# Encyclopaedia Biblica/King's Vale-Lamp

 Encyclopaedia Biblica King's Vale-Lamp
 see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

## KING'S VALE

(RV), or King s Dale (AV), (-per TO?n), Gen.l4i 7 ([TO] neAiON B&ciAecoc [ADL]) 28.1818 (TH KOiA&Ai TOY B&ciAecoc [BAL]); cp. Jos. Ant. vii. 10 3. See SHAVEH [VALE OF] ; MELCHIZEDEK, 3 ; ABSALOM, col. 31.

## KINSHIP

### 1. Feeling of kinship.

The bond by which the social and political units of the Hebrews - their clans and their tribes - were held together in the older historical period was neither more nor less than a genuine and operative feeling of kinship (see GOVERNMENT, 2+. ). Hebrew theorists, like Arab genealogists, understood this kinship in the same sense as we understand it, as due to derivation from a common ancestor ; a tribe consisted entirely of blood relations (see GENEALOGIES i. , 2).

At the very outset this theory requires at least some modification ; for even in historical times physical descent was not the only way in which blood relation ship could be constituted. Adoption was equally effective. So also was the method of blood covenant. Not individuals only, but whole clans could in this way enter into a lasting union and become fused into a single community. The various ceremonies observed in making such a covenant (cp COVENANT, 3, and Robertson Smith s excellent exposition in Kin. 47 ff, 261/1, Rel. Sem.W 314 /.) have all one meaning; they were originally intended to create a physical and literal community of blood, or, in accordance with later ideas, they were intended, at least symbolically, to represent the creation of such a bond. This shows itself with unmistakable clearness when, for example, two men actually open their veins and mix their blood, or when the protected smears with his blood the tent- pole of his protector ; but it is still discernible, though in a more disguised form, in the rule of hospitality by which even now the person of the guest who has eaten with a host remains inviolable for at least a certain time the time, to wit, during which the meal of which they have together partaken is supposed to be still sustaining them. In the Hebrew domain compare the covenant described in Ex. 24, where the people and the altar of Yahwe are sprinkled with the same blood.

### 2. Idea of relationship.

There is another point in which the old Semitic conceptions of blood relationship differ from those of modern times : there was no gradation of relationship. We take account of the degrees by which relations are removed from the common ancestor ; in the Semitic field relation ship is absolute : a man either belongs to -a given family circle, or he does not. Relationship is participation in the common blood which flows with equal fulness in the veins of every member of that circle ; on this idea rest all the rights and obligations between the individual and his clansmen. There can therefore be no such thing as aristocracy of birth in our sense of the expres sion. Within the gens none are high-born, none are low-born ; there is no blue blood. This is clearly shown in the law of blood revenge (WRS Kin. 22 /., and elsewhere). The duty falls on every member of the clan to which the murdered person belonged, and their vengeance seeks every member alike of the murderer s clan.

This said, it must not be denied that a feeling of relationship in our closer sense of the word also began to show itself from a comparatively early period. Indeed, the Hebrews from the earliest times to which our historical records carry us may be said to have been distinguished by the energy of their family feeling. As the limits of society extended, the primitive concep tion of blood-kinship described above would naturally grow weaker ; that of near kinship in our sense of the word can retain its vigour and efficiency only within the narrower circle. Within the larger federation of tribes (the people or nation of Israel) the feeling was never very strong ; bloody wars between individual tribes were not unknown, and it was long before the sense of oneness had thoroughly pervaded all portions of the body politic. In the end it was not by the conception of blood kinship but by the political organisation of the monarchy that this sense was called into being and maintained.

### 3. National kinship.

The question as to what constituted national kinship was answered by the genealogists. Each individual tribe was held to be derived from an ancestor whose descendants bore his name as their tribal name ; the mutual relations of the tribe and the various clans comprising it were determined by the relationship of the ancestor of each clan to the patriarch from whom all alike claimed descent. In other words, the formation and development of tribes were held to have taken place under the dominion of the patriarchal system (GENE ALOGIES i. , 2). Moreover, it is an actual fact that so far as our knowledge goes the patriarchal system was prevalent among the Hebrews from the earliest historical times. The head of the family is the man ; the woman passes over to the clan and tribe of her husband, who is master both of herself and of her children (FAMILY, 3^; MARRIAGE, ^ff.}. Kinship, tribe-connection, inheritance, are determined by the man.

### 4. Matriarchy.

Robertson Smith (Kinship, passim], however, has incontrovertibly shown that among the Semites as well as many other widely separated peoples matriarchy must at one time have prevailed. By this expression, as distinguished from patriarchy, is meant not the dominion of the woman in the household, but rather that arrangement of family-and clan-relations in accordance with which the relation of the children to the mother was regarded as by far the more important, that to the father being of quite subordinate moment. It is the mother who determines the kinship. The children belong to the mother s clan, not to the father's. The wife is not under the power of the husband, but under the guardianship of her male relations. The head of the family is not the father but the maternal uncle, who has supreme authority over the mother and her children. Inheritance is not from father to son, but from brother to brother, from (maternal) uncle to nephew.

The existence of this matriarchy among the Semites is shown (among other proofs) by the existence of ancient words, common to various branches of the Semitic family, denoting relationship derived from the mother. In like manner there are feminine tribal names, and tribal heroines pointing to the same inference. With the Arabs down even to the days of Mohammed a kind of marriage (see below) was still kept up which entirely belonged to the matriarchal system.

For details as to matriarchy among the Semites in general the discussions of Robertson Smith, 1 Wellhausen, 2 and Wilken 3 must be referred to. What specially in terests us here is the fact that in the OT also traces of the existence of this institution among the Hebrews can still be found. Even if these were not absolutely convincing in themselves, they would become so after the demonstration of the existence of the institution among the Arabs and other Semitic peoples. Alongside of the masculine tribal names we have a series of feminine ones : Hagar, Keturah, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah. Stade conjectures that at one time there was a genealogical system according to which the tribes were all of them wives of Jacob (G/ 1:146). Such feminine names at all events cannot be regarded as mere poetical adornments of the legends to which they belong ; they must originally have been integral parts of the genea logical system.

1 Ut supra.

2 Die Ehe bei den Arabern in Gott.gel. Nachr. \T,iff. ( 93).

3 Het Matriarchaat bij de oude Arabieren in Oester. Monatsschriftf. d. Orient, 1884.

### 5. Marriage between relations.

Marriages of brother and sister, that is to say between children of different mothers, had nothing offensive to the moral sense of the older period (see MARRIAGE, 2 ); it is a relic of the times when relationship was determined not by the blood of the father but by that of the mother, and when accordingly community of descent on the mother s side was the only bar to marriage. This explains also the possibility of the custom according to which the son could marry the stepmother, the father the daughter-in-law (see MARRIAGE, 2). Notwithstanding the express prohibition of such unions they seem to have been not unknown down to a time as late as that of Ezekiel, although, on the other hand, marriages between maternal relations, between father and stepdaughter, father and daughter, mother and son were from the first regarded with horror (cp Gen. 19:30+); in D express prohibition is not deemed necessary.

### 6. Meaning of 'brother'.

How deeply rooted was the view that relationship was constituted through the mother is shown by passages such as Gen 42:38, 43:29, 44:20, 44:27+, Judg. 8:19, 9:31 where the designation of brother in the full sense of the word is reserved for sons of the same mother ; as also by such narratives as that of Judg. 9:2-3. , where Abimelech is regarded by his mother s relations, the Shechemites, as one of themselves, and his maternal uncles are his natural allies. The prevalence of the same view is seen also in the practice of adoption by the mother (not the father) (Gen. 30:3), in the right of inheritance through the mother, as implied in Gen. 21:10 ( the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son ), in the right of the mother to give the name as shown in the older sources of the Pentateuch, though in P it is always the father who does so. In Eliezer's negotiations for Rebekah it is not her father Bethuel ( and Bethuel, Gen. 24:50, is a late redactional insertion ) but her brother who is her guardian and carries on the transaction.

### 7. Tribal relations.

Another characteristic feature of matriarchal marriage is that it is not the woman who enters the man's tribe but the man who enters the woman's ; she continues to belong to her own tribe. This also can be shown to have been the case in the Hebrew domain. Too much stress indeed must not be laid on the expression rwtrVlt Ni3, 'to go in unto', the usual phrase in Hebrew and Arabic for the con summation of a marriage ; but it is certain that among the Hebrews, as with the Arabs, the woman always figures in particularly close connection with the tent, and frequently as its mistress. In such cases as Gen. 24:67, indeed, we may be in the presence only of a custom which, in the case of wealthy people, allowed each wife (as with a rich sheikh at present) to have a separate tent. The narrative of Judg. 4:17+ (cp 5:24+), however, is clear enough ; it is Jael who owns the tent, who receives the fugitive into it, and who accords to him its protection. This is in exact accord with the present rights of Arab women as regards fugitives seeking protection. The story of Eliezer's wooing of Rebekah also assumes the possibility that the girl may not consent to leave her home, but may insist that her future husband should marry into her own tribe and clan (Gen. 24:5). Similarly Jacob fears lest Laban should refuse to let his daughters go, but should insist in accordance with his undoubted right on their staying at home; hence his secret flight (Gen. 31:31). The phrase, shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, in Gen. 2:24 may be an old saying dating from remote times when the husband went to the house (tent) of the wife, and joined her clan. Still the passage may be merely the narrator s remark, and even if it be an old proverb, we cannot be sure that it really carries us so far back in antiquity.

### 8. 'Beena' marriage.

Another instance of a matriarchal marriage requires notice: that of Samson (Judg. 14). The case is thoroughly exceptional ; it is exogamy, but reversing the relations. The husband is the alien, and visits his wife, who remains in her own home, and it is in the house of her relations that the marriage feast is held. Samson himself indeed does not become a Philistine ; but neither does his wife become Israelite ; the intention is that they shall meet only from time to time. Parallels are not wanting in pre-Islamic Arab history ; as already said, such marriages were nothing out of the common up to the period immediately preceding that of Mohammed. The important point lies here : the wife continues to belong to her own tribe, and the children, naturally, so belong also. It is thus the mother's blood that is the determining factor. This kind of marriage, it is plain, could originally have arisen only under the influence of matriarchal institutions.

From the facts adduced Robertson Smith draws the conclusion that this kind of marriage - which (after J. F. M Lennan) he proposes to call 'beena-marriage' (from the Singhalese) - had been the form universally prevalent among the Semites in the period before the separation of the tribes. After the separation, the Hebrews from the same starting-point arrived at monandrous baal-marriage (cp MARRIAGE, 2) long before the Arabs did.

### 9. 'Baal' marriage.

Such an inference, however, would be too sweeping. Robertson Smith himself regarded it as not improbable that patriarchy can be carried back to primitive Semitic times (Kin. 178); and Wellhausen (Op. cit 479 ) has proved it. The existence of such old Semitic words as 'ham' for wife's father-in-law (see HAMU, NAMES WITH) and 'kalla' for the daughter-in-law is, with other cases that might be adduced, conclusive. Wellhausen calls special attention to the fact that in the word amm, Arab., Heb. , Syr. , and Sab. , unite the senses of people and relations on the father s side (see AMMI, NAMES WITH). Whatever the time and place of origin of this mode of speech, the father s relations must also have been the political ones when it arose.

Robertson Smith's concession, it is true, is limited to polyandrous baal-marriage - a form of patriarchal marriage which is well attested for the old Arabians (Strab. xvi. 4:25 ; cp WRS Kin. 1337., We. op. cit. 460 ff.}. In this description of marriage a group of brothers or nearly related men had the wife in common ; the children belonged to the tribe of the fathers. Smith finds a trace of this form of polyandry still surviving in the levirate marriage of the Hebrews (see MARRIAGE, 7 -8). The duty of inheriting the wife is originally a right, which, as Smith thinks, must have had its origin in an original community of possession. Wellhausen (op. cit. 461) remarks further that the beginning of the law on the subject in D ( Dt. 25:5 if brethren dwell together ) finds no explanation in the present context, but would fit in well with the explanation suggested by Smith. Hebrew levirate marriage, however, admits of sufficient explana tion from the simple fact that in Hebrew baal-marriage wives in general are property that can be inherited. The right of inheriting became a duty in this one special case as soon as the first son of such a marriage came to be regarded as son of the deceased husband, and this last finds its explanation in the Hebrew view of the evils of childlessness (cp MARRIAGE, 5+}.

### 10. Levirate.

Obviously the form of marriage just described must be older than monandrous baal-marriage ; indeed there is not in the nature of things any reason for regarding it as more recent than even the earliest form of matriarchal marriage. Baal-polyandry was originally in any case marriage by capture. As such it is hardly likely to have been a development of a form of marriage in which the husband married as an alien into the tribe of the wife. It may therefore be best to abandon all attempt to make out a genetic connection or evolutionary relation between the various kinds of marriage, and to concede that marriage by capture as well as matriarchal polyandry (which, strictly speaking, cannot be distinguished from absolute promiscuity) may date from the most remote times. One tribe might count kin from the mother, being endogamous, or else marrying its young women to men of alien tribe only when the men consented to join the tribe of the wife and the children remained with the mother. Another tribe counted kin from the father and therefore sought for its wives, so far as these could not be found within the tribe, by capture of such welcome additions from other tribes.

For literature, see FAMILY, 15. I. u.

## KIR

("Vp; KYRHNH etc., see below; CYRENE; t*j:) is mentioned in Am. 9:7 (e Bo6poy [BAQ]) as the primitive home of the Aramaeans, and warriors from Kir are introduced in the description of an Assyrian army threatening Jerusalem in Is. 226 (om. BXAQF ; parietem ; |JQJW)-

The name also appears in Am. 1:5 (ejri <cAi7Tos [BAQF], i.e., ,-pp = N"l|3 ; Kvprjv^v [Aq.] ; 2 K. 16:9 (om. B ; Kvpqvqvit [A and Aq.], -rr}v iro\Lv [L]), where it may possibly have been intro duced from Am. 1:5, which contains a prophecy of the deporta tions of the Aramaeans to Kir.

Winckler (AFIi^ff.} has given reason to think that Kir should rather be Kor (lip), and identified with the Karians mentioned by Arrian (iii. 85) with the Sittakenians ; see also SB&T, Isa. (Heb.), 197, and cp KoA. This people seems to have dwelt in the land of Jatbur, the plain between the Tigris and the mountains towards Elam (cp Sargon s Khorsabad inscr. , B. 153, 5). For other views see Furrer, BL 3 534, who thinks of Cyrrhestica, between the Orontes and the Euphrates (refuted by Schr. HWB^ 845), and Hale vy, REJ\$$K>f. t who prefers S. Babylonia. ## KIRAMA Ueip&MAC [B], KIRAMA [A]), i Esd. 520 RV=Ezra226, RAMAH. ## KIR-HERES (tTjn -Pp, Is. 16 n, AV Kir-haresh ; b-jn p Jer. 48:31-36), T Kir-hareseth (nBHTj p, see col. 2677, n. 2) 2 K. 3:25, AV Kir-haraseth ; n ^-,n p [var. JlfcTin P] Is. 16:7) or 'Kir of Moab' p^ D -,p . Is. 15:5)t ### 1. OT references. The name is generally supposed to mean 'city of the sun' (iy for o) ; see NAMES, 95. When, however, we consider • (1) that this explanation is unknown to the ancients ; • (2) that Kir is nowhere supposed to mean city except in the compound names Kir-heres, Kir-hareseth, and Kir-Moab ; • (3) that D!n, sun, nowhere has a fem, ending ; and • (4) that in Is. 167 LXX and Aq. indicate d, not r, in the second part of the name, the question arises whether we should not emend the text and read ncnn rnp, 'new city' (cp HADASHAH). Vg. gives murus fictilis (Jer.), murus cacti lateris (Is. 16), and murus Moot (Is. 15); <8, TO ret^os TTJS Mo>a/3[e]iTios in Is. 15 ; Seo-efll (? <>< [ N c -a-])[BKAQr] in Is. 16 7 ; T X OO [om. B.] eKaiVieras [BNAQT] it. V. II ; (teipaSfS [icijapas, KeiSapeis, etc.] avxMOv in Jer. In 2 K. <S does not recognize any place- name (see note 2). Tg., Is. 15:1, renders Kir-Moab, ^XIOT N;n3, 'Kerakka of Moab', and Kir-hareseth, pnspin "P3> 'their strong city' ; Ptolemy (v. 17:5) has x a P aKUJ ^ a > Steph. Byzant. KapaK/uu>/3a. That the three names given above (to which we may perhaps add KERIOTH, KIRJATH-HUZOTH) represent the same place, is undeniable. When Jehoram of Israel invaded Moab, Kir-haresheth (so MT) was the only city which held out against the Israelites (2 K. 3:25-27) ; obviously it was the capital, i.e. , Kir Moab. 1 It was famous for its vines. In Is. 16:7 mourning is anticipated for the grape-clusters of Kir-hareseth (see FLAGON, 3); and in 2 K. 3:25, after the description of the stopping up of the fountains and the felling of the fruit trees, we should probably read, until there remained not a cluster of its grapes in Kir-hareseth 2 (see Crit. Bib.), or, if the above reading of the name is correct, 'in Kiriath Hadashath'. 1 Aq., TOI X<J> oarpcucou ; Sym., rei xfi TCJ> cxrrpaKt ixu ; see Field, Swete. Deseth, quod Aquila transtulit parietem, Sym- machus murum (OS 116 18 26179). Apparently the only refer- ence to Kir in Onotn. ### 2. Situation. It stood near the S. frontier of Moab; the Arabic geographers knew it under the name Kerak. Com manding as it did the caravan route from Syria to Egypt and Arabia, its possession was hotly disputed by the Franks and the Saracens. The former held it from 1167 to 1188, when Saladin became master of both Kerak and Shobek (6^ hrs. from Petra). They mistook Kerak for Petra, and established a bishop s see there under the title of Petra deserti. At an earlier time Kerak had been the seat of a bishopric in the province of Palcestina Tertia (Reland, 705). El-Kerak (see fig. in SBOT Isa. , 169) is placed on an extremely steep rocky hill, surrounded on all sides by deep ravines. It is about ten miles from the south-east corner of the Dead Sea, and some 3370 feet above sea-level. To the N. and S. it is protected by the mountains, which are passable only on the N. by descending the Mojib (the great gorge of the Arnon), which runs E. and W. , and on the S. by the wild gorge called the Wady Kerak. To the W. there is the Dead Sea, since 1897 navigated by a mail steamer which plies from the N. bank to el-Lisan (see DEAD SEA, 5), whence a carriage road is to be constructed (1897) to Kerak. The city is still partly enclosed by a wall with five towers. Originally there were but two entrances, both consisting of tunnels in the rock. On the southern side stands the citadel, a strong building separated from the adjoining hill by a deep moat hewn in the rock. It is a fine specimen of a Crusader s castle. Beneath it is a chapel, with traces of rude frescoes. The present population of Kerak numbers from 20,000 to 22,000, of whom about one-fourth are Greek Christians. Their strong position, numbers, and daring character made them till a few years ago practically independent of the Turkish government. Here Burckhardt was plundered, De Saulcy held to ransom, and Tristram greatly harassed ; Gray Hill s account of his own detention is vivid. See Burckhardt, Syria, 387 ; De Saulcy, Journey round the Dead Sea, 1 366-98 ; Lynch, Expedition, 263^7, English ed. ; Tristram, Land of Moab, -joff. ; Gray Hill, With the Bfduins, 193-231 ; Porter, Handbook, 1 59^ ; Baed. Pal. (3) i 7 Zf. T. K. C. 1 The statement of E. H. Palmer (quoted in Che. Proph. Is. 1 102) that the eminences on which the old Moabite towns stand are invariably called Hariths by the Arabs does not help us. Even if we substitute ip for j->, some distinctive name is re quired for the capital city. 2 Read nenn Vp_3 n 33# S3EW 1NB ; rt vh ~iy (N 1 ? 1J7 with <B L and Tg. Jon.). Klo. suggests p B pK DN 3, a weak read ing, nor could MT s n pa rpJ3N easily have arisen out of it. MT gives Minn vp_3 5 ^K -pNtfrnj? i.e., until one. left its stones in the wall as potsherds (Gi. has riEhn I hut what could this mean?). B ^^ ro ij KaTa\nrfiv TOUS Ai Sous TOW TOI ^OV Ka07]pneVov9 [<S A reads KaraAetTreii , KaOyfievow;] , (P 1 - os T. /U.TJ KaToAiTreri/ \iSov fv TCH X<J> TeKTOi/tKrjs. Vg. , ita ut tiiuri tantum Jictiles remanerent i.e., ncnn- 3 That there is no connection between Kir Hareseth and the nmp of Mesha s inscription (//. 3, 21, 24) was pointed out long ago by Noldeke (Inschr. des KSn. Mesa [ 70], 8/1). ## KIRIATH (nnp), Josh. 1828 RV. See KIRJATH, KIRJATH-JEARIM, i (a). ## KIRIATHAIM (Djnnp), Nu.32 37 RV, AV KIR-JATHAIM. ## KIRIATH-ARIM (Dn JTlp), Ezra2 25 RV (AV KlRJATH-ARIM) = Neh. 7 29 KlRJATH-JEARIM (AV). ## KIRIATH-BAAL fa3rn*) RV, AV KIRJATH-BAAL, Josh. 156o 1814. See KIRJATH-JEARIM, i. ## KIRIATH-HUZOTH (niXPI nnp), Nu.22 39 , AV KlRJATH-HUZOTH. ## KIRIATHIARIUS RV KARIATHIARIUS (i Esd. 5 *9t : KApTd!k6ei<\peiOC [B], KAplAGlAplOC [A], -peiM [L]) = Neh. 729 KIRJATH-JEARIM. ## KIRIATH-JEARIM (D nir -rTnp), Xeh. 7 29 RV, AV KIRJATH-JEARIM. ## KIRIOTH (nVnp), Am. 2 2 , RV KERIOTH (y.v.). ## KIRJATH RV KIRIATH (TV-jp), an imperfect place-name in Josh. 1828. Di. reads Qny mp. Kirjath-jearim (tapeifi [B], <cat TroAis tap[e]iji [AL]) ; but see KIRJATH-JEARIM, i (a). ## KIRJATHAIM 1 RV KIRIATHAIM (D JYHp), two cities, or place of a city 1 ; on form of name see NAMES, 107 ; K6.piA9A.iM [BAFQL]). i. A town on the Moabite plateau mentioned in Nu. 32 37 (Ka.pia.iBa.fi, [B], -iaOe/j. [L]) and Josh. 13 19, as having lain within the former dominions of Sihon, and as having been assigned by Moses to Reuben. Mesha, in his inscription (/. 10), calls it imp, and says that he built or fortified it ; it is represented as Moabite also in Jer. 48 (Jer. 48 1 Ka.pa.6a.ifj. [N*], Ka.pia.0at.fj. [X c - a - (* ], 23 Ka.pia.dfv [N]) and by Ezekiel (Ezek. 25 9, TToXecos ira.pa.ea.\aff<ria,s [BAQ]). In OS (10827, 269 10) it is described as a Christian village called Coraitha or Ka.pia.6a. 10 R. m. W. of Madeba. This is no doubt the modern Kuraiyat, but whether Coraitha is not rather KERIOTH (q.v. ) is disputed. Kiriathaim gave its name to Shaveh-kirjathaim or the plain of Kiriathaim (Gen. 14s). See MOAB. 2. See KARTAN. ## KIRJATH-ARBA (UiriX nnp), RV KIRIATH-ARBA, Josh. 14is etc., an earlier name of HEBRON (q.v., 1) According to Winckler (GI ii. 39), Kirjath-arba means 'city of the god Arba' ; some god is intended whose name was written with the cuneiform sign for four (analogously Beer-sheba = well of the god Sheba ). Long before him, Tomkins had proposed the same view (Life of Abraham). Winckler brings these names into connection with a lunar myth of Abraham and Jacob (GI 2 48 57). The original Kirjath-arba, according to him, was not Hebron, but at or near Dan i.e., in the far north (41, 49). If, however, p-uri in Gen. 37 14 is an error for ni1N3, jnan in Gen. 23:2 may be an error (of P?) for rriarn. It was probably Rehoboth that was the city of four (see REHOBOTH), at least if y:nN, four, is correct and is not really a corruption of ninni, REHOBOTH. T. K. C. ## KIRJATH-HUZOTH RV KIRIATH-HUZOTH (nnp ni^n ; TTOAeiC eTT&Y^eWN [BAFL] i.e., Kerioth Hazeroth, cities of villages ), the place to which Balak took Balaam first of all on his arrival in Moab, according to the Yahwist (J), and where this writer probably made him deliver his first prophecy, Nu. 22;39 (with which v. 40 [E] plainly conflicts). The name ( 'city of streets' or 'of bazaars' ), if correctly read in MT, indicates a place of importance. Very possibly the Yahwist means the city called in Am. 2:2 Jer. 48:24 41 Kerioth. Note that Amos speaks of the palaces of Kerioth. The Elohist has instead the city of Moab, at the farthest border (v. 36). 1 In the list of towns in Palestine against which Soshenk (Shishak) warred, occurs the name Kadtm. Miiller (As. v. Eur. 166 n. 3) would emend this to Kartm (T and -\ beng as easily interchanged in Eg. as in Heb.), and identify -with the Moabite Kirjathaim. ## KIRJATH-JEARIM (Dnirnnp, city of dense copse ? KApl&9l<\p[e]lM [BAL]), a city of Judah, in the Gibeonite group (Josh. 9:17). ### 1. Names. The earliest record of the name (if we suppose it to have been correctly transmitted) is probably Judg. 15:12. See also Jer. 26:20 (Ka.lpia.6eiapei.il. [N]), Josh. 9:17 (n-oAeis lapeiv [H], JT.-/U. [AKL]18i4/: (v. 14 Kap<.a.e<.a.peiv [15]), 1 Ch. 2:50 if. (v. 53 iroAtis iaxip [B], Ka.pia6ia.eip [A], om. L) 13s (rroAis tap/i [BNAL]), 2 Ch.l 4 Ezra 2 25 . . . (KlRJATH-ARIM [RV KlRIATH - AR1M, KapnaOiapOfi (B)] should be Kirjath-jearim ) ; Neh. "29 (xapiOiapeifi. [B]). Kirjath-Baal ("?J73-nnp ; Kapio/3aaA [BAL]), and 'Baalah', with the explanation, 'that is, Kirjath-jearim', occur in Josh. 18:14 ; Josh. 15960 ; i Ch. 136 (ets ITO\IV SaveiS, BNA). Baalah alone in Josh. 15:10 (here and in v. 9, LXX has Baal except in v. 10 (S B ie0aaA). Baale-Judah, without explanation, occurs in 2 S. 6:2 (on LXX see below); but Dozy, Kuenen, We., Dr., Ki. read Baal- ; Klo., Bu. Baalath- . Evidently the earliest name of the place included the divine name Baal ; but how came the same place to be afterwards called Kirjath-jearim? It is not a super fluous inquiry. The most obvious explanation viz. , that, in the course of religious progress, Baal came to be discredited as a divine name is insufficient. We should have expected some better divine name to be substituted for Baal, not the reconstruction of the place-name on an entirely different plan. Moreover, we do not find that Baal was entirely removed from the southern place-names (Baalah, Josh. 1529 ; Bealoth, Josh. 1624, both in P). The first step towards a solution of the problem is to show (a) that the original name of the place was Baal- or Baalath- (hag) gibeah i.e. , Baal of the hill, and (b) that the full name under which the Deity was worshipped in this Gibeah ( hill ) may have been Baal-yarib ( Baal contends ). (a) In i S. 7:1 (EV) the ark is said to have been brought into the house of Abinadab in the hill (nj73a3) ; cp the same phrase in 2 S. 6:3 RV (AV RV mg. have 'in Gibeah' ). It looks as if, in the original writing, nyaj, Gibeah, was the name of the town where Abinadab lived ; that the description 'on the hill' refers to the hill on which the town was built (H. P. Smith), is surely improbable. Near the latter of these passages (2 S. 6:2) has the strange rendering OTTO Ttav apx^vrtav lovSa ei> [rfi] acaj3a<rei [TOV fiovvov] ; two readings are combined, viz., .Tfln; SySD and njn-m [nlnSjn, the latter of which is mis- rendered, and really means to 'Baalath of the hill." Probably the latter reading is the original one (see Klo. on 2 S. 6:2) ; observe the Pasek after Qp<i, which warns us that the text is doubtful. Nor must we overlook the close of the list of the cities of Judah in Josh. 18:28, which runs thus in AV, 'and Jebusi, which is Jerusalem, Gibeath, (and) Kirjath' [RV KIRIATH]. The current opinion is that Gibeath means Gibeah of Saul, and that Kirjath is an error for Kirjath- jearim. But it is more in accordance with the analogy of textual errors elsewhere to suppose that Kirjath is an editor s correction of Gibeath, and that the original reading was Gibeath- jearim, though -jearim itself may turn out to be incorrect. (b) We have reached the conclusion that an early name for the place afterwards called (at any rate by scribes) Kirjath- jearim was Baal of the hill. Analogy entitles us to assume that the local Baal had a fuller title describing his chief attribute ; cp Baal-hanan, El-iashib, etc. The second part of this title ought to underlie the second part of the name Kirjath- jearim, for of course such a name as Baal-jearim (Baal of the woods) would be contrary to analogy. We can hardly doubt what that second part was ; it was either jarim (yilrlm) or (more probably) jarib (yarib). b and m are interchangeable ; cp lapeifi (B Hos. 5:13, 10:6) for the Heb. 3T, yareb. Baal contends was the name; cp 3 T lJV, Jehojarib, and 12 3T 7j?3ri, Let the Baal contend with him, Judg. 6:32. Our further conclusion is that Kirjath-jearim is a late distortion of an older name, Gibeath-baal-yarib, which was current side by side with Baal hag-gibeah. It is hardly necessary to suppose that Har- jearim (Josh. 15:10) is a distortion of Har-baal-jarib ; but this is of course a possible view. According to Winckler (Gf 2 104), Kirjath-jearim, or city of forests, is nothing but a half-suggesting, half-concealing re production of the name Baal-Tamar (Judg. 2033), which name (of mythological origin) was, he thinks, converted into Baal(e)- judah (2 S. 2) in the time of David, when this locality ceased to be Benjamitish, and became Judahite. See, however, JUDAH, 3, TAMAR. 1. j3Jn was corrupted into nain. the y having dropped out ; this became indistinct, and was misread mi.1i to which was prefixed by conjecture. ### 2. Identifications. In identifying the place which we may conventionally call Kirjath-jearim, we must be careful not to lay equal stress on all the biblical data. We must not, for instance, be too confident that Kirjath-jearim and Beth-shemesh were near one another. The description of Jos. (Ant. vi. 1:4, Niese), ydrova Tr6\iv T-T}S Br]dt)s Kwfj.rjs (Naber, TOIJ BTjdffafjLiTais), appears to be suggested by the narrative in i S. 6-7 , as it now stands, and cannot be treated as authoritative ; Josephus was not writ ing a handbook of geography. Nor is it at all necessary that the site of Kirjath-jearim should be in a wooded or bushy neighbourhood, jearim being probably only an artificial distortion of jarib. The clearest and most certain of all the data is the statement in Josh. 9:17, that the dependent cities of the Gibeonites were Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim. Now GIBEON, CHEPHIRAH, and BEEROTH (q.v.) are securely identified, and Kirjath-jearim must not be placed too far off from the other members of the group. If in addition to this we require a city on the border of Judah and Benjamin, there is, it would seem, only one site which is available, and that is el-Karya or Karyet el-Enab* (city of grapes). Eusebius places Kapiad- tapeifj. at the ninth milestone from Jerusalem towards Diospolis or Lydda. This suits the position of Karyet el- Enab, which is about three hours from Lydda. The high authority of Robinson supports this view. The nearness of the mountain Neby Samwil (see MIZPEH), which Eusebius expressly states (OSW 27896; cp 18813) to be near Kirjath-jearim, is no slight con firmation. The village of el-Karya is but a poor one ; there is a Latin church of great interest dedicated originally to St. Jeremiah, owing to a mistaken identi fication of the place with Anathoth. Prof. G. A. Smith (HG 225 /. ) speaks with somewhat more hesitation than the present writer thinks necessary. For the rival site (Kh. Erma] near Bet Atab, the principal argument is its greater nearness to Beth-shemesh ( Erma is about 4 miles E. of Ain Shems). This, however, is hardly an argument for critics to use (see ARK, 5), and, on the other hand, Kh. Erma is too near Zorah and Eshtaol to suit the narrative in Judg. 18:11-12, 2 and also in the wrong direction (S. of Kesla). Moreover, for el-Karya it may be urged (but with out laying much stress upon it) that this village marks the point of departure of the rough bushy country 3 (IJT, see FOREST, 3); hence the later name, city of dense copse, was not an inappropriate one. That it fits the position of Kirjath-jearim on the N. border of Judah and Benjamin, is also beyond refuta tion, though different views as to the line of demarca tion are no doubt tenable. The following is Conder's description of the new site at Kh. Erma. The surrounding hills are more thickly clothed, even at the present day, with dense copse, than is any part of the district in which the town can be sought. The ruin is situate on the southern brink of the great valley which broadens into the valley of Sorek, and it is about four miles E. of the site of Beth-shemesh, thus agreeing with the words of Josephus. According to Conder {he boundary line W. of Erma can be drawn in a satisfactory manner (see PEFQ, 79, p. 98^, and cp Henderson, 78, p. K)6^.). Cp H. A. Poels, Le sanctuaire de Kiriath-jearim (Louvain, 94). Kirjath-jearim and Gibeon are here thought to have been on opposite sides of the same hill ; their common sanctuary being on the summit of the hill. 1 The latter name is said to occur, first in the fifteenth century. A still more modern name is Abu Gosh (from a sheikh so called, who lived at the beginning of this century, and left a name of fear). In support of this identification cp Clermont-Ganneau, A rchirologicai Researches, ii. ( 99). - < l> M AHANEH-DAN. 3 There are ivaars on every side almost, and some very impracticable ones N. and SW. of it (Thomson, /./?, ed. 94, p. 666). Aujourd hui encore on est frappe de 1 aspect different des deux versants ; k ce point precis de maigres taillis commencent, qtii ne demanderaient qu a grandir (Lagrange, Revue bibliquc, 94, p. 140). ### 3. Biblical references. When Kirjath-jearim became an Israelitish city is uncertain. It must, however, have been at least partly inhabited by Judahites in the time of David (2 S. 6:2+; cp ARK, 5 ). In later times it produced a prophet in the style of Jeremiah, who fell a victim to Jehoiakim's tyranny (Jer. 26:20-24 ; see URJJAH). One can imagine that the name of the city (was it Kirjath-jarib, city of the [divine] adversary ?) was not without its influence on Urijah s sensitive mind. Another apparent reference is a purely imaginary one. Though Wellhausen and Duhm render, in Ps. 13:26 We have heard that it is in Ephrathah, In the Field of Jaar we found it, and explain the Field of Jaar as the country district near Kirjath-jearim (We. ), or as a synonym for that place- name (Du. ), a close examination of the text shows that this interpretation is improbable (see Che. Ps.(->). It is true, however, that a recollection of the story of the fortunes of the ark, and of a passage in Chronicles (i Ch. 2:50), according to which that town was founded by descendants of Ephrathah, the wife of Caleb, enabled a late editor to draw a semblance of meaning from an indistinctly written and corrupt passage. On the obscure notice of Kirjath-jearim in i Ch. 25052 /., see SHOBAL. T. K. c. ## KIRJATH-SANNAH (napVTlp; rroAic TPAM-MATCON [BAL] ; Jj^flD^.* Jac ; CARIATHSENNA), called also Debir (Josh. 15 49), is a most problematical name. There is no satisfactory explanation of the name n3D, and no apparent reason why an old Canaanite name distinct from Kirjath-sepher should be mentioned in the list. Since J\y\ precedes it is natural to suppose that n:D i s a scribal error for "ISDi and hat we should restore KIKJATH-SEPHER (cp <P Pesh.). Sayce explains city of instruction, and identifies with Bit sani, said to be mentioned on the Amarna tablets (Sayce, RPW 673, Crit. Mon. 54 n. ), and situ ated W. of Gath. Wi. , however, gives blt(?)-sa-a-ni, and leaves it untranslated. See EPHRAIM, 7, n. 4. T. K. c. ## KIRJATH-SEPHER pBCrnnj?, as if 'house of books' ; m>Ais [TWI ] ypaju.jtio.Tu>> [BAL] Josh. 15 15/1 ; xapiacr-criaijiap, 7roA.ts - ypajU//.aT(oi [B],7roA.. yp- [AL], Judg. 1 n ; also called KIRJATH-SANNAH (nJO IVlp, TTOA.IS ypa.[ifj.a.r(av [BAL]), Josh. 1649!, and DEBIR (VTH [Judg. i Ch.], -\YI, Saftetp [BAL]), Josh. 161549. A place in the hill -country of Judah, mentioned between Dannah and Anab (Josh. 1649), formerly in habited by Anakim (Josh. 11:21), and the seat of a king (Josh. 1039 1213). In Josh. 15:17 and Judg. 1:13 its conquest is ascribed to OTHNIEL [q.v. ], in Josh. lO^Bf. to Joshua. P includes it among the cities of refuge (Josh. 21 15 iCh. 658). It has often been assumed (f.g., by Quatremere, 1842) that the name implies the presence of a library of some kind in the place (cp the Babylonian city Sipparal [ ]) According to Sayce, it was the literary centre of the Canaanites in the S. of Palestine, whilst Debir, i.e., the sanctuary, was the temple wherein its library was established (Pat. Pal. 220 f.*). As Sayce himself, however, following Max M tiller (As. u. Eur. 174), records, the form attested by the Papyrus Anastasi I. is Bai-ti-u-pa-ra, perhaps =nBb~n"lp, i.e., House of the scribe. That the Canaanitish archives were centralized at Debir is most im probable. If this were the case, Debir must have been the religious capital of Canaan ; but of this we have no evidence whatever. Its name may be wrongly vocalized ; 2 sanctuary is not a probable name for a city. Kirjath-sepher may be an alteration of some half-Hebrew name, such as Kirjatk sephfir, enclosed city 3 (cp ERECH). Various identifications have been proposed, but only one has much plausibility. First proposed by Knobel (note on Josh. 161549), it has been warmly advocated by Conder (PEFQ, 75, p. 53), who says that the modern ed-Doherlyeh (or rather ed-Daharlyeh), a village four or five hours SW. of Hebron, is the only site which fulfils all the biblical requirements. The objections are three in number, • (1) Petrie (according to Sayce, in Hastings DB\^Za) found no traces at ed-Dahariyeh of anything older than the Roman period. • (2) The equivalence of the names Dahariyeh and Debir (as if the back side ) supposed by Knobel and Conder is fanciful in the extreme. • (3) The passage (Judg. 1:11-15 Josh. 15:15-19) on which most reliance is placed, because it may seem to point to the beautiful springs about 7 miles N. of ed-Dahariyeh (see ACHSAH), is partly corrupt. See KEILAH. 1 According to a popular etymology, see Sayce, Hibb. Lect. 168 n. ; Del. Par. 210. 2 Moore (Proc. Am. Or. Soc., Oct. 90, p. Ixx) proposed "ISDTlHp, frontier -town," but he has now withdrawn this (Jrtdg. 27). Geographically, such a name would have been very suitable. 3 Ass. sit/lru = an enclosure with walls. The question now presents itself whether not only Kirjath-sepher but also Debir may not be incorrect. Place-names are liable to suffer both by corruption and by abbreviation. May not r:n, Debir, be a corruption of TOD Tabor, * and this, like the same word in Judg. 8:18 (cp also THEBEZ in Judg. 9:30), be a corruption of Beth-sur? That such an important city as Debir, that is, Kirjath-sepher, must have been, should be no where referred to in subsequent history, is scarcely credible. We know that it was situated in a dry spot, and that it was not far from Hebron. This description applies to the famous city of BETH-ZUR [q.v.] which occupies an impregnable position on a Tell 4^ m. N. from Hebron. It is also in favour of Beth-zur that it stands between Keilah and Beth-tappuah, the two places which (if the suggestion made under KEILAH is correct) Caleb presented to his daughter-in-law Achsah. That Kirjath-sepher is the true name of the city so-called is difficult to believe. It is possible, however, that Debir, or perhaps rather Beth-zur, had an additional descriptive title, Kirjath-sephur, inclosed city. It is no objection to this theory that the names Debir and Beth-zur both occur in the list in Josh. 15 ; such double mentions occur elsewhere in P s geographical lists. See also JABEZ. The Anab of Josh. 1649 now becomes more uncertain. W. M. Miiller s suggestion of Annabeh, SW. of Lydda, the Betoannabe of the Onont., deserves consideration. T. K. C. ## KISH (W\>, lord, husband 1 ? 2 cp KISHON, KUSHAIAH; K (e)ic [BAL]). 1. b. Abiel, a Benjamite of the clan of Becher (i S. 102i, crit. emend., see BECHER, MATRI, and cp BEN JAMIN, 9, ii. [B]), the father of Saul (i S. 9i. etc., in i Ch. 936 N reads Kip; Acts 1821, AV Cis). In MT of 2 S. 21 14 his home is placed at ZELA, but the text is plainly corrupt. The clan of Becher (the Bicrites) appear to have lived at Gibeah of Benjamin (see GIBEAH i. , 2). Kish s brother, Ner, the father of Abner (i S. 14 so/., but see NER) is strangely represented in i Ch. 833 (=939) as his father, but the text is in dis order ; Ner should probably be Nadab = Abinadab, which appears to be a second name of the father of Kish, a rival of Abiel or Abibaal 3 (see NER). The names may have been already mutilated and cor rupt in the (late) document upon which the Chronicler is dependent. We meet with Saul s father again in the fictitious genealogy of the Benjamite Mordecai, Esth. 2s (4e]ur<uoi; [BNA]) 11 2 (CiSAi, RV KISEUS ; id. BNALa/3). See GENEALOGIES i. , 6 ; MORDECAI ; and cp ESTHER, i, end. 2. The occurrence of the name in Levitical genealogies is of no historical interest. Kish b. Mahli represents an important subdivisionoftheMerariteLevites(i Ch. 23 zi/ 2429); Kishib. Abdi is the father of the famous Merarite ETHAN (i Ch. 644 [29] ; see also KUSHAIAH), and the same designation attaches to a prominent Merarite of the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch. 2il 12). Evidently the names Kish and Abdi are derived from names in i Ch. 8 30 (9 36). We need not correct Abdi into Abinadab ; the Chronicler may already have found the corrupt form Abdon, whence Abdi, in his document (see above). T. K. C. 1 The phonetic interchange of -\ and n is not unexampled ; cp the variant readings -\y and ny in Ezek. 224, inx and nnx " Is. 6617. 2 [The interpretation suggested follows JtSC-) 170, n. 4, Bad Wi. AFP) 62, n. i. The name is probably the same as the old Ar. divine name Kais (Nab. wp, nts- p). which is found in Ar. proper names, either alone (cp We. t/euLPI 67, also bin. Wp) or n compounds (e.g., the well-known Imrau lkais). It is plausible to connect the name with the first element of_ the Ass. compound Ku-ii-su-ia-da on a contract tablet (Peiser, ZA 77K17 348./C [ 97]), perhaps also with the Edomite A aus, c(l)p (see EDOM, 12). Peiser (I.e.) identifies wp (mp) w tn tne second element in Elkosh (see ELKOSHITE). S. A. C. ] 3 That Abiel (i S. 9 i) is an alteration of Abibaal is pointed out by Marq. (Fnn<i. 15), who refers to the fragmentary name Baal in i Ch. 8 30 (9 36). Cp BF.ELIADA, ELIADA. ## KISHI (^p), i Ch. 6 44 [29]- see KISH, 2; KUSHAIAH. ## KISHION (fvpfo cp ptJ"p, and see KISHON, end ; KGICCON [B], KeCICON, KICIU)N [A], K6CICON [L]), a Levitical city in the territory of Issachar (Josh. 19 20 2128 [where AV Kishon ]). The parallel passage i Ch. 657 [72] has KEDESH (ehg), which most critics (e.g. , Kittel) treat as a corruption of Kishion. The true reading, however, in Josh, and Ch. must surely be ptSHp. Whether this Kidsun is an echo of Gadasuna, which is the name of a principality mentioned in Am. Tab. 267, and therefore of the Kitsuna of the Palestinian name-list of Thotmes III.,1 may be left open. Miihlau identifies Kishion (Kidsun) with Tell Keisan, 6 m. SE. of Acre. Kishion being in Issachar, we shall do better to adopt Conder s identification of Kedesh (Kidsun) with Tell Abu Kudes (see KEDESH, 2). T. K. c. ## KISHON (jtep ; K6[l]ctON [BNARTL]), a torrent famous as the scene of the overthrow of the Canaanite coalition under Sisera (Judg. 4:7, 5:21 ; 2 cp Ps. 83:9 [10], AV Kison. ; K:CCCO [A]), and also of the destruction of the prophets of Baal by Elijah (i K. 18:40). It is also called the waters of Megiddo (Judg. 5:19). The Kishon (mod. el-Mukatta, cut ) flows through the plain of Jezreel, nearly due NW. between Samaria and Galilee, and enters the Mediterranean in the lower extremity of the bay of Akka, on the E. of Haifa. It is fed by the waters coming from Carmel, Gilboa, Hermon, and Tabor. Its exact source is uncertain ; according to some it rises on the W. side of Mt. Tabor (cp Jer. OSW 110 22, who speaks of its being near Tabor), whilst others prefer to place it near Jenin (see ENGANNIM). The battle in which Sisera was defeated must have taken place in the winter. In summer the Kishon is a diminutive and insignificant stream, but in winter it overflows, and floods the surrounding country, turning it into a morass. The fate of Sisera s army finds a parallel in the battle between the French and Turks near Tabor on April i6th, 1799, when many of the latter were drowned while attempting to pass the morass in their flight (cp Burck. Syr. 339). The district of the Kishon in olden times enjoyed an especial reputation for sanctity. North of it flowed the rivers Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim) and Belus (Nahr Na man), both famous for their sacred character ; and Mt. Carmel itself was a sacred mountain. Hence, just as the above- mentioned rivers are named after gods, it is very probably that the Kishon may derive its name, not from its bending course (Ar. histi), but from the old god trp (Kish?) = Ar. Knis. So WHS Rcl. Sem.W 170, n. 4 ; see KISH, n. 2. (Josh. 21 28), RV KISHION (q.v.). s. A. C. 1 These two names are identified by W. M. Miiller, Sayce, and Flinders Petrie (Hist, of Eg. 2 323). 2 In Judg. 621 the phrase the torrent Kishon is followed immediately by the difficult words D O^p /TO. According to an improbable, but well -supported, ancient view, it was the name of a torrent distinct from the Kishon (\ei/nappovs Kar)(r[e]i/ot [A Theod., perhaps thinking of Kedesh in Issachar, cp waters of Megiddo, v. 19; so Klo. Gesch. 123, adopts C CHp, i.e., the planet-gods viewed as givers of rain] ; mz8vpcLp [L] ; fowem Cadumim [Vg.] cp Pesh. and Ar.; Kauuovwu [Aq. see Field fd Zoc.]). Among modern explanation may he mentioned (3 Stream of antiquity' (EV Bachmann cp @E x' lpxaiwv and the paraphrase of Targ.): ?z) ' Onwarh-rushing stream'(& A. Cooke, Hist. andsongof DeJoovah, 48 I Ew., stream of boldness in attack'-a primitive personification) ; (3) 'stream of encounters ' (Briggs, Kohler, after Ahulw.) ; (4) ' stream of the holy (i.e., divine ones) (Klost., Marq., cp. Symm. ayiiav <f>dpay). For a fifth view, for which A /caSijo-ei/u. may also be referred to, see KADESH, 2. Of these (i), (3), and (5) may be classed as historical, the plain of the Kishon having been a great battlefield, from the time of Thotmes III. onwards, whilst (2) and (5) have such appropriateness as is involved in a refer ence to the circumstances of this battle, in the one case to the swollen condition of the torrent, in the other to the bloodshed which dyed the waters. ## KISS (p 3 ; (JAeoo. KATAcJjiAeoo, 4>iAH/v\&). See SALUTATIONS. ## KITE i. (i"PX, ayydh; perhaps onomatopoetic, cp Di. Lev. ad loc. ; IKTII>, yvty), Lev. 11 i^l> I)t. 1413; and Job 287!, where AV renders by VULTURE, RV always FALCON (g.v.). 2. (rtN^, ditah; i.e., n"l; yui^; Lev. 11 i4t), AV VULTURE. The Red Kite, Mihus ictinus, is common in Palestine in winter, but during the summer mainly gives place to the Black Kite M. migrans (M. ater), which returns from the S. ; this spei ies is less harmful to poultry, etc., lives more on garbage and fish, and is a welcome guest, jlf. eegyftiits, the Egyptian kite, also occurs, but less abundantly ; as does Elanus cacrulrus, the black- winged kite, a singularly beautiful bird which strays from Africa. 3. (rn, dayy&h; rrn, dayyoth; Dt. 14 13 Is. 34i 5 t), AV VULTURE, VULTURES. See above (2). A. E. S ## KITHLISH RV CHITHLISH (B^fl? ; MAAXCOC [BA], K&O&AeiC [L])i apparently a place in the low land of Judah (Josh. 10:40). Probably the name is a corruption of DCnS LAHMAS (q.v.), which precedes. The geographical lists of P are sometimes expanded by the insertion of variants or corruptions. ## KITRON (I npp; K eA P coN [BI4 X eB- [A]). an unidentified place in the nominal territory of Zebulun, tributary to Israel (Judg. 130). From a comparison with Josh. 19:15, it appears that KATTATH (rather perhaps Katrath) was the same place as Kitron. See KARTAH. A Talmudic doctor (.If eg. 6 a) identifies Kitron with Zippori, i.e., Sepphoris (the modern Safffiriyeh ?), and the etymological Mid rash attached to the latter name gives no adequate reason for rejecting this view, which may be correct. At any rate, there is no finer site than Sepphoris in the neighbourhood marked out by the context (see Rob. BR 8201 ; I aed.l 3 ) 276). ## KITTIM AV except in Gen. and Chron. ; less correctly CHITTIM (D B3, so usually, but O |n3 in Jer. 2 10 in Bab. MSS and Kt. Palest, of Is. 23 12, and in Bab. MSS of Ezek. 27 6, in which last the Palestinian reading is C riS ; reads x 6TTe " > Ezek. 276 [B] ; but xernefi, ib. [AQ], cp Jer. 2 10 [BAQ], i Ch. 1 7 [L], i Mace. 1 i [A*V] ; -v, Jer. I.e. [K] ; IOJTKK, <len. 10 4 [A], i Ch. 1 7 [A*vid.] ; KITIOI, Gen. I.e. [DEL], i Ch. I.e. [BA], cp [for )OjT- KIT-, with various terminations] Is. 23 1 12 [KT)Tini, A], Dan. 11 30 [Theod. BAQ?, Q* prefixes x"- rieiju, for 87 see below], Num. 2424 i Mace. 85. The Phoen. form is nD or -ro). One of the sons of Javan (Gen. 104 i Ch. 1 7). Also in six other passages none of them very early (on Is. 23 1 12 see GEOGRAPHY, 14). In Ezek. 276 we find 0"Pi3 "N i.e., Cyprus and other islands of the Mediter ranean, among the traders of Tyre. The identification with Cyprus in all these is satisfactory (see CYPRUS). The name Kittim is usually derived from the Phoenician city Kltlon (Larnaka), on the SE. shore of the island. According to Max Miiller, however (As. u. Eur. 345), it is a loan-word, originally = Ghattites, Khattites = Hdt/f, Hittites. From this the city Kit(t)ion is supposed to have derived its name ; this implies that Kit(t)ion was not a Phoenician city. There is a strange reference to Kittim in Nu. 24:24 (not very early ; see BALAAM, 6). In Jer. 2:10 0"F\3 "N is used for the western regions in general (opposed to Kedar the East), and GVjlS in Dan. 11:30 (see Bevan) has a specific reference to the Romans ( KCU rjfovcri poj^oioi. [87]), as in i Macc. 1 1 (AV CHETTIIM, RV CHITTIM) Ss(AV CITIMS) it is explicitly used of the Macedonians. F. B. ## KNEADING-TROUGH (n>S^ ; p ; miftreth; cp rnb>D, pan ? ; Ex. 8 3 [7 28] 12 34, also Dt. 28 5 i 7 t RV ; (&BFL <j>vpaij.a in Ex. [for 8 3 [7 28] see Field], e yKaTaA(e)in/aa [BAF], KaraA. [L] in Dt.). See BREAD, i ; COOKING UTENSILS, 2. ## KNEELING (^"Q ; roNyneTeco). See SALUTATIONS. ## KNIFE Five words are rendered knife in EV : 1. TO/HI ? [BC], O-TO/IXI S [HA]), (Jon. _ _> 6 10 Jiulg. 11*29 Prov. 30 14!, in Gen. and Judg. in the special sense of a sacrificial knife. The root ^3 jt means not only to eat, but to tear in pieces ; 1 cp Ass. akalu, whence ittakaltu, an instrument chiefly used by Magians (Del. Ass. HWB 560). 2. 2~in, hcrcb, so in Josh. 62 i K. 1828, where implements of cutting are meant. SWORD [</." . ] or dagger is the usual rendering. Cp WEAPONS. 3. "1JW, td ar (Jer. 30 23). The ta ar (gvpov) of the scribe here spoken of is elsewhere rendered razor (see BEAKD). 4. psi^, sakk m (an Aramaic word), Prov. 23 2<t, but the text is corrupt. Read probably 17032 |3DB |3Drj"3, for thou wilt endanger thyself by thy folly (Che.). 5. D 37nD, maliiilapliiin (Ezra 1 gt). The traditional Jewish interpretation is knives (so Middoth, 4 7; Rashi ; Saadia, so Vg.). This is suggested by Syr. lielapha, knife, but is un known to <B (mxpTjAAay/afVa [AJ, -/uerat [L], irapr]yij.fi/a [B]) and to i Esd. 2 13 (flut cricai = rnnrp ; EV censers ), and is against the context. The true reading must be rrirTO, dishes (Che. ; cp 2 Ch. 35 13) ; the corruption was produced by assimilation to the preceding n^x, cp Syr. of i Esd. Thus, of the above words, two are corruptions, one (3) refers to the sharp cutting instrument of the barber or the writer, and one (2) is confined to ritual (and to warlike) uses. The remaining word (i) may be used either generally or in a special sense. The ritual knives spoken of in Josh. 62 were knives of flint (ons n i3in, see AV m e- and RV, and cp is, the flint, Ex. 425), and knowing how conservative of old forms ritual is, we may safely assume that the flint or other hard mineral (obsidian perhaps 2 ) used for ritual purposes was in more remote ages in general use for cutting. To have used metal knives, in sacred functions, would have seemed irreverent (cp HANDICRAFTS, 2). It is note worthy, however, that, from motives of ceremony, flint knives continued to be used in daily life in Egypt long after 2000 B.C. (see EGYPT, 36). Some idea of the various forms of knives used by the Hebrews may be gathered from Bliss's sketches of the flint implements found at Tell el-Hesy (Mound of Many Cities, 37, 124) and from the specimens of cutting instruments of the ancients which are still pre served, or are figured on the monuments. See the Roman and Egyptian instruments in Kitto (s.v. Knife, nos. i and 2), and Rich, Diet., .\:v. culler, cultellus, and cp SICKLE, PRUNING HOOK. That knives were used by the Hebrews during a meal has been inferred from Prov. 23:2 (cp MEALS, 10) ; but this passage, being very probably corrupt (see above, 4), cannot safely be appealed to. The food perhaps was brought to table already cut up ; the flat cakes of bread were not cut but broken (Is. 58:7, etc. ). Herod, however, we are told, was wont to use a knife to pare an apple (Jos. BJ i. 337 ; Ant. xvii. 7:1). ## KNOP For kaphtor ("linB3), Ex. 2631, etc., see CANDLESTICK, 2 ; for the p'kaim (DTpQ) of i K. 6 18 7 24, t see GOURD (end), TEMPLE, SEA (BRAZEN). ## KOA (lVIp; YXY [ B > s y mm -. Theod. ; 1 precedes], AOyA [A], KOye [Q] ^ >><xo : V S- principes [cp Aq. Kopv<pa.iov~$$, a people mentioned with Pekod and Shoa as contributing warriors to the Babylonian army (Ezek. 2823). Identified by Delitzsch (Par. 236) with the Kutu (or Ku, whence the Hebrew form), a nomadic people E. of the Tigris but N. of Elam. Very early men tion occurs of a mighty king of Guti (see TIDAL), and some scholars think that Guti or Gutium (which represents the same name) has found its way in a mutilated form into Gen. 14 1 (see GOIIM, but cp SODOM). T. K. c.

1 Hence in 2 S. 2 26 Dt. 82 42 EV s devour (^H) should rather be tear in pieces, which suits the sword better.

2 See knives of obsidian figured in Schliemann, Tiryns, 174.

## KOHATH

(nnp i.e., Kehath ; meaning unknown ; cp, perhaps, Ar. ivakiha 'to obey', Ass. akul KAA.9 [BXADFL] but K &AA Nu. 817 [A], Ka.0 Nu. 4 a), the largest and most important of the triple division of Levites (Gen. 46:11 Ex. 6:19 etc. ; only in P and Ch.) ; see GERSHON, MERARI. To the KOHATHITES (<nrtpn, 6/caa0[e]i [BAFL] Xu. 2^57) belonged Aaron, and hence the Kohathites are sometimes subdivided into the children of Aaron the priest, 1 and the rest of the children of Kohath (cp Josh. 21:4-5). They were intrusted with the care of the sanctuary during the wanderings in the wilderness (Nu. 4:15, 7:9), and their cities are placed in Ephraim, Dan, and half Manasseh (Josh. I.e. 20-26). The Korahites (see KORAH, i. 3) were also reckoned in this division. See GENEALOGIES i., 7 (iii. c).

## KOHELETH

the Hebrew title of Ecclesiastes, and according to MT the name of the supposed speaker of the monologues in that book. Elsewhere (see ECCLESIASTES, i) the word is treated on the assumption that MT is correct. The word, however, is admittedly so difficult, and so very unlikely as a designation of a king of Israel, and the textual errors in Ecclesiastes are so serious, that the time seems to have come for raising the question whether the reading is correct. Must it not be due to an early editor's attempt to extract some meaning out of a corrupt text ?

fftnptl (hak-koheleth)- for this (see 7:27 [crit. emend.] 12:8), not koheleth, is the earlier form of the wrong reading of MT may be the result of a series of changes ; it is plausible to hold that ultimately it springs from the faulty repetition of four words in 1:2. The book originally began thus, 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity' (^rt ^H C San ^3rr) ; the two last Hebrew words ^3,1 SD.T were miswritten by the next scribe in such a way as to suggest nVnpn. To this the editor prefixed 1CK, saith. In terpolation propagated the error (1:12, 7:27, 12:8, but in 1:12 n fell off); then the writer of 12:9-10 in the Epilogue, and the scribe who prefixed the title, adopted it (without initial ,-j). It is an extremely plausible view that hak-koheleth was also adopted by the editor who prefixed the title to the strange little poem in Prov. 30:1b-4, which title must originally have run thus or very nearly thus,

The words of the guilty man Hak-koheleth 1 to those that believe in God.

That the poem which follows is controverted in vv. 5-6. is an old and reasonable opinion.

Thus the mysterious 'Agur, son of Jakeh', and 'Ithiel and Ucal' disappear, nor can we lift up a lamentation for them. See Critica Biblica. T. K. C.

## KOLAIAH

(iTJjip, 33 ; cp KELAIAH).

1. Father of the prophet AHAB ; Jer. 29 21 (BNAQom.; KOI/AIOU [Qmg., but attributed to Aq , Theod.]).

2. In list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see EZRA ii., Sf , 15 [i] ), Neh. 11 7 Ocofiia [B], KoAeta [XL], w. [A]).

## KONJE

(K60NA [B], - C [N C -A], KU>A& [N*]). substituted by RV for AV's 'the villages' (KCOM&C [243, 248, 249 ; Compl. Aid.]; r&C KOiMAC [58]. in castella et vicos [Vet. Lat.]), in the description of the defensive measures of the Jews against Holofernes (Judith 4:4 ).

Kun cts and xiojuas must be corrupt ; two MSS (19 108) read (cei Aa, which is but a poor conjecture. Almost certainly the correct reading is Kiava [Bl, = K(ui a = Kvaficui/a. Cyamon occurs again in "3, together with Bel-men = Belmaim. (Syr. reads 'and to the towns of Bethhoron', omitting the second and against almost all the Greek MSS.) T. K. C.

## KORAH

(ITlp, hardly ice ; cp rather KAREAH and Sin. nrnp, imp ; Kope [BAL]).

i. An Edomite clan (so in Gen. 36 5 14 18, which belong to one of the latest sections of the Pentateuch) ; in i Ch. 1 35 their ancestor is said to have been a son of Esau, or, in Gen. 36 16, a son of Eliphaz, son of Esau, though this last passage is wanting in the Samaritan text.

2 The son of Hebron, i Ch. 243 (icopee [B], icapjje [t]). The clan claimed descent from Caleb, who in turn belonged to the Edomite clan Kenaz (Judg. 1 13 etc.), and is incorporated with Judah.

3. The legendary progenitor of a levitical guild, the KORAHITES (O lTTan, i Ch. 01931 126[AV KORHITES]; oil Kop[e]crai [BXA], oi KOPECK [L]), employed as door-keepers or porters in the temple (Ex. i 21 24 i Ch. 622 [7] 9 19). Probably the b ne Korah, a guild of singers or musicians mentioned in the titles of Pss. 4-J 44-49 84y: 87/, were a subdivision of this guild. See WRS OTJCV1 2047: ; Meyer, Entst. 162 181.

There is no reason for separating the above three names. Not only do we find that the evidence of the levitical names points to a S. Palestinian origin, and that a close relationship subsisted between Edom, Judah, and other tribes and clans of the S., but it is important to note that the levitizing of the clan of Korah, and its enrolment in the great levitical division of Kehath, represent later stages in the history of the clan (see GENEALOGIES i-, 5 [cp n.], 7 [li. v]). 1 See art. below.

1 -nSnpn CP NH 133.7

## KORAH, REVOLT OF

In the preceding article it has been seen that the Korahites, as known in the history of Israel, were either Edomites incorporated with Judah or a division of the Levites. This double use of the name has an important bearing on the story of Korah's rebellion as told in Nu. 16-17, which is the subject of the present article.

### 1. Present text.

This story comes, at least in the main, from the school of the priestly writer (P), though, as has been shown in a previous article (see DATHAN AND ABIRAM), the account of Korah's rebellion against the priestly prerogative of the Levites has been mixed up with an older and quite independent account of the resistance made by Dathan and Abiram to the civil authority of Moses. Here, however, an important question arises. P is not an inventive or original writer so far as historical incidents are concerned. Legislation is the sphere in which he finds himself at home, and with regard to narrative he is usually content to borrow and modify the material supplied by his predecessors. It is not therefore unreasonable to ask whether P did not adapt the story of Korah s revolt from some older source, and whether any fragments of the story in this primitive form remain in Nu. 16. Bacon (Triple Tradition of Exodus, 190), developing a hint of Dillmann's, has contended with no small ingenuity but hardly with success that we have before us the fragments of such a narrative by the Yahwist. He attributes to him a few words in 16:1-3, the whole of 16:13-15 16:27b-31, 16:33a, so producing the simple story that when Korah the Edomite and On the Philistine would fain intrude into the sanctuary, Moses withstood them, and the earth swallowed them up. Apart from other equally decisive arguments, it cannot be regarded as certain or even probable that PELETH (q.v.) has any connection with the Philistines.

### 2. P's original form.

We may now give the substance of the priestly narrative in its original form. It is contained in 16:1a, 16:2b, 16:7a, 16:18-24, 16:27a, 16:32b, 16:35, 16:41-50, [17:6-15] 17 and runs thus. Korah at the head of 250 princes of the congregation protested against the exclusive rights of the Levitical tribe as represented by Moses and Aaron, and declared that the whole congregation was holy. It is quite possible that Korah, in the intention of the priestly writer, belonged to the tribe of Judah, and it is certain that his confederates were by no means exclusively Levites. They were princes of the congregation as a whole, and in 27:3 (P) it is clearly implied that, e.g. , Manassites might be found in his company. Moses invites them to establish their claim by taking their censers and offering incense at the sanctuary. This they do : the people are warned to withdraw from the tabernacle, 3 and the rebels are consumed by fire from Yahwe. Next day the people murmur because the people of Yahwe (not, observe, our brethren the Levites ) have been destroyed. But for the intercession of Moses, and the fact that Aaron stands with his censer between the living and the dead, Israel would have been swept away by the divine wrath. Even as it is, 14,700 perish by the plague. Afterwards rods inscribed with the names of princes representing each tribe are laid in the sanctuary. The rod inscribed with the name of Aaron, and that alone, buds and bears ripe almonds.

1 By the Korahites of i Ch. 126 it is uncertain whether the Chronicler is referring to Levites or to Edomites who had be come incorporated in the tribe of Judah ; cp DAVID, n [a ii.].

2 The word ptyo is never used in prose of a human habitation, and, in vv. 24-27, the original reading seems to have been the tabernacle of Yahwe. See Dr. Introd. 61.

### 3. Later account.

The account which we have examined hitherto, comes from the priestly legislator, as is plain from its literary style. True, it does not confirm the favourite and characteristic point of the priestly legislation - viz., the essential difference between the priests, the sons of Aaron, and mere Levites. But of course the priestly code also emphasises the general distinction between the clergy of whatever rank on the one hand and the laity on the other. Here the priestly legislator is content to advocate the claims of the levitical tribe as a whole. However, a later writer of the same school was not satisfied to stop here. Moved, perhaps, by the remembrance that there was a levitical guild known as sons of Korah, he made various alterations in the text and added 16:7b-11, 16:16-17, 16:36-40 [17:1-5]. In this second stratum Korah is unmistakeably a Levite, and not only so, his whole company are Levites, and their sin consists in a sacrilegious claim to act as priests. The censers of these sinners against their own lives are by divine command beaten into plates and used as a covering for the altar. They are to be a perpetual memorial that no one who is not of Aaron's seed may dare to offer incense. In 26:9-11, a very late passage for it must have been added by some one who had read 16 and 17 as they stand in our present Hebrew text we are told that the sons of Korah did not perish with their father and his band. The author felt that he had to explain the continued existence of the Kohathite guild in the temple.

The NT mentions Korah only once, viz. in Jude 11 where Korah is the type of Gnostic heretics who set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities. The author of 2 Tim. 2:16-17 had Korah in view ; at least v. 19 is derived from Num. 16:5-26 in LXX.

The division of documents advocated in this article is that of Kue. Th. T 12 139, and Hex. 6 n. 37, 16 n. 12, to which Well- hausen now adheres. It is also adopted by Kittel (with a little hesitation), by Baudissin (Priesterthunt), and by Dr., Introd.^ 65. Nor does the view of Dillmann differ materially here, except with regard to the point mentioned at the end of the article DATHAN AND ABIRAM. w. E. A.

## KORE

({Op ; KCORH [BA], KOpe [L])- A door keeper, or guild of doorkeepers, of the b'ne Asaph, assigned to the Korahites (see GENEALOGIES i. , 7, ii. ).

The name is given to the father of Shallum (i Ch. ! 19, xiopr)/3 [B], x">P>? [A]), or Meshelemiah (i Ch. 26 i, ica)p)e [A]). In 2 Ch. 31 14 Kore (xtopj) [L]) appears as the son of Imnah (n:S ). but the latter may be nothing more than a slip for Heman (|D*n ; cp B ), who was actually associated with Korahites and doorkeepers ; see GENEALOGIES i., 7, iii. c.

S. A. C.

## KORE, THE SONS OF

(TV^n *J5 ; 01 yioi KOpe [AL], . . . K <\&0 [B]), i Ch. 26^9, RV THE SONS OF THE KORAHITES. See KORAH i.

## KOZ

(fipH), Ezra26i Neh. 8421 7 63 AV, Rv HAKKOZ.

## KULON

(KOYAON [BA], -AM [L]). a city in the hill country of Judah mentioned by( only (Josh. 1059). An identification with Kuloniyeh, NW. of Jerusalem (see EMMAUS, 2), is inadmissible, since this name is derived from colonia (cp Buhl, Pal. 166).

## KUSHAIAH

(-irrt^-lp, 27 ; hardly Yahwe s bow ; Peiser [ZA TW 17 348^7 ( 97)], explains Ku$is Yahwe ; cp Edomite divine name Kaus, and Gottheil, JBL 17 199-202 ( 98), but is there a parallel for such a name in the OT?), father of Ethan, a Merarite ; i Ch. If. 17 (K[]i(roiou [BAL]. The readings of presuppose l.Vtrp Orvirp? Ki. SBO l"), with which agrees the other form of the name, viz. KISHI ( t^ p j Ch. 644 [29], Ketcrtu [B], -<ra.v [A], icoverei [L], i.e., perhaps "^ p). The form Kishi, which Gray (/// JV 297) prefers, is, according to Gottheil, an abbreviated form ( X"p> * l.TC"p)- See Kish. 1 For another suggested etymology, see NAMES, 27 n ## LAADAH (nil? 1 ?, 35 ; perhaps abbrev. from mjth^i El passes by ; cp EI.AIJAH), a Judahite ; iCh.42i (JiaSad [H], aa6a [A], Aa6r)i [LJ). For a probable solution of the. problem of Laadali, see LECAH. ## LAADAN (ftl/?), iCh. 726 23 7 ff. 26 2 i AV, RV LAUAN (q.v. }. ## LABAN (\1? ; A&BAN [ADEL]), son of Nahor (Gen. 295 J ; cp 244?, where Bethuel, son of, should be omitted as an interpolation). 1 He was also brother of Rebekah (2429), and became father of Leah and Rachel (chap. 29), and of several sons (30 35 31 1) ; he was therefore uncle and father-in-law of Jacob. Accord ing to P (25 20) he was, like Bethuel, an Aramaean (anx, EV a Syrian ) ; but P does not mean to deny that he was a Nahorite ; Milcah and Aram are both probably corruptions of Jerahmeel, and the northern Jerahmeelites dwelt at the city of Nahor. It is in fact here that the tradition given by J places the home of Laban (24 10 2/43) ; the God of Laban, too, is called by E the God of Nahor (31 53). Elsewhere (see NAHOR) it is suggested that Nahor is most probably miswritten for Hauran ; very possibly J and E had before them corrupt versions of the traditional narrative. It would be unfair to criticise the character of Laban as if he were a historical individual ; we can only ven ture to infer that the later Israelites criticised the char acter of the Aramaeans very unfavourably. It is essential, however, to notice the religious difference between Laban and Jacob ; note especially the incident with the teraphim (Gen. 31 30 ; cp 352, and see TERA- PHIM). Since Laban i.e. , the Laban-tribe resides in or near a city of Hauran it is archasologically important to try to clear up the name. A very similar name, LIBNI [y.v.], is given in Ex. 617 Nu. 3 18 to a son of Gershon, son of Levi ; in i Ch. 617, however, Libni's father is called Gershom. Now, Gershom (= Gershon) is a Jerahmeelite name. Gershom in Ex. 222 is the son of Moshe (Moses), who was the son of Amrani (Ex. 6 20, P) ; Amram, like Abram, contains in our view an abbreviation of the name Jerahmeel. Levi too is claimed elsewhere (LEVI, i) as a Jerahmeelite name ; it corresponds to Leah, which is explained elsewhere (LEAH) as a fragment of a feminine form of Jerahmeel. The natural inference, if these data be granted, is that Laban and Libni are both connected with Leah and Levi ; p 1 ?, Laban, may be from pi 1 ?, and Libni may be a further development of pS. Hence the Levi-tribe was at one time viewed as the equal of the Jacob-tribe, though afterwards it had to accept an inferior, dependent position. It thus becomes unnecessary to combine Laban with an Assyrian god Laban (cp [ihi] libitti, god of brickwork, KB 82 looyC) mentioned by Delitzsch and Sayce (Hibb. Led. 249, n. 3), or with the Lapana (probably Helbon) of Am. Tab. 139 35 37, or to regard the name as originally a title of the Harranian moon-god (Schr. A A 7~( 2 ) on Gen. 27 43; Jensen, ZA, 1896, p. 298 ; cp Goldziher, Heb. Myth. 158; Wi. GI 2 57). Gunkel (Gen. 292) finds the Laban legend free from mythology ; on the other side, see Winckler, op. cit. 1 Similarly the references to Bethuel in Gen. 24 15 2450 (J) are to be viewed as interpolations. See Mez, Gescli. d. St. Harran, iqff. and Dillmann s Genesis. In Gen. 2220-23 (J) tne list should end with and Laban and Rebekah. ## LABAN (\> ; AoBON [BAFL]), an unknown locality (Dt. li); perhaps the same as LIBNAH (2, q.v. ). Cp WANDERINGS, 10. ## LABANA (ALBANIA [BA]), i Esd. 629 = Neh.748, LEBANA. ## LABOUR (l^a, Gen. 31 42; tatf, Dt. 26 7 ), Labourer (eprATHC.Mt-937). See SLAVERY. The use of labour for fruit of labour (e.g. , Hab. 817) is one of the most questionable Hebraisms of the EV. ## LACEDAEMONIANS (AAKeAAlMONioi [AV], Av K&|. [A]; see Swete, ad loc. and App. ), mentioned only in 2 Macc. 5:9 ; elsewhere always Spartans (CTTAPTIATAI) is used. See JASON, 2 (end), SPARTA. The Jews claimed kinship with the Lacedaemonians (see SPARTA for diplomatic relations between the two peoples about 300 B.C. and 145 B.C.). For the presence of Jews in Sparta, we may compare i Mace. 1523, ar >d in the Peloponnese generally, Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36. 1 See Ges.-Buhl, s.v. pm ; and, for the rest, Che. JQR 10576./C [!8g8]. MT is rendered in RV, Bind the chariot to the swift steed ; but the first word (Qrn) is, strictly, untranslatable, and BOT can hardly be used of a chariot-horse (see HORSE, i, 4). The order of the words chariot and swift steed is also scarcely possible ; to alter it in the translation (G. A. Smith) is arbitrary. If, however, Prof. Smith's rendering might stand, his explanation would be at least plausible. He sees an allusion to the Egyptian subsidies of horses and chariots (in which the politicians put their trust), which would be received at Lachish, as being the last Judaean outpost towards Egypt. ## LACHISH (pi? ; A&\eiC [ BAL . etc.]). A city in the Shephelah (Josh. 1639, A^X 7 ?!? [B*A], Xa. [B ab super- scr ^ * ### 1. History. Its king, with four other Amorite kings, was defeated by Joshua at Gibeon (Josh. 103-15; cp GIBEON, i, MAKKEDAH) ; on the fate of the city and its population, see Josh. l0:31-32. It seems to have been a chariot-city (Mic. 1 13 ; cp i K. 9 19 and BETH-MARCABOTH). The Chronicler speaks of its fortification by Rehoboam (2 Ch. 11 9). Amaziah fled thither from a conspiracy (2 K. 14 19 ; see AMAZIAH, i). Sennacherib besieged and took the place on his expedition against Egypt, and sei.t the Rabshakeh thence to Jerusalem (2 K. 1814, 17, cp 198; Is. 862 Xa[xhs |T], cp 378 [om. NAOQ]). Lachish was one of the two last fenced cities to be captured by Nebuchad rezzar s army (Jer. 34?). It is mentioned in a list of cities in Nehemiah (1130); but on critical grounds we cannot assume that Jews really dwelt there in the period referred to (see EZRA ii., 5, n. 3). Prof. Petrie s infer ences from his excavations entirely bear out this opinion viz. , that, after the return of the Jews Lachish appears to have been hardly reoccupied (Tell el-Hesv, 29). In Mic. 1 13 Lachish is called 'the beginning of sin for the daughter (i.e., people) of Zion'. Possibly some heathen Philis tine rites (cp Is. 2&) had been introduced at Lachish, and spread thence to Jerusalem. The play on the name of Lachish is obscure. Read perhaps D -^f 1 1 f"l33"iD PT 1 . 'Make ready chariot horses' ;1 cp Ass. narkabate rakisu, 'chariot-horses', Del. Ass. HIVB 622 ; rakis and lakish produce an assonance. The people of Lachish have good cause to flee, for they are partners in the sins of Jerusalem. The antiquity of Lachish is proved by the references to it in some of the Amarna tablets (i5th cent. B.C.). Zimrida (cp ZIMKI) was prince of the city under the Egyptian king Amen-hotep IV. Efforts were made to shake his allegiance to Egypt ; but he handed over the man who had tried to seduce him to an Egyptian official. Soon after, however, Lachish rebelled against him ; the fate of Zimrida remains uncertain. See Am. Tab. 217, 219, 181, and Peiser, OLZ, isth Jan. 1899. Max Miiller, however (OL/., isth March 1899), finds some difficulties in the situation supposed by Peiser. No. 219 is the famous tablet found at Tell el-Ht-sy (see below, 2) and included by Winckler in his edition of the Amarna Tablets. There is also in the British Museum a bas-relief (found at Kuyunjik) with this inscription, according to Winckler, Sen nacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, took his seat on the throne, and the captives from Lachish marched up before him ( Textbuch, 37). This confirms the inference from 2 K. 19:8 that Sennacherib's siege of Lachish was successful. ### 2. Site. Eusebius and Jerome place the site of Lachish 7 R.m. S. of Eleutheropolis, towards the Darom (OS 2749 13522). This does not agree with the position of Umm Lakis, which most recent scholars have identified with Lachish, this place being W. , not S. , of Eleutheropolis. In fact, its sole re commendations consist in a very slight resemblance of its name to that of Lachish (k, not k, is the second consonant), 2 and in its being only three-quarters of an hour from Ajlan (Eglon) ; cp Josh. 10 34. It presents, as Conder states, only a few traces of ruins, two masonry cisterns, and a small, low mound (PEFQ, 1878, p. 20). On the ground of this apparent insignificance, Robinson long ago rejected it (#/?> 389), adding that the mound of Tell el-Hesy must certainly represent some important city ; a finer position could hardly be imagined. It was left for Conder, however, to point out that Lachish ought to be, and for Petrie virtually to prove that it was, the city which Tell el-Hesy repre sents. The work of excavation was begun by Flinders Petrie in April 1890. A study of the walls and of the pottery of different levels led him to the conclusion that the earliest dwellings are not later than the seventeenth century B. c. , and the latest belong to the fifth century B.C. The great walls below the level of the ash-bed belong to the pre-Israelitish or Amorite times. The stones below the bed of .ashes belong to the rude period of the Judges. The ashes represent a desolation when the tell was used by alkali-burners. [Bliss accounts for the great bed of ashes differently.] The buildings above the ashes represent the cities of the various Jewish kings to the time of the Captivity. It was in the third city, in the stratum overspread by the ash-bed, that the cuneiform tablet was found ; other tablets must or may have been carried off by foes. Petrie identifies the tell with Lachish for three reasons. • 1. The position commands the only springs in the district, except those of Tell en-Nejileh (see EGLON ii.). • 2. It corresponds sufficiently with the geographical determination in the Onomasticon, being only three miles farther from Eleutheropolis than Eusebius and Jerome say that Lachish was. • 3. It agrees with the situation represented on Sennacherib's bas-relief, and the remains in the tell permit a conception of the fortunes of the site which agrees with the data of history. F. J. Bliss took up Petrie's work in March 1891. His general conclusion agrees with that of his predecessor ; the importance of the site is such that hardly any other identification appears possible. Whether Umm Lakis is really the site of a Jewish settlement which took the place of the old Lachish, is less certain. G. A. Smith (Twelve Prophets, 2 80 /.) has suggested that Umm Lakis may represent the ancient Elkos, which, according to Epiphanius, was beyond bet Gabre, of the tribe of Simeon (cp ELKOSHITE, c). The consonants are suitable ; but we should not have expected the vocalisation Lakis. Conder has identified Umm Lakis with the Malagues of the Crusaders. To the present writer the site of Lachish appears to be identified with virtual certainty by Petrie s brilliant investigation. Cp BRONZE, HONEY, POTTERY ; and, on the strategical importance of Lachish, see GASm. HCii^f. See Flinders Petrie, Tell el-Hesy: a Memoir (1891): F. J. Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities; or Tell el-Hesy excavated (1898). For a fresh translation of the Lachish tablet see Peiser, OLZ, isth Jan. 1899, and cp WMM, OLZ, isth March 1899. W. Max Miiller adheres to Umm LSkis (in spite of the k) as the site of Lachish. He thinks the letter was addressed, not to the Egyptian grand vizier, but to a neighbour of Zimrida. The grounds for the prevalent view are not, however, discussed. T. K. C. 1 Came forward into his presence (M Curdy, Hist. Profih. Mon. 2427). Cp Meinhold, fcsaja u. seine Zeit (1898), who also adopts Wi. s translation of sal/at ntaftarsu etik. Bezold, however (KB l 115), renders received the spoil of Lachish ; and Del. brought up before himself (>.f., took a minute survey of) the spoil of Lachish (Ass. HWB 159(1). " So Robinson. According to Conder the name is pronounced Umm Lags. Sayce states that, after repeated inquiries of the fellahln, he assured himself (in 1881) that the name was Latis; but Bliss confirms Conder s statement ; Umm Laggis is the form which he gives. ## LACUNUS RV LACCUNUS (AAKKOYNOC [BA], f)avaua<; 1 [L]), the name of one of the sons of Addi in the list of those with foreign wives, i Esd.93i (see EZRA i., 5 end). If we compare || E/ra 10 30, we shall see that the name has arisen from the names Chelal, Benaiah (n33 ^r). the final ^ of Chelal having been taken with the following name, and the 3 read as a 3 i.e., n jsh- ## LADAN (n^, 38 ; AA^AN [BL]). 1. An Ephraimite, i Ch. 7 26 RV, AV LAADAN (\aBBav [B], Ka.8a.av [A]) ; whose name appears in v. 20 as ELADAH (q.v.). See ERAN. EzKRii., 3 and cp EI-HRAIM i., 12. 2. RV, AV LAADAN, a Gershonite name, i Ch. 23 7-9 (eSav [B]. AeaSai/ [A], Aaa. [L]) 26 21 (\aSav [B once], AeS. twice Aaafid [A], AaaSai/[L]). See LIBNI, r. 3. i Esd. 637 AV, RV DALAN. See DELAIAH, 4. ## LADANUM (D$, lot. CTAKTH [ADEFL], RESINA). Gen. 3?2st (RV "K- MYRRH) 43nf (EV MYRRH), is the name of a resin called by the Arabs Iddhan or Iddan l which was yielded by some species of Cistus. It was known to the Greeks as early as the times of Herodotus and Theophrastus by the names \-rjSov, \ddavov, and \rjdavov, which are very closely allied to the Arabic name.

1 According to Moidtmann and Miiller (Sab. Denk. 84) the Iddhan is the proper Arabic form derived from Persian.

2 Specimens of the implement can be seen in the Museum at Kew (Crete and Cyprus).

(D^D ; KAiM&I) Gen. 28 i 2 f. The rendering ladder is unfortunate ; a flight of steps is meant according to most scholars. Cp BETHEL, 2. Probably, however, nSj/D, ascent is the right reading (adapt suffixes accordingly), cpNeh.3i 5 12 3 7 (<S K A.i>aKes = ni ?i;o)- So Che. See STAIRS,4.

The classical use of the term ladder in topography (cp Paus. viii. 64 and see Frazer s note) is exemplified in The Ladder of Tyrus, RV . . . OF TYRE (KAIMAKOC Typoy [ANY]), i Mace. 11 59, the northern limit of the region over which Simon the Maccabee was made commandant (<TT parr]y 6s) by Antiochus VI., son of Balas. Josephus (BJn. 102) defines it as a high mountain 100 stadia N. from Ptolemais. It is the steep and lofty headland now known as the Ras en-Nakiirah the natural barrier between Phoenicia and Palestine (Stanley). True, we should have expected the title to have been rather given to the fids el-abyad, the Promontorium album of Pliny. Regarded from the S. , however, the Ras en-Nakurah, which Neubauer (Gdogr. 39) identifies with the NO^IO llx hv of the Talmud, may have presented itself as the end of the Lebanon and the barrier of Tyre.

## LAEL

pN7, 22, 37, l '[belonging] to God' ; or, the form having no sure parallel in Hebrew, read Joel," see GENEALOGIES i. , 7, col. 1664, no. 3), a Gershonite, Nu. 824 (A&HA [BAF], AAOyHA [L]).

Gray (fiPJV 207) quotes the parallel of LEMUEL in Prov. 31 i, and, as more remotely analogous, BESODEIAH and possibly BEZALEEL. All these names, however, are liable to grave sus picion. Noldeke, indeed, has shown that there were such Semitic names as Lael (in later times?), but not that MT is correct in its reading. T. K. C.

("in?), b. JAHATH (q.v., i), a clan of Judah, i Ch.4 2 f (AAA9 [B], AA[A]A [AL]), Jerahmeelite, to judge from the names (Che. ).

## LAHAI-ROI

("iO r6 ["IN?]), Gen. 2462 25 xi AV, RV BEER-LAHAI-ROI (q.v.).

## LAHMAS

(OVrh; MAXGC [B], AAMAC [A], AAM-MAC [L]), Josh. 1540 RV n -, or, according to many MSS, Lahmara (DOP1?), as in EV. A town in the low land of Judah, perhaps the modern el-Lahm, z\ m. S. from Eleutheropolis (Bet Jibrin).

## LAHMI

(>pr6 ; eAe/v\ee [B], Aee/wei [A], AOOMI [L]), brother of Goliath (i Ch. 20 5 f). See ELHANAN, 2.

## LAI8H

i. (BJ?j A<MC<\ [BAL]), the original name of the northern frontier-city DAN (q.v.), Judg. 18? 14 2 7 29 ([oyA&/v\]&ic [B], &AeiC [A]). Another form (probably) is Lesham (see LESHEM). In the list of Thotmes III. it perhaps appears as Liusa (Mariette, Brugsch, etc. ). On the narrative in Judg. 18 see JUDGES (BOOK), 12.

Winckler (6V 2 63^) endeavours to show that the foundation of Dan is related not only in Josh. 19:47 and Judg. 18, but also in Judg. 1:22-26. The city in the land of the Hittites called Luz ( unto this day ) must have been Dan ; the statement that it was called Luz involves a confusion between the name of the sanctuary (properly an appellative meaning asylum see Luz) and that of the city. Winckler also suggests that Laish and Leshem really mean there is not and nameless respec tively, in allusion to the destruction of the old city by the Danites. It may be more natural to suppose that here, too, there is an early writer's misunderstanding, and that Laish (whence Leshem) is a corruption of Luz, or of a name from which Luz is corrupted.

2. Is. 1030. See LAISHAH. T. K. c.

1 Cp Nold., Verwandtschaftsnamen als Personennamen in Kleinigkeiten zur semitischen Onomatologie (WZKM 6314 [1892]).

## LAISH

(8*7, as if lion, 68 ; in 2 S. 3 15 K l 1 ? Kt. ). evidently a short form of Laishah (Shalishah). See LAISHAH, PALTI. The name occurs in i S. 2644 (some MSS have Kt. ch 1 ? ; ctyuas [B], Atus [A], iwaj [L]) ; and in 2 S. 815 (o-eX\7?y [B], Xaets [A], a-eXXe^ [L, for which, see BAHURIM, n. i]).

## LAISHAH

(n^; AAic<\[Q mg -]. f which NCA[BA] is a corruption : Aeic [Theod.], AAIC [Symm. et forte Aq.]), a place in Benjamin near Gallim (?) and Anathoth (Is. lOaof RV, AV unto Laish ). According to Conder (PEFQ, 1875, p. 183) and Van Kasteren (ZDPV 13ioo/". ) it is the modern el-Jsdwiyeh, a small village on the E. slope of a mountain to the NNE. of the Mount of Olives, less than an hour s walk from the neighbouring village of Anata. The site still shows traces of high antiquity (Guerin, Judte, 38o/ ; Gray Hill, PEFQ, 1899, pp. 45-47). It is doubtful, however, whether we can trust the name Laishah any more than GALLIM [q. v. ]. Both Laishah and Laish are pro bably distortions of SHALISHAH [q.v.~], the name of the district in which Gibeah of Sha ul (rather Gibeah of Shalishah ), mentioned just before (see v. 29), was situated. For another possible corruption of the same name see MERAB, MEPHIBOSHETH. Cp further SHECHEM.

Grove (Smith, DBPl, s.v.} suspects the identity of Laishah and the Eleasa of i Mace. 9 5 (aA.a<7<x [A], eA. [KV]), where Vg. gives Laisa, while Halevy (Kofiut Mem. Semitic Studies, 241^) identifies Laishah with CHEPHIRAH [y.v.], both names, accord ing to him, meaning lion-town. T. K. c.

## LAKUM

RV Lakkum (WJ3& ; AcoA&M [B], AKROY [A], AAKOYM [L]), an unidentified town in Naphtali (Josh. 19 33).

## LAMB

nb, seh, Gen. 22 7 / etc.; 2B |, ktseb. Lev. 4 35 etc. ; BO3, kebei, Lev. 14 12 etc.). See SHEEP ; and cp CATTLE, 2.

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

## LAMECH

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

## LAMENTATION

Lamentations for great calamities, especially for deaths, held an important place among the customs of the Israelites.

### 1. Character.

We may regard these lamentations in different aspects, according as they are private or public, non- literary or literary. The origin of lamentation is a simple cry or wail, and even when art had elaborated new kinds of lamentation in which musical instruments played a part, the simple cry was a necessary accom paniment such a cry as the prolonged well, woe is me, still customary in Syria, with which <?? //, Adi dhi, hoi ddon, ah, me, ah, my brother, ah, lord, in 2 K. 9 37 ( L ), i K. 13 30 Jer. 22 18 34s niay be compared. This is what is primarily meant by the nihl ( ru; cp vrjvia, and see BOB) i.e. , wailing (EV) of Jer. 9 TO [9] 18-20 [17-19] 31 15 Am. 5i6 Mic. 24 : f. The heart-rending -well, however, is not the only expression of woe ; songs in measured verse and with musical accompaniment are chanted by the professional mourning women of Syria, and so it was in Palestine of old (cp MOURNING CUSTOMS, i). We may pre sume that public lamentations were on the same model. Pinches 2 (Smith s DBI^b] has translated a Baby lonian hymn, probably prehistoric, which, at any rate in a wide sense, may be called an elegy (like the Lamentations ). For a dirge in the stricter sense we can go to the twelfth tablet of the Gilgames epic, where we find the lament of Gilgames over the dead hero Eabani (cp CREATION, 20, n. 4 ; JOB, 4).

Thou takest no part in the noble feast ; to the assembly they call thee not ; thou lifted not the bow from the ground ; what is hit by the bow is not for thee ; thy hand grasps not the club and strikes not the prey, nor stretches thy foeman dead on the earth. The wife thou lovest thou kissest not ; the wife thou hatest thou strikest not. The child thou lovest thou kissest not ; the child thou hatest thou strikest not. The might of the earth has swallowed thee. O Darkness, Darkness, Mother Darkness ! thou enfoldest him like a mantle ; like a deep well thou enclosest him ! 1

The result of the crying and lamenting of Gilgames was that Ea-bani s spirit, after holding intercourse with Gilgames, was transferred from the dark world of the shades to the land of the blessed. Wailing, it would seem, had an object, apart from that of relieving the feelings of the mourners, and in this case it was to effect an improvement in the lot of the dead. Perhaps, how ever, it may once have been intended as an attempt to influence the supernatural powers, and to bring back the departed tenant of the body ; - for this we may compare the familiar Arabic mourning phrase addressed to the dead, Depart not. At the same time there is a considerable mass of evidence that suggests a very different object viz. , to drive away the spirits of the dead lest they should harm the living. 3

1 The term is used here rather widely.

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

### 2. OT specimens.

The most trustworthy specimen of an ancient Hebrew dirge is David's lament over Abner (28. 833/1 ; see ABNER). Whether the reported lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (2 S. 1:17-27) can safely be classed with this, or whether it is not rather a literary product of the post-exilic age, is becoming somewhat doubtful (see JASHER, BOOK OF, 2). At any rate, in Am. 5:1 we have a beautiful specimen of a new class of elegy the prophetic :

Prostrate is fallen to rise no more | the virgin Israel ;
There she lies stretched on the ground ; | no one raises her up.

Jeremiah (38:22) represents the women of the house of the king of Judah (Zedekiah) as singing a dirge containing these words,

Misled thou wast and overpowered | by thy bosom friends ;
Thy feet sank in the mire, | but those remained behind.

Other specimens of prophetic dirge-poetry will be found in Jer. 9 19 21 22 [18 20 21], The prophet, however, who, more than any other, delights in elegy, is Ezekiel (see Ezek. 19 26 17 2?2 3 2 28 12 322 cp also 32 18), and among the many passages of limping verse in the later por tions of Isaiah there are some (e.g. , Is. 14 4^-21) that bear an elegiac character.

The little elegy in Am. 5 1 helps us to understand the Lamentations wrongly ascribed to Jeremiah. The death which the singers of these poems lamented was that of the Jewish nation (cp Jer. 9 19 [18] Ezek. 19), and as early as the time of Amos this form of speech was in use. As Robertson Smith has said, the agonies of the nation s last desperate struggle took a form modelled on the death-wail sung by "cunning women" (Jer. 917) and by poets "skilful of lamentation " (Am. 5 16) at the wake (^N) of the illustrious dead. 4

1 Translated from Haupt's German version by Ragozin, Chaldea, 313 f. (1891) ; but cp Jeremias, Izdubar-Niinrod, 41 (1891).

2 Cp Frey, Tod, Seelen%laube und Seelenkult, 55.

3 Cp \VRS Rel. Sem.fl), 100, n. 2; Griineisen, Ahnencultus, 100. Cp the strange anecdote given in We. Ar. Held. 161 (the cattle killed that their lowing might add to the noise of the lamentations).

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

5 Budde, New World, March 1893.

### 3. Metre.

The researches of Budde leave no doubt that one of the metres specially used in dirges was that of the so-called 'limping verse', in which the uniformly undulating movement which is the usual characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is changed to a peculiar and limping metre. 8

In the Psalter the limping verse is often found; but there is only a single passage in which, Budde thinks, it is used for the purpose of lamentation. This is Ps. 137:4-9 ; but it is questionable whether Budde s view is correct ; and still more doubtful is it whether the use of what this able critic calls the elegiac metre can be taken to prove the early exilic date of this remark able song (see PSALMS, 28, ix. ).

The term Kinah-metre for the so-called limping verse is convenient. We cannot, however, regard the theory that it is primarily elegiac as proved. Budde s attempt to explain why it is not used in David's famous elegy (ZATWZ+s) viz., that this elegy had a private character is far from convincing ; and even apart from this it is hazardous to assert that because some early elegiac passages are in the Kinah metre, the metre must therefore have been reserved originally for elegiac poetry. See Minocchi, Le Lamentazioni, 36.

Wetzstein s description of the funeral ceremonies in modern Syria will be found in Bastian s Zt. f. Ethnologic, 1873. See also Budde s essays Die hebraische Leichenklage, /.Dl [ r GiSo^C, and The Folk-song of Israel, New World, March 1893 ; Jastrow, Rcl. of Bab. and Ass. 604 f. 658 660. On the professional mourning women see A* /A 2 ), 2 78 ; Trumbull, Studies in Oriental Life, 153^ ; Goldziher, Aluhaiittnedanische Studicn, 1 251. Cp further POETICAL LITERATURE.

T. K. C.

## LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)

• External characteristics (1).
• Chap. 1 (2) ; its date (10).
• Chap. 2 (3) ; its date (9).
• Chap. 3 (4) ; its date (11).
• Chap. 4 (5) ; its date (8).
• Chap. 5 (6) ; its date (7).
• Bibliography ( 13).

### 1. External characteristics.

In Hebrew Bibles the Book of Lamentations bears the superscription H^N, Ah how! (cp li 2i 4i). The Talmud, however, and Jewish writers in general call it nirp, Kinoth (i.e. , elegies or dirges ), which is the Hebrew title known to Jerome - in his Prologus Galeatus (leremias cum Cinoth, id est, Lamentationibus suis). (S s title is Qpijvoi. A fuller title, assigning the book to Jeremiah, is found in Pesh. and in some MSS of e.g. , in B X, but not in A and B* and in (5 and Pesh. Lamentations is attached to the Book of Jeremiah (Baruch intervening in the former version). At the same time BN have the introductory verse assign ing at any rate chap. 1 to Jeremiah. It is a mistake to suppose that this arrangement of Lamentations is original, the scheme which accommodates the number of the sacred books to the number of the twenty-two Hebrew letters being self-evidentlv artificial, and the evidence that this arrangement (adopted by Jos.) had an established place among the Jews of Palestine being scanty and precarious. It is noteworthy, too, that the translation of Lamentations in <&, which agrees pretty closely with our Hebrew text, cannot be by the same hand as the translation of the Book of Jeremiah.

The poems which make up the book are five, and the first four are alphabetical acrostics - successive stanzas (each consisting, in chap. 3, of three verses, elsewhere of one verse) beginning with successive letters of the alphabet. The last poem (chap. 5) has twenty- two stanzas, like chaps. 1-4, but is not an acrostic.

In chaps. 2-4, however, by an irregularity, the s-stanza precedes the y-stanza. The sense shows that this is not due to a transposition of the original order of the stanzas, whilst the fact that the same irregularity occurs three times makes it plain that the deviation from the common order rests on a variation in the order of the alphabet as used by the author (cp WRITING). According to Bickell, Cheyne, and Duhin, the same irregularity occurs in the true text of Ps. 9-10 (an acrostic poem), and not a few critics (including Bickell, Baethgen, Konig, and Duhm)find it in that of Ps. 34. It is perhaps better, however, to prefix D p ^S to v. 18 (as Street long ago suggested), and to omit .-nrp (Che. fs.(-}). Another case of want of uniformity concerns the use of ~\VR and y; relativum. In Lam. 1 only ijj N occurs (vv. 7 12) ; in Lam. 2 -u;J, in v. 17, W n, in vv. 15-16; in Lam. 3 neither -|t?N nor Iji ; in Lam. 4 and 5 only & (4:9, 5:18). The observation is Konig's ( //. 420).

The metre of the first four poems differs from that of the fifth. The metre of the fifth poem consists of ordinary three-toned lines ; the metre of the first four poems is in the so-called limping verse, which, being specially, though not exclusively, used for elegies, is commonly called the Kinah metre (first fully made out by Budde l ). To speak oifive Lamentations is incorrect. It is only chaps. 1, 2, and 4 that are properly dirges, as referring to a 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 liturgically in the fifth month (Ab) in Zechariah s time (Zech. 7:5), and of course earlier, to commemorate the fall of the temple. 3 To suppose that our Kinoth were already composed when Zechariah gave his decision to the deputation (Zech. 7:5) is hardly consistent with the evidence. Let us now consider their contents.

1 In 1882, when Robertson Smith printed the article Lamen tations in EB(9), it was hardly possible to give more than the vaguest determination of the date of the Lamentations. Budde, whose commentary (1898) marks our entrance on a fresh critical stage, is naturally more definite in his conclusions ; the present writer has retained all that he could of Robertson Smith's work, in order to recognise the continuity of criticism. Some of the retained paragraphs, as being specially distinctive, have been marked with signs of quotation. This does not apply to trans lations from the Hebrew.

### 2. Lam. 1.

1 The first elegy commences with a picture of the distress of Zion during and after the siege (l:1-11); Jerusalem, or the people of Judah, being figured as a widowed and dishonoured princess. Then, in the latter half of the poem she herself takes up the lamentation, describes her grievous sorrow, confesses the righteousness of Yahwe s anger, and invokes retribution on her enemies. In a carefully restored text, it is seen to be a beautiful, though monotonous, composition in elegiac metre.

In v. 6 MT is correct. By turning Q V N. harts, into Q 1 ? !*, rams, spoils the figure. Verse 7 is grievously cor rupt both in MT and in LXX. Read in the first stichus, IT ; lynxpa" 1 ?! ; between D and Dlj3 is a collection of variants, all corruptions of 30"7D. In the last hemistich read, nnNC D, her desolation. In v. 10 MT is rough; read Zion (JVS) spreadeth forth her hands because of her pleasant things (Bickell). In v. 14, for 1/pb: read tpJM ; in aj8 read fvapn DT2. On v. 19 see Budde.

1 For translated specimens see below. See also LAMENTA TION, POETICAL LITERATURE.

2 Just so, phrases of earlier psalms may conceivably have passed into some of the existing late psalms. Proof and dis proof are alike impossible.

3 On the gth day of Ab this event is still celebrated by the synagogue. See Mas. Sdpherint, chap. 18, and the notes in Muller s edition (1878).

### 3. Lam. 2.

In the second chapter the desolation of the city and the horrors of the siege are again rehearsed and made more bitter by allusion to the joy of the enemies of Israel. The cause of the calamity is national sin, which false prophets failed to denounce while repentance .was still possible, and now no hope remains save in tears and supplication to stir the compassion of Yah we for the terrible fate of his people. The structure is the same as in chap. 1, except that a introduces the 16th, y the 17th verse as in chaps. 3 and 4. There is more vivid presentation, more dramatic life, more connection and progress of thought ; but the religious element is less pervasive.

These are among the blemishes which need removal. In the very first verse 'covers (imperf.) with a cloud' (3 JT) is an im possible word (note Pasek after 13N2). Probably we should read t? 3rr, 'put to shame' ; y and W are easily confounded. In v. 2b both AV and RV overlook the metrical structure. The rendering of MT should be He hath brought to the ground, hath profaned the kingdom, and its princes. The first verb, however, is unsuitable, and the combination kingdom and princes is unnatural. Read njSpO 1J3, the royal crown (cp 111370 "102, Esth. 1:11, etc.), and all becomes plain. Verses 4, and 6-8 have given much trouble, but are not incurable. Read (see Crit. Bib.) :

Foe-like, he hath bent his bow, | his arrows he prepareth ;
He slaughtereth and killeth the children, | the delights of the eye,
In the tent of Zion he hath poured out | his wrath like fire.
And he hath smitten to pieces his dwelling with an axe, | hath destroyed his sanctuary,
Yahwe hath brought low in Zion | ruler and judge,
And rejected in the fury of his anger | king and priest.
Yahwe hath rejected his altar, | hath cast down his sanctuary,
He hath delivered into the hand of the foe | all her precious things,
Terrible nations stretch out the line | in Yahwe's house.
Yahwe purposeth to destroy | the precious things of Zion,
He hath not kept his hand from annihilating [all her palaces].
He hath annihilated bulwark and wall, | together they languish.

In v. 12 MT makes the little children call out for corn and wine (["i pi, a doubly impossible phrase), and, in v. 18 (according to EV), it reads Their heart cried unto the Lord, O wall of the daughter of Zion. Clearly wrong, and, v. 18 especially, not to be superficially dealt with. Verse 12 can be restored with certainty ; there is no question asked, and therefore no answer is returned. Read, They say to their mothers, Wo unto us ! for our life goes. Verse 18 should probably be read as follows :

Cry out because of Jerusalem s disgrace, | Zion's insult,
Let tears run down like a torrent | day and night,
Give thyself no pause, | let not the apple of thine eye cease.

### 4. Lam. 3.

The third elegy [if we may call it such] takes a personal turn, and describes the affliction of the individual Israelite, or of the nation under the type of a single individual, under the sense of Yahwe's just but terrible indignation. But even this affliction is a wholesome discipline. It draws the heart of the singer nearer to his God in penitent self-examination, sustained by trust in Yahwe's unfailing mercy, which shows itself in the continued preservation of his people through all their woes. From the lowest pit the voice of faith calls to the Redeemer, and hears a voice that says, "Fear not." Yahwe will yet plead the cause of his people, and so in the closing verses the accents of humble entreaty pass into a tone of confident appeal for just vengeance against the oppressor. Of the two views (individual or nation) here indicated respecting the subject of the elegy, the latter appears to be the one most easily defensible. As in the case of so many of the psalms and in that of the Songs of the Servant of Yahwe (see SERVANT OF THE LORD), the speaker is the company of the humble- minded righteous who form the kernel of the Jewish com munity. Hence it is easy for the imagined speaker to pass from the ist person singular to the ist person plural, and to say in v. 48 that he weeps unceasingly for the disaster of his country-people ( ay re)- The vehemence of the imprecations at the close of the elegy is most easily intelligible if the offences referred to have been committed against the Jewish people, not against an individual (e.g., Jeremiah), imagined by the poet. This is the view of Hupfeld (on Ps. 38), Reuss, Cheyne, Lohr, and especially Smend (/.A T\V 8fcf. [1888]). It is opposed especially by Stade (Gl J 701) and Budde, mainly (see the latter) on two grounds :

• (i) the occurrence of certain expressions in vv. i and 27 (Oettli wrongly adds v. 14), and
• (2) the inconsistency of personifying the community elsewhere as a woman, but here as a man.

Against this we may urge

• (a) the analogy of so many other poems, which are marred (as indeed Lam. 3 appears to some to be marred) by the assumption of an individualising reference,
• (b) the possibility of interpreting vv. i and 27, as Smend has done, of the people conscious of its solidarity (nasn) and looking forward to an extended future (vnyj3?)i and
• (c) the probability, admitted by Budde, that Lam. 3 is the latest of the five poems it is, in fact, rather a poetic monologue of Israel than an elegy.

On vv. 52-58 Budde remarks, Abruptly the poet turns to his own sufferings. ... To regard the community as the subject is possible (cp Ps. 6, etc.), but more probably it arises from the inconsiderate use of the psalms which served as models. It is surely not right to assume inconsiderateness, when such a highly characteristic idea as the solidarity of all good Israelites is in question ; the idea was one which had incorporated itself in the Jewish system of thought.

As to vv. 1, 14 and 27. It is no doubt quite possible to explain, 'I am the man, as I am the people' ; and the particular word for man (133) occurs again in irv. 27 35 39. But the closing words by the rod of his fury (inTDy VZ ^ Zt .,,.- peculiar, inasmuch as the name of Yahwe has not been mentioned, nor will it be till v. 18. It is probable that the text is corrupt. In v. 14 a doubt is hardly possible; 8V, my people, should be C Sl , peoples. In i>. 27 I"nyj3, in his youth, introduces a new idea (that a young man has time before him to profit by chastisement), which is not further utilised. Here, too, the text seems to be corrupt.

In v. i read perhaps yijrSy IMfl JIN, 'it is the Lord who visits mine iniquity', and in v. 27 .11,T fnya D^N KB" 3 310, it is good that he bear mutely the rebuke of Yahwe.

The variant V1iy:a is thus accounted for. 1^30 in Ps. 88 16 requires a similar correction. A few other blemishes may be mentioned. Gall and travail (v. 5) should be my head ( t KI) with travail (Pratorius, ,?/! 7~/K 15 326 [1895]). In v. i6a the teeth and the gravel-stones are troublesome ; Lohr leaves the latter, but gives dots, expressive of perplexity, for the former ; v. i(J> is, on linguistic grounds, hardly less improbable. The reading we propose is as simple and appropriate as possible. 'And I girded sackloth on my flesh ; I rolled myself in ashes' (see Crit. Rib.). In v. 39 'a living man' cannot be right; >n DIN should be Q nSjt- Not improbably we should read, 'Why do we murmur against God, (against) him who visits our sins?' Cp v. i as above.

### 6. Lam. 4.

In the fourth acrostic the bitter sorrow again bursts forth in passionate wailing. The images of horror imprinted on the poet's soul during the last months of Jerusalem's death-struggle and in the flight that followed are painted with more ghastly detail than in the previous chapters, and the climax is reached when the singer describes the capture of the king, the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Yahwe, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the nations." The cup of Israel s sorrow is filled up. The very completeness of the calamity is a proof that the iniquity of Zion has met with full recompense. The day of captivity is over, and the wrath of Yahw& is now ready to pass from his people to visit the sins of Edom, the most merciless of its foes. At any rate, even if the fourth acrostic is not the work of an eye-witness, the poet stands near enough to the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem to be able to describe them, and there has been trouble enough since then to awaken his imaginative faculty. It must be admitted, however, that through literary remini scences and an inborn tendency to rhetoric the author falls short in simplicity and naturalness of description. It is also certain that corruption of the text has here and there marred the picture. Happily the faults can often be cured. Verses 1-2 , for instance, should run thus,

How is Sheba's gold polluted | the choice gold !
Sacred stones are poured forth | at every street-corner !
The sons of Zion so precious | to be valued with fine gold
How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, | the handiwork of the potter !

It is a most beautiful and moving piece of rhetoric. All the critics misunderstand the first line, and few have done complete justice to the second. It is not the dimming or the chang ing of fine gold that is referred to, nor is the first stichus so overladen as MT represents. It is the desecration of the image of God in the persons of slaughtered citizens of Zion that calls forth the ,-|TN ( alas, how ! ) of the elegy. (For at every street-corner cp 219, and the interpolated passage Is. 51:20.) Reading NSB for cyi , makes MT's phrase, 'sacred stones', secure. 1 In ? . 3 the sea - monsters should probably rather be jackals."- Verse 5 is in a very bad state ; the beginning of the cure is due to Budde. Read,

Those that ate the bread of luxury* | perish in the steeets.
The delicate, the possessors of halls, | embrace ash-mounds.

Verse 7 gains not less by critical treatment. Her Nazirites (TVI3) should be her dignitaries ( T:n) ; the absurdities of the second part of the verse in MT are removed elsewhere (see SAI I HIKK). Verses it,/, in MT (and therefore also in EV) are a mass of inconsistencies. It can hardly be doubted that the true text runs nearly as follows

Her princes wander in the countries, | they stumble in the lands,
And they are not able to find | for themselves a resting-place.
Away men call unto them away, | away, rest not,
For they find no resting-place, | they may not sojourn any more. 1

The mistakes of MT were caused by the reference to bloodshed in v. 13, from which, however, vv. 14-15. are quite distinct. The passage is reminiscent of Jer. 6:22, Dt. 28:65.* On v. 21 see 8.

1 Budde proposes ) 33K, precious stones ; cp 7 . 2.

2 Budde prefers sea-monsters, but expresses surprise that the natural phenomenon referred to should have been known to the writer. Read n<3p ; the Aramaic ending p- may be put down to the scribe.

C-ny. On 1 ?, Budde. For /. 2, cp Dt. 28 54 56, Jer. 22 14, and see Crit. Bib.

### 6. Lam. 5.

The fifth chapter, which [in vv. 1, 20-22] takes the form of a prayer, [is not an acrostic, and] does not 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 afflicted state of Israel and those happy days of old which are so fresh in the re collection of the poet in the first four chapters. The details, too, are drawn less from one crowning mis fortune than from a continued state of bondage to the servants of the foreign tyrant (v. 8), and a continued series of insults and miseries. And with this goes a change in the consciousness of sin : " Our fathers have sinned, and are not ; and we have borne their in iquities " (v. 7; cp Zech. 1:2-6, and similar complaints in very late psalms).

1.

_ B M nisnto rne- wi
crE: 1 ? yi-na I KSC iS:v uSi
rjy^it I-VID | mo G"? WIJD mo
m 1 ? ifip v S I yi-np me- V 3

2 In v. 16 Lohr partly sees aright, but unfortunately creates a doublet. Bickell's general view is better than Budde's or Lohr's.

### 7. Date of Lam. 5.

The contents of chapter 5 are such that we are compelled to enter immediately on the question of its date. The author of the poem endeavours, it is true, to express the feelings of an earlier generation ; he indites a complaint of the sad lot of those who have not only -survived the great catastrophe, but also remain on the ancestral soil. He cannot, however, preserve consistency ; he speaks partly as if he were one of a people of serfs or day- labourers in the country-districts especially perhaps in the wilderness of Judah (see Budde on v. 9) partly as if some of those for whom he speaks were settled in or near Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (v. 11). Moreover, he says nothing of the sword of the all-powerful enemy, which had robbed Judah of the flower of her population ; less eminent foes are referred to under conventional terms (of which more presently). This is a matter of great moment for the critic, who by the help of the Book of Nehemiah can with reasonable probability determine the author s age. The important distichs are vv. 6, 8, 9, 10, 18, of the first four of which we give a rendering based on a critically emended text. (The MT of v . 6 has caused hopeless perplexity. )

6 We have surrendered to the Misrites,
We have become subject to the Ishmaelites.
8 Arabians rule over us,
There is none to deliver out of their hand.
9 We bring in our corn (Upn _?) with peril of our lives
Because of the Arabian of the desert.
10 Our young men and our maidens are sold
Because of the terror of famine.

The terms Misrites (see MI/.RAIM, 2 b~] and Ishmaelites are conventional archaisms, many parallels for which use are probably to be found in the Psalter (see PSALMS[BOOK]), and, so far as Misrites is concerned, in the fourth elegy (Lam. 4:21 ; see below, 8). The enemies intended are the Edomites who had probably joined in the Babylonian invasion, and had occupied the southern part of the old territory of Judah, and perhaps, too, the Nabataan Arabs, one of whom was the Geshem or Gashmu of whom Nehemiah speaks l (Neh. 2:19 ; cp 4:7, the Arabians ). The trouble from these foes (at any rate from the Edomites) no doubt began early ; but it also continued very long (see EDOM, 9 ; NEHEMIAH, 3). Their dangerousness was particularly felt at harvest- time ; this is indicated in v. 9, of which a welcome illus tration is furnished by Is. 628 (age of Nehemiah), where we read

By his right hand has Yahwe sworn | and by his strong arm,
Surely I will no more give thy wheat | to be food for thy foes.

The trouble from insufficient agricultural labour and from the general economic disturbance doubtless continued, and it is difficult not to illustrate v. 10 (according to the text rendered above) by the thrilling account which Nehemiah gives (Neh. 5 1-13) of the sufferings of the poorer Jews, and of the selling of their children into slavery. Once more, it is not denied that there are features in the description in Lam. 5 which suggest an earlier period ; but we cannot shut our eyes to the accordance of other features with the circumstances of the Nehemian age. Nehemiah certainly has not yet come ; mount Zion is still desolate (v. 18 ; cp Neh. 13), and such central authority as there is does not interest itself greatly in the welfare of the Jewish subjects. It is still possible to speak of Yahwe as forgetting his servants for ever, and to express, in a subdued tone, the reluctant admission that it might not be God s will to grant the prayer for the restoration of Israel as of old,

Unless thou hast utterly rejected us,
(And) art exceedingly wroth against us.
(Lam. 5:22 ; cp RV.)

Still, though the situation of affairs is bad, a deliverer Nehemiah is at hand. The allusion in v. 12b to Lev. 19:32 (in the Holiness-law) suggests that the writer is a member of that stricter religious party among the Jews, which presumably kept up relations with men like Nehemiah and Ezra, and afterwards did their best to assist those great men. It does not seem necessary or natural to suppose with Budde that vv. 11-12. are a later insertion (see his note) ; Budde s mistake is partly due to his following the corrupt reading of MT in v. 12a, which ought almost certainly to be read thus,

Grey-haired men and honourable ones suffer contempt ; 2
The persons of old men are not honoured.

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

(a) Job. Cp T. 15/7, Job 3031; i>. i6a, Job 19 96. (A) Psaltns. Cp v. i, Ps. 44 13 [14] 89 50^ [51^] 5 v. 8 (pns, to deliver ), Ps. 18624; I0 n lSySl, Ps. 11 6 119 53!, but note that in all these passages 71 is miswritten for ni!?S (Ezek. 7 18, etc.); v. ii ( Zion, cities of Judah ), Ps. 69 35 [36]; v. 15, Ps. 30 ii [12]; v. 176, Ps. 67 [8] and (for use of ^n) 6924 23]; v. 13 (7]Wt), Ps. 887 81 4, etc.; v. 19, Ps. 45 6 [7] 102 12 ; v. 20, Ps. 13 i [2] 74 10 89 46 [47] (O p; ^N, Ps. 21 4 [5], etc.) ; v. 21, Ps. 803 7 [4 K]. (c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. V. 2 (7|Dn:, sense), Is. CO 5 ; v. 3 (3N i N-D Din;), Is. 63 16, the Jews no longer bne Israel ; v. 7 (h^.D), Is. 58411; v. ii ( Zion, cities of Judah ), Is. 40g; v. 18, Is. 54 10 [9] ; v. 226, Is. 57 16 54 13 [il]

When we put all these data together, no earlier date seems plausible than 470-450 B.C. (i.e. pre-Nehemian). At the same time, a later date is by no means impossible. The shadows of evening darkened again, till night fell amidst the horrors occasioned by the barbarity of Artaxerxes Ochus (359-338 B.C.). Then, we may be sure, the fasting for the old calamities assumed a fresh vitality and intensity. It is at any rate difficult to place a long interval between Lam. 5 and Lam. 1-4, and Lam. 2-4 contain some elements which at least permit a date considerably after Nehemiah.

As it is the poorest of these plaintive compositions, we may conjecture Lam. 5 to be also the earliest. There is only one point of contact between Lam. 5 and Lam. 1-4 viz. in v. 3, cp 1:1 and this is of no real significance. In Lam. 63, the mothers, if the text is right, are the cities of Judah (Ew. , Lohr) ; more probably, however, we should read irnJCTN, 1 our citadels. Those high, strong buildings, where formerly the warriors had held out so long against the foe, are now, complains the poet, untenanted and in ruins (cp Lam. 2:5), as helpless and incapable of helping as widows. In Lam. 1:1 Jerusalem itself is compared to a widow.

1 In z: gi, however, the writer may also be thinking of 31J?3 "13122 in Jer. 82. It is worth noting that in all probability Hosea (5 13) calls the king of Mtisur an Arabian (see JAREB).

2 ^H D"133J1 D 3B (cp Lev. 1932).

3 (3 Isaiah = Isaiah, chaps. 56-66.) In the selection of phrase ological parallels Lohr s very full tables (see below, 13) have been of the greatest service. A little more criticism on his part would have made his tables even more useful.

### 8. Date of Lam. 4.

We next turn to Lam. 4, which, like Lam. 5, seems to contain an archaising reference to Musri (cp MIZRAIM, 2 b), by which the writer means the land adjoining the S. of Palestine occupied by the Edomites after their displacement by the Nabataeans. Verse 21 should probably run

1 Rejoice and be glad, O people of Edom, that dwellest in Missur a ("nsca).

Were it not for the archaistic Missur (Musur), which may point to a later age when archaisms were fashionable, we might assign v. 21 to some eye-witness of the great catastrophe ; words quite as bitter are spoken against Edom by the prophet Ezekiel (chap. 35).

Another suspicious passage is v. 20 :

The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Yahwe, | was taken in their pit, 3
Of whom we said, Under his shadow | we shall live among the nations.

That the king intended is, not Josiah (so Targ. ), but Zedekiah, is certain. But a writer so fully in accord with Jeremiah and Ezekiel (see vv. 6:13) as the author of Lam. 4 would never have written thus, unless he had been separated from the historical Zedekiah by a considerable interval of time. Zedekiah, to this writer, is but a symbol of the Davidic dynasty ; the manifold sufferings consequent on subjection to foreigners made even Zedekiah to be regretted. 4 Budde's view of this passage is hardly correct. The words Under his shadow we shall live, etc., surely cannot refer to the hope of a feeble but still respected (?) native royalty in the mountains of Moab and Ammon. It is in fact strictly David, not Zedekiah, that the poet means. At the accession of each Davidic king each restored David loyal subjects exclaimed, Under his shadow we shall live among the nations. The strong rhetoric and the developed art of the poem are equally adverse to the view that it is the work of one of the Jews left by Nebuchadrezzar in Jerusalem. How long after Lam. 5 it was written, is uncertain ; see below, 9.

Points of contact between Lam. 4 and other late works,

• (a) Job. Terms for gold and precious stones in vv. 127; cp Job 28; v. 3 D 35T(Kr.), Job 39:13 (crit. emend.; see OSTRICH) v. 5. ( 'embrace ash-mounds' ), Job 248; v. 8a, Job 30:30a; v. 8b, Job 19:20 (crit. emend.).
• (b) Psalms. V.56, Ps. 11376; v. 12 ( 'the kings of the earth' ), Ps. 2 3 76 :12 [13], etc.; 'the inhabitants of the world', 24:1, 33:8, 98:7; v. 20 (fTPO), Ps. 18:51, 28:8, 84:10; v. 21 (entr with no:?), Ps. 40:16 [17], 70:4 [5]; vv. 21-22 (Edom), Ps. 137:7-8 (Che. Ps.l 2 )).
• (c) 2 Isaiah V, 2 Is. 51:20 (?). The phrase in Is. is an interpolation (Bu., Che.),
• (d) Deuteronomy (late parts). V. 8 (133), Dt. 32:27 ; v. 9 ("if ni3B), Dt. 32:13 ; v. 16 (Jjn and C 33 N^ 3), Dt. 28:50; v. 17 ( 'our eyes failed . . .' ), Dt. 28:32 ; v. 19 ('eagles'), Dt. 28:49.
• (e) Ezekiel. V. 8 ('dry tree'), Ezek. 17:24, 20:47; v. 11 (nan rta), Ezek. 5:13, 6:12, 13:15; v. 18 ([*> N2), Ezek. 7:26.

1. 2 S. 20 19 hardly justifies the equation, mother = city. Zion alone, in the poet s time, could be called mother (cp Ps. 87 5, ). The play on armanoth and almanoth is a very natural one. Budde would take father and mothers liter ally ; but father should be fathers and as widows should be widows to justify this view.

2 PV n?3 not on y ma ces the second part of the limping verse too long, but also makes the poet guilty of an inaccuracy (see Uz).

3 Seinecke gives the right explanation (GVI 230). SS, however, explains anointed of Yahwe as a phrase for the pious kernel of the Jewish people.

### 9. Date of Lam. 2.

Lam. 2 and 4 are rightly regarded by Noldeke and Budde as twin poems. They agree in poetical structure ; both too are highly dramatic. Both speak of the strange reverses suffered by the leaders of the state ; both, with much pathos, of the fate of young children. The reference to the law (tirdh) in v. 9 stamps the writer as a legalist ; the idealisation of Jerusalem in v. 15b would incline us to make the poem nearly contemporary with Ps. 48, or even later than that poem, if Ps. 483, presupposed in Lam. 2, is corrupt. The reference to solemn feasts and sabbaths in 26 is as imaginary as the supposed reference to the resounding cries of the worshippers in the temple in 2?. The same date must of course be given to both the twin poems. They probably belong to the same age as the many per secution psalms in Ps. 1-72 * i.e., to the latter part of the Persian period (see, however, PSALMS [BOOK]).

Phraseological parallels. 1

• (a) Psalms. I , i God s footstool in Zion), Ps. 99 5 132 7 ; v. 2 (apy niK:), Ps. 232 65 13, etc.; (j -iK 1 ? SVn). Ps. 89 4 of (cp above, 3); v. 3 (pp y-|j), Ps. 75 10 [ i i];z. 6 (corrected), Ps. 74 6 (corrected); . 7(rut), Ps. 432 449(10], etc.; w. ii 1219 (t]ay), Ps. 61 2 [3] 773(4] etc.; v. 16 (\V J3TJ), Ps. 35 16 37 12 112 10 ; . 19 (]3 Kt), Ps. 63 4 [5] ; 119 48 (.TV017N), Ps. 63 6 [7] 00 4 119 148 ; Ps. 62 gt (3 1 ? TJSr).
• (b) 2 Isaiah. V. 13 (TO? and iTO>n), Is. 46 5.
• (c) Deuteronomy (late T parts). V. 3 (] THS), Dt. 29 23 ; i . 4 ( n ?"5 ^i of God), Dt. 32 23 ; v. 6 ({ , of God), Dt. 32 19.

(d) Ezekiel. I v. 2 17 21 (S?n K 1 ?), Ezek.5n 7 4 9 8189510; 7/. 2 (D^ri and J^K 1 ? JT3H), Ezek. 13 14 ; 7 . 8 ( s 3N,Hiphil),Ezek. 31 5 I V^K li however, is not strong enough ; read yS3 l ( see above, 3); v. 10 (IBV flty.l), Ezek. 27 30; (C pC i:n), Ezek. 7 18 2731; r. 14 (N]C* nm), Ezek. 186923 21 34 (with ij?, as here) 2228; 7 . 14 (^.rj 1 ). Ezek. 13 10 n 14 15, and especially 2228 ; 7 . 15 ( B n? ??) Ezek. 16 14 28 12, and often ; w. is/- (p?r), Ezek. 27 36.

### 10. Date of Lam. 1.

Lam. 1, Budde fully admits, can hardly be the work of an eye-witness of the fall of Jerusalem. That it is much later in origin than Lam. 2 and 4 seems an unnecessary inference. 2 Here, again, the parallels are very important. Parallels,

• (a) Job. V. 20, Job 30 27 (sense).
• (b) Psalms. I . 3 (0"1S?), Ps. 118 5 (sing.) 116 3 (plur.) ; v. 6, Ps. 42 i [2], cp Job 19 22 and (crit. emend.) 28. The pursued hart is a favourite image for the pious community or individual in time of trouble ; v. 7 (^ "lliy pK), Ps. 30 io[n] 54 4 [6] 72 12 ; r. g(Sy S^::T) (but read J ySri), Ps. 35 2688 i6[i7]55 12(13]; t>. 10 (Snp), Ps. 22 25 [26] 35 18 40 10 896 107 32 149 i (used in the post-exilic religious sense; see ASSEMBLY); 7>7 . n f. (C3J with HK1), Ps. 22 17(18] 80 14 [15] 1424(5]; w. 12 18 (3iK3D), Ps. 32 10 88^7(18] 69 26(27]; v. 13 (D nsS), Ps.l8i 7l etc.
• (c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. I v. 4512 (.IJin), Is. 51 23 ; cp Job 19 2 ; w. 7 10 ii (D TOTO), Is. 64 n [io];V 9 (fnnrw npt), Is. 47? ; v. 10 (acnpa *D2, so read for 1N3 [Gra.]), cp Is. 64 ii [to] ; v. 15 Gl3 Till), Is.63i^;cpjoel 3[4]i 3 ; w. 1017(1; CH9), Is. 662; Cp 25 i\ (very late) Ps. 1436.
• (d) Deuteronomy (late parts). V. 5 (rXI 1 ? ;vn), Dt. 28 1344; v. 20 (jraa-pnp), 01.3225.
• (e) Ezekiel. Vv. 2 19 (3HK, in figurative sense), Ezek. 16 3336/ 285922; v. 6 (ny-)C), Ezek. 34 14 (fa s) 18 (6is); vv. 8 17 (.-TO, .TT3), Ezek. 7 ig/

1 Let another expression of thanks here be given to Lcihr for hi- useful labours.

2 Robertson Smith inclined to Ewald s view that the y stanza originally preceded the j stanza ; Budde is of an opposite opinion.

### 11. Date of Lam. 3.

The date of Lam. 3, relatively to Lam. 1 2 and 4, is very easily fixed. It shows a further development of the art of acrostic poetry which reminds us of Ps. 119 and its superabundant literary reminiscences place it on a level with the poorest of the canonical psalms. That, like some at least of those psalms, it is pervaded by a deep and tender religious feeling, may be most heartily admitted. Budde (p. 77) is probably right in assigningLam. 3 to the pre-Maccabaean portion of the Greek age.

Parallels,

• (a) Job. Vv. 79, Job 19s; n. 8, Job 19 7; vi>. I2/:, Job 7 20 (for Kb-D read mac) 16 is/; v. 14, Job 30:9 (cp Ps.69:12 [13]; but in all three passages nrjp, stringed music, and in Lam. 863 -"" J3C 1 should be ?l3 3t>, a mock ); v. 15 (cp v. 19). 2 Job 9:18 ; v. 176, Job 7 7* : w. 3046, Job 16 10.
• (b) Psalms. V. 46, Ps.34:20 [21] 51 8 [10] ; v. 6 (D 3riD), Ps. 74:20 8S6[ 7 ] 143 3 ; (cViy TO) Ps. 143 3;v.8 (y\V), Ps. 88:14 /; 7 . 17 (), Ps.88i 4 Iis]; v. 20 (rw>, p s . 4425 (26]; cp 4257; t . 22 ( non), Ps. 89 i [2] 10743; vv- 23 (after D*1B3^ insert vpni) 3 3*? < Ps. 51 ^ 13^1 P- s - * 5 (26] ; 7 . 24, Ps. 165 7326 119 57 142 5 [6]; v. 25, Ps. 37 ?a 119 71; v. 31, Ps. 94 14 ; r. 33 (!TK ), Ps. 4 2 (3] 492(3] 62 9(10]; v. 37, Ps.33 9 ; v. 41 C]3 Kt 3), Ps. 63 4 [5] 119 48 ; v. 46 (ns nsB), Ps. 22 13 [14] 35 21 ; 7 . 48a, T Ps. 119 136 ; v. 49 O.a?), Ps. 77 2 [3] ; v. 50, Ps. 14 2, etc. ; v. 52 ( like a bird ), Ps. 11 1 [2], if the text is sound ; (C3H 3 k) Ps. 35 19 09 4 [5] ( n Nib) ; v. 53, Ps. 103 4 (inss, so point) Ps. 88 16 [17] 119 139; v. 54, Ps. 427(8] 69 */.; 7^.55, Ps. 886(7]; v. 57 (-mpK DV), Ps. 56 9 [10], etc. ; v. 58, Ps. 119 154 ; v . 62 Qvari), Ps. 19 14 [15] ; v. 64 (SlC? 3 n), Ps- 28 4.
• (c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. I . 21 (3*7 W 3 !?K), Is. 44:19 468 (Dt. *39)t I 7 . 26 (DCH), Is. 47:5 ; v. 30a, Is. 50:6 ; v. 32 (vnon 3^3), Is. 03 7 (Ps. 106:45 ).

1 nrjJS implies no affectation of originality (Bu.); D =< J (dittography).

2 Read "WO (note the parallelism).

3 vom. if written cm, would easily fall out after mp. Omit VCrp i 1 " 22. (So partly Bu.)

• This passage of his article in Ency. Brit, is quoted and

endorsed by Robertson Smith in CT/CP) 181, n. 2 ; he refers to Noldeke, Alttest. Lit. (1868), 144.

It is true that, according to a tradition only recently called in question, the author of Lamentations is the prophet Jeremiah (cp Baba bathra, 15a). A picturesque notice prefixed to LXX's version says that 'after Israel was taken captive and Jerusalem laid waste, Jeremiah sat down and wept, and sang this elegy over Jerusalem', and the introduction of the Book in the Targum runs, 'Jeremiah the prophet and chief priest said thus'. There is also a passage in the Hebrew canon itself which was anciently interpreed as connecting the name of Jeremiah with our book. In 2 Ch. 35:25 we read, And Jeremiah composed an elegy upon Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women uttered a lamentation over Josiah unto this day ; and they made it (i.e., the singing of such elegies) a stated usage in Israel ; behold it is written in the Lamentations ; see JEREMIAH ii. , 3(1). Josephus says 4 that the dirge of Jeremiah on this occasion was extant in his days (Ant. x. 5i), and no doubt means by this the canonical Lamentations. Jerome on Zech. 12:11 understands the passage in Chronicles in the same sense ; but modern writers have generally assumed that, as our book was certainly written after the fall of Jerusalem, the dirges referred to in Chronicles must be a separate collection. This, however, is far from clear. The rnj p of the Chronicler had, according to his statement, acquired a fixed and statutory place in Israel, and were connected with the name of a prophet. In other words, they were canonical as far as any book outside the Penta- teuch could be so called in that age. It thus seems highly probable that in the third century B.C. (see CHRONICLES, 3) the Book of Lamentations was used liturgically by a guild of singers, and that a portion of it was ascribed to Jeremiah as its author. Even this evidence, however, is some three centuries later than the events referred to in Lamentations. It is also discredited by its connection with an undoubted error of interpretation. The reference in Lam. 4:20 to the last representative of the much-regretted Davidic family is couched in terms which the Chronicler felt unable to apply to any king later than Josiah ; Lam. 4 therefore had to be a dirge on Josiah, and who could have written such a dirge but Jeremiah ?

Though there is a considerable element in the vocabulary of Lamentations which can be paralleled in Jeremiah, there are also many important character istic words not used by the prophet, and some dis tinctive Jeremianic ideas are wanting in those poems. And in spite of a certain psychological plausibility in the traditional theory (cp Jer. 823 [9i] 13:17 14:17) it must be admitted that the circumstances and the general attitude of the prophet make it extremely diffi cult to conceive his having written these poems. From Jer. 38:28, 39:14 it is plain that during the capture of the city he was not a free man, and could not go about observing the sad condition of the citizens. Nor was his attitude towards the Chaldoeans the same as that implied in the poems, for the poems are the expression of unavailing but ardent patriotism, whereas Jeremiah persistently counselled patient submission to the foreign rule. The sense of guilt, as Budde remarks, is very imperfectly developed in Lamentations. Here the blame of the national calamities is thrown on the prophets and priests ; but Jeremiah s prophecies are full of stern appeals to the conscience. There are some passages, too, which in the mouth of Jeremiah would go directly against facts e.g., 2g and 41720 (see Lohr, 16). It is at best a very incomplete answer that in chap. 3, where the singer s complaint may be thought to take a more personal turn, Jeremiah himself may be pictured in his isolation from Israel at large. Indeed, upon a close examination it turns out that this interpretation rests on a single word in 814 viz., By, my people, which, as we have seen, should rather be D EJf. peoples, so that the singer of chap. 3, as the general argument of the poem requires, is a representa tive of Israel among the heathen, not an isolated figure among unsympathetic countrymen.

It is unnecessary to adduce seriatim the similarities of ex pression and imagery in Lamentations and the Book of Jeremiah respectively. It is admitted that the Hook of Jeremiah had an enormous influence on the subsequent literature, and it would constitute a perplexing problem if in poems dealing with the religious aspects of the national troubles there were not numerous reminiscences of Jeremiah. Driver (fntr.P), 462) has made a judicious selection of some of the more striking similarities. On the vocabulary see Lohr, ZA TW\T,T,ff.

The most urgent question is that relating to the text. Here, as elsewhere, a very natural but no longer justifiable conservatism has hindered an adequate treatment, of critical questions. It must also be remembered that the date of Lamentations can be satisfactorily discussed only in connection with the date of Psalms and Job.

### 13. Literature.

The older literature is fully given by Niigels- bach (p. 17); but recent commentaries, from Ewald s onwards (if we put aside those in which JEREMIAH \q.v.\ and Lamenta tions are treated together), are much more important. Ewald treats the five Lamentations among the Psalms of the Exile (Dichter, vol. i, pt. 2, ( 2 ) 1866). See also Thenius in KGH , 1855, who ascribes chaps. 2 and 4 to Jeremiah ; Vaihinger, 1857; Reuss, La Bible: Poesic Lyriyue, 1879; S. Oettli, in KGH, 1889; M. Lcihr, 1891, and again in HK, 1893 ; S. Minochi (Rome, 1897) ; K. Budde, in KHC (Fiinf Megillot), 1898. Recensions of the text have been given by G. Bickell, Carmina VT metrice, 112-120(1882): andin fKZAW8[i89 4 ] loi^; C. J. Ball, PSBA 9 [1887] \yijf. (metrical; cp Budde, Filvf Meg. , 71, n. i) ; a translation of a revised text by J. Dyserinck, 7/I.T26 [1892] 339 ; emendations by Houbigant, Notce^ criticte (1777), -477- 483. On the metre see especially Budde, in ZA TW1 [1882] -iff, 12 [1892] 264^ ; cp Preuss. Jahrbb. 1893, 460^ On the literary criticism see also Th. Noldeke, Die alttest. Liieralur (1868), 142-148; F. Montet, Etude sur le livre de Lam. (1875); Seinecke, GVll (1884) 29 ff.; Stade, GVI (1887) 701, n. i; Steinthal, Die Klagelieder Jer., in liibel u. Rel.-pliilosophie, 16-33 (1890 Jewish); S. A. Fries, in ZATIVVA (1893) no^T (Lam. 4 5, Maccabaean works ; Lam. 1-3 probably by Jeremiah) ; M. Lohr, in ZA TH/ 14 (1894), 51 _^ (an answer to Fries) ; and ib. 31 ff. (full statistical tables on the vocabulary of Lamentations). Winckler (A O FP), 8445) refers Lamentations to a partial de- sttuction of Jerusalem in the time of Sheshbazzar, in which, he thinks, the temple was not destroyed. See, however, OBAIJIAH. Among the Introductions Konig s gives perhaps the most dis tinctive treatment to the critical questions ; but Driver s is fuller. T. K. c. (with some passages by w. R. s. ).

## LAMP, LANTERN

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

Passing over such terms as TIN, TINO, ,TYINC, $o>s, tj>ta<j-r^p, and the like, we have : 1. TJ, tier, sometimes rendered 'candle' in AV (e.g., Job 18:6, 21:17, 29:3, etc.), and even in RV also (Jer. 25:10, Zeph. 1:12), for which, as the Amer. Revisers recognise, 'lamp' is everywhere to be preferred : so in RV of Job, I.e., and in AV also of Ex. 27 20. Cognate with tier is : 2. Y3, nir, used only in a figurative sense, AV light in i K. 11:36, 2 K. 8:19, 2 Ch. 21:7 (mg. 'candle' ), but RV lamp (so also in Prov. 21:4 where AV 'plowing', mg. light, RVii tf- tillage ; see the Comm.), and AV also in i K. 15 4. From the same common root is derived JTTUO, menorah^ which, with the single exception of 2 K. 4:10, is always used of the temple candelabrum (see CANDLESTICK). 3. TS7, lappld (deriv. uncertain), though rendered 'lamp' in AV Gen. 15 17 J_obl2 5 (RV also in Dan. 10 6 Is. 62 i), should rather be 'torch' (as in RV, so already AV in Nah. 2 4 [5], Zech. 12 &) .; it is rendered 'lightning' in Ex. 20:18 EV. On the apparently cognate nnSs (Nah. 23 [4] AV torches ) see IKON, 2, col. 2174. 4. WJBhaji nebrasta, in Bibl. Aram. Dan. 5 5, EV 'candle stick'. 2 5. AU^I/OS (in (5 for no. i), candle in AV of Mt. 615 Mk. 4 21 Lk. 8 16, etc., but 'lights' (in pl.) Lk. 12 35 ; RV lamp(s). 6. Au^i/ia (in for menorah, see 2 above), 'candlestick' AV Mt.5is Mk. 42i Lk. 8 16 11 33 (RV stand ), and EV Heb. 9 2 Rev. 1 12 2 i 5 etc. (in Rev., RVie-, Or. lamp-stands ). 7. Aa^in-as, lamp AV Rev. 4 5 8 10, etc., and EV Mt. 25i-8, properly torch (so EV in Jn. 18 3, RV in Rev. I.e., and RVmg. in Mt. I.e.). The word was transferred from the torch to the later invented lamp. In Judith 1022 mention is made of silver lamps (A<x)A7ra6es apyupcu). 8. (jta.vo !, Jn. 18 3 1, EV lantern (properly a torch). ### 2. Introduction of Lamps. The oldest form of artificial light was supplied by torches of rush, pine, or any other inflammable wood. The origin of the lamp is quite unknown. Classical tradition ascribed its invention to the joint efforts of Vulcan, Minerva, and Prometheus, whilst Egypt, on the other hand, claimed the credit for herself. At all events, according to Schliemann, lamps were unknown in the Homeric age, and, on the authority of Athenyeus (15:700) were not in common use (in Greece) until the fourth century B.C. With the Romans, too, the candela is earlier than the lucerna and the candelabrum, and was used, even in later times, by the poorer classes rather than the more expensive lights requiring oil. ### 3. Description. The oldest kind of lamp is the shell-shaped clay vessel consisting of an open circular body with a projecting rim to prevent the oil from being spilled. This variety is found in Cyprus from the eighth to the fourth century B. c. , s and many Egyptian specimens, ascribed to the middle of the second millennium, were found at Tell el-Hesy. 4 These rude clay vessels have survived in the E. to the present day. The earliest Greek and Roman lamps (lychni, lucernes) are almost always of terra-cotta, bronze is rarer. 8 In Egypt and Palestine, on the other hand, terra-cotta or even porcelain lamps do not seem to occur before the Roman and Byzantine periods respectively. 1 Another popular variety is the shoe-shaped lamp, sc\. r.il specimens of which were found by Peters at Nippur,- sometimes plain, sometimes blue enamelled, and a few in copper. They appear to be all post-Babylonian. (The older lamps were of a squarish shape ; the most elaborate specimen was evidently Seleucidan.) Lamps of this description were used by the early Christians (cp Diet. Christ. Ant. s. Lamps, gig). 3 1 According to Hommel, SiiJ-arab. Chrcst. 128, the related mrtJD n Hal. 353 = torch. 2 Deriv. quite obscure ; see the Lexx. According to Barth (ZA 2 117) the n is a nominal prefix. 3 Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, 368, fig. 2532, 411 n. ; tab. 210 16. 4 Bliss, Mound of Many Cities (1898), 136, fig. on p. 87. 8 Cesnola, Salaminia (1884), 250^ ### 4. Early Jewish lamps. Generally speaking, therefore, the lamps of the Semites and Egyptians contrasted unfavourably with those of Grecian or Roman manufacture, and we may further conclude that the Hebrew lamp underwent little improvement and elaboration previous, at all events, to the time of the Seleucidre. We may also infer, in cidentally, that there are no grounds at present (at least) for supposing that P's temple-candelabrum was marked by any exceptional beauty even in Samuel's time the sanctuary was lit only by a tier ( 1, i above). In spite of the numerous references to the ner in the OT we have really no indications to guide us to its shape, and in the light of the evidence above ( 3) we can only surmise that it approximated to if it was not identical with the plain shell-shaped clay utensil already described. As the interesting passage in 2 K. 4:10 proves, a lamp of some kind formed a part of the furniture of every room, and the exceptional use of mlnordh suggests that already it was customary to set the lamp upon an elevated stand. This we know was done in NT times. At all events we must not suppose that a candelabrum of the typical classical shape is intended in this pre-exilic reference. The more usual practice was to set the lamp upon a niche in the wall. As the term pistah, njJC 3, shows, the wick was commonly of FLAX [g.v.]. Whether, as in Egypt (cp Herod. 262), the oil was mixed with salt (to purify the flame) is unknown ; see OIL. ### 5. Beliefs and metaphors. The Oriental prefers to keep a light burning through out the night * - a custom not wholly due to fear of darkness - and Kitto (Bibl. CycL.s.v.} suggests that this Practice gives point to the familiar 'outer-darkness' of the NT. The contrast implied in the term outer refers to 1 the effect produced by sudden expulsion into the darkness of night from a chamber highly illuminated for an entertainment. Probably the custom originated in the widespread belief which associates and sometimes even identifies light and life. So, the extinguishing of light is the cessation of life, Prov. SOzo, cp Prov. 13g 2420 Job 18 6 21 17 29 3. Similar is the use of nir ( 1, 2 above), and the metaphor quench the coal in 2 S. 14 7 (CoAL, 4). The light may typify the life of the individual, of the clan, or of the nation. In 2 S. 21 17 where David is the lamp of Israel, we may perhaps see in the people s anxiety to safeguard his person a trace of the primitive taboo of kings. 5 Again we find the widespread custom of the ever-burning sacred hearth or lamp (cp CANDLESTICK), on which see NAPHTHAR and cp Paus. i. 2b6f., viii. 589, and Class. Diet., s.v. Prytaneum. On the association of the deity with flame, see FIRE. Finally may be mentioned the Lydian custom (Paus. vii. 22 2) of lighting the sacred lamp before the image of Hermes in the market-place of Phara; before approaching it for oracular purposes. This may, conceivably, illustrate 1 S. 3:3 where the point is emphasised that the lamp has not gone out. Did the writer believe that there would have been no oracle had the light been extinguished? 7 1 Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. ii^; Clermont-Ganneau, Archaro- logical Researches, 1 it>jf., 486 f. I Nippur,1-$&f., cp pi. v., no. 10.

3 Whether glass lamps were used in Egypt must be considered problematical, see Wilk. Anc. Kg. 8424 (fig. 620).

4 Doughty found paper-lanterns thus used among the Bedouins (A r. Des. 1 8 72).

6 Cp the care taken of the sacred torch-bearer among the Greeks (see Kawlinson on Herod. 85).

So the Yezidis light lamps at sacred springs (Parry, Six ntttnt/is in a Syrian monastery, 363).

7 As it stands the passage is difficult. It is ordinarily sup posed to indicate that it was still night-time (in v. 15 read: he rose u/> early in the morning ). Are we to suppose, therefore, that the ner only burned for a few hours (note that ^33 is intransitive)? This would be opposed not only to P, but also to universal custom.

### 6. Lamps in Festivals.

From primitive cult to established custom is an easy step. On the lighting of torches and lamps on the occasion of marriage festivities see MARRIAGE.I Whether, as Bliss has conjectured, 2 lamps ever played a part in foundation-ceremonies, cannot at present be proved. The burning of lamps before the dead is too widely known to need more than a passing mention ; see, further, MOURNING CUSTOMS. On lamps in Jewish festivals see DEDICATION, FEAST OF, col. 1054, and TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. s. A. c.