Encyclopaedia Biblica/Leviticus-Lord

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Leviticus-Lord
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

Contents

LEVITICUS[edit]

  • Name and contents (1).
  • Sources ( 2, 25).
  • P in Lev. 8-10 ( 3).
  • Chaps. 1-7 ( 4-6).
  • Chaps. ll-l5 ( 7-11).
  • Chap. 16: Day of Atonement (12).
  • Chaps. 17-26: H (13-23).
    • Other remains of H ( 24).
    • Sources of H ( 25).
    • Characteristics of H (26).
    • Unity of redaction ( 27).
    • H's relation to Dt., Ezek., P (28-30).
  • Chap. 27 ( 31).
  • Composition of Leviticus (32).
  • Bibliography ( 33).

1. Name and contents.[edit]

The name comes through the Latin Leviticus (sc. liber) from the title in the Greek Bible, (TO) Aey[e]i-TIKON ( sc - BiBAiON), 2 'the Levitical book' i.e., the part of the Pentateuch treating of the functions of the Levites. Levitical is here equivalent to sacerdotal, of the Levites in the narrower sense the book has nothing to say and the name thus corresponds to the Hebrew 'torath kohanim' (a^i r^vn), 'the priests law', in the Talmud and Massorah. 8 In Jewish writings the book is more frequently cited by its first word, Wayyikra.

The contents of the book are almost exclusively legislative; 8, 9, 10 in part, and 24:10+, though narrative in form, are to be regarded as precedents to which the ritual practice is to conform or on which the rule is founded. In the chronology of the Pentateuch the laws were revealed to Moses and the events narrated occurred at Sinai in the first month of the second year ot the exodus (between the first of the first month, Ex. 40:2, 40:17, and the first of the second month, Nu. 1:1) ; in Lev. itself there are no dates.

The book begins with the ritual for the several species of sacrifice, and defines cases in which certain sacrifices are prescribed (1-7); then follow: the consecration of Aaron and his sons; the punishment of Nadab and Abihu for a violation of ritual, with some consequent regulations (8-10); definition of various kinds and causes of uncleanness (11-15); ritual for the Day of Atonement (16); a collection of laws of more varied character, religious, moral, and ceremonial, closing with a hortatory address (17- 26: see s. 14) ; provisions for the commu tation of vows and tithes (27).

For more detailed analysis, see Driver, hitrod.C ), 42^.; Kalisch, Leviticus, \\ijf.

1. The attempt which has repeatedly been made to attach this verse to the blessing of Judah may safely be regarded as unjustified (cp Bertholet ad loc.).

- Philo, Leg. Alleg. 2, 26; Quis rer. div. heres, 51; cp fV AeiMTutri /3ij3Ao., De plant. Not, 6. See Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, i i f.

l M. Mtnachoth, 4 3, Kiddushin, 33*?; Massorah Magna,

i K. 11 i, etc.

4 Origen in Euseb. HE 6 25; Jerome, Prol. Gal. See GENESIS, i.

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

2. Sources.[edit]

The immediate continuation of JE in Ex. 32-34 is found in Nu. 10:29-12, 5 nor are any displaced fragments of JE found in Leviticus. The book belongs as a whole to the priestly stratum of the Hexateuch. It is not, however, a unit. Chaps. 17-26 come from an originally independent body of laws having a very distinct character of its own ; they have been redacted probably by more than one hand in the spirit of the priestly scribes, but not wholly conformed to P, much less made an integral part of it.i Nor is the remainder homogeneous: 8-10 belong to the history of the sacred institutions ;- 8 is the fulfilment of the command to Moses in Ex. 40:12-14, and should immediately follow Ex. 40:17-38, from which it is now separated by the collection of sacrificial laws in Lev. 1-7 ; 16 is in like manner separated from its antecedents in 10 by the laws on uncleanness and purification in 11-15. Neither of these groups of laws is even artificially connected with the narrative; both give internal evidence of compilation from in dependent collections of torotli and of extensive and repeated supplementation and redaction. The critical problems in Leviticus are, therefore, not less difficult nor less important than those presented by other books of the Hexateuch.

3. P in Lev. 8-10.[edit]

We may best begin our investigation with 8-10. In Ex. 40 Moses is bidden to set up and dedicate the Tabernacle (1-11) and to consecrate Aaron and his sons to the Priesthood (12-15). The execution of the former part of this command is related in Ex. 40:17-38; of the latter in Lev. 8. It can scarcely be doubted that the author of Ex. 40:17+ meant Lev. 8 to follow immediately, and, consequently, that Lev. 1-7, which now interrupt this connection, were inserted here by a subsequent redactor. Lev. 8 describes the performance of the rites for the consecration and installation of priests prescribed in Ex. 29:1-35, and is related to that chapter exactly as Ex. 35+ to 25+. Ex. 35+ have been found, how ever, to be a later expansion of the probably very brief account of the execution of the directions given to Moses in 25+. It follows that Lev. 8, also, belongs to the secondary stratum, and this inference is con firmed by internal evidence; 4 but, since Lev. 8 knows only one altar, it seems to represent one of the earlier stages in the formation of this stratum. 5 vv. 10b, 11, and 30 are perhaps later glosses.

Chap. 9, the inaugural sacrifices, is the original sequel of Ex. 25-29 in the history of Israel's sacred institutions. It was probably separated from those chapters only by a short statement that, after receiving these instructions (and the tables of the testimony), Moses descended from the mount and did as Yahwe had bidden him ; this was superseded by the elaborate secondary narrative in Ex. 35-40, Lev. 8:6 The hand of a redactor may be recognised in v. 1 ( 'the eighth day, the elders of Israel' ) and in the last verses (23-24) ; some minor glosses may also be suspected.

The death of Nadab and Abihu, 10:1-5, is the con tinuation of 9 and from the same source. The in junction forbidding Aaron and his surviving sons to defile themselves by mourning (10:6-7) is appropriately introduced in this place, and such a prohibition may have originally stood here ; but the present form of the verses is late (cp 21:10-12). Verses 8-9 (cp Ezek. 44:21) and 10-11 (cp 11:47, 20:25, Ezek. 44:23-24) have no con nection with their present surroundings; the former would properly have its place in 21 ; the latter is a fragment, the beginning of which has been lost. Verses 12-15 are a supplement to 9:1-10, 9:21, and would naturally stand after 9:22 ; 10:16-20 is a very late passage of midrashic character7, suggested by the conflict between the pro cedure in 9:15 and the rule in 6:24-30.

1 On 17-26 (H) see below, 13 ff.; on the relation of H to P, 3.

- See HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 9.

3 See EXODUS ii. , 5, ii.

4 Popper, Stiftshutte, g\ff.

5 We. C7/(2> 144/7".; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 15, 16, 18.

6 We. C//( 2 ) 146; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 15, 20.

7 We. CV7( 2 ) 149; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 21 ; Uillm. Exod. Levit.W 518; Driver, Introd.( K ) 45.

4. Chaps. 1-7 : Sacrificial laws.[edit]

The chapters which precede the above (1-7) contain a collection of laws on the subject of sacrifice.

These comprise:

  • burnt offering (1) ;
  • meal offering (2) ;
  • peace offering (3) ;
  • sin offering (4);
  • sin (trespass) offering (5:1-13);
  • trespass offering (5:14-6:7 [5:14-26]).
  • Torah of
    • burnt offering (6:8-13 [1-6]);
    • meal offering (6:14-18 [7-11]);
    • priests meal offering (6:19-23 [12-16]);
    • sin offering (6:24-30 [17-23]);
    • trespass offering (7:1-7);
    • certain perquisites of the priests (7:8-10) ;
    • peace offering (7:11-15)
  • prohibition of eating fat or blood (7:22-27) ;
  • the priests portion of peace offering (7:28-34);
  • subscriptions, 35-36, 37-38

In this collection of laws it will be observed that 1-6:7 [1-5] are addressed to the people; 6:8[1]-7:21 to the priests. To this difference in the titles corresponds in general the character of the laws : 1-6:7 [1-5] prescribe what sacrifices and offerings the Israelite may bring, or under certain circumstances must bring; 6:8+ [6:1+] deal with the same classes of sacrifice, but with more reference to the priests functions and perquisites. Chaps. 1-7 are not, however, a unitary code of sacrificial laws in two parts containing directions for the worshippers and the priests respectively. The different order of the laws (the peace offering in the first part precedes, in the second follows, the sin and trespass offering), con sistent differences in formulation (note in the second 'This is the law of', etc.), and, finally, the subscription, 7:37, which belongs to the second part only, show that 6:8 [6:1]-7:21 formed a collection by themselves.

5. Chap. 1-6:7.[edit]

Further examination shows that neither part of 1-7 is entirely homogeneous. Chaps. 1 (burnt offerings) and 3 (peace offerings) are substantially intact and are good examples of relatively old sacrificial toroth.

Slight changes have been made to adjust the laws to the historical theory of P: for 'the priest', which seems to have been originally used throughout (cp 1 9 :12-13, :15 :17 :11 :16), the redactor has sometimes substituted 'the sons of Aaron' (85 8), more fre quently 'Aaron's sons, the priests' (15811 8:2; cp 17); the reference to the 'tent of meeting' (1 3:5, 8:2, 8:13) is also editorial, 1:14-17 is a supplement (cp 2).

Chap. 2:1-3 (meal offering) has some resemblance to 1, 3, but is at least out of place where it stands - 3 should immediately follow 1 (cp 1:2-3, 3:1); the rest of the chapter is differently formulated (2nd sing.; note also 'Aaron and his sons' ) and must be ascribed to a different hand.

Chap. 4 (sin offering), 2 with its scale of victims and rites graduated according to the rank of the offerer, belongs to a class of laws which seems to be the product of artificial elaboration in priestly schools rather than to represent the natural development of the ceremonial. The altar of incense (4:7, cp 4:18) is a late addition to the furniture of the tabernacle; 3 the ritual of the high priests sin offering (4:3-12) is much more solemn than that of Ex. 29:10-14, Lev 9:8-11 (cp also 8:14-17) ; the sin offering of the congregation, which is elsewhere a goat (9:15, Nu. 15:24, and even Lev. 16), is here a bullock; 4 the same heightening of the propitiatory rites is noticed here as in the offering of the high priest.

Although 5:1-13 has no title, it is not the continuation of 4 ; it knows nothing of the distinction of persons which is characteristic of 4, and differs both in formula tion and in terminology the very precise author of 4 would not have spoken of the victim as an asam (5:6-7; cp 5:14+). The same reasons prevent us from regarding 5:1-13 as an appendix to 4 by a still later hand. 5 In 5:1-6 much difficulty is created by the apparent con fusion of hattath and asam ( sin offering and trespass offering ) , two species of sacrifice which are elsewhere quite distinct. 6 The verses seem also not to be a unit ; 5:2-3 is not an analogous case to 5:1, 5:4, with which 5:5-6 are connected. Verses 5:1, 5:4+ are in matter and form cog nate to 5:15-16, 6:2-7 [5:21-26].

The most probable explanation is that in 5:1+ a law pre scribing a trespass offering has been altered so as to require a sin offering (5:5b). The insertion of 5:2-3 is more difficult to account for; for these defilements no sacrifice is elsewhere pre scribed (see 11:24+, 15:5+, etc. Nu. 19:11+)- If 5:2-3 are derived from an old torah, it must be supposed that a specific case, like that in Nu. 6:12 or in Lev. 7:20-21, was originally con templated. 1

The mitigations in 5:7-10, 5:11-13 are later, and perhaps successive, additions (cp 1:14-17). The laws in 5:15-16, 6:2-7 [5:22-26] are from a group defining the cases in which a trespass offering is required (cp 5:1, 5:4-6), and make clear the true character of this sacrifice; if 5:17-19 is of the same origin, the general phrases of 5:17a (cp 4:2, 4:13, 4:22, 4:27) have probably supplanted a more specific trespass.

These laws, though probably introduced here at a comparatively late stage in the redaction and not with out some alteration, are substantially genuine priestly toroth; certain resemblances, especially in 6:2-7 [6:22-26], to H in Lev. 17-26 point to proximity, if not to identity of origin (see below, 25).

1 See Bertheau, Sieben Gruppen, etc., 1457?".; Merx, ZWT 641-84 164-181 (1863*; Kuenen, Th. T4 4927^(1870) ; Hoffmann, Abhandlungen, 1 84 y/. (from MJGL, 1874).

2 See We. CT/l 2 ) 1387.; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 17; Dr. Introd.(^ 43.

3 See EXODUS, 5, i., LAW LITERATURE, 21 K.

  • On the relation of Lev. 4 to Nu. 15 227?"., see NUMBERS, 19.

r > Kue. Hex. 6, n. ija. We. now (CY/( 3 ) 335/) regards 4 61-13 147?" as independent products of the same school. 6 See SACRIFICE, 2-jf.

6. Chaps 6:8-7.[edit]

Chaps. 6:8 [6:1]-7:21 contain a series of rules, chiefly for the guidance of the priests, and, in the introductions prefixed by the redactor (6:8-9 [6:1-2], 6:24-25 [6:17-18]), addressed to 'Aaron and his sons'. Each paragraph begins, 'This is the torah of' [the burnt offering, etc.] ; and the resumptive subscription, 7:37, is in corresponding form.

Here, as in 1:3, 'Aaron and his sons' or 'the sons of Aaron' has sometimes been substituted in the text for the original 'the priest'; the court of the tent of meeting (0 16 26 [9 19]) is editorial, as in 135 etc., and other glosses may be noted, especially in (i 17^ [ioy.].

The rule for the priests meal offering, 620-23 [13-16], has a different superscription, and is clearly secondary; the exegetical difficulties are due to subsequent glosses; 630 [23] depends upon 4 (cp 10 16-20) ; 7 8-10, perquisites of the officiating priest (cp 29-34), are introduced here in connection with 7 ; 10 is perhaps later than 9, as the offering of uncooked flour is later than that of bread and cakes.

The priestly toroth in these chapters, also, are rela tively old, 3 and there is no reason to doubt that they represent actual practice ; they have been preserved with little material change. 4

Chap. 7:22-27, prohibition to the Israelites (2nd pl.) to eat the fat of sacrifices and the blood of animals (cp 3166

17, 17:10-14), stands not inappropriately after 7:11-21,

but is not from the same source. Substantially the same thing may be said of 7:28-34, which, again, are formulated differently from 7:22-27. A later hand may be recognised in 7:32 (2nd pl.), which is a doublet to 7:33; 7:34 (1st sing.) is added by the redactor; 7:35-36 (cp Nu. 18:8) is the subscription to an enumeration of the priests dues (7:35b doublet to 7:36a), and undoubtedly late ; observe the anointing of all the priests, 7:36a (see EXODUS ii., s. 5, i); 7:37 is the original subscription to the toroth in 6:8 [1]-7:21 (the installation is a gloss referring to 6:19-23 [12-16]) ; 7:38 is added by a redactor.

1 The latter is the Jewish explanation; Shebuoth, 14 a 6.

2 On the relation of these chapters to 1-6:7 [141 see above, 4.

3 Chap. <!Q [2] has been understood to speak of the daily even ing burnt offering, and it is hence inferred that the rule is very late (after Ezra) ; but the text which is manifestly corrupt does not warrant so large a conclusion.

4 In addition to the verses mentioned above, 1 12 may reason ably be suspected.

$ Bertheau, Sieten Crupf>en, etc., 169^?".

7. Chaps. 11-15 : Clean and unclean.[edit]

Chaps. 11 - 15 are naturally connected by their dealing with the subject of cleanness and uncleanness (a), and by certain phraseological characteristics (b).

(a) The chapters deal with:

  • clean and unclean animals i.e.,
    • kinds allowed or forbidden for food (11:1-23) ;
    • defilement by contact with unclean animals, alive or dead, and the necessary purifications (11:24-38) ;
    • defilement by contact with the carcasses of clean animals (11:39-40) ; unclean reptiles and vermin (11:41-44) ;
    • subscriptions (11:44-45, 11:46-47).
  • Uncleanness and purification after child birth (12)
  • Skin diseases;
    • discrimination of unclean kinds from innocent eruptions; precautions to be taken in suspected cases; the isolation of the leper" (13:1-46) ;
    • similar appearances in cloth and leather (13:47-59);
    • purification of the leper, offerings (14:1-32);
    • leprous spots on the walls of houses and their treatment (14:33-53);
    • general subscription (14:54-57 ).
  • Uncleanness from sexual secretions and discharges in health and disease,
    • in man (15:1-18)
    • and woman (15:19-31);
    • general subscription (15:32-33).

(b) A unity of redaction is indicated also by the recurrence of the phrase, 'This is the torah of', etc., in the subscriptions (11:46, 12:7, 13:59, 14:32, 14:54, 14:57, 15:32-33; cp Nu. 5:29); in 14:2 the words appear in a title, as they do repeatedly in 6:8 [1]-7:21 (see above, 6).

The distinctions embodied in these laws originate in a low stage of culture and are there of fundamental importance. 1 A high degree of elaboration, even of a kind which appears to us artificial, is not of itself proof of late development ; savage taboos frequently form a most complicated system. We have no reason to doubt that the toroth in Lev. 11-15 are based upon ancient Israelite, and even prehistoric, custom. As they lie before us, however, the chapters give evidence of having been formulated in different schools, and of repeated literary supplementation and redaction.

8. Chap. 11: Unclean animals.[edit]

The close of chap. 11 (11:45, cp 11:44a) exhibits the characteristic phraseology and motive of H ( 'I am Yahwe', 'ye shall be holy for I am holy' ) 2; the toroth especially in 11:2, 11:6-8, 11:9-11*, 11:20-21*, 11:41-42, are similar to many which are embodied in H (see, e.g.. Lev. 18). It is inferred with much probability that the food laws in Lev. 11 were included in the holiness code; 8 Lev. 20:25 implies that H contained such rules. Laws on the same subject in closely similar form are found in Dt. 14, {4} probably taken from the same priestly collection from which H derived them. 5 The food laws of H have been preserved, however, only with many additions and alterations; 11:1-2a, 11:8, 11:10abb, 11:11, (except iSoNH K^), 11:12, 11:13-19 in their present form, and much in 11:20-23, 11:41-42, and 11:46-47, are to be ascribed to successive, and in part very late, redactors. Laws on a different subject viz., defilement by contact with unclean animals (11:24-38) or the carcasses of clean animals (11:39-40) have also been introduced, 6 and these again are apparently not all of the same age; 11:32-38, in particular, seems to be more recent than the rest.

9. Chap. 12 : Childbirth.[edit]

The rules defining uncleanness after the birth of a male (12:2b-4) or female (12:5) child, and the requisite purifications in the two cases respectively (12:6-8), are formulated in the same way as the rules in chap. 15 (cp 15:2b ,15:16, 15:19, 15:25), with which chapter they are closely connected by their subject ; 12:2 fixes the duration of uncleanness by a reference to 15:19. There can be little doubt that 12:1-7 originally stood after 15:30 ; what led the redactor to transpose the chapter it is difficult to imagine. The title (12:1-2a) is editorial ; the door of the tent of meeting (12:6, contrast 'the sanctuary', 12:4) is also secondary; 12:8, which follows the subscription, like the corresponding mitigations in other cases, is a later modification of the law.

1 See CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.

2 See below, 26.

3 Horst, Lev. xvii.-xxvi. it. Hezekiel, 34; Wurster, ZA TW 4 i23/. (1884) ; Kue. Hex. 15, n. 5; Dr. Introd.( K ) 59; cp also Dillmann.

4 See the comparative table in Dr. Deut. 157 ff. 8 See DEUTERONOMY, 10.

Kayser, Vore.rilisch.es Buck, i8o_/". ; Kalisch, 1 I uff.

7 Cp FAMILY, t)Jf.

8 Some scholars have thought that 13/1 are in great part from H ; see below, 24.

10. Chap. 13-14 : 'Leprosy'[edit]

The marks by which the priest is to distinguish the skin diseases which render the subject unclean, from innocent eruptions (13:2-44) are carefully defined, and are manifestly the result of close observation. 8 The subject was an important part of the torah of the priests (Dt. 24:8), and one which from its nature is likely to have been relatively early fixed in writing; the minute discrimination of symptoms is not to be taken as evidence of recent origin, whilst the rites of purification in 14:2-8a are of a strikingly primitive character. 1 The chapters are not, however, entirely of the same age. The original law contained only 13:2-46**, 14:2-8aa, with the subscription 14:57b. The ritual of purification in 14:10-20 is obviously a later substitute for 14:2-8a.

In 14:8a the leper is already clean, in 14:10 he is still to be cleansed (cp 14:20b); the connection in 14:8b (9) is manifestly artificial. The ceremonies in 14:10+ are patterned after the consecration of priests in Lev. 8 (cp 14:14-18 with 8:23-24, 8:30, Ex. 29:20-21) ; the extravagant number of sacrifices, the exact prescription of the quantity of flour, etc., are other marks of late date and probably of the factitious character of the whole law (see above, on chap. 4[s. 5])-

The reduction of the number and costliness of the victims in the case of the poor (14:21-31), with its inde pendent subscription (14:32), is presumably still more recent. The purification of the leper (14:2-8) is separated from the law for his seclusion (13:45-46) by a passage of some length on spots of mould in stuffs and leather (13:47-58) having its own subscription (13:59), which would stand more properly in connection with the rules con cerning patches of mould on the walls of houses (14:33-53). The association of these fungus growths with eruptive skin diseases ( 'leprosy' ) is not unnatural, and would lead to similar regulations for inspection by a priest, and for the destruction or purification of the materials affected. Chap. 13:47-59 closely follows the formulation of 13:2+, and may be a comparatively early supplement to the law on leprosy, if not of approximately the same age. Chap. 14:33-53 is not im probably younger.

The introduction (14:34), with its reference to the future settle ment in Canaan, is unlike that of any other of the laws in this group;- and the adaptation of the ritual for the purification of the leper to the cleansing of the house (14:49-53) seems artificial; these verses may, however, be a still later addition, since in 14:48 the house is already pronounced clean (cp 13:58, where no further ceremony is prescribed). The subscription, 14:54-57, has been expanded in successive stages.

11. Chap. 15 : Issues.[edit]

In chap. 15 a basis of old torah in characteristic formulation is recognisable, most readily at the beginning and the end of the several paragraphs; this basis seems to have been enlarged, especially by the multiplication of cases of derivative pollution, and some of these additions seem to be very late. It is not possible, however, to discriminate sharply between the original rules and the subsequent accretions. Verse 31, seem ingly addressed to the priests (read 'warn' [amnrni] for 'separate' ), is an appropriate close to a collection of laws on various forms of uncleanness, and does not suggest the priestly editor; the subscription, 15:32-34, has grown by repeated glosses, 15:32a only is by the first hand.

1 See WRS Rel. Sem.W 447, cp 422, 428 n. ; Wellh. Heid.V) 156.

2 Frequent in H; see 26.

3 See Reuss, Gesch. d. A T s, 387; Kue. Hex. 15, n. 32; Dillm. Exod. Levit.W, yflff. ; Che. ZA 77K15 1537?". (1895) ; Now. Hebr. Arch, ti&jff. On the analysis: Oort. Th.T Id i42jT. (1877) ; Stade, GVI l 258 n. ; Benzinger, ZA TW$ 65^. (1889); Addis, Hex. lj,y>; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hex. i 164^. See also ATONEMENT, DAY OF.

  • Note the absence of the incense altar.

12. Chap. 16 : Day of Atonement.[edit]

The beginning of chap. 16 is connected with 10:1-5 not only by v. i (RP) but also by its contents. Nadab and Abihu lost their lives by presumptuously intruding into the presence of Yahwe carrying unhallowed fire (cp 16:12-13) in their censers; the fate of these priests is the occasion of a revelation setting forth the rites with which Aaron may enter the sanctuary without incurring the like destruction. 4 In the history of the sacred institutions, 16:2+ must, therefore, have immediately followed the death of Nadab and Abihu in 10:1+. Not all of 16, however, is from this source; in 16:2-28 a singular piacular ritual, including the bringing ot the blood of the victim into the inner sanctuary and the sending away into the wilderness of a scape-goat laden with the sins of the people (see AZAZEL), has been united with the prescriptions for Aaron s entering the holy place; in 16:29-34a is ordained an annual general fast day (cp 23:26-32), on which the priest performs rites not further specified for the purification of the people and the sanctuary (cp Ezek. 45:18-20). Ben zinger, in his analysis of the chapter, 1 ascribes the last- named law to the author of 16:2-4 6 :12-13; it stood in close connection with *). The elaborate expiatory ceremonies in 16:5, 16:7-10, 16:14-28 represent a much later development (ATONEMENT, DAY OK, 2) ; the fusion of the two elements had its basis in the praxis itself; the younger ritual probably never had an independent literary existence (ZATW 9:88-89).

As regards the last point, various indications in the text (e g , the repetition of 16:6 in 16:11) seem to point to the union of two written sources by a redactor, whilst the complex ritual itself, with its repeated entrances and exits, {2} is explained more easily as the result of such a combination than as an evolution in praxis. It is comparatively easy to separate the expiatory cere monies of the Day of Atonement (disregarding some minor glosses - 16:5ab, 16:7-10, 16:15abb, 16:16a, 16:18-22a, 16:26-29a).

The introduction, which doubtless directed that these rites should be performed annually on a certain day, is missing; remnants of it may perhaps be preserved in 16:29b-34a, which verses are not an old law of P (Ben zinger), but give evidence of contamination from Lev. 23:26-32, and of various glosses. It is more difficult to determine just what was contained in the original direc tions for Aaron s entrance into the holy place ; for in converting this act into a periodical ceremony and incor porating it in the ritual of the Day of Atonement the redactor has made much greater changes in this part of his material. The essential features appear to be: the ablution, the vestments (16:4), the sacrifice of a young bullock as a sin offering (16:6), the incense burnt in a censer on coals taken from the altar (16:12-14) ; a more detailed restoration cannot be attempted here.

1 ZA TW)(>sff- (1889); see ATONEMENT, DAY OF, i.

2 See ATONEMENT, DAV OF, 7.

3 For literature see below, 33.

4 See 192 -20726 ->\ 8 etc. The name was given by Klost. <2X7"8S4i6 (i%jj)=PentateHch, 385.

" Kuenen employs Pj, others PH.

6 So Ewald, Nb ldeke, Schrader, Graf, Colenso, Klostermann.

7 So Knobel; Kayser. Vortxilischtx Buck, ijdjf-, cp &4/; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 27; Wellh. Cffm 151^".; Horst, Lev. xi ii. xx-vi. u.Hezekiel; Baentsch, Heiligkeitsgcsetz ; Holz. ; Dr., etc. See below, 15.

13. Chap 17-26 : The Holiness Law-book.[edit]

Chap. 26:3-45 is a solemn address of Yahwe (1 pers.) to the Israelites (pl.), setting before them the blessings he will bestow upon them if they walk in his statutes and observe his commandments, and the calamities with which he will visit them if they will not hearken unto him and keep these commandments. Even apart from the subscription ( 26:46) these are the statutes and the judgments and the laws (hukkim, mishpatim, toroth) which Yahwe made between him and the Israelites at Mt. Sinai through Moses the character of the discourse and its resemblance to Dt. 28 conclusively prove that Lev. 26 originally stood at the end of a body of legislation. The distinctive motives and phraseology of 26 recur in the preceding chapters in numerous exhortations to observe the statutes and judgments therein contained (cp 18:1-5, 18:24-30, 19:2, 19:36b-37, 20:7, 20:22-26, 22:31-33) ; briefer words of similar tenor are interspersed in other places; note also the occurrence of the char acteristic phrase, 'I am Yahwe' (with various comple ments), throughout these chapters from 18:2 to 26:45.

It is plain, therefore, that 18-25, or at least consider able parts of these chapters, come from the law-book of which 26 is the conclusion. From the prominence given in it to the motive of holiness, this book has been called the Holiness Law; 4 it is usually designated by the symbol H. 5 The characteristic formulas of H appear first in the introduction to 18 (18:2b-5), and earlier critics regarded this as the beginning of the extracts from that book. 6 More recent scholars are generally of the opinion that 17 is derived from the same source. "

A reading of Lev. 17-25 discloses a twofold aspect : on the one hand unmistakable affinity, in parts, to the priestly legislation ; on the other hand, much that is at variance with the usual manner of that legislation, or lies outside the circle of its predominant interests. Both in contents and in form 19, for example, resembles Ex. 20-23 and Dt. (cp especially Dt. 23+) much more closely than P ; the hortatory setting of the laws and the emphasis on the motives to obedience, not only in 26 but also in the preceding chapters, has no parallel in P, in which the divine imperative is its own all-sufficient motive; the phraseology of H is peculiar, and strikingly different from that of P; 1 finally, there are actual con flicts between the laws in H and those of P, particularly in regard to the feasts. 2 The priestly element appears in many cases to be superimposed, or to supplement the other. The hypothesis which first suggested itself was, therefore, that older laws were revised and incorporated by P, 8 sometimes, as in 18-20, in large masses having a coherence of their own ; the hypothesis was subse quently extended to 17-26 (or 18-26) as a whole (see below 30) .

The parrenetic framework in which the laws are set (see, eg., 18) is of the same character throughout, and is somewhat sharply distinguished in style from the laws themselves, as the example just cited shows. Hence it seems, further, that the author of the collection H, whom we may designate as RH, embodied in his work, without radical change, older titles of torah which had already acquired a fixed formulation. A comparison of 18:20, on the same subject, is peculiarly instructive in this regard. The result of this preliminary examination is, therefore, that in Lev. 17-26 we have a collection of laws, not all of the same origin, which have been sub jected to at least two successive redactions, first by RH, and second by RP. 4

14. Contents of Chaps. 17-26.[edit]

The subjects dealt with in Lev. 17-26 are the following:

  • domestic animals slaughtered to be offered to Yahwe ; blood not to be eaten (17);
  • incest defined and prohibited (18);
  • various short commandments, chiefly moral and social (19);
  • Molech worship; another law against incest (20);
  • rules for priests: restrictions on mourning and marriage; priests to be physically perfect; regulations concerning the eating of consecrated food ; victims to be without blemish ; other rules about victims (21-22);
  • calendar of sacred seasons (23);
  • the oil for the lamps in the tabernacle, and the shew-bread ; blasphemy ; manslaughter and torts (24) ;
  • Sabbatical year and Jubilee (25) ;
  • hortatory discourse (26).

The order of these chapters is in general a natural one; 5 difficulty is made only by the position of 19, by the repetition of the same subject in 18 and 20, and by 24, which in both its parts seems to be foreign to its present surroundings. It is clear that Lev. 17-25 do not contain a complete law-book, such as H presumably was ; many topics which would have a necessary place in such a code are lacking. These subjects may have been omitted by the redactor because they were suffi ciently treated elsewhere, or may have been transposed to other connections; some such displaced fragments may be recognised in Ex.-Num. (see below, 24).

1 On the vocabulary of H see Dillin. Num. Deut. Jos. 637 /. ; Dr. IntrodA*") 49/ = Holz. Hex. 411 /: Carpenter and Harford-Battersby. Hex. 1 220 / See also Baentsch, Heilig- keitsgesetz, and the works cited in 29, n. 9.

2 Chap. 23. The conflict was noticed by George, Feste ff. (1835) and Hupfeld (1851^.).

3 Book of Origins ; Ewald.

4 In the following sections R p will be used to designate simply the priestly editor or editors of Lev. 17-2ti, without anticipating the question of the relation of this redaction to the composition of P or of the Hexateuch, on which see below, 32.

> On the arrangement see Horst, 47^. The attempt has been made in H also (see EXODUS ii. , 4, in. end) to show that the laws were originally grouped in decads. So Bertheau, Sieben. Gruppen, etc. ; and Paton in a series of articles in JBL (see 33. *)

15. Chap. 17 : Slaughter of Animals.[edit]

Chap. 17 contains a nucleus of old toroth in brief and consistent formulation, which has been much expanded and altered by later hands. A considerable part of this expansion is plainly the work of RP (eg. 17:11-12, 17:14); but there is a lower statum of editor's work which is recognised as RH (e.g., 17:5aab, 17:7a, 17:10b). The most interesting case of this double redaction is found in 17:3-7.

The original law seems to have run : 'Any Israelite who slaughters a bullock or a sheep or a goat and does not bring it into the presence of Yahwe, blood shall be imputed to that person' (i.e., he shall be regarded as haying eaten flesh with the blood ; cp 1 S. 14:32-34) ; a redactor introduced the words 'the dwelling of' (miskan) before Yahwe ; 2 the references to the camp and the door of the tent of meeting are additions of RP, adapting the situation to P's tabernacle ; similar addi tions are 'to offer it as an offering to Yahwe', and 'he has shed blood ; that person shall be cut off from his people' (17:4); cp. the variations of Sam. and LXX, as indications of continued and late manipulation of the text. Verse 17:8-9 may be a fragment of a law, corresponding to Ex. 22:20 [19], sacrifice shall be offered to Yahwe only; 17:9 is RP. With 17:15-16 cp. 11:40 and 22:8 (Ezek. 44:31) ; for a stricter rule see Ex. 22:31 Dt. 14:21.

16. Chap. 18 : Incest.[edit]

Chap. 18 contains laws on incest and some kindred subjects (18:6-23), preceded by an introduction (18:2b-5), and concluding with admonitions and warnings (18:24-30). This setting is in the main the work of RH .

Verse 5 is a doublet to 4; 18:29 is from RP ; 18:24-28, 18:30, are probably amplified by later scribes imitating RH , or by contamination from 20:22-24. Verse 6 is the general rule (perhaps editorial), the cases follow in a stereotyped scheme (18:7-17a) ; 18:17b-24 are differently for mulated, probably a supplement from another collection of toroth on the same subject; 18:21 (Molech) is introduced through a merely verbal association by RH who wrote 21:6. A few glosses mar the symmetry of 18:7+.

17. Chap. 19 : Moral precepts.[edit]

Chap. 19 contains a brief manual of moral instruction, perhaps the best representative of the ethics of ancient Israel, opening and closing with the formulas of RH ( 19:2b, 19:36b-37) observe also the frequent recurrence of the phrase 'I am Yahwe', or 'I am Yahwe your God', after groups of commandments (19:3, 19:4, 19:10, 19:12, 19:14, 19:16, etc.). Two passages are obviously out of place in this chapter : 19:5-8, by its subject and formulation is plainly connected with 22:29-30; 19:20, also, is foreign to the context; it has been thought that its appropriate place would be after 20:10 (Dillm.), but the case is clearly one of tort, and the formulation corresponds rather to 24:15-21 another misplaced fragment; 19:21-22 is a late addition to 19:20 (cp. 6:6-7). The rest of the chapter is made up of old toroth, probably compiled, or at least supplemented, from more than one source, with occasional clauses introduced by RH (19:9aa, 19:10b, 19:12b, 19:18b, 19:23aa, 19:29, 19:30 [=26:2], 19:31b, 19:32b, 19:33-34), and probably the repeated 'I am Yahwe' though in this RH may have been anticipated by the toroth themselves.

The first group of commandments (19:3-5) is in some sort a counterpart to the first table of the decalogue; 19:11-18 similarly remind us of the second table. 3 In general the chapter is to be compared with Ex. 20:2+, 22:18-22, 22:28+, 23:1-19, and parts of Dt. 22-25, in which many parallels will be found. These do not justify us, however, in regarding Lev. 19 as based upon the Decalogue, the Covenant Book, and Deuteronomy ; 4 actual coincidences in formulation or in order are singularly few, and ap pear to be sometimes the result of textual contamina tion. Rather Lev. 19 is another of the epitomes of good morals, of which there were doubtless many in ancient Israel.

1 Kayser, I orexilisches Buck, t>qff. ; JPT wff. (1881): Wellh. C//( 2 ) 152^.; Horst, 14 ff., cp 4,*ff. : Dillm. ( 3 > 584^; Kue. Hex. 15. n. 5; Baentsch, 137?! See below, 28.

2 On the question whether this redactor was RH, *ee 28.

s Bertheau, Sieben Gruppen, 205; We. CH(-) issf. , Baentsch, 81.

4 So Kayser, Baentsch, and others. 8 See MOLECH.


18. Chap. 20: Incest, etc.[edit]

The original law against the sacrifice of children in the Molech cult (20:2a) 5 has received repeated additions, 3 disclosing the hand of RH (additions of RP in 20:3b), 20:2b a gloss, and 20:4-5 a variation on 20:2b-3 intended to supplant 20:3. The law against witchcraft (20:6) seems to have displaced the more original torah which is preserved in 20:27.

Verses 20:7-8 belong to the paraenetic framework of RH, perhaps only accidentally brought together in subsequent redaction ; the corresponding close is 20:22-24.

Verse 20:9 has nothing to do with the subject of the following laws; it seems rather to be connected with 24:15-22 (cp 20:9 with 24:15) ; it is not improbable that 24:15-22, which are altogether out of place where they stand, with 20:9 ( ? 10) 27, and perhaps 20:2, are scattered fragments of a chapter on capital offences the greater part of which was omitted by the final redactor.

In 20:11-21 follow laws against incest, sodomy, and commerce with a woman during menstruation, against all of which the death penalty is denounced. These laws are from a collection independent of 18 (Graf, Wellh., Dillm. etc.). 1 There has been some contamina tion from 18 (see, e.g., 20:19), and the clauses prescribing the penalty have been glossed and recast.

20:22-24 is the work of RH. Verses 20:25-26 deal not with the sub ject of 20 but with clean and unclean animals (11) , and 20:25ba, 20:26a are actually found in 20:11, 20:43a, 20:45b. It is possible that fragments of the missing introduction to 11 are also preserved in 20:25-26, and that the latter verses mark the place where 11 once stood in H (see 24).

19. Chaps. 21-22:Rules for priests.[edit]

Chaps. 21-22 present the same phenomena which we have observed in 17+ ; old toroth concerning the priesthood have been glossed, revised, and supplemented by successive editors. Some of the glosses were probably made upon the toroth themselves before they were incorporated in H ; many additions were made by RH or by later editors in imitation of him ; others, finally, by RP and scribes of that school. It is not possible in all cases exactly to distinguish these various hands ; but in considerable part it can be done.

In 21:1-9 the original rules are found in 21:1bb (beginning lost), 21:2a (21:2b-3 have more exact definition), 21:5, 21:7a; RH in 21:6, 7b, 21:8; RP 'the fire-offerings of Yahwe', in 21:6; 21:9 is not strictly in place. In 21:10-15 the old law is 21:10aa ( 'the priest who is greater than his brethren' ), 21:6, 21:11, 21:13, 21:14*; RH 21:12, 21:15; RP 21:1ab. In 21:16-24 part of the torah is repeated in slightly variant forms (21:17, 21:21) with glosses by RP; to the old rule belong, further, 21:22b-23a (also glossed by RP) ; 21:18b-20 is an (?old) specification of blemishes (cp. 22:22-24) : RH in 21:23b : 21:24 (RP) is a fragment.

The beginning of 22:1-16 is in disorder: 22:2a, 22:8b is RH, but lacking its antecedents, showing traces of more than one hand, and separating the first words of 22:1 (RP) from their sequel (22:3); 22:4a is the old rule ( 'of the seed of Aaron', RP) , and fragments of a following rule may be recognised in parts of 22:6-7, the rest being supplanted by RP, to whom most of 22:4b-7 are to be ascribed; 22:8 may have been included in H, though it is not in a very appropriate place; 22:9 is RH, perhaps more than one hand (cp 19:30 and 21:8) ; 22:10-13 are substantially old toroth with some glosses; 22:14 (cp. 5:15) may be a later addition; 22:15-16 RH. In 22:17-25 the old rules in 22:18b-21 have received many glosses (RP), as also the following catalogue of defects (22:22-24, cp. 21:17-20) ; 22:25 is RH ( 'because their corruption is in them', RP). Verses 22:27-30, again, are old laws, followed by the closing ex hortations of RH (22:31-33), in which 22:32 seems to intrude between 22:31 and 22:33.

1 Not from the same source, affixing the penalty to the offences defined in 1^ (Keil, Knobel, etc.); nor an editorial commentary (RH), Paton, Hebraica, 10 111-121.

a Verse 4 is a corrupt frayment,

  • George, Festf, izoff. ; Kayser, Vorexilisches Buck, T$ff. ,

We. CH("-) \b\ff.\ Horst. 2 4 ^f.; Baentsch, 44^.

20. Chap. 23 : Feasts.[edit]

Chap. 23 contains the annual round of sacred seasons, derived in part from a priestly calendar, in part from H. The former element is easily recognised by its rigid scheme (see, e.g. 23:5-8, 23:34b-36) the exact regulation of the date and duration of the festival, the days of holy convocation (Nu. 28-29) observed as the strictest of sabbaths, and the fire-offerings to Yahwe. The characteristics of H are equally unmistakable in other parts of the chapter, though, as elsewhere, the original text of H has been heavily glossed by priestly editors and scribes. To the calendar of P belong 23:4-8 (Passover and Unleavened Bread; 23:2-3, RP), 23:21 (fragment of the law for Pentecost), 23:24-25 (Feast of Trumpets), 23:27-32 (Day of Atonement), 23:34b-36 (Tabernacles); 23:37-38, is the subscription, which 23:44 was meant to follow. The law for the Day of Atonement shows some repetitions, and has perhaps been amplified by later editors ; cp 16:29-34.

P's law for Pentecost has been supplanted by a long passage from H (23:9-20), in which the old torah, the setting of RH, and the additions of RP, may be dis tinguished. It begins with the waving of the first sheaf of barley from the new harvest. The introduction is by RH (23:10a) ; the law probably began, 'When ye reap your harvest'. To the original law belong 23:10b-11a*, 23:14a*; the various offerings come from RP (not all from one hand). This is followed by the prescription of two wave loaves at Pentecost (23:15-20), 23:15a, 'fifty days' in 16b, in 17 'Ye shall bring as wave loaves two cakes ; ye shall bake it leavened as first fruits for Yahwe', 23:20*; the rest is RP. v. 22 is out of place here ; cp 19:9-10.

The laws from H for the observance of Tabernacles stand in 23:39-43, as a supplement to those of P in 23:34b-36, with a brief introduction by RP (23:39aa) ; 23:39ab and 23:42 unquestionably belong to the original torak ; perhaps 23:40a* also (cp Neh. 8:14+) ; the rest must be attributed to various stages of the redaction ( 23:42b-43, ?23:40b, RH).

21. Chap. 24.[edit]

Chap. 24, vv. 1-4, on the lamps in the tabernacle, and 24:5-9, on the shew-bread, are supplements respectively to Ex 25:31-40 (cp 27:20-21, Nu 8:1-4), and Ex. 25:30, and belong to the secondary stratum of P ; how they got into this place it is not easy to guess.- The rest of the chapter deals with the punishment of blasphemy, and with manslaughter, mayhem, and killing or maiming cattle. The nucleus is a group of old toroth, with a closing formula of RH (24:15b-22), and glosses by RP , especially in 24:16 ; on the original position of these laws see above, s. 17 (on 20:9). The punishment of blasphemy is illustrated by an example, 24:10-14, 24:23, by a late priestly hand ; cp. Nu. 15:32-36.

22. Chap. 25 :Sabbatical year and jubilee.[edit]

In chap. 25 the law of the sabbatical year (25:1-7) is from H. 25:3-5a is the old torah (with glosses emphasising the sabbatical character of the year) ; cp Ex. 23:10-11; the introduction (25:2) and 25:6-7 are the work of RH. The sequel to this appears to be 25:18-19, 25:20-22, also RH. Verses 25:8-17, 25:23-34 have to do with the reversion of alienated land to its owners in the fiftieth year and with the right of redemption in land and houses. 3 The greater part of 25:8-17 is from H; 25:11-13 is an addition of RP conforming the jubilee year to the septennial land sabbath; 25:9 also seems to be late ; clauses from an older law are incorporated in 25:10a ( 'ye shall proclaim an emancipation' ; cp Ezek. 46:16-17) and 25:10b ( 'and shall return, every man to his estate' ); 25:14a, 25:15 are of the same origin; 25:16-17, of which 25:23 is the sequel, together with the introduction (25:8, 25:10aa) and several clauses in the intervening verses, are by RP. The following 25:24-34 is all from the school of P, but probably not all of the same age ; 25:24-28 is an addition of RP to the preceding law; 25:29-31 apparently a novel to 25:24-28 ; the exception in favour of the Levites (25:32-34) 4 depends on Nu. 35:1-8, itself among the youngest additions to P ; the language of 25:24-34 is late.

The prohibition of usury (25:35-38) is from H ; cp Ezek. 18:8, 18:13, 18:17, 22:12. In the following laws on the treatment of slaves (25:39-46) the charitable motives of H have prob ably been amplified by imitative hands, and there are extensive interpolations by RP, especially in 25:44-46 (per haps all RP) and in 25:49-52.

Chap. 26:1-2, laws forbidding various species of idolatry and commanding the observance of the sabbath, set in phrases of RH, are strangely out of place here; 26:1 is parallel to 19:4, 26:2 identical with 19:30 (cp 19:3 ), and the verses are fragments from a collection similar to 19.

1 Popper, Stiftshutte, voqf.

2 See We. CV/( ! > 166; Baentsch, 51.

3 On the law of the Jubilee Year see We. CHP) 167 E; Hoffmann, Abkandlungen 1:75 . Horst, 2 7 8 ; &e%$! i IS. n. 4g, 18; Baentsch, 5 3 2 : 6’ r. Inizod.(6) 56J; Dillm. Ex. Lev.PI, 6 5 8 8 See also JUBILEE, YEAR OF.

4 Levites are nowhere mentioned in H.

23. Chap. 26:3-45 : Promise and warning.[edit]

Chap. 26 contains promises of prosperity to obedience (26:3-13) and threatened judgments on disobedience (26:14-45), with a subscription to the Holiness Law-Book (26:46). The whole is spoken in the person of Yahwe to the Israelites (plural throughout), and corresponds in character and in its relation to the preceding laws to Ex. 23:20+ and Dt. 28. To the last mentioned chapter Lev. 26 has much resemblance, not only in its general tenor but also in particular turns of thought and expression ; but these coincidences are not of such a nature as to imply literary dependence ; the total impression, on the contrary, is distinctly of originality on both sides.

The disposition is different : Dt. 28 has an antithetic series of blessings and curses (28:2-14, 153} to which there is no counterpart in Lev. 26; Lev. 26 is climactic (26:14-17, 26:18-20, 26:21-22, 26:23-26, 26:27-28); note also that in Lev. Yahwe himself speaks (I), in Dt. the divine promises and warnings are in the third person (Yahwe) ; in Lev. the address to the Israelites is plural (ye, you), in Dt. singular (thou, thee).

Innumerable threads connect Lev. 26 with those parts of the foregoing chapters which are ascribed to RH ; * there is every reason to believe that it is by the same author who compiled the law-book H and attached to the toroth which he incorporated his characteristic motives.^ The difference in situation, which Baentsch urges as the strongest argument for attributing 26 to a different author, is easily exaggerated (in 18-25 the entrance into Canaan is still future - 18:3, 18:24, 19:23, 20:22-24, cp 23:10, 25:2 - whilst in 26 it is an accomplished fact) ; it would be more just to say that the situation is not con sistently maintained (see on the one hand 18:25, 18:27, on the other 26:11). The relation is in this respect the same as that of Dt. 28 to Dt. 12-26; in the prophetic peroration the author s real present almost inevitably shows through.

Dillmann and Baentsch have rightly observed that Lev. 26, like Ex. 23:20+ and Dt. 28, has not escaped additions and glosses by later hands, which the resemblance of some parts to Ezekiel peculiarly invited: 26:8 is a later doublet to 26:7; 26:10 is per haps a gloss to 26:4-5. ; 26:17 would be in place rather with 26:23-26; 26:30 is probably a gloss to 26:31 derived from Ezek. 6:3-5 ; 26:34-35 a late interpolation (RP) cognate to 2 Ch. 36:21 ; 26:37 is also questioned; 26:39-43 is a late addition, 26:39 sets in at the same point as 26:36, the phraseology reminds us of Ezek. (cp 4:17, 24:23, 33:10) ; the fol lowing verses (26:40-43, 3rd pers. throughout) are very clumsily written; 26:44-45, also, are secondary.

24. Other remains of H.[edit]

It has been observed above (s. 14) that Lev. 17-26 is not a complete law-book; some laws may have been omitted by the redactor because the subject was treated elsewhere; others may have been removed to a new con nection. The question thus arises whether any portions of H can be recognised in other parts of the Pentateuch. One such has been noticed above (s. 8), the food laws in Lev. 11, with the characteristic colophon of RH (11:4-5) ; cp 20:25 (s. 17 end). A considerable number of other passages in Ex., Lev., Nu. have been thought by dif ferent critics to be derived from H some in their present form, others much altered by later redaction. 4 It is obvious that the characteristic expressions and motives of RH are the only criterion by which we can recognise fragments of H ; resemblance in the subject or formulation of laws to toroth incorporated in H may point to a relation to the sources of H, but is not evidence that these laws were ever included in that collection. 5 Further, the test of diction must not be applied mechanically; not all the sections in which the words 'I am Yahwe' occur are, on that ground alone, to be ascribed to H : familiarity with H and Ezekiel may have suggested the formula to later authors or editors ; or, on the other hand, it may have been used by others before RH. In the greater part of the passages wtiich have been claimed for H, the evidence is for one or the other of the reasons indicated insufficient; Nu. 15:37-41 is perhaps the only one about which there is no dispute, though in some other cases a probability may be admitted.

1 See Baentsch, 44/1

2 Not an independent prophetic sermon (Ew., Nold. : cp Baentsch), nor the close of a different collection of laws (May- baum, Pritsterthum, 74/7".).

3 See Klostermann, ZLTSRjOaf. (?Tj}=Pentateuch, 377 f.\ Del. ZKIV 1622; Kayser, JPf 7 650 ( 81); Horst, 35 / ; Kue. Hex. 15, n. 5; Dillm. Num. Dent. Jos. 640; Wurster, -Z.4rW4i2 3 /f. ( 84); Holzinger, Hex. 410 ; Baentsch, bjf. ; Carpenter ana Harford-Battersby, 2 145.

4 The list includes Ex. U 6-8 12 12 f. 29 38-46 31 i 3 /. Lev. 5 1-6 2i-2 4 a [lia-sa] in io/. 11 (in part), 12 13 1-46 14 i-8a 15 Nu. 811-13 - r > 1 1-31 62-8 10 i)/. 1538-41 19 1 1/.

6 See below, 25.

25. Sources of H.[edit]

The analysis of Lev. 17-26 shows that the laws in H were not conceived and expressed by the author of that book, but were taken by him from preceding collections in a form already fixed; even where the share of RH is largest, as in the provisions for the jubilee year (25:8+), there is a basis of older law. It would be too much to affirm that RH made no material changes in these laws; but in general his work was selection and redaction, putting the existing laws under his own point of view and attaching to them certain distinctive motives. The differences of formulation in the laws themselves, especially in the laws on the same or kindred subjects (as in 18 and 20), prove that they are not all of the same origin ; the presumption is that they were taken from more than one collection, made at different times or places, or in different priestly families or guilds. In other parts of Lev. and Num. we find groups of laws, not belonging to the main stem of P, which are cognate in subject and formulation to those in H, but show no traces of the hand of RH ; it is probable that these are derived from the same collections on which RH drew. 1 The laws in these collections, like those in H, bear, in general, all the marks of genuine tbrbth, representing and regulating the actual practice of the period of the kingdom. 2 They know nothing of a central sanctuary or of a sacerdotal caste ; the priest is simply the priest, Levites are not mentioned, the priest who is greater than his brethren," upon whom greater restric tions are laid (21:10), is a very different thing from the Aaronite high priest of P (see s. 30) ; the occasional references to Aaron and his sons, the tabernacle, and the camp are demonstrably interpolations by a redactor (Rp), who thus superficially accommodated the old laws to the History of the Sacred Institutions (HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 9).

1 See 24, and below, 32.

2 See further below, 30.

3 See Baentsch, \T,\ ff.

4 The verses in which it appears that this has already been accomplished (1*25 IT/.), if not simply a lapse of the writer, may be secondary.

6 The subscription, 2fi 46, according to which the laws were revealed on Mt. Sinai, is probably not by RH: 25 i certainly is not.

B In If* 30 2fi 2 read my holiness."

7 In the toroth neither word occurs; the rites take place in the presence of Yahwe.

26. Character of H.[edit]

The representation of the author (RH) of the history agrees with that of the older historians and the prophets : the Israelites dwelt in Egypt (18:3), thence Yahwe has bought them out to give them the land of Canaan (25:38) ; he is going to expel the peoples of the land before Israel (18:24, 20:22-23) ; 4 the laws are given to the Israel ites before their entrance into the land ; 5 they are to go into operation after the settlement (18:3, 18:24, 19:23, 20:22-24, 23:10, 25:2). There is no archaistic attempt to simulate the situation in the desert (the camp, etc.) ; the place of worship is not the Tent of Meeting, but simply the Sanctuary (mikdas, 'holy place', 20:3, 21:12) 6 or the abode of Yahwe (mitkan, dwelling-place, 17:4 if the word is really from RH 26:11, cp Ezek. 37:27).

The readers are repeatedly exhorted to observe (Samar, 18:4, 18:5, 18:26, 18:30, 19:19, 19:37, 20:8, 22:22, 22:31, 25:18, 26:3, etc.) the laws of Yahwe (hukkoth umispatim, statutes and judgments, 18:5, 18:26, 19:37, 20:22, 25:18; miswoth, com mandments, 22:31, 26:3, 14:15, etc.; never torah); they shall not conform to the customs or rites of the Egyptians or Canaanites (18:3, 20:23) ; Yahwe has sepa- rated Israel from the nations (20:24, 20:26b). Many offences are condemned as defilement (tame, tom'ah, 18:20, 18:23-24, 19:31, 22:8, 21:1, etc. ; cp 18:25, 27 20:3) ; 1 the synonymous expressions in 18:20 are in part, at least, from later hands.

Israelites are warned not to profane (hillel) holy things, such as the name of God (18:21, 19:12, 21:6, 20:3, 22:2, 22:32), sacrifices (19:8, 22:2-3, 22:15), the sanctuary (21:12, 21:23), priesthood (22:9, 22:19, 22:29, 21:15). The people of Yahwe must hallow themselves, and be holy, because he is holy (19:2, 20:7, 26, cp 11:44-45) ; his holiness is to be revered (19:30, 26:2) ; Yahwe hallows his people (20:8, 22:32) ; priests, particularly, are holy (21:6, cp 21:8) ; the sacrifices of the Israelites are their holy things (22:2, 22:15, cp 19:8).

Holiness is thus the dominant element in the author's idea of religion ; sin is profanation and pollution, loath some and abominable; and he uses these conceptions as religious motives.

Besides the explicit appeals to this motive, we find an implicit appeal in the recurring 'I am Yahwe', or "I am Yahwe your God," often strengthened by a re minder of the great deliverance, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt (19:36, cp 25:38, 25:42, 25:55, 26:13), to be a God to you (22:33, 26:45, cp 25:38). The Israelites shall fear Yahwe their God (19:32, 25:17), or his holiness i.e., his Godhead (19:30, 26:2 read so !).

Motives of humanity and charity are represented not only by particular injunctions such as 19:16-17, 19:10 ( = 23:22) , 25:6, but also by such institutions as the sabbatical and jubilee years, and the mitigation of slavery, on which the author lays especial emphasis. These pre cepts of humanity include the foreign resident (ger), who is not to be oppressed (19:33), but to share the charity shown the Israelite poor (19:10 = 23:22, 25:6), and to be treated like a native thou shalt love him as thyself (19:34) ; he is subject to the same civil law (24:22), and worships at the same altars (17:8, 17:10, 17:13). 2 Part of these commandments come from the old laws; but RH has emphasised them strongly.

27. Unity of redaction.[edit]

In some places the admonitory motives of RH seem to be overloaded (see 20:7-8, 22:31, 22:33 ) ; in a few there is an apparent conflict (esp. 18:24 with 18:25-28). It would be strange if these exhortations had not, like those of the deuteronomistic writers, been expanded and heightened by succeeding editors ; in other cases contamination of parallel passages is probable. These phenomena do not overcome the impression of unity which the redac tion of the whole produces, 3 nor sustain the hypothesis of Baentsch that the chapters come from three or more different hands. 4

1 The term was probably used in the laws themselves. - See Bertholet, Stelliing der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, no f. 152 /. (1896).

3 On Dillmann s hypothesis of old Sinai laws in two recen sions by P and J respectively (Exod. Lev.W 5837!; cp NDJ 637 ^), see Horst, $/.; Kayser, JPT 7 6 4 8^f. (1881) ; Kue. fttx. 15. n. 6; Holzinger, Hex. 408.

4 Htiligkeits^ttett, 34 ^f. ; cp 69^". See above, 25.

15 With Dt. compare the emphasis on love to the fellow- Israelite and the stranger (lit \j f. 33 f.; cp DEUTERONOMY, 32), and the laws in part Utopian in the interest of the poor ( 25, cp Dt. 15).

7 Dt. 1-2 2 K. 2-2 /

8 If we eliminate additions of Rp. See 15.


28. Age of H : H and Dt.[edit]

The question has to do, not with the age of the toroth, 5 but with the date of the redaction of the Holiness Law-Book. The whole character of this work discloses affinity to the literature of the close of the seventh and the sixth century - Deuteronomy^ Jeremiah, and especially Ezekiel. The first question that is likely to be asked about a writing of this period is its relation to the deuteronomic reform suppressing sacrifice at all altars save that in Jerusalem (621 B.C.)." The only passage in H which appears to restrict sacrifice to a single sanctuary is 17:4; 8 any Israelite who slaughters a bullock, sheep, or goat, and does not bring it before the abode (mishkan) of Yahwe, shall be regarded as hav ing eaten blood. It is generally agreed that the word mftkan was inserted by a redactor ; the old law said merely before Yahwe i.e., to a local altar or stand ing stone.

If this redactor was RH, then H would appear to represent the extreme consequence of the deuteronomic reform, 1 leaving no place for the slaughter of animals for food without sacrificial rites, for which Dt. makes express provision (12:15-16, 12:20-25). 2 It is possible, however, that the word was introduced by a priestly editor later than RH (of course not the same as the editor who brought in the tent of meeting ); 3 cp Nu. 8:38 It may reasonably be urged that if RH adopted the principle of cen tralisation here so uncompromisingly, he would hardly have failed to show elsewhere some symptom of zeal for the reform or hostility to the local cults contrast Dt., Jer., Ezek. 4

It is unsafe, therefore, to use 17:4 to fix the date of H.

It has been argued that H is younger than Dt. because some of its laws indicate a more advanced development, especially those relating to the priesthood (Lev. 21), the feasts (23:9-20, 23:39-43) , and the sabbatical year (25:1-7, 25:18- 22; cp Dt. 15:1-6), also Lev. 18:16, 20:21 as compared with Dt. 25:5-10 (levirate marriage) ; 5 but the argument is not conclusive. Even less convincing is Baentsch s effort to prove that H abounds in reminiscences and even direct borrowings from Dt. 6

In H and Dt., both of which drew their material largely from older collections of toroth, there are many laws on the same subject, in which the same terms naturally occur; but such coincidences cannot prove the dependence of H on Dt. The mutual independence of the two is rather to be argued from the absence of laws identically formulated, the lack of agree ment in order either in the whole or in smaller portions, and the fact that of the peculiar motives and phrases of RD there is no trace in H (Lev. 23:40 is almost solitary). 7 It is an unwarranted assumption that all the fragments of Israelite legislation which have been preserved lie in one serial development.

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

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

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

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

6 See Kue. Hex. 14, n. 6, 15, n. 8; Baentsch 78 ^/". 103 n6/

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

7 See DEUTERONOMY, $f.

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

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

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

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

12 See above, 26.

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

29. H and Ezekiel.[edit]

If a literary connection between H and Dt. is not demonstrable, the case is otherwise with Ezekiel. The coincidences are here so many and so striking as to have led some critics to regard the prophet as the author of H ; 9 and although even more decisive differences make this hypothesis untenable, 10 a direct connection between the two is indubitable. In the chapters in which Ezekiel writes the indictment of his people, reciting the sins which brought calamity upon it, he judges it by the standard of a law similar in contents to H and having in common with H many peculiar words and phrases. 11 Of greater weight than these coincidences with the laws in H which might of themselves prove only that Ezekiel was familiar with some of the older collections from which H was compiled is the agreement in the dis tinctive point of view : holiness is in Ezek. as in H the signature of religion ; defilement and 'profanation' is the prevailing thought of sin ; 12 characteristic phrases such as 'I am Yahwe that sanctify them' (you), also link them together (Lev. 20:8, 21:8, 21:15, 21:23, 22:9, 22:16, 22:32, Ezek. 20:12, 37:28). 13

The question thus arises : Was Ezekiel acquainted with H, 1 or did the author of H (RH) write under the influence of the thought and language of Ezekiel ? The grounds on which the acquaintance of RH with Ezekiel has been held by many critics 2 are not con clusive. The strongest argument is the fact that Lev. 20 supposes full experience of exile and dispersion, and closes with promises of restoration. We have seen above (s. 23), however, that, like Dt. 28, Lev. 20 has been interpolated, especially towards the end ; and all the passages which assume the situation in the exile are on other grounds ascribed to later hands (26:30, 26:34-35, 26:39-45)- 8

In the remainder of Lev. 20 there is nothing which goes beyond the prophets of the last generation before the fall of Judah. The striking parallels to Ezek. 4 in this prophetic dis course are, as usual in such cases, susceptible of two interpreta tions; but on the whole Lev. 26 by its terseness and vigour makes an impression of originality which a cento of reminis cences picked up from all parts of Kzek. could hardly produce. 5

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

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

For the posteriority of H to Ezek. it has been thought decisive that H prescribes certain stricter rules for the priest who is greater than his brethren (21:10), whilst in Ezekiel's restoration programme (40+) no such distinction is made. But as there was a chief priest under the kings (2 K. 11:9+, 16:10-11, 22:10+, 25:18; cp Am. 7:10+), to whose station stricter taboos would almost necessarily attach, it cannot reasonably be inferred that H here represents a stage of develop ment beyond Ezek. On the other hand, the distinction between priests and Levites in Ezek. (44:9+) is an avowed innovation unknown to H ; we may note also in Ezek. 40+ the fixed date of the feasts and their less close connection with agriculture, and the minuter classification of sacrifices, in which, as in many other points, Ezekiel stands nearer to the later priestly law."

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

1 Noldeke, Vntersnch. 677?".; Klost. ZLT 48 444 (1877)= Pentateuch,^/.; Del. ZKW 1 619(1880) ; Dillmann, Nu. Dt. Jos. (144 Jf.; Dr. Introd.W 145^.; Paton, I.e. logff.; so, for Lev. I -- JO, Baentsch, 84.

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. H and P.[edit]

It is commonly said that H belongs to the priestly stratum of the Hexateuch, representing an earlier stage in the labours of the priestly schools from which P as a whole proceeded ; 8 and it is, accordingly, sometimes designated by the symbol P1, in distinction from P2 (the main stem of P), and later additions (P3 , etc.). But when those passages, especially in 23 and 24, which manifestly belong to late strata of P, together with the many interpolations and glosses of RP, have been set aside, neither the laws in H nor their setting (RP) disclose any marked re semblance to the priestly history and legislation ; their affinities are altogether with JE and Dt. The paraenetic character of H is foreign to all ages and stages of P; the language is quite distinct, as the facility with which the additions of RP can be stripped off shows; the fictitious elements in P's representation of the Mosaic age the camp, the tabernacle of the wilderness, Aaron and his sons, the Levite ministers are conspicuously absent ; the calendar conflicts with P's ; the refined distinction between holy and most holy things is unknown.

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

31. Chap. 27.[edit]

Chaps. 17-20 are followed by a chapter on the commutation of vows and tithes; a late chapter of priestly law, introduced here, perhaps, through association with the laws on the jubilee year and rights of redemption in 25:8+. The tithe of cattle is not elsewhere mentioned in the Pentateuch.

32. Composition of Leviticus.[edit]

In conclusion, the Book of Leviticus is the work not of the author of the History of the Sacred Institutions, usually regarded as the main stem of P, but of a later redactor RP. In particular, H was not incorporated in that History, as was formerly maintained. 2 The redactor's sources were the history above-named, from which he took 9, 10:1-5, 16:2-4, 16:6, 16:12-31; H (in 11, 17-20) ; and collections of laws on sacrifices (in 1-7), and on clean and unclean (in 12-15) ; 3 a priestly calendar of feasts (in 23) ; an account of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (8) ; and some other materials of less obvious provenience, such as the fragments in 24. The sacrificial rules are introduced, not inappropriately, before the description of the first sacrifices at the tabernacle (8-9), though they interrupt the immediate connection of 8 with Ex. 29 (40) ; the laws of clean and unclean (including 11) stand before H, which deals in part with similar subjects; the calendar of feasts from P is combined with that of H in 23, both being mutilated; a motive for the position of 27 has been suggested above (s. 31). Of the position of 24 no satisfactory explanation has been given. The analysis has shown that many changes in the text of the sources, and many more or less considerable additions and interpolations, were made by the editor, or by subse quent redactors and scribes, before the book attained its present form ; perhaps the scape-goat ritual in 16 is one of these later additions.

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

33. Literature.[edit]

1. Commentaries. J. S. Vater, Pent. 2, 1802; M. Baumgarten, 1844; C. F. Keil, 1862; <- >, 1870; ET, 1866; A. Knobel. 1857; ( 2 )by E. Dillmann. 1880; <>) edited by Kyssel, 1897; M. M. Kalisch, 2 vols. 1867, 1872; S. Clark, 1871 (Speaker s Bible) ; E. Reuss, La Bible, P. 3, 2 vols., 1879; Das AT-}, 1893; H. L. Strack, 1894; Driver and White, 1894 (SBOT, Heb.), 1900 (SHOT, Eng.); B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus, 1900 (HK) ; A. Bertholet, 1901 (R HC).

2. Criticism. (For the history of criticism, see HEXATEUCH.) E. Bertheau, Die sieken Grnf/>en mosaischen (iesetze in den drei tttittleren Ruchern des Pentatenchs, 1840; Grnf, Die geschichtlichen Hiicher des Alien Testaments, 1866; Th. Nol deke, Untersuch ungen zur Kritik des A Iten Testa >nents,i86g ; J. W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, 6, 1872; A. Kayser, Das vorextlisches Buck der Urgeschichte Israels und seine Erweiterungen, 1874; JPT\ (1881) 326^., esp. 530 ff.; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuclis und der historischen Biicher des A T, 1889 ( 3 ) 1899 ( = JPT, 1876, 1877) ; P- Wurster, Zur Charakteristik und Geschichte des Priestercodex und Heiligkeits-Gesetzes, ZA TIV4 112^". (.1884); B. W. Bacon, The Triple Tradition of the Exodus, 1894; W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch, 2, 1898; J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, 2 vols. looo (see col. 2057, " I) -

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEVY[edit]

(CE) , i K. 5 i 3 / 9 15 21. See TAXATION.

LIBANUS[edit]

(AlBANOC [BKA]), i Esd. 4 4 8 Judith 1 7 . See LEBANON.

LIBATION[edit]

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

LIBERTINES[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

LIBNAH[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

LIBNI[edit]

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

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

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

LIBRARY[edit]

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

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

LIBYA[edit]

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

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

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

(i) The Original Province of Africa, constituted by the remnant of the possessions of Carthage after the destruction of that city in 146 B.C. (Sallust, BJ 19) : to this, in 25 B.C., Augustus added Numidia, which first became a province, under the name Africa Nova, in 46 B.C. (Pliny, /aW525 ^i Cass. 43 9). This central portion constituted the senatorial Province of Africa, which, like the Province of Asia, was governed by a pro consul of consular rank.

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

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

W. J. W.

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

LICE[edit]

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

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

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

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

LICTORS[edit]

(PAB^OYXOI [Ti. WH]), RV m *. Acts 16:35 38, t EV SERJEANTS, the official designation of the attendants assigned to certain Roman magistrates. Cp Smith, Diet. Gr. and Rom. Ant.W s.v. Lictor.

LIDEBIR[edit]

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

LIEUTENANTS[edit]

1. RV SATRAI-S (C Ezra 36 etc. See SATRAPS, PERSIA.

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

LIGHT[edit]

1. Early conceptions.[edit]

The true God says, according to the great prophetic teacher of the Exile, 'I am Yahwe - and there is none else - who formed light, and created darkness' (Is. 45:6-7). So the Word of God, in the Fourth Gospel, says, 'I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life' (Jn. 8:12). Between these two sayings lies the develop ment of a new conception of life, the germs of which, however, are partly to be found in the work of the exilic teacher. The statement that Yahwe produced light is no part of the traditional Hebrew cosmogony.

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

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

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

2 Later development.[edit]

It was natural that the vague expressions of the Psalter relative to 'light' should be interpreted by later Jews under the influence of the prevalent eschatology. 'Light' and 'life' were virtually synonymous, and these profound expressions received a fuller content through the developed belief in a kingdom of light and life to be supernaturally set up on the earth. The Fourth Gospel, however, and kindred NT writings (with which we may to some extent group the Wisdom of Solomon; cp 3) fill the word light with a larger meaning than any of the Jewish writings, and give a more special prominence to the antithesis between the kingdoms of light and of darkness, not perhaps unin fluenced by Oriental and especially Zoroastrian dualism (as the great Herder long ago pointed out), and not without a connection with Gnosticism. The aim of Christian disciples is to become sons of light (Jn. 12 36 ; cp Eph. 5 s i Thess. 5 5) = to become sons of God (Jn. 1 12), through faith in Christ (cp FAITH), who is the light of the world (Jn. 812 9 5 , cp 14 12 46), and to be ever coming to the light (Jn. 821) to expose themselves to this beneficial test of their inward truth or reality (see TRUTH). The expression the genera tion of light (Enoch i08n) gives merely an external point of contact; the fourth evangelist himself is, we may presume, the virtual originator of those beautiful symbolic phrases, relative to light, into which he con denses the essence of the mind of Jesus as known to him.

1 Cp Brugsch, Re!, u. Myth, tier alien Aegypter, \tx>ff.

2 Max Miiller, Ancient Sanskr. Lit. 562.

3. Reference in Col. Eph. etc.[edit]

Next to the Fourth Gospel the Epistle to the Ephesians is a storehouse of references to the symbolic light. The satellites of 'the ruler of this world' (Jn. 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) or the 'ruler of the Dower of the air' (Eph. 2:2) are called the world-rulers of this darkness (Eph.Gi2.RV). 1 Those who walk in the light (Eph. 58; cp Jn. 1235) are under a moral obligation to bring to light the works of darkness, and to convict those who do them (Eph. 5n is; 2 cp Jn. 820 /). In Colossians we have the classical passage, Col. 1 12 / ( the inheritance of the saints in light, and the power of darkness ), with which a striking passage in i Peter (2 9 /.) may be compared. The designation of Christ in Heb. 1 3 as the effulgence of his (God s) glory is a development of the more elaborate description in Wisd. 7 26, an effulgence from everlasting light, and an unspotted mirror of the working of God (cp MIRROR). The symbolism of i Thess. 04/1, Rev. 21 n 23 is too simple to need any subtle explanation.

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

LIGHTNING[edit]

See THUNDER.

LIGN-ALOES[edit]

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

LIGURE[edit]

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

LIKHI[edit]

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

Possibly another form of J37TI ; see HEI.EK.

LILITH[edit]

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

1. Lilith.[edit]

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

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

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

The details of this myth can only be glanced at here. Lilith was a hairy night-monster (the name being per haps popularly derived from layil, night ), and speci ally dangerous to infants (cp the Greek Lamia). Under her was a large class of similar monsters called Lilin (plur. of Lilith; cp Apoc. Bar. 108), of whom net only children but also men had to beware. Hence, in Talm. Bab. (Shabbath, 151 ), a man is warned not to sleep alone in a house, and in Targ. Jer., Nu. 6:25, a passage in the priestly blessing becomes 'The Lord bless thee in all thy business, and guard thee from the Lilin'.

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

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

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

2. The vampire.[edit]

The vampire is, according to some, another of the mazzikin, or harmful beings, of which the world is full (see DEMONS, and cp Pirke Aboth, 5:9). The 'Alukah (mentioned in Prov. 30:15) is properly the horseleech (see HORSELEECH), but surely not the ordinary horseleech, if it was the mother of Sheol and the womb.

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

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

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

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

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

LILY[edit]

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

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

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

N. M. - W. T. T.-D.

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

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

LIME[edit]

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

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

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

LINE[edit]

(i) -nt , si-red. Is. 44i 3 t AV, wrongly. See PENCIL.

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

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

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


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

iS. 2 i8/3apLom. ; 22 18 BLom.,and A has Aivov (which else- where represents "; ".? fflaxl, see belowl; 2 S fii4, ^faAAo?; i Ch. 1">27, /Suo-criVr;. The plural is rendered in Ezek. 9, rroSiioiK; in Ezek. 1(1 (TToAri and crToAri oyio; in Dan. 8v<r<j-ci>a (Aq f -itpcTa, Symrn. Ai, Th. |3aW[>]n<X The usual rendering of Tg. and Pesh. is -13, byssus.

LINEN, FINE LINEN, and LINEN GARMENTS[edit]

occur as renderings of the following words :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is reason for distinguishing /StVeroj as a finer sort of linen from \tvov , thus Pausanias and others speak of them as distinct; and Pliny (xix. 14, of the byssus of Elis, quaternis denariis scripula eius per- mutata quondam ut attri reperio) and many others refer to byssus as among the most costly of materials. We may therefore be satisfied with the EV rendering of 'fine linen'. The mention of the families of the house of those that wrought fine linen (fan) in i Ch. 421 (if correct) reminds us of other references to the growth and spinning of flax in Palestine (Josh. 26 Prov. 31 13 Hos. 2s 9 [7 n]). See also FLAX.

4. mikwek, Hipp, in i K. 1028 and NlpD twice in 2 Ch. 1 16 ( linen yarn AV), is considered under CHARIOT and MIZKAIM.

5. sadin, [ -ID, fine linen (Prov. 8X24 AV, 15.823 EV), linen garments (Judg. 14 12 RV ; J AV sheets, mg. shirts ), an article of domestic manufacture (1 r. I.e. ), which was considered a luxury (Is. I.e. ). Accord ing to Jer. Kil. 24 13 there were three varieties (a sleeping- cloth, a garden-dress, and a sampler), and in Altndch. 37 b it is spoken of as a summer garment as opposed to the N^anD for winter use. In Yomd 64 it is used of a curtain, and in Kil. 19 32^ of a shroud. From these passages it may be concluded that sddln denotes either in general a piece of linen cloth, such as a sheet, or more specifically a linen shirt worn next the skin (cp Moore, Judg. , ad loc. ).

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

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

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

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

9. /3u<rcro5, Lk. 16 19 Rev. 18 12!, cp /Suerffivos, Rev. 18 12 16 19gi4t. See (3).

10. \ivov, used for flax in Mt. 12 20, and, according to some MSS, for linen clothing in Rev. 156 where, however, WH followed by RV read \i6ov. For the linen frock in Ecclus. 404 ( cofioAiVoi/) see FROCK.

11. oBovia, linen clothes (Lk. 24 12 Jn. 1940 205^1), plur. dimin. of 60oi/i) (rendered sheet, Acts 10 n 11 st), on which see (i). So far as we can gather from classical references g-n refer to the finer sort of linen cloth, as opposed to the coarser fjuao-uv or canvas (see Yates, op. cit. 265).

12. aiv&&lt;av (Mt. 27 59 Mk. 14 si/ 15 46 Lk. 23 53t ; RV linen cloth consistently) ; cp Egypt. sAent(see 7) is synonymous with oSoviov ; cp Mt. 27 59 Mk. 1646 Lk. 24 12 Jn. 20s/:, and, in , Judg. 14 13, oUovia. LBL], <riv&6vas [A]. JM. M.

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

2 According to Jewish tradition (Mishna, Kil. 9 i) the gar ments of the priests were woollen being an exception to the law against sa atnez, HBJ7BJ, Lev. 19 19 ( garment of linen and woollen, AV), Dt. 22 n (. . . woollen and linen together," AV). Dillmann (on Ex. 2f> 4), however, thinks they may have been cotton. '~ is explained from the Coptic to mean 'false cloth' saht 'woven ' and nuG, 'false' (cp Kn. ad roc.). a's wmd rci,B8;hoc occ& again in Wisd. 2 16 (AV ‘counterfeit, RV 'base metal’) and 159 ('counterfeit[s]' EV). Cp DRESS, 7.

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

LINTEL[edit]

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

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

LINUS[edit]

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

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

LION[edit]

Few animals are mentioned more frequently in the OT than the lion (Felis leo), and familiar acquaintance with its habits is shown by the many similes employed.

1. OT Terms.[edit]

There are five Hebrew words for lion, which, it so happens, are collected together in a single passage (Job 4:10-11. ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Haunts.[edit]

It is plain enough that lions were a source of danger in ancient Palestine. The reedy swamps of the Jordan (Jer. 49 19 50 44 Zech. 11 3, cp Rel. Pal. 274 ) the recesses of Mts . Hermon and Senir (Cant. 48), and the desert S. of Judah (Is. 306), were their favourite haunts. They are no longer found in Palestine, though they are mentioned as late as the twelfth century (Keland), but are still met with in the jungles of the Euphrates and the Tigris. They have probably disappeared from Arabia, 1 but abound, accord ing to Layard, 2 in Khuzistan. In a few parts of India they are not unknown ; 3 but everywhere, even in Africa, they show a tendency to disappear before the encroach ments of man. In historical times the lion ranged over Syria, Arabia, Asia Minor, and the country S. of the Balkans, besides the whole of Africa and the greater part of northern and central Hindustan.

3. Habits.[edit]

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

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

4. Poetical allusions.[edit]

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

5. Lion hunting.[edit]

To hunt lions was the sport of kings. 5 Amenhotep III. boasts of having slain 102 lions during the first ten years of his reign ; 'two sosi of lions (i.e. , 120) I slew', says Tiglath-pileser. Asur- bani-pal claims to have attacked a lion single-handed, and this exploit was not uncommon among his predecessors. Under the later kings lions were sought out in jungles, caught in snares, and preserved for the royal sport. Bow and arrows, or a sword, daggers, and spears were the weapons of the hunters. 6 In Pales tine, as we gather from Ezek. 1948, a pit would be dug, or a net prepared, by which the lion might be caught and then confined in a cage (uio, v. gf, AV ward, )

1 Doughty, Ar. Des. 1459.

2 Nineveh and its Remains, 2 48.

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

  • In the ideal future, however, the lion would lie down with

the calf; cp Is. lie/: 6625.

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

8 Houghton, I.e.

6. In mythology, etc.[edit]

The great brazen laver of Solomon's temple was adorned with lions (i K. 7:29), as well as with oxen and cherubim. All these figures were of Babylonian and Phoenician origin, and represented the strength of the victorious and terrible God of heaven. In Babylonian mythology the lion is the symbol of summer-heat. NERGAL [q. v. ], the god of summer-heat, is represented as a lion-god. It is not, however, a probable view that the opening exploit in the career of Samson (Judg. 14:5) is to be directly explained by this symbolism (Steinthal). More probably, like Gilgames 1 and the Phoenician god Mel- kart, 2 the hero Samson was represented as freeing his land from dangerous animals, which in turn may have been suggested by the conflict of the solar god Marduk with the dragon Tiamat. In Egypt the lion-headed goddess (Sekhet) was the patron of Bubastis, Leonto- polis, and other cities ; and at Baalbek, according to Damascius ( I it. Isid. 203), the protecting deity was worshipped under the form of a lion.

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

LITTER[edit]

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

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

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

The word <f>opeiov has been supposed by many to occur in a Hebraised form in Cant. 87. If true, this has an obvious bearing on the important question whether there are any books in the OT belonging to the Greek period, and directly influenced by the Greek language and even Greek ideas. No word for litter occurs in Ecclesiastes, but in Cant. 87 RV rightly renders nap (mittah ; see BED, 2) litter, Behold it is the litter of Solomon (K\IVTJ, lectulus). The bridegroom (honoured by theextravagant title Solomon )is supposed to be borne in the centre of a procession, sitting in a litter or palanquin (cp 2 S. 831, where the same word means bier K\lvri, feretrvm}. According to the generally received view, this litter or 'palanquin' is called in v. 9 by another term 1 (pnsx; <f>op[f]iov), which Robertson Smith inclined to explain from Sanskrit (see PALANQUIN), but most scholars (so e.g., Bu. and Siegfr. , but not Del. ) regard as a Greek loan-word = <popflov. (In the Midrash on Cant. jrnBN is explained by KCi -iB = (pop-rt/J.a). The Greek derivation is supported by a partial parallelism between the account of Solomon s litter in Cant. 3 10 and that of the <j>opela in a festal procession of Antiochus Epiphanes ( Athen. 5 5 ; cp CAN TICLES, 15). To this view three objections may be raised, (i) The Qopfiov was borrowed by the Greeks from Asia. (2) If a Greek (or Sanskrit) loan-word were used at all, it would be in v. 7, not in v. 9. The native word mittah would be appropriately used to explain the foreign word ; but after the litter has been brought before us as a mittah, we do not expect to be told that king Solomon made himself a <j>opf iov.

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

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

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

The surrounding context is full of difficulties which suggest corruption of the text. We cannot, therefore, consider appiryon apart from the rest of the passage. We may suppose that JVTSK is a dittogram of pja^, and as the result of a series of critical emendations (notably that of nuK^On for "fan, D -IO^N for JD31N [see PURPLE], and Q jan for na.TN [see EBONY]), the description of the bridegroom s litter in Cant. 3:6-11 assumes this form (see Che. JQR 11 562^: [1899]),-

What is it that comes up from the wilderness
Like pillars of smoke ;
Perfumed with myrrh and frankincense,
With all spices of the merchant?
See, it is Solomon s litter,
Surrounded by warriors ;
They are all wearers of swords,
Expert in war.
Every one has his sword on his thigh
For fear of lions.
Solomon made himself this artful work
Of timber of Lebanon ;
Its pillars he made of silver,
Its back of gold,
Its seat almug-wood in the centre,
Inlaid with ebony.
Come forth, ye maidens of Zion,
And behold the king,
In the crown with which his mother crowned him
On the day of his marriage,
And in the day of the joy of his heart,

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

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

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

LITTLE ONES[edit]

(Jer. 14:3). See NOBLES.

LITTLE OWL[edit]

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

LITURGY[edit]

See PSALMS, HYMNS, SACRIFICE.

LIVER[edit]

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

The Heb. phrases are 113? nin ,2 Ex. 29 22 Lev. 8 16 25 9 19 ; lai V^Jf n ri, Lev. 3 4 I0 is T 4 974; and 15|.TJp Vl rt, Lev. 9 10. BAPL also reads one of these phrases in Lev. 730. According to Driver-White (SBO T on Lev.3 $,yithireth denotes probably the fatty mass at the opening of the liver which reaches the kidneys and becomes visible upon the removal of the lesser omentum. This latter is only a thin transparent sheet and cannot well be reckoned among the fat parts of the animal. At all events the old niler- pretation lobe of the liver (, Jos. Ant. iii. 92, etc.) has nothing in its favour.

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

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

We can now understand the Assyrian usage by which kabittu ( = 133) became equivalent to libbu, heart, 3 and are not surprised to find a group of passages in OT, in which 133 has to be restored for the faulty 123 (1133) of MT. In Ps. 76 [5] the keen-witted Oratorian Houbi- gant long ago read 'and pour out my liver on the dust' (TISB> isyS H??! ; cp Lam. 2n), and in Ps. 169 [8], 'Therefore my heart is glad, my mind exults' ( 123 ^ ]). remarking that in the Scriptures the liver is the seat of joy and sorrow ; and in Gen. 49:6 he follows LXX (TO, iJTrard fjiov) in reading H33 'my liver' for -133 'my glory'. In Ps. 30 13 [12] 57g [8] 1082 [i] similar cor rections are necessary; perhaps also in Is. 16 n (n33 for 3ip ; cp Lam. 2n). 4 T. K. C. s. A. C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIVING CREATURES[edit]

See CHERUB i., i.

LIZARD[edit]

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

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

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

3. nS), koah (ib., RV LAND-CROCODILE), AV CHAMELEON [q.v.]."

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

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

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

j. n CCb ,1 scmamith, reckoned among the little things which are clever (Prov. 30:28, AV SPIDER; icaAa/SuTrjs ; stellio; s-a [Pesh.]),2 is rather the lizard (so RV), the reference being to the fact that a harmless lizard may be held in the hands with impunity. n COt? s he rendering of the Targ. Jer., for nxa 1 ? (above), and that of the Sam. for .13N- The mod. Gr. cra/j.id,uti<0os is probably derived from it (cp Del. Prov., ad lac.).

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

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

LOAF[edit]

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

LO-AMMI[edit]

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

LOAN[edit]

(rPXC ), i S. 2:20. The sense is unique ; see 1 28. Cp SAUL, i.

LOCK[edit]

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

LOCKS[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

LOCUST[edit]

1. Species and habitat.[edit]

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

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

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

Locusts are frequently mentioned by the ancients as an article of food. They are much eaten in the East, and, when the legs and wings are removed and the body fried in butter or oil, are said to be not unpalatable. On Mt. 3:4 see at end of article.

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

2 Thomson, LB 419.

S Eight of these at most could be locusts.

2. Names.[edit]

There are nine words in the OT taken to mean the locust, and although, according to the Talmud, there were some 800 {3} species in Palestine (cp Lewysohn Z ool. d. Talm. 286 ff.), we cannot, with any degree of certainty, apportion a distinct species to each Hebrew word.

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

2. cy"?D, sol'am (ajToiojs [BAFL]), in EV the BALD-LOCUST (Lev. 11:22), cp Aram. ci So. 'to consume', which in the Targ. represents 5^3. Perhaps a Tryxalis with its long smooth head and projecting antennae is meant.

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

4. aan, hagab. (\/ 'to hide', or 'conceal' ? aitpi s, but in Lev. 11:22 o^io/nax 1 ??) usually rendered GRASSHOPPER (cp Lev. I.e., Nu. 1833 Is. 40z2 Kccles. 12s) but in 2 Ch. 7 13, locust. It is referred to in Nu. 1^33 (see n. i), Is. 4022 [also in Is. 516, 1 see Che. Is. .S7> <>7 (Heb.); and in Ps. 37 20 90 9,^ see Che. Ps.W] as an emblem of feebleness and insignificance. In Talm. DJH is the generic term for locusts (cp Lewysohn, I.e.). Cp the proper names HAGAU, HAGABAH.

5- C J3, gazam ; see PALMER-WORM.

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

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

8. D 33, 313, gebim (p\ur.), gobay (collective) i.e., 'swarm' ? (aicpi s), usually rendered GRASSHOPPER (cp Nah. 3 17,6 \\ n2"l.x) . but in Am. 7:1, in AV mg-, 'green worms'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H y h 574)-

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

3. Difficult references.[edit]

There are a few passages which have not yet been discussed. In Is. 18:1 the land that sends am- bassadors by the sea is neither the land of the rustlings of wings nor the land of strident creatures with wings (see above, 2 [8]). The most probable reading is Ha Gush ! 'land of the streams of Gihon' ; Gihon is the name of the upper, or Ethiopian, course of the Nile (see Haupt, SHOT, Isaiah [Heb.] 109); the right words have a twofold representation in the Heb. text, though both times in a corrupt form. The difficult clause at the end of Am. 7:1, following the reference to the forma tion of certain locusts, evidently needs criticism. EV gives, and lo, it was the latter growth after the king s mowings, a somewhat obscure explanation (see MOW INGS). But latter growth (a-p 1 ?) surely required no explanation. On the other hand, something more might well have been expected about the locusts. <S gives Kal Idov fipouxos eh yuy 6 paffiXtfa. The true reading probably is V Dm cni nanMi p"?;_ narn, and behold the cankerworm, and the locust, and the palmerworm, and the caterpiller (cp Joel 1:4). The sense gains greatly ; we also obtain a fresh point of contact between the Books of Amos and Joel.

Hasil.- In two passages hasil seems to have been corrupted into set, shadow. One of these (Ps. 109:23), in an emended text, gives a striking parallel to Nah. 8:17; the other (Job 13:28 = 14:2), to Joel 17:12 . The renderings respectively are

1. Like caterpillers (S DH3) on the fences I am taken away,
I am gathered (for removal) like locusts.
2. Like a blossom which appeareth and fadeth,
Like a palm-tree (13:28, like a vine) which caterpillers have eaten.

Two kinds of locusts (TOn and n|HN) are apparently referred to in Ps. 49:11 and (naiX and Sinn) in Ecclus. 14:15 ; in both cases according to critical emendation. Ben Sira's fondness for interweaving biblical expressions with his proverbs has helped in this case to the restoration of the text.

The NT references to locusts (aKpiSes) occur in Mt. 3:4 (Mk. 16) Rev. 9 3 -n. The Mt.-Mk. passage states that locusts formed the chief food of John the Baptist ; it is pointed out, however, elsewhere that there may here be an early misunderstanding (see HUSKS, 4, JOHN THE BAPTIST, 2). The locusts of the Rev. passage belong to the supernatural imagery of the Apocalypse. Contrary to what is said in Prov. 80:27 the locusts are said to have had a king. There may, however, be a confusion between TJ^D, 'king', and TJNS C> 'angel'. ABADDON [q.v.] (note E/3pdi<ni, Rev. 9n) being variously represented as the king and the angel of the abyss.

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

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

LOD[edit]

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

LODDEUS[edit]

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

LO-DEBAR[edit]

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

LODGE[edit]

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

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

LOFT[edit]

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

LOG[edit]

(3?; KOTyAH ; sextarium), Lev. 14 10. See WEIGHTS AND MKASUKES.


LOGOS[edit]

1. Biblical references.[edit]

Except in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 1:1-1:8) the biblical usage of Ao|~OC shows no peculiarity ; it means a complex of words (PHMATA), presented in the unity of a sentence or thought. The entire gospel can be called 'the logos of God', or even, simply the logos (KO.T tox f)i ) see, e.g., Mt. 13:19-23, Gal. 6:6, 2 Cor. 2:17, Rev. 12-9 - as being a declaration of the divine plan of salvation.

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

In Jn. 1:1 the Logos comes before us as a person, who was in the beginning i.e. , before the creation in communion with God, and himself was God. The description proceeds in vv. 2+ ; but the name Logos is used only once again in v. 14, the Logos became flesh ; from this point onward its place is taken by such names as Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, the Son, the Christ. 1:14 makes it clear that for the writer the identity of the Logos with the bearer of the gospel, Jesus Christ, is a fact as important as it is indubitable ; for him the redeemer is in his heavenly pre-existence the Logos, after his incarnation Jesus Christ. In 1:4+. it is a very difficult matter to dis tinguish clearly which predicates refer to the pre-existent 'Son', and which to the Son in his earthly manifestation ; probably the writer did not intend that a distinction should be made, but wishes from the outset to habituate his readers to thinking of the man Jesus who died on the cross as being one with the eternal Logos and so denying none of the qualities of the one to the other ; the full Godhead of the Saviour is a pledge of the absolute divineness of the salvation he brings. In any case so much is certainly claimed for the Logos in 14-14:

  • (1)An existence that transcends humanity (it is as incarnate that he took up his abode among men ), and indeed creation itself the highest conceivable glory (that of the Father being excepted) ;
  • (2) an infinite fulness of grace and truth ;
  • and (3) the most intimate possible relation to God, even the title of God not being withheld (the article, it is true, is not prefixed).

Moreover, according to v. 3 it is through the Logos that the universe is created ; nothing has come into being without his intervention, and mankind owe also to him the highest good they know light and life. Thus from Jn. 1 1 ff. we may define the Logos as a divine being, yet still sharply distinguished from God, so that monotheism is not directly denied not equal to the Father (cp Jn. 1428), yet endowed with all divine powers whereby to bring to pass the will of God concerning the universe.

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

1 Che. OPs. 3 2i/

2. Origin of Johannine conception.[edit]

There remains the question : From what source did the conception of the Logos come into the Johannine sphere of thought?

It cannot have been the creation of the Evangelist himself, for the very order of the words in 1 lac shows that he has no need to teach that there is a Logos, but only to declare what ought to be believed concerning the Logos. Neither can he have derived it from the OT, though the divine words are conceived of in the Hebrew Scriptures as objectively existing, and as having a creative power 1 (Jn. 1:2 is evidently related to Gen. 1:36, etc.), for the Logos is nowhere a fixed member of the supernatural world. Nor would it at all help us to understand the genesis of the Johannine Logos to adduce the phrase the Memra* ("T N"C"C) by which the Targums denote the Divine Being in self -manifestation, though the same hyposiatising tendency which produced this Jewish phrase also found expression in the like-sounding phrase of the Fourth Gospel.

It was from Greek philosophy that the Evangelist derived the expression through the medium of Philo of Alexandria ; but this need not be equivalent to saying that he was the first to put forward the connection between the Fhilonian Logos and the Jesus Christ of NT believers. Nor yet has he slavishly transcribed Philo ; rather with a free hand and with great skill has he borrowed and adapted from the Philonian account of the Logos those features which seemed serviceable towards the great end he had in view -the Christianising of the Logos conception. In spite, however, of the majestic originality of the verses in question (1:1-5, 1:9+), suggestions of Philo have been traced in almost every word.

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

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

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

LOIS[edit]

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

LOOKING-GLASS[edit]

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

LOOM[edit]

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

LORD[edit]

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

Lord in OT stands for one Aramaic and eight Hebrew words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(10) pafifiiavi. See RABBI.

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