in the 
First Gospel it is in 1 r6 that the theory of the virgin 

18 Haw *'''*^ ^^'^' "'" " '"' '" ** '■""Bht 

__ai i_ into harmony with the presupposition of 

»^ the genealo^s. M When STlexl of 

Syr. sin., ' Joseph, 10 whom was espoused 

Mary the virgin, begal Jesus who is called the Christ,' 

was hrst made known, greol surprise at such a departure 

from the canonical text was expressed. 

SiHiK thought that we bul suddenly come into poneiiion of 

Ibey wen miu^en. No doubt, Syr. iln. conuins the words 
'Jo%eph . . . becal Jeiiu,' but not wiihoui ■ pireiitheii. 
<;,».ii..i.. :. — .A — 1 ^, : ■ ,],, ,[„j] i,^, (, /^„ , „„ • j^j ;(, 
m A loD,' — itiifl loo in plan of the longer 
ot till she hod brought fiinb > ua.w 
.:. _;(-. Sy,_ ,i^^ i„„ — ;.. 

Smiilitly. it 


U the K 

une time the anonioj 

te.xt'or I'ts-ao. 

TaVen a. a 


KOrdingly, ibia recently 

lation brings 

«, and these 

aid by the canonical text. 


TOtWDuld. howe-er, bee. 

ually greal if wi 


were 10 

lo in order ID lave the ecdeu- 

utical dainu w» 10 diipou of 
either byTwIdillg themfc heret 

in Syr. >in. 
or by taking 

the begat I^ytn'^vtr} in 1 it^ in 

bom that iS 

which it 

11 Ial;en in 1 i-iM, Apart fiom the conu 

deration thai 

nwlbuda tn illegitimai 

, Syr. un. i. 

ol [he only 


with which we havi ,0 

eal. Long ago 


only, no atten 

10 them 

Thi( ii hardly 10 be w 

ndeted at when 

ii i. remen- 

logy had insiiied [I 
iph begat Jesn.'fl-, 
(t) This original text was first actually discovered it 
the 'Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila' edited by 
Conybeare in Anted. Oxen. Class, ser. 8. 1898, p. 76 
((ol. 93 r of the Codex} ; cp pp. xix-xxil : Jacob b^l 
Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was bom Jesus 
who IS called Christ, and Joseph begat Jesus who is 
called Christ. ('luili^ Munfatr rip 'Iu«^, rAr 
t J/M Mo/j(at, <( iji fytri^Si) Iijiroirt iXryi^MPot XpurrSi, 
ml ' Iiiirri)^ i-ftmfit* rir 'liTtroCr rir Xtydtttrai Xpurri*). 
'^-- -- eiprenly cited by Aquila the Jew as being the teal of 

Ul 1 gospel, am: 
Conybeare thai the text 


'EiS a'l e. 
I teit aroK by oraisiOon 
ty onusuon of Ibe liral hi 

jTto'lErfi^lt Why™ 
ten MgoItenT Why twice over ca 
(i XryiiLim Xpnrri,)1 Why u 

ditiona] but expUcatlv 

e, IbeJewaddiK 

ii^pUt — r>., by the word 'begat 'Ihe evangelist meani' of Mary.' 
By ihii, however, in explained not (he addUitn of the second 

waa born, etc.' H( i(t fyirv^ lifevt i Arf<i)unt Xjusrif),— 

of 'betrothed' f^tuntrrTviti.irnv\ in Ibe niHaken preiupi 
that Mfiyi)ffnviU>-pf <mght to be read b S 5 and here — const 

t Whether ornol there wne added the words 'who v 
Cbriu ' (Tit Arjrffimp Xptritfp) oi lonve such addition 

a9Cniybeareal»(p. xii)hai quite dearly perceived : 'in order to 

wife really jo very likely to suggest itself <C])| 11 c)? And if it 

Id h word, in the view o( Ihe present writer, the Ml. 
used by (he author of the dialogue contained not one 
text of Mt, 1 laj but two, of which one may have been 
supplemented oul of a second copy. And. in fact, il 
is precisely the youngesi text and the oklest which in 
this manner have found a place peaceably side by side 
in one and the same line. 

Let us now attempt to arrange the existing forms of 
the text in the order in which they may be supposed 10 

kigicnl sequence.' irrespective of (he 


a for 

whether they belonged 

if Ml. 


Ht. 1 164. 

a. And Joseph begal Jesus (ImriT^ ^ ifirriiirtr 1 
'iTrrvir). Dial., vl supr.. 76, fol, 93 r. On (he 
continuation ijhr \t^6/itif€r Xpiffrdif), see col. 

i. Jacob begat Joseph rt* Afij,tflBrf of Mary (cp below, 
/),»*a^A!r begat Jesus, Vat. MS of Diatcss.* 

c. And JosejJi, to whom was tsfoustd Mary tlu virgin, 

b^t Jesus. Syr. sin. This form would be 
still more ancient without the addition 'the 
virgin.' yet this is wanting only under d a and/ 

d. (Jacob autem genuit Joseph) 

a. cui desponsala [wilhoul enit] Maria genuit 
Jesum. Old La(. q. 

p. i juTiBTei*(iffo rape^ro! MofiUM' ^fif- 
n/eir 'Iijffoftf. Five MSS of the Ferrar 
group, 346, 788, with 543, 8a6,* 8a8,' 
(Gregory) = 556, 634.* 6a6' respectively 
(Scrivener), and Old Lat. a. /', *. 

7. to whom was espoused (he virgin Mary, 
loAo (fern. ) begat Jesus. Syr. cur. 

3. cui desponsala [without erat] virgo Maria, 
Maria autem genuil Jesum. Old Lai. (. 

«. cui desponsala erat virgo Maria, virgo 
auttm Maria genuit Jesum. Old Lai. i, 
In </ a ^ by the participial couslniclion 
with /oT(9TeuS«riro, in li -)i by the relative 
pronoun, in i/ I e by Ihe repetition of her 
name, Mary is made the subject of tyif- 
«fo-f» or genuit. As these verbs may 
indeed be used in speaking of a woman, 
but strictly speaking are applicable (o a 

t. (Jacob autem genuit Joseph) 

cui desponsala virgo Maria ftptrit (Chrislum) 
Jesum. Old Lat. d. 
f. o. ('laiii^ 8* tit 'Iwirli*) 

^ fitirirreii^tiira lAv-fia.. t\ ^tiytrr^Bii 
UaoZt. Dial. . ul svpr. . 76. fol. 93 v. 
(Modified from d b. hence /OfijOTSuffliffO 
for ^^uTjoTnlthj). 
p. ('laiili^ ii iyivniatT rir 'Iurrii0) 

Til" liniBTtuiriittttr Mopia/i ii ^ 
iyrrifir, i XfiffTii (i vl<n Tou etov). 
Dial., ulsupr., 88, fol. 113 r. 
7. ('Iaxtu;3 6i iyirniatr rir 'Ii^ri)^) 

rir irSpa Hapfof, ^f ifl iyo-r^ 
'IijffoSs. Dial., Mt supr., j6, fol. 93 r, 
and canonical ML 
Conybeare holds / a and ^ (o be ' a mere bit of 

'CpGo5P.L5,|,= «: 
• g to Hogg) 

" iac, fron 

,. V*.r,.B,5 pp,.58-.63, 
■779,n. Aihismheonlv 

n Ihe I 

— — -, -,— .--- -.aiingui^h gender -., ,. 

isedWLD-'begu'or'watbom'}. 'Tfaia would be Ih 

form. Even in thb aat, however, It wc '-"- 

Ihe Arabic iranalalor [or Rcribet) should no..... -. 

ing a word which diverged from Ihe accepted meaning w markedly* 
»SeeIjke,/. rAw/. i-r«rf. 1 OBm/) 110 : Cod, 78«aceordin« 
CO a pHvale communication. Codd. 13 " i-^-- --•.-- 




botching due to a reviser of Ihe diali^ue ' ia Ihe period 
previous to the definitive filiation of the text, in order 
to avoid the 'husband' {Sripa). which be found ofTenaive. 
Wb must explain the woid in the same way as the 

Epiphonius {^^r.SOrt} leils tis that Cerinthus and 
Carpocrates endeavoured to prove from the genealogy 
ia PKi«.i»(. i" Mt's gospel that Christ was of Ihe 
i'^™"? seed of Joseph and Mary (««;p«.ro, 

"*^"" According to Eusebius (HE i,j) the 
Ebionite Symmachus in his viritings seems to rest upon 
Mt. 's gospel his heresy thai Christ came of Joseph and 
Mary {r^ Xpurrdr 4^ 'Xiixr^ip xaj Mopiai yeyotitai). 
Eusebius uses Ihe expression ' seems ' {SoKtl) manifestly 
because he had not himself seen Ihe writings in question ; 
he meniions Origen as stating thai he had I 
for a certain Juliana. 

^nally desf 
X the umt 

of Ihii Rading. Those oIid 
Ebigniiei. Wtuu if ii wu thi 
into [he ie« of Mi. by falii- 

th« MDnlaauiu that ihcyn 

menuofltieChriitiaiiCSiu ^ 

of which (Tcry maaber hid ibe righl lo ipeak who couM claim 
to be moved by Ihe Scuril, aad thai ihcy were unaUe lo acquiesce 

oriffiiul ar 


s a/chriitiuily. Before Ihe end 
of the Rccond century tu> one ever heard of Ibe Ebionites Bfl ■ 
HCl, for ihe liinple nAfton Ihal ihty still repTetenled a party 
or tendency wilhin the Chureb iueit Even Juilin {DM. d. 
end) ^y; : There are of our number some wha admil^ IhU be 

ttifrnwar M Jf i^irinv yriiunr ^nfwrdfUvxt What 
occasion, we may ask, moreover, could have led in Ihe lecood 
ccnturv la the rise of new opinions such as Ihein, if Ibe Church 
ing ebejhan the Godhead of Jesui, and 

As soon as we have satisfied.o ui wli l j^ : howerer^ how 
gradually and step by step Ihe Church arrived at the 
doctrine of the fkKlhead of Jesus, and in particular how 
neither Jesus, nor his.molher, nor Mark, nor the author 
of Mt. 3-28 or of Lk. 3-24. nor yel the authors of Lk. 2 
or of ls-33j6-8o or of Ml. li-i? or of chap. 2 were 
acquainted with the virgin birth, it were indeed too 


absurd a 

It anachronism t 

attribute to falsifi 

ation by a 

sect the fact Ihal i 



the father 

of Jesus 

the Ebionites 

with their 


also for the 

(TwAlof Lk.2> 




Ml. I24S 

etc., as 

we no 


d them in our 

Rather must it be our task to explain how it was 
that Ihe old view preserved by the Ebionites came to 
16. Origin of ^ fiveti up and the doctrine of the 

TiiSin WtUl *° ihis^ NATiviTir. §g .a, 14 /, 17, 
* ao. Paul being unacquainted with the 

doctrine, scholars long reckoned i I to be Jewish- 
Christian. That, however, was a mistake. 

Ho-rever freely ihe OT may speak of »ni of Cod in the 
Gguialive seme (cp So.v, Fathii), Ihe loftiness of Ihe OT eon. 
cepiion of God ^rechiden Ihe supposition of physical sonship. 


Jewish Cbrisiian, for ii 

•edieni, for 

laci, ibe proposed efcpedieni 
rewihe Spirit is generally rem 
s in the Gospel of Ihe Hebre 
5,|i5s)- N«wouklIs.7i, 

InJobM*. Cp Ihe eihausdve lu 

The passage waa adduced only as an oflerlbougbl, in con- 
firmalion. Moreoverj il is fined 10 Mive Ihe purpose at all 

be rejected ^1 the more because pregnancy before marriage 
is punishable with death according toTDi. aSio^ij/:, a law 

Imhanuhl). Thus Ihe origin of the idea of a virgin birth 
is lo be sougbl in t^enlile- Christian circles. For numerous 
analogies see Usener,£n!.Yi'sc4. Umlin.l{iUg)Ta-yi; Seydel, 
£naV "M J"-t >^S9, pp. 110-1331 J. M. Robatson, CAnili- 
named author rejects the huloricily of Jesus allogelher). 

Whilst, however, it was to be expected that the 
Church's worship would naturally lead onwards on an 
Bsceni^ng line from the general idea thai as Messiah 
Jesus must have been the son of David 10 the gene- 
alogies, and from the genera] idea ihai he was in an 
ethical sense tbe son of God. and belief in his having 
been filled with the Holy Spirit at his baptism to the 
idea of the supernatural birth, next lo thai of his pre- 
exislence, and lastly to his identification with the Logos, 
we have seen that pre-exislence (from Paul onwards) 
and possibly identity with Ihe Logos {% 10) were attri- 
buted to him earlier than a supBrnalural birth. 
Both together are first met with In Justin (see below, 
9 17 a) and Ignatius {oif A/.^. Oi Si; ad Efik.Ti; ad 
Smyr.\i.r.\c.)\ Ihe NT writers have, all of them, 
still Ihe correct consciousness that Ibe iwo theories ate 
incompatible. He who has already lived the life of a 
divine being in heaven does not need to be ushered 
into the world in any such inanner. To stale the point 
more precisely : the theory of the vii^n birth and tlie 
theory of the pre-existence must be regarded as attempts 
on parallel lines ; the vit^n tHrth. however, does not 
raise Jesus so high in the sphere of the divine as the 
pre-existence does. As. nevertheless, the theory of Ihe 
virgin birlh came into being at a later date, it must 
have arisen within circles to which ihe idea of ihe 
pre-existence was unknown, or 10 which (for il could 
not always remain unknown) it was nol acceptable, 
that is lo say in circles which were nol aifeeted with 
PauUnism. Here once more, as formerly in the case 
of the Council of Jerusalem (CoUKClL, § ra). we arrive 
at a point where we can clearly perceive Jhe number of. 
tendencies in- eady. Chriaabiuly to have been greater 
than tbe Tubingen school once believed. Amongst 
Gentile influences, those of Buildhiim must also be 
taken into account as possible (Gospels. § 134 i). 

The Church assigns Ihe highest value lo Ihe doctrine 
of Ibe virgin birth, (a) Why it did so may be best 
IT Valna of ™''' P°'1'=I»' '" J"^'"- ^^ declares, 

"2°^^*J"that the mythi regarding .he mullltude 
'I'K*" ^^'^ of sons of gods, and especially the myth 
regarding the virgin's son Perseus, had been invented 
by Ihe demons In order to rob ihe manifestation of 
Jesus the true Son of God of its importance, In Apol. 
1 11 he insists that with iheir doctrine of Ihe vii^in tnrth 
of Jesus, of his passion, and of his ascension, the 
Christians were affirming nothing new as compared 
with what was alleged of so-called sons of Zeus, jusi 
as in Apol. 1 » he says thai if the Christians called Jesus 
the I-ogos, here, too, was another point which they had 
in common wiih the Gentiles who also called Hermes 
the word of Zeus. Such arguments may have impressed 
many people who heard them at thai time ; but they 
also show to what a level Jesus can be (not raised but) 
lowered by the doctrine of his virgin birlh. 

(^) A value for the doctrine was sought in quite 
another direction when it was connected with the sin- 
lessness of Jesus, In a general way it is possible that, 
even at an early date, snlisfaction may hai'e been found 
in some such contemplation as that adduced from Philo 
elsewhere(G0SPELS, gai, ii.'). In this connection Ihers 
was present also the notion, found also in Rev. I44, 


il, p. 68, quoted (Aca. 

1 the 


that sexual 

not until the docirine of original sin h 
developed that the theory of the virgin 
important with regard to }esas. It wa: 
howevei ■■ - ■ ■ 

itself sinfuL Bui it was 

<l enough, 
: no part 

in ; for sin could alsi 
through his mother. The only logical consequer 
of this line of thought is Ihat which appears in 1 
dogma proinulgated by Pope Pius IX. on ath Dec. 
1854 to the effect ihal Mary herself was conceived 
immaculately by ber mother — not. of course, in the 
sense thai she had no human father, but in the sense 
that original sin did not pass over lo ber, or rather, 
to be more precise, in the sense thai the Holy Ghost 
at ibe moment after conception forthwith cleansed 
the resultant embtyo from its original sin. Neverlbe- 
lesSi in the Roman docirine, the body of Mary did 
bear the stain of original sin, however short the period. 
Cp Hase, PoUmik. ii. 3 B, «, 331-341. 

The other points in the narrative of tbe birth of 

Jesus, in so far as they relate to Mary, must now be 

llOthM- l«^'*y™'«id'™l- _ (fl) If we may 

i!7^ 1, II r uT "> >he place of the birth,' U must be 
birth-hirtciT. ,hy i/^ at Natareth (Nativitv. 
Sii/i Galilee i., g j). which, according to Lk. 2H, 
was for the parents of Jesus 'their own city' {■w&M 
iamlir). In Lk.'s narrative they are brought lo 
Bethlehem only by means of the narrative about the 
census of Quirlnius (2t-j|, which in every point is 
untenable (see Quirinius ; Chronology, S 59 /' 
Nativity, % 10; Gospels, % as, coL 1780. n. s). 
(i) \i to the day, see Nativity, g 10, end. [c\ If 

Bethlehem was not the birthplace, essential motives 
in the stories of the wise men and the flight inlo 
E^ypt {Mt, 21-1S19-93) fall away. Even apart from 
Iheir connectioa with Bethlehem, however, their his- 
toricity is open 10 the gravest doubts (Nativity. 
% iB/; Gospels, gg aa, and 151, end). The pas- 
sage (Hos. Ill) cited in Mt. 2il has reference to 
the exodus of Israel (LXX rightly, ri rinffa oiroC, 
□ot rtr vldr lav) from Ivgypt under the leadership 
of Moses. \d) The preseotalion of Ihe new-bom 

son in the temple (Lk. 231-14) is nowhere enjoined 
in OT (Gospels, g 134 d). This afiects what we read 
rqiarding Simeon and Anna (Lk, 2is-3<}. (r| So 

much having already been showD to be untenable it will 
perhaps be tbe more readily conceded Ihal the story of 
Ihe shepherds (Lk.2a-ia}, though one of great p<>etic 
benuty, cannot be regarded as historical. (/) 

Mary's }oumey to Eliiabelh. her salutation by the 
latter, and the leaping of Ihe unborn babe in his 
raoiher's womb (1 39-15 jfi) belong to Ihe same category, 
and are, moreover. Irreconcilable with Mk. 3»/ (see 
§ 4). (/) The Magnificat WJt.. I46-55) has absolutely 

no relation to the siluaiion of Mary ; but even as regards 
Eliiabelh, to whom in accordance with Ihe ' noteworthy 
rejected reading' of WH it has recently been again 
assigned by Valler, Harnaek (see below, g 33), and 
Conrady (see g ai. begin,), ll can at best be said 
lo be somewhat more appropriate so far as 1 4S is con- 
cerned, though on the other hand Ijt-s; are quite as 
unsuitable to her case as 10 that of Mary. Hillmann 
(whose contribution lo our present question is of primary 
importance throughout) has rightly perceived here also 
i,JPT, 1891, pp. 197-306) that the song tils best the 
case of a Jewish mother whose son has returned from 
successful war for his country. Vet Hilgenfeld's sug- 
gestion {.7.WT. 1901, pp. aos-arj) also deserves to 
be considered, _that 'Judith' {619 831 Cj 156, elc.)is 
the model (of Hannah's song [i S. St-m], the Magnificat 
in reality has but few echoes), and that the warlike deeds 

* »?. iBss. P- M7) hy ConybiBM, " 

1 finds ii 

in Ihe poem ought thus to be altribuled to Ihe singer 
herself in so far as she personifies the Jewish people. 

In close association with Ihe birth -narradve we have 
(a) Ihat of the finding of the boy Jesus in Ihe temple. 

IS OtllW ^'"'°"tt*' containing nothing inherently 
IncldanU In '"'P™*''>'«' 'h= «ory very readily suggest* 
Ufa of M»rT conjecture Ihat 11 loo may owe its 

Auy. Q^gjp ,(j pjjjijj legend. The astonish- 
ment manifested at the appearance of Jesus in the 
synagogue of his native town (Mk. Si / =Ml. ISjvSJ 
= Lk. 4 11) would be very remarkable if the incident of 
bis twelfth year had been known. (b) It is 

thoroughly credible on the other hand Ihal Mary, after 
ihe birth of her first-born son (Lk. 27), became the 
mother of other sons and daughters (Clopas, gg 3- 
S). (c) The only other absolutely authentic scene 

in Mary's life is that recorded in Mk. 3>a/ 31-35, with 
regard to which see above (83/) (rf) If, as we 

see from this, she failed to recognise Jesus as the 
Messiah when in Ihe heyday of his activity, it still 
remains a possibility that she did so soon afler bis 
death, as we are expressly informed (i Cor, 16j) her 
son James did. Much less confidence is lo be placed 
in the statement of Acts 1 14 that before the liisl feast 
of Pentecost Mary was ateady present in Jerusalem. 
Acts is entirely dominated by Ihe idea Ihat Ihe primitive 
Church consolidated itself in Jerusalem immediately 
afler the death of Jesus. This hangs together with Ihe 
representation of Lk. that the apostles remained in 
Jerusalem after the death of Jesus and there beheld 
thdr risen Lord. In reality, however, the lirsi appear- 
ances were in Galilee (Gospels, g 138 a). This heing 
so. then; is little likelihood ihal the disciples and ad- 
herents of Jesus would forthwiih have left house and 
home and betaken themselves to the capital where Ihe 
danger of persecution was so great, («) What is 

related in Jn. ]9i5-i7 about Mary at the cross being 
committed to the care of John the son of Zebedee is 
utterly irreconcilable with Ihe synoptic parallels set 
forth under Clopas (g 3), as also with the fact Ihal 
Mk. (I634) and Mt. (27*6) know only one saying of 
Jesus spoken from Ihe cross. In Rev. 12i / 5 /. in 
accordance with O T ways of thinking, Ihe Church figures 
as mother of tbe Messiah. The narrative in Jn. is 
thus an eipression, as beautiful bs il is transparent, of 
the thought that the departing Messiah commilled Co 
the beloved disciple the care of his Church. It Is of 
course true thai no similar allegorical meaning can be 
given 10 the presence of the other women at Ihe fool of 
the cross (Clopas, g 3, end). If it is deemed necessary 
on this account to set aside the possibility of allegory 

assume Ihat the intention of Ihe author was 10 exhibil 
in a beautiful light the concern of Jesus for his earthly 
mother. Such concern, however, was unnecessary ; for 
Mary had other surviving sons (Acts 1 14)— among 
them James, the future head of the Church in Jerusa- 
lem. (/) The miracle of Ihe wine at Cana is 
shown at once 10 be unhistorical by the eipress state- 
ment that Jesus definitely refused to work ' signs' (oij/wEd) 
such as this is eipressly called in Jn, 2ii (Gospels, 
g 140 d). On the symbolical meaning of Ihe narrative, 
and the part taken in il by Ihe mother of Jesus, see 
Gospels, g 54 a ; John. % 35 1. 

(.r) Along wiihlhi.narr. 

_Lsciplis, f™, C 

lutly, Ihe indirect mtmion of lh< n: 


10 thai 

n Lk, 1 



bu]d« himwlf (Mk, tn/- aiid parallels). 
If any attempt is to be made to sum up in a few 

i». oiai«i« r.?' *; ,?,Tf;i tSvi. " ". 

nKbir^us in the first place that we must 

iide from ihe outset any trails, 

beaulifiil, which are discovered only in passages 

legendary. Even within NT timei 

of Huy. 

ascertained ti 




r of e. 

cupied in glorifyiiig (he mother of 
iiioD lo decide 



(he o(her hand, absolv 
on (he quesiion whether the words of Jesus in Jn.24, 
' Wonuui. what have I to do with thee ' ? hi any way go 
beyond (he limiis of filial piety. We are on firm 
ground only as regards what we read in Mk. S™/ 3i-3S- 
from which passage we learn at least this : ihat, at I 
a time when many had already come to recognise the i 
greatness of her son's mission, Mary, at all events, had 
Still failed (a understand it ; and we hardly need his 
own bl(m( word ' Who is my mother ? ' in order to feel 
how deeply (his must have grieved him. Indeed, i( is 
impossible, however much we may desire it. (o ihink 
otherwise than (hat. if he had the feeling of homeless- 
ness, the responsibility for this must in a great measure 
lie uith her. 

This once said, it by no means follows (hat none of 
Jesus' utterances had any attraction at all for his mo(her. 
It still remains conceivable thai what repelled her and 

I, ofihtw. 
scCDUnl of the ceniui d«cresl 1w Aug 

which in lighied by m mirsculous liehr. A woe 
Salome by name, luiifis hcraelf by taauA i 
Miry ii idU ■ virgin. The hxntl of KaIoidc i 
healed when il tDuch» the child. And so foi 
" rought forth Jmiu ulenr cIbuib is stand al 




ion of mental di 

h the substance of his teachinj 
in public, his rSU of teacher, his air of authority and 
the risk of persecution involved in this, or else the un- 
settled life, the association with questionable people. 
the carelessness with regard to daily bread. It is never- 
theless possible, however, thai Mary resolutely closed her 

even on (his last assumption, we are not precluded from 
supposing (ha(, although confined within the ancient 
forms, her piety was nevertheless deep and genuine, and 
enerciaed an effective influence upon her child. In pro- 
portion as this simple woman, sprung from the people, 
above all in Galilee, may be supposed to have been 
untouched by any of the evil aspects of the Pharisaism of 
the day. it becomes the easier (o believe that her religion, 
with all its intense conservatism, may have been genuine 
and pjie. From some source or other we must believe 
Jesus to have derived alike that holy severity and that 
triumphant joyousness of a deep faith in God which, in 
the end, made him great ; and howevei Inrge the share 

personality we still find it necessary to seek for it some 

Of the eitra-canonical accounts o( Mary (o) the most 
importint would be the PnicvangeHtim Jaieti (APO- 

ai L&tw <^''*'"'*' S'?' '■■ Nativity, 8 6) if 

t^lUft^ Conrady (QuilU der kanoniKhm Kind- 
■iiHiuoiu. ^i^g^^^iiut_ ,^, cp SI.JCr., 1889. 
798-784) were right in his assertion that it was written 
in Hebrew in Hadrian's time and that it constitutes the 
sole source of Mi. 1/ and Lk. 1/ This, however, is a 
view which cannot be maintained. According 10 Har- 
nack (ACL ii. { = Ckrvnotagie] 1 199-60]) it dates from the 
end of (be setn^nd, or even from (he beginning of the 
(hird, century.' 
In the PrtlcvaHftliim il 11 related how Anna, the wife of 
chim, after lonz barrenneu received the profnise of a child. 
■■ ■ ■■■ child (Maty) il reared in 

eTa^'^^? wX'^'r ud*"alh« 'T^^eiat' »nO <>»P^after°a 
while dove bu flrnvn out of hi> ilalT and thereby indicated 

the mrd! of™?. l™lhe Wnh M'j«us["™On bli return 
Joseph finds her pregnanij and ui minded to put ber away 
teetvtiv frcihi his house, but il enlightened by an angel in 
. 1 ». Brought before lb> bigh-priistly council. 

Joachim, aft 
Fiom her Ih 

d. NTIick 

idences with Justin pdnttd ou( by Zahr 
A-<w«,l4is<«ios »4™; T *"4 
UHiy accouoled for, gome of ihcm hy the emstence 
tradition, others by the priority of Justm- The cave mi 
by Justin, in agreement with the J^rslenanfrtiiit 
HMenily with,Lk.a7i». ii e " "■ • - 

n Bellilebeni. St 
ho PnlivaH^liui 

On Dial. 7BX inconMitenlly 
r}|-i.if> (below, I >■ a) selected 
o other lodging is obtainable 

urcheiype G,' which here^trda as 

<^) Odier writings leiaung to Mary 
MatlAaii'ditrtutcn-- •■-- -' '- 

., IhinI 


v, both in the mtun further 
Pivten. /flc. The gnosiia 


i^~(l^s9'l = 39-3ilX" 'fhi 
ileramre (5lh cent.) contains a 

IV TvO 9n^6yov A^vet 'ic lyir 
liferent Latin adaptations of It 
r. The apwilea, in Ihe second 
i miraculously broughl, some of 

ed'of'wai^ Sheu'btiriS'ra 
[ hei body is no lunger to U 

h the I 


enly-fourth i^r inilaad of Ihi 

(Li^'iTis744a)''M"uy~loiiowed the apostle John 10 Epbesus 
According to ibe Acts of Piochorui (lirst half of jih cent.), 01 
.L_ _.L._ L — i ...L__ .L_ _.L__ ^p(,5i]ej dispelled or ■^-' 

CI death (Upsiui, ^66^. frJi/.). 

Jerusalem with Mary 1 

follows? None ofjuitin's nredmisoij makes mention of Maiv 

of Jesus. So ahio ' 
with special Teferen 

a (111.321 1 7^22 x]. end)aieTibcfl to her obedience, a 
ledeeming power from theenectaof the disobedience of Eve; so 
also Tettullian {.dteanu Chriili, 17) : • quod ilia credendo ' (i.f., 
by believing the word of the serpent) *deliquit, hcec cr«dendo 
delevil.' Iienaius ipeani the same thing when he lavs (y. lit 1) : 

UI vu-ginii Evie viigo Maria fieret advocaui' ; the last wordl 
therefore, is not intended to designate her v intercessor. For 
the rest, the whole of this antithesis between Eve and Mary, 
which it fbund also in Justin {niaJ. loo), b certainly intendtd 
to lie taken rhetorically rather iban In all dogmatic seriousness. 
Temillian^airwiCtnlif/, ») declares aguntl the Urth -Iriv 
cljutit, itatiog lui physiological reasons with vigour- On the 
other hand, Clem.AIea. ^tnn*. vii. la^j end, p. 889 end; 
Potter) attaches value to