lech.
See HORSELEACH .
led (`ophereth): Lead was one of the first metals to be used in the free state, probably because it was so easily obtained from its ores. Lead was found in ancient times in Egypt and the Sinaitic peninsula. There is no lead found in Palestine proper, but in Northern Syria and Asia Minor it occurs in considerable quantities, usually associated with silver. These sources no doubt furnished an important supply in Bible times. It was also brought by the Phoenicians from Spain (Tarshish) (Ezek 27:12) and the British Isles.
Lead was used, as it still is, all along the Mediterranean shores for sinkers. Pieces of Egyptian fishnets probably dating from 1200 BC are now preserved in the British Museum, with their lead sinkers still attached. Since lead was the heaviest metal known to the ancients, gold excepted, it was generally used for fish-lines and sounding lines (compare Acts 27:28), especially in the dense waters of the Mediterranean. Moses mentioned the sinking qualities of lead in the sea in his simile of the sinking of Pharaoh's hosts "as lead in the mighty waters" (Ex 15:10).
Lead was used by the ancients for binding stones together. In most of the ancient ruins of Syria the Arabs have dug holes at the seams between stones in walls and columns in order to remove the iron, bronze, or lead thus used. In the museum of the Syrian Protestant College, Beirut, there are several specimens of cast-lead sarcophagi dating from the time of Christ.
In Job 19:23,14, lead is mentioned as used in the engraving of permanent records. Two inferences might he drawn from this passage: either that the letters were cut with a chisel (pen) and then the cutting was filled with lead, or that sheets of lead were used as tablets on which to grave the record with an iron tool. Lead is frequently referred to along with iron, brass, silver and tin (Nu 31:22; Ezek 22:18,20; 27:12). The use of lead for plumblines is implied in Am 7:7,8; Zec 4:10; as a weight in Zec 5:7,8. That Old Testament writers understood the use of lead for purifying gold is shown by Jer 6:29 and Ezek 22:18-22 (compare Mal 3:2,3).
James A. Patch
lef, levz: Used in three different senses, with reference: (1) To trees (`aleh, "a coming up"), Gen 3:7; 8:11; Lev 26:36 (Tereph); Ezek 17:9; phullon. Figuratively (a) of spiritual blessings (Ezek 47:12; compare Rev 22:2) and prosperity (Ps 1:3); (b) of moral decay (Isa 64:6), and (c) of a formal, empty profession (Mt 21:19). (2) To a book (deleth), Jer 36:23 (margin "columns"; See 36:2); as the parchment was gradually unfolded the successive columns could be read. (3) To doors (tsela`, "side," qela`,"a screen," "hanging"), 1 Ki 6:34. The door of the Holy Place consisted of two halves, but each half had two leaves (compare Ezek 41:24).
M. O. Evans
leg.
See CONFEDERACY .
le'-a (le'ah; Leia, "weary," "dull"(?), "wild cow"): Rachel's sister, and the elder daughter of Laban (Gen 29:16). We are told that her eyes were "tender" rakkoth). Gesenius renders it "weak," Septuagint astheneis; accordingly, she was weak-eyed, but by no means "blear-eyed" (compare Vulgate). Her eyes were lacking that luster which always and everywhere is looked upon as a conspicuous part of female beauty. Josephus (Ant., I, xix, 7) says of her, ten opsin ouk euprepe, which may safely be rendered, "she was of no comely countenance."
Leah became the wife of Jacob by a ruse on the part of her father, taking advantage of the oriental custom of heavily veiling the prospective bride. When taken to task by his irate son-in-law, Laban excused himself by stating it was against the rule of the place "to give the younger before the first-born" (Gen 29:21-26). Although Rachel was plainly preferred by Jacob to Leah, still the latter bore him six sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah (Gen 29:31 ff), Issachar, Zebulun, and a daughter, Dinah (Gen 30:17-21). Up to this time Rachel had not been blessed with children of her own. Thus the lesson is brought home to us that Yahweh has a special and kindly regard for the lowly and despised, provided they learn, through their troubles and afflictions, to look to Him for help and success. It seems that homely Leah was a person of deep-rooted piety and therefore better suited to become instrumental in carrying out the plans of Yahweh than her handsome, but worldly-minded, sister Rachel.
When Jacob decided to return to the "land of his fathers," both of his wives were ready to accompany him (Gen 31:4,14). Before they reached the end of their journey their courage was sorely tried at the time of the meeting between Jacob and his brother Esau. Although Leah was placed between the handmaids in the front, and Rachel with her son Joseph in the rear, she still cannot have derived much comfort from her position. We may well imagine her feeling of relief when she saw Esau and his 400 men returning to Seir (Gen 33:2,16).
According to Gen 49:31, Leah was buried at Machpelah. We cannot know for a certainty that she died before Jacob's going down to Egypt, though it is very likely. If she went down with her husband and died in Egypt, he had her body sent to the family burying-place. Ruth 4:11 discloses the fact that her memory was not forgotten by future generations. When Boaz took Ruth for a wife the witnesses exclaimed, "Yahweh make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel."
William Baur
le-an'-oth (Ps 88, title).
See PSALMS .
lep'-ing.
See GAMES .
lez'-ing (kazabh "to devise," "to fabricate," hence, "to lie"; occurs but twice in the King James Version (Ps 4:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "falsehood"; 5:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "lies"); the Hebrew word is translated "liars" (Ps 116:11); "lie" or deceive (Job 6:28)): The idea of treachery, lying, and deceit, lies at the root of this word. Joab's conduct is a good illustration of the meaning (2 Sam 3:27; 20:8-10). In Ps 5:6 David is referring to the cunning, treachery, and falsehood of his adversaries; compare 2 Sam 13:28; 15:7-9. Doubtless David had a special person in mind as being guilty of "leasing," probably Ahithophel.
William Evans
leth'-er.
lev'-n (se'or, chamets; zume; Latin fermentum): The nomadic ancestors of the Hebrews, like the Bedouin of today, probably made their bread without leaven; but leaven came to play a great part in their bread-making, their law and ritual, and their religious teaching (See Ex 12:15,19; 13:7; Lev 2:11; Dt 16:4; Mt 13:33; 16:6-12; Mk 8:15 f; Lk 12:1; 13:21).
(1) In Bread-Making.
The form of leaven used in bread-making and the method of using it were simple and definite. The "leaven" consisted always, so far as the evidence goes, of a piece of fermented dough kept over from a former baking. There is no trace of the use of other sorts of leaven, such as the lees of wine or those mentioned by Pliny (NH, xviii.26). The lump of dough thus preserved was either dissolved in water in the kneading-trough before the flour was added, or was "hid" in the flour (the King James Version "meal") and kneaded along with it, as was the case mentioned in the parable (Mt 13:33). The bread thus made was known as "leavened," as distinguished from "unleavened" bread (Ex 12:15, etc.).
See BREAD .
(2) In Law and Ritual.
The ritual prohibition of leaven during "the feast of unleavened bread" including the Passover (Ex 23:15, etc.) is a matter inviting restudy. For the historical explanation given in the Scriptures, see especially Ex 12:34-39; 13:3 ff; Dt 16:3. The antiquity of the prohibition is witnessed by its occurrence in the earliest legislation (Ex 23:18; 34:25). A natural reason for the prohibition, like that of the similar exclusion of honey, is sought on the ground that fermentation implied a process of corruption. Plutarch voices this ancient view of the matter when he speaks of it as "itself the offspring of corruption, and corrupting the mass of dough with which it is mixed." Fermentatum is used in Persius (Sat., i.24) for "corruption." For this reason doubtless it was excluded also from the offerings placed upon the altar of Yahweh, cakes made from flour without leaven, and these only, being allowed. The regulation name for these "unleavened cakes" was matstsoth (Lev 10:12). Two exceptions to this rule should be noted (Lev 7:13; compare Am 4:5): "leavened bread" was an accompaniment of the thank offering as leavened loaves were used also in the wave offering of Lev 23:17. Rabbinical writers regularly use leaven as a symbol of evil (Lightfoot).
(3) In Teaching.
The figurative uses of leaven in the New Testament, no less than with the rabbins, reflect the ancient view of it as "corrupt and corrupting," in parts at least, e.g. Mt 16:6 parallel, and especially the proverbial saying twice quoted by Paul, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (1 Cor 5:6 f; Gal 5:9). But as Jesus used it in Mt 13:33, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven," it is clearly the hidden, silent, mysterious but all-pervading and transforming action of the leaven in the measures of flour that is the point of the comparison.
LITERATURE.
Nowack, Hebrew Arch., II, 145 f; Talmud, Berakhoth, 17a; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebrew. on Mt 16:6.
George B. Eager
le-ba'-na, leb'-a-na (lebhana'), or family of returning exiles (Ezr 2:45; Neh 7:48; compare 1 Esdras 5:29).
leb'-a-non (lebanon; Septuagint Libanos; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Libanus):
Derived from the root labhen, "to be white," probably from the snow which covers its summits the greater part of the year. "White mountains" are found in almost every country. The light color of the upper limestone may, however, form a sufficient reason for the name. In prose the article is usually connected with the name. In poetry it is more often without the article. In the Septuagint, however, the article is generally present both in prose and poetry.
The Lebanon range proper borders the east coast of the Mediterranean, for a distance of 100 miles, running North-Northeast and South-Southwest from the mouth of the Litany river, the classic Leontes (which enters the sea a little North of Tyre), to the mouth of the Eleuthurus (Nahr el-Kebir), a few miles North of Tripolis. This river comes through a depression between Lebanon and the Nuseiriyeh mountains, known as "the entrance to Hamath," and connects with a caravan route to the Euphrates through Palmyra. For a considerable distance North of the Litany, the mountain summits average from 4,000 to 6,000 ft. in height, and the range is more or less dissected by short streams which enter the Mediterranean. Most prominent of these is the Nahr ez-Zaherany, which, after running 25 or 30 miles in a southerly direction through the center of the range, like the Litany, turns abruptly West opposite Mt. Hermon, reaching the sea between Tyre and Sidon. In roughly parallel courses Nahr el-`Awleh and Nahr Damur descend to the sea between Sidon and Beyrout, and Nahr Beyrout just North of the city. Throughout this district the mountain recesses are more or less wooded. Opposite Beyrout the range rises in Jebel Sannin to an elevation of 8,560 ft. Thirty miles farther Northeast the summit is reached in Jebel Mukhmal, at an elevation of 10,225 ft., with several others of nearly the same height. An amphitheater here opens to the West, in which is sheltered the most frequented cedar grove, and from which emerges the Nahr Qadisha ("sacred stream") which enters the Mediterranean at Tripolis. Snow is found upon these summits throughout the year (Jer 18:14), while formerly the level area between them furnished the snow fields from which a glacier descended several miles into the headwaters of the Qadisha, reaching a level of about 5,000 ft. The glacier deposited in this amphitheater a terminal moraine covering several square miles, which at its front, near Bsherreh, is 1,000 ft. in thickness. It is on this that the grove of cedars referred to is growing.
The view from this summit reveals the geographical features of the region in a most satisfactory manner. Toward the East lies Coele-Syria (the modern Buka), 7,000 ft. below the summit, bordered on the eastern side by the mountain wall of Anti-Lebanon, corresponding to the cliffs of Moab East of the Jordan valley, opposite Judea. This depression in fact is but a continuation of the great geological fault so conspicuous in the Jordan valley (See ARABAH ). As one looks down into this valley, Ba`albek appears at the base of Anti-Lebanon, only 20 miles away. The valley is here about 10 miles wide, and forms the watershed between the Orontes and the Litany. To the Northeast the valley of the Orontes is soon obscured by intervening peaks, but to the Southwest the valley of the Litany closes up only where the glistering peak of Mt. Hermon pierces the sky, as the river turns abruptly toward the sea 40 miles distant. Toward the West, the blue waters of the Mediterranean, only 25 miles distant as the crow flies, show themselves at intervals through the gorges cut by the rapid streams which have furrowed the western flanks of the mountain (Song 4:15); 3,500 ft. beneath is the amphitheater many square miles in area, filled with the terminal moraine from which the Qadisha river emerges, and on which the grove of cedars (compare 1 Ki 4:33; Ps 92:12; Hos 14:5) appears as a green spot in the center. Onward to the West the river gorge winds its way amid numerous picturesque village sites and terraced fields, every foot of which is cultivated by a frugal and industrious people. To the traveler who has made the diagonal journey from Beirut to the cedars, memory fills in innumerable details which are concealed from vision at any one time. He has crossed Nahr el-Kelb ("Dog River"), near its mouth, where he has seen Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions dating from the time of Sennacherib's invasion. Ascending this river, after passing numerous villages surrounded by mulberry and olive groves, vineyards, and fields of wheat, and pausing to study the ruins of a temple dating from Roman times, and having crossed a natural bridge at Jisr el-Hagar with a span of 120 ft., rising 75 ft. above the stream, he arrives, at the end of the second day, at the ruins of the famous temple of Venus destroyed by the order of Constantine on account of the impurity of the rites celebrated in it. Here, too, is a famous spring, typical of many others which gush forth on either side of the Lebanon range from beneath the thick deposits of limestone which everywhere crown its summit. The flow of water is enormous, and at certain seasons of the year is colored red with a mineral matter which the ancients regarded with mysterious reverence (See LB ,III , 244). The lower part of the amphitheater is covered with verdure and a scanty growth of pine and walnut trees, but the upper part merges in the barren cliffs which lie above the snow line. Onward, alternately through upturned limestone strata, left by erosion in fantastic forms, and through barren areas of red sandstone, where the cedars of Lebanon would flourish if protected from the depredations of man and his domestic animals, he crosses by turns at higher and higher levels the headwaters of the Ibrahim, Fedar, Jozeh, Byblus and the Botrys rivers, and at length reaches, on the fourth day, the Qadisha, 5 miles below the cedars of Lebanon. Viewed from the Mediterranean the Lebanon range presents a continuous undulating outline of light-colored limestone peaks, the whole rising so abruptly from the sea that through most of the distance there is barely room for a road along the shore, while in places even that is prevented by rocky promontories projecting boldly into the sea. The only harbors of importance are at Beyrout and Tripolis, and these are only partially protected, being open to the Northwest. The eastern face of the range falling down into Coele-Syria is very abrupt, with no foothills and but one or two important valleys.
Geologically considered, the Lebanon consists of three conformable strata of rock thrown up in an anticline with its steepest face to the East. The lowest of these are several thousand ft. thick, consisting of hard limestone containing few fossils, the most characteristic of which is Cidaris glandaria, from which the formation has been named Glandarian limestone. In its foldings this has been elevated in places to a height of 5,000 ft. Through erosion it is exposed in numerous places, where it presents picturesque castellated columns, whose bluish-gray sides are beautifully fluted by atmospheric agencies. The second formation consists of several hundred feet of red-colored sandstone alternating with soft limestone and clay deposits, occasionally containing a poor quality of bituminous coal, with pyrites and efflorescent salts. It is this that occasionally colors the water of the spring at Adonis. The characteristic fossil is Trigonia syriaca. Altogether this formation attains a thickness of 1,000 ft., and it is on its exposed surfaces that the most of the Lebanon pines are found. It contains also many signs of volcanic action. The third formation consists of hippurite limestone, a cretaceous formation, in some places almost wholly composed of fragments of the fossils from which it derives its name. This formation appears on all the highest summits, where in most cases it is nearly horizontal, and in places attains a thickness of 5,000 ft. Between the summits of the range and the foothills this formation has been almost wholly carried away by erosion, thus exposing the underlying formations. Cretaceous strata of still later age are found at low levels near the sea, which in places are covered by small deposits of Tertiary limestone, and by a porous sandstone of the Pleistocene age.
The scenery of the western slopes of Lebanon is most varied, magnificent, and beautiful, and well calculated, as indeed it did to impress the imagination of the Hebrew poets. Originally it was heavily covered with forests of pine, oak and cedar; but these have for the most part long since disappeared, except in the valley of Nahr Ibrahim, which is still thickly wooded with pine, oak and plane trees. Of the cedars there remain, besides the grove at the head of the Qadisha, only two or three, and they are of less importance. Every available spot on the western flanks of the Lebanon is cultivated, being sown with wheat or planted with the vine, the olive, the mulberry and the walnut. Irrigation is extensively practiced. When we let the eye range from the snowy summits of the mountain over all that lies between them and the orange groves of Sidon on the seashore, we understand why the Arabs say that "Lebanon bears winter on its head, spring on its shoulders, autumn in its lap, while summer lies at its feet."
In the more desolate places jackals, hyenas, wolves, and panthers are still found (compare 2 Ki 14:9).
The original inhabitants of Lebanon were Hivites and Gebalites (Jdg 3:3; Josh 13:5,6). The whole mountain range was assigned to the Israelites, but was never conquered by them. It seemed generally to have been subject to the Phoenicians. At present it is occupied by various sects of Christians and Mohammedans, of whom the Maronites, Druzes and Orthodox Greeks are most active and prominent. Since 1860 the region has been under the protection of European powers with a Christian governor. No exact figures are available, but the population at present numbers probably about 275,000.
Ruins of ancient temples are numerous throughout Lebanon. Bacon estimates that within a radius of 20 miles of Ba`albek there are 15 ruined sun-temples, the grandeur and beauty of which would have made them famous but for the surpassing splendor of Ba`albek.
Anti-Libanus (Judith 1:7; Josh 13:5; Song 7:4) is an extension northward of the great mountain system facing on the East the great geological fault most conspicuous in the valley of the Jordan (See JORDAN ,VALLEY OF ), extending from the Gulf of Akabah to Antioch on the Orontes River. The system begins at the Barada River just North of Mt. Hermon, and, running parallel to Mt. Lebanon for 65 miles, terminates at Chums, the "entering in of Hamath." The highest points of the range reach an elevation of over 8,000 ft. Eastward the range merges into the plateau of the great Syrian desert. South of Ba`albek the Yahfufah, a stream of considerable importance, empties into the Litany, while the Barada (the "Abana" of Scripture), rising in the same plateau, flows eastward to Damascus, its volume being greatly increased by fountains coming in from the base of the dissected plateau.
LITERATURE.
The geographical and geological descriptions are largely obtained by the writer from an extended excursion through the region in the company of Professor Day of the Protestant College at Beirut, whose knowledge of the region is most intimate and comprehensive. For more detailed information see Robinson, BRP 2,II , 435 ff, 493; G. A. Smith, HGHL, 45 ff; Burton and Drake, Unexplored Syria; Benjamin W. Bacon, and G.F. Wright in Records of the Past, 1906, V, 67-83, 195-204; Baedeker-Socin, Palestine.
George Frederick Wright
le-ba'-oth, -oth (lebha'oth): An unidentified city in the South of the territory of Judah (Josh 15:32). It is the same as Bethlebaoth of Josh 19:6, which, by a clerical error appears in 1 Ch 4:31 as "Beth-biri."
le-be'-us (Lebbaios): Mentioned in Mt 10:3 the King James Version as "Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus" (the Revised Version (British and American) omits); one of the twelve apostles.
See THADDAEUS .
le-bo'-na (lebhonah): A place on the great north road between Shiloh and Shechem (Jdg 21:19). It is represented by the modern Khan el-Lubban, about 3 miles West-Northwest of Seilun ("Shiloh"), on the way to Nablus. It is a wretched village lying on the slope of a hill, with many rock tombs in the vicinity.
le'-ka (lekhah): A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 4:21).
lej (shalabh): The word in the sense of side-projection is used in 1 Ki 7:28,29 in connection with the bases of Solomon's Molten Sea (See SEA ,THE MOLTEN ); in 7:35,36, where the King James Version uses the same word, the Revised Version (British and American) has "stay" (yadh, literally, "hand"). The Revised Version (British and American) likewise has "ledge" (round) for the King James Version "compass" (karkobh) in the description of the altar in Ex 27:5; 38:4 (See ALTAR ), and the American Standard Revised Version substitutes "ledge" for "settle" (`azarah) in Ezek 43:14,17,20; 45:19.
See TEMPLE .
leks (chatsir; ta prasa): This word, elsewhere translated "grass," is in Nu 11:5 rendered "leeks" in all the ancient VSS, on account of its association with garlic and onions; such a use of the word occurs in the Talmud The leek (Allium porrum) is much grown today in Palestine, while in ancient Egypt this vegetable was renowned.
lez.
See WINE .
left (sama'l, "to go to the left," "to turn to the left," semo'l, "the left hand," sema'li, "belonging to the left," "situated on the left"; aristeros, and euphemistically euonumos, literally, "having a good name," "of good omen"): The words are chiefly used in orientation with or without the addition of the word "hand." So Abraham says to Lot: "If thou wilt take the left hand (semo'l), then I will go to the right; or if thou take the right hand, then I will go to the left (sama'l)" (Gen 13:9). Frequently in Hebrew idiom the right hand and the left are mentioned together in order to express the idea "everywhere," "anywhere," "altogether" (Gen 24:49; Ex 14:22,29; Nu 22:26; Dt 2:27; 5:32; 2 Cor 6:7). In the geographical sense the left is synonymous with north (Gen 14:15; Josh 19:27; Ezek 16:46; Acts 21:3). While the left hand is considered as weaker than the right (See LEFTHANDED ), it is the hand which holds the bow (Ezek 39:3). The left hand is the side from which bad omens come, and therefore less lucky and less honored than the right hand (See HAND , note).
H. L. E. Luering
left'-hand-ed ('iTTer yadh-yamin; Septuagint amphoterodexios, i.e. "ambidextrous"): The Hebrew presents a combination of words signifying literally, a man whose right hand is impeded or lame, who therefore uses the left hand instead, or one who by habit prefers the use of the left hand, where others use the right. It is interesting to note that in both instances, where the expression occurs in the Scripture, it refers to individuals belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (which name itself signifies "a son of the right hand"!). The first is Ehud, son of Gera, who killed Eglon, king of Moab, and thereby delivered Israel from paying tribute to the Moabites (Jdg 3:15). The other instance is that of the 700 selected Benjamites, who, though lefthanded, "could sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not miss" (Jdg 20:16; of 1 Ch 12:2).
H. L. E. Luering
(1) shoq, Aramaic shoq; (2) kara`, dual kera`ayim; (3) reghel; skelos; the King James Version translates also shobhel, and tse`adhah, with "leg," but mistakenly): (1) The first Hebrew word (shoq) denotes the upper leg, and is therefore synonymous with THIGH (which see). It expresses metaphorically the muscular strength, and the pride of the runner. "He taketh no pleasure in the legs of a man" (Ps 147:10). "His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold" (Song 5:15). If the legs have lost their strength as in the lame or the Beri-beri patient, they become a metaphor for anything useless, inefficient or disappointing: "The legs of the lame hang loose; so is a parable in the mouth of fools" (Prov 26:7). The Aramaic form is found in the description of the image of Nebuchadnezzar, "its legs of iron" (Dan 2:33). (2) Kara`, dual kera`ayim, the "leg," "respecting the legs," mentioned as a portion of the paschal lamb (Ex 12:9), or, usually, in connection with the head and the inwards, as a sacrificial portion (Ex 29:17; Lev 1:9,13; Am 3:12). The word designates also the legs of leaping insects of the orthopterous family, locusts, etc., which were permitted as food to the Israelites (Lev 11:21). (3) Reghel, literally, "foot" (which see), found in this sense only once: "He (Goliath) had greaves of brass upon his legs" (1 Sam 17:6).
Two passages of wrong translation in the King James Version have been corrected by the Revised Version (British and American). The virgin daughter of Babylon is addressed: "Make bare the leg, uncover the thigh" (Isa 47:2), the Revised Version (British and American) renders: "Strip off the train (shobhel), uncover the leg," the idea being that the gentle maid, who has been brought up in affluence and luxury, will have to don the attire of a slave girl and do menial work, for which her former garments are unsuited. The other passage is in Isa 3:20, where the King James Version reads: "the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs," the Revised Version (British and American) corrects: "the headtires (ts`adhah), and the ankle chains."
In the New Testament the word "leg" is found only in connection with the breaking of the legs of the persons crucified with the Saviour (Jn 19:31,32,33). We know from Roman and Greek authors that this was done as a coup de grace to shorten the miseries of criminals condemned to die on the cross. The practice bore the technical name of skelokopia, Latin crurifragium. The verb skelokopein ("to break the legs"), is found in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (1 Pet 4:14), where it is distinctly stated that the legs of Jesus were not broken, that His sufferings on the cross might be extended, while the two malefactors crucified with Him were mercifully dispatched in this way. The crurifragium consisted of some strokes with a heavy club or mallet, which always materially hastened the death of the sufferer, and often caused it almost immediately.
Edersheim, in LTJM, II, 613, suggests that the breaking of legs was an additional punishment, and that it was always followed by a coup de grace, the perforatio or percussio sub alas, a stroke with sword or lance into the side. This, however, is not borne out by any classical information which is known to me, and is contradicted by the statement of the evangelist that Jesus received the percussio, while the malefactors endured the crurifragium. Compare on this subject, especially for parallels from classical authors, Sepp, Das Leben Jesu,VII , 441, and Keim, Jesus von Nazara (English translation),VI , 253, note 3.
H. L. E. Luering
le'-jun.
lej-is-la'-shun.
See ASTRONOMY , sec. I, 5.
le-ha'-bim (lehdbhim): Named in Gen 10:13; 1 Ch 1:11 as descendants of Mizraim. They are probably to be identified with the LUBIM (which see), and the one word may be a corruption of the other.
le'-hi.
See RAMATH-LEHI .
lem'-u-el (lemu'el, or lemo'-el): A king whose words, an "oracle (taught him by his mother)," are given in Prov 31:1-9; and possibly the succeeding acrostic poem (31:10-31) is from the same source. Instead of translating the word after this name as "oracle" some propose to leave it as a proper name, translating "king of Massa," and referring for his kingdom to Massa (Gen 25:14), one of the sons of Ishmael, supposedly head of a tribe or sheikh of a country. It is to be noted, however, that the words of Agur in the previous chapter are similarly called massa', "oracle" with not so clear a reason for referring it to a country. See for a suggested reason for retaining the meaning "oracle" in both places,PROVERBS ,THE BOOK OF ,II , 6.
John Franklin Genung
lon: The translation of 7 Hebrew and 2 Greek vbs.:
In the Old Testament: lawah, "to join," "cause to join," "lend" (Ex 22:25; Dt 28:12,44; Ps 37:26; Prov 19:17); nashah, "to bite," "lend" (Dt 24:11; Jer 15:10); nashah (same root as last, though different verb stem, Hiphil), "to cause to bite," "lend on usury" (Dt 15:2; 24:10); nashakh, "to bite," "lend" "(cause to lend) on usury" (Dt 23:19,20); nathan, "to give" (Lev 25:37, the Revised Version (British and American) "to give"); `abhat (Hiphil), "to cause to borrow," "to lend" (Dt 15:6,8); sha'al (Hiphil), "to cause to ask," "to lend" (Ex 12:36, the Revised Version (British and American) "ask"; 1 Sam 1:27). In Septuagint daneizo, danizo, "to lend," translates lawah, and `abaT in above passages and in Neh 5:4; Prov 22:7, and Isa 24:2; kichrao, also translations lawah and sha'al (Ps 112:5; Prov 13:11); daneion(-ion), "loan," occurs in Dt 15:8,10; 24:11; 4 Macc 2:8. In the New Testament "lend" translations two Greek verbs, daneizo, "to lend money" (Lk 6:34,35, usually in commercial sense); kichremi, "to lend (as a friendly act)" (Lk 11:5).The substantive "loan," she'elah, occurs only once in the Old Testament (1 Sam 2:20 the King James Version and the English Revised Version), not at all in the New Testament.
2. History of Lending in the Bible and Apocrypha:
(1) Lending on interest to the poor is prohibited in the code in Ex 22:25. (2) In the code in Dt 15:1-6; 23:19,20; 24:10,11; 28:12,44, borrowing and lending are taken for granted as existing in Israel, but the creditor is required to release his Hebrew brother as debtor in the 7th year (either the cancellation of the loan (so in Jewish literature and early Christian scholars) or suspension of payment that year (so most modern scholars)), though he may exact payment from a foreigner. Israel may lend, and will be able to lend, because of Yahweh's blessing, to other nations, but must not borrow from them. A pledge, or security, must not be taken in person by the creditor from the house of the debtor, nor kept overnight, if the debtor be poor. (3) The code in Lev 25:35-38 requires that the Israelite receive no interest from his poor brother, because of the goodness of Yahweh to Israel. (4) Notwithstanding the prohibition of the early laws against lending on interest or usury, the same seems to have become common in Israel before the exile (Isa 24:2; Jer 15:10), was practiced on the return, and was an evil to be corrected by Nehemiah (Neh 5:7,10). (5) According to Ps 37:26; 112:5; Prov 19:17, lending to the needy was regarded as a mark of the pious Hebrew, but no interest is to be charged. (6) According to Apocrypha (The Wisdom of Solomon 15:16; Sirach 8:12; 18:33; 20:15,29; 4 Macc 2:8), borrowing is discouraged, and lending is exalted as a mark of the merciful man. (7) Jesus teaches that His followers should lend, even to enemies, to men from whom they have no reasonable hope of expecting anything in return, because thus to do is to be like the Most High (Lk 6:34,35). He did not discuss lending for commercial purposes, and so does not necessarily forbid it.
LITERATURE.
See Driver on Dt 15:1-6; Benzinger, Hebrew Archaeology, (1894), 350 f; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, 150, 10; Plummer on Lk 6:34,35.
Charles B. Williams
len'-tilz ('adhashim; phakos; Gen 25:34; 2 Sam 17:28; 23:11; Ezek 4:9; the King James Version Lentiles): These are undoubtedly identical with the Arabic `adas, a small, reddish bean, the product of Ervum lens, a dwarf leguminous plant, half a foot high, which is extensively cultivated in Palestine as a summer crop. The flour is highly nutritious, and the well-known food, Revalenta arabica, is simply one form, specially prepared; `adas are highly esteemed in Palestine, and are used in soup and as a "pottage" known as mujedderah. This last is of a reddish-brown color and is without doubt the "pottage" of Gen 25:34. Lentils were part of the provisions brought to David when fleeing from Absalom (2 Sam 17:28) and were used in the making of the bread for the prophet Ezekiel (4:9). In a "plot of ground full of lentils," Shammah, one of David's "mighty men," stood and defended it and slew the marauding Philistines (2 Sam 23:11,12).
E. W. G. Masterman
lep'-erd ((1) namer (Song 4:8; Isa 11:6; Jer 5:6; 13:23; Hos 13:7; Hab 1:8); compare Arabic nimr, "leopard." (2) Chaldaic nemar (Dan 7:6). (3) pardalis (Rev 13:2; Ecclesiasticus 28:23); compare nimrim Nimrim (Isa 15:6; Jer 48:34), nimrah, Nimrah (Nu 32:3), and beth-nimrah, Beth-nimrah (Nu 32:36; Josh 13:27)): The leopard is found throughout Africa and ranges through Southern Asia from Asia Minor to Japan, being absent from Siberia and Central Asia. Its range is much the same as that of the lion, which latter, however, does not extend so far to the East. Like other animals of wide range, it has local varieties, but these shade into each other imperceptibly, and the one specific name, Felis pardus, includes all. Leopards live in some of the valleys East and South of the Dead Sea, and in the mountains of Sinai and Northwestern Arabia. They have but rarely been seen of recent years in Lebanon or the more settled portions of Palestine. So far as can be judged from skins which are available for comparison, the leopard of Palestine is rather light in color, and is not as large as. some found in Africa or India. It is not certain that the place-names, NIMRIM, NIMRAH, and BETH-NIMRAH (which see), have to do with namer, "leopard," but their location is in Moab, where leopards are well known, even at the present day. One of the valleys entering the Dead Sea from the East, South of the Arnon, is called Wadi-en-Numeir ("valley of the little leopard"; numeir, diminutive of nimr).
In the Bible "leopard" occurs mainly in figurative expressions, as a large and fierce beast. The leopard is mentioned with the lion and bear in Dan 7:6; Hos 13:7; Rev 13:2; with the lion, wolf and bear in Isa 11:6; with the lion and wolf in Jer 5:6; with the lion alone in Ecclesiasticus 28:23; with the wolf alone in Hab 1:8. The leopard is smaller than the lion and the tiger, but is more active than either. Its swiftness is referred to in Hab 1:8: "Their horses also (of the Chaldeans) are swifter than leopards." The spots of the leopard are referred to in Jer 13:23: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?"
The Greek pardalis, and panther, were both applied to the leopard. "Panther" is sometimes used of large leopards, while in America, with its corrupt form "painter," it is one of the names applied to the cougar or puma, Felis concolor, which, as the specific name implies, is not spotted like the leopard, or striped like the tiger.
Alfred Ely Day
lep'-er, lep'-ro-si (tsara`ath; lepra): A slowly progressing and intractable disease characterized by subcutaneous nodules (Hebrew se'eth; Septuagint oule; the King James Version "rising"), scabs or cuticular crusts (Hebrew cappachath; Septuagint semasia) and white shining spots appearing to be deeper than the skin (Hebrew bahereth; Septuagint telaugema). Other signs are (1) that the hairs of the affected part turn white and (2) that later there is a growth of "quick raw flesh." This disease in an especial manner rendered its victims unclean; even contact with a leper defiled whoever touched him, so while the cure of other diseases is called healing, that of leprosy is called cleansing (except in the case of Miriam (Nu 12:13) and that of the Samaritan (Lk 17:15) where the word "heal" is used in reference to leprosy). The disease is described in the Papyrus Ebers as ukhedu (the Coptic name for leprosy is tseht). It is also mentioned in ancient Indian and Japanese history. Hippocrates calls it "the Phoenician disease," and Galen names it "elephantiasis." In Europe it was little known until imported by the returning soldiers of Pompey's army after his Syrian campaign in 61 BC; but after that date it is described by Soranus, Aretaeus and other classic authors.
The first Old Testament mention of this disease is as a sign given by God to Moses (Ex 4:6 (Jahwist)), which may be the basis of the story in Josephus' Apion, I, 31, that Moses was expelled from Heliopolis on account of his being a leper (see also I, 26 and Ant,III , xi, 4). The second case is that of Miriam (Nu 12:10), where the disease is graphically described (EP2). In Dt 24:8 there is a reference to the oral tradition concerning the treatment of lepers, without any details, but in Lev 13; 14 (Priestly Code) the rules for the recognition of the disease, the preliminary quarantine periods and the ceremonial methods of cleansing are given at length. It is worthy of note that neither here nor elsewhere is there any mention of treatment or remedy; and Jehoram's ejaculation implies the belief that its cure could be accomplished only by miracle (2 Ki 5:7).
The case of Naaman (2 Ki 5:1) shows that lepers were not isolated and excluded from society among the Syrians. The leprosy of Gehazi (2 Ki 5:27) is said to have been the transference of that of Naaman, but, as the incubation period is long, it must have been miraculously inflicted on him. The four lepers of Samaria of 2 Ki 7:3 had been excluded from the city and were outside the gate.
The leprous stroke inflicted on Uzziah (2 Ki 15:5; 2 Ch 26:23) for his unwarrantable assumption of the priestly office began in his forehead, a form of the disease peculiarly unclean (Lev 13:43-46) and requiring the banishment and isolation of the leper. It is remarkable that there is no reference to this disease in the prophetical writings, or in the Hagiographa.
2. Leprosy in the New Testament:
In the New Testament, cleansing of the lepers is mentioned as a specific portion of our Lord's work of healing, and was included in the commission given to the apostles. There are few individual cases specially described, only the ten of Lk 17:12, and the leper whom our Lord touched (Mt 8:2; Mk 1:40; Lk 5:12), but it is probable that these are only a few out of many such incidents. Simon the leper (Mt 26:6; Mk 14:3) may have been one of those cured by the Lord.
3. Nature and Locality of the Disease:
The disease is a zymotic affection produced by a microbe discovered by Hansen in 1871. It is contagious, although not very readily communicated by casual contact; in one form it is attended with anesthesia of the parts affected, and this, which is the commonest variety now met with in the East, is slower in its course than those forms in which nodular growths are the most prominent features, in which parts of the limbs often drop off. At present there are many lepers to be seen at the gates of the cities in Palestine. It is likewise prevalent in other eastern lands, India, China, and Japan. Cases are also to be seen in most of the Mediterranean lands and in Norway, as well as in parts of Africa and the West Indies and in South America. In former times it was occasionally met with in Britain, and in most of the older English cities there were leper houses, often called "lazarets" from the mistaken notion that the eczematous or varicose ulcers of Lazarus were leprous (Lk 16:20). Between 1096 and 1472, 112 such leper houses were founded in England. Of this disease King Robert Bruce of Scotland died. There was special medieval legislation excluding lepers from churches and forbidding them to wander from district to district. Leprosy has been sometimes confounded with other diseases; indeed the Greek physicians used the name lepra for the scaly skin disease now called psoriasis. In the priestly legislation there was one form of disease (Lev 13:13) in which the whiteness covers all the body, and in this condition the patient was pronounced to be clean. This was probably psoriasis, for leprosy does not, until a very late stage, cover all the body, and when it does so, it is not white. It has been surmised that Naaman's disease was of this kind. Freckled spots (Hebrew bohaq), which were to be distinguished from true leprosy (Lev 13:39), were either spots of herpes or of some other non-contagious skin disease. The modern Arabic word of the same sound is the name of a form of eczema. the Revised Version (British and American) reads for freckled spot "tetter," an old English word from a root implying itchiness (see Hamlet, I, v, 71).
The homiletic use of leprosy as a type of sin is not Biblical. The only Scriptural reference which might approach this is Ps 51:7, but this refers to Nu 19:18 rather than to the cleansing of the leper. The Fathers regarded leprosy as typical of heresy rather than of moral offenses. (See Rabanus Maurus, Allegoria, under the word "Lepra.")
The occurrence of certain greenish or reddish stains in the substance of woolen or linen fabrics or in articles made of leather is described in Lev 13:47 ff, and when these stains spread, or, after washing, do not change their color, they are pronounced to be due to a fretting leprosy (tsara`ath mam'ereth), and such garments are to be burnt. As among the fellahin articles of clothing are worn for years and are often hereditary, it is little wonder that they become affected by vegetable as well as animal parasites, and that which is here referred to is probably some form of mildew, such as Penicillium or mold-fungus. The destruction of such garments is a useful sanitary precaution. Possibly this sort of decaying garment was in Job's mind when he compares himself to a "rotten thing that consumeth, like a garment that is moth-eaten" (Job 13:28); see also Jude 1:23, "the garment spotted (espilomenon) by the flesh."
(2) Leprosy in the House (Lev 14:34 ff).
The occurrence of "hollow streaks, greenish or reddish," in the plaster of a house is regarded as evidence that the wall is affected with leprosy, and when such is observed the occupant first clears his house of furniture, for if the discoloration be pronounced leprous, all in the home would become unclean and must be destroyed. Then he asks the priest to inspect it. The test is first, that the stain is in the substance of the wall, and, second, that it is spreading. In case these conditions are fulfilled, it is pronounced to be leprosy and the affected part of the wall is taken down, its stones cast outside the city, its plaster scraped off and also cast outside the city; new stones are then built in and the house is newly plastered. Should the stain recur in the new wall, then the whole house is condemned and must be destroyed and its materials cast outside the city. The description is that of infection by some fungus attacking whatever organic material is in the mud plaster by which the wall is covered. If in woodwork, it might be the dry rot (Merulius lacrimans), but this is not likely to spread except where there is wood or other organic matter. It might be the efflorescence of mural salt (calcium nitrate), which forms fiocculent masses when decomposing nitrogenous material is in contact with lime; but that is generally white, not green or reddish. Considering the uncleanly condition of the houses of the ordinary fellah, it is little wonder that such fungus growths may develop in their walls, and in such cases destruction of the house and its materials is a sanitary necessity.
It should be observed here that the attitude of the Law toward the person, garment or house suspected of leprosy is that if the disease be really present they are to be declared unclean and there is no means provided for cure, and in the case of the garment or house, they are to be destroyed. If, on the other hand, the disease be proved to be absent, this freedom from the disease has to be declared by a ceremonial purification. This is in reality not the ritual for cleansing the leper, for the Torah provides none such, but the ritual for declaring him ceremonially free from the suspicion of having the disease. This gives a peculiar and added force to the words, "The lepers are cleansed," as a testimony to our Lord's Divine mission.
Alexander Macalister
le'-shem.
See LAISH .
les'-o (Lessaou; the King James Version Dessau): A place mentioned only in 2 Macc 14:16 as the scene of a battle between Nicanor and the Jews. "Dessau" of the King James Version arises from confusion of the captical Greek letters, Lambda ("L") with Delta ("D"). The place may be identical with ADASA (which see).
(katecho): Usually in the sense of "permit" (Anglo-Saxon, leetan), but also in Old English with meaning of "hinder" (Anglo-Saxon, lettan). This latter sense is found in 2 Thess 2:7 the King James Version, "Only he who now letteth will let," where the Revised Version (British and American) has, "Only there is one that restraineth now."
le'-thek (lethekh): A liquid measure equivalent to half a homer (Hos 3:2 margin) and containing about 5 1/2 bushels.
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES .
let'-er.
See EPISTLE .
let'-erz.
le-too'-shim, le-tu'-shim (leTushim): A Dedanite tribe in North Arabia (Gen 25:3). With it are connected the ASSHURIM and LEUMMIM (which see).
le-um'-im (le'ummim): A Dedanite tribe of North Arabia, connected with the LETUSHIM (which see).
le'-vi (Lewi; Leui; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Leuei):
(1) The 3rd son of Jacob by Leah. See separate article.
(2) (3) Two ancestors of Jesus in Luke's genealogy (Lk 3:24,29).
(4) The apostle Matthew.
See MATTHEW .
(Lewi; Leuei): The third of Leah's sons born to Jacob in Paddan-aram (Gen 29:34). In this passage the name is connected with the verb lawah, "to adhere," or "be joined to," Leah expressing assurance that with the birth of this third son, her husband might be drawn closer to her in the bonds of conjugal affection. There is a play upon the name in Nu 18:2,4, where direction is given that the tribe of Levi be "joined unto" Aaron in the ministries of the sanctuary. The etymology here suggested is simple and reasonable. The grounds on which some modern scholars reject it are purely conjectural. It is asserted, e.g., that the name is adjectival, not nominal, describing one who attaches himself; and this is used to support theory that the Levites were those who joined the Semitic people when they left Egypt to return to Palestine, who therefore were probably Egyptians. Others think it may be a gentilic form le'ah, "wild cow" (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 146; Stade, Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 152); and this is held to be the more probable, as pointing to early totem worship!
Levi shared with Simeon the infamy incurred at Shechem by the treacherous slaughter of the Shechemites (Gen 34). Jacob's displeasure was expressed at the time (Gen 34:3), and the memory was still bitter to him in his last days (Gen 49:5 f). The fate predicted for the descendants of Simeon and Levi (Gen 49:7), in the case of the latter on account of the tribe's stedfast loyalty in a period of stern testing, was changed to a blessing (Ex 32:26). In later literature the action condemned by Jacob is mentioned with approval (Judith 9:2 ff). Levi was involved in his brothers' guilt with regard to Joseph (Gen 37), and shared their experiences in Egypt before Joseph made himself known (Gen 42 through 45). Three sons, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were born to him in Canaan, and went down with the caravan to Egypt (Gen 46:11). Nothing further is known of the personal history of this patriarch. He died and found sepulture in Egypt. For the tribal history and possessions, See PRIESTS AND LEVITES .
W. Ewing
le-vi'-a-than (liwyathan (Job 41:1-34), from [~lawah, "to fold"; compare Arabic
name of the wry neck, Iynx torquilla, abu-luwa, from kindred lawa, "to bend"):
(1) The word "leviathan" also occurs in Isa 27:1, where it is characterized as "the swift serpent .... the crooked serpent"; in Ps 104:26, where a marine monster is indicated; also in Ps 74:14 and Job 3:8. The description in Job 41 has been thought by some to refer to the whale, but while the whale suits better the expressions denoting great strength, the words apply best on the whole to the crocodile. Moreover, the whale is very seldom found in the Mediterranean, while the crocodile is abundant in the Nile, and has been known to occur in at least one river of Palestine, the Zarqa, North of Jaffa. For a discussion of the behemoth and leviathan as mythical creatures, See EB , under the word "Behemoth" and "Leviathan." The points in the description which may well apply to the crocodile are the great invulnerability, the strong and close scales, the limbs and the teeth. It must be admitted that there are many expressions which a modern scientist would not use with reference to the crocodile, but the Book of Job is neither modern nor scientific, but poetical and ancient.
(2) See ASTRONOMY , sec. II, 2, 5.
Alfred Ely Day
lev'-i-rat.
See MARRIAGE .
le'-vis (Leuis): 1 Esdras 9:14, properly the Levite of Ezr 10:15; "Shabbethai the Levite" for "Levis and Sabbateus."
le'-vits.
See PRIESTS AND LEVITES .
le-vit'-i-kal
III. ALTERNATIVE VIEW AND EVIDENCE
2. Wellhausen's Arguments Answered
5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell
LITERATURE
Nu 35:1-8 provides that 48 cities should be given to the Levites, each surrounded by a pasturage. The exact details are not quite clear, for in the Hebrew, Nu 35:4 would naturally be read as meaning that the pasturage was a radius of 1,000 cubits from the city walls, while 35:5 makes each city the center of a square, each side of which was 2,000 cubits long. Extant variants in the versions suggest, however, that the text has suffered slightly in transmission. Originally there seems to have been no discrepancy between the two verses, and it may be doubted whether the intent was that the city was always to be in the mathematical center of the patch. The Levites were to have the right of redeeming the houses at any time, and in default of redemption they were to go out in the Jubilee. The field was not to be sold (Lev 25:32 f).
Dt 18:8 undoubtedly recognizes patrimonial possessions of the Levites outside the religious capital, and sees no inconsistency with its earlier statement that Levi had no portion or inheritance with Israel (18:1). The explanation lies in the fact that these cities were not a tribal portion like the territories of the secular tribes. The area occupied by the whole 48 jointly would only have amounted to less than 16 miles.
Josh 21 relates that this command was fulfilled by the allocation of 48 cities, but it is clear that some of those cities were not in fact reduced into possession; see e.g. Josh 16:10; Jdg 1:29 as to Gezer, and Jdg 1:27 as to Taanach. Wellhausen treats the whole arrangement as fictitious. His main reasons are: (1) that the arrangement is physically impracticable in a mountainous country, and (2) that "there is not a historical trace of the existence of the Levitical cities." Many remained in the hands of the Canaanites till a late period, while others were "important but by no means ecclesiastical towns" (Prolegomena, 160). Two pages later he says that "four of them were demonstrably famous old seats of worship," and conjectures that most, if not all, were ancient sanctuaries. He also regards Ezekiel's scheme of a heave offering of land (Ezek 45) as the origin of the idea. Yet "Jerus and the temple, which, properly speaking, occasioned the whole arrangement, are buried in silence with a diligence which is in the highest degree surprising" (p. 164).
III. Alternative View and Evidence.
In point of fact, there are traces of some of the Levitical cities in the later history. Such are Anathoth (1 Ki 2:26; Jer 1:1; 32), Jattir (2 Sam 20:26, where, as shown in the article PRIESTS AND LEVITES (which see), Jattirite should be read for the Massoretic Jairite), Beth-shemesh (1 Sam 6:13-15; See PRIESTS AND LEVITES as to the text). (From Am 7:17 it appears that Amaziah of Bethel had land, but we do not know that he was of Levitical descent or where the land was.)
2. Wellhausen's Arguments Answered:
Further, the fact that many other Levitical cities appear to have been centers of worship points to the presence of priests. Was the great high place of Gibeon (1 Ki 3:4) unserved by priests? It is surely natural to suppose that during the period between the capture of the Ark and its transport to Jerusalem there was a tendency for high places to spring up in cities where there were priests rather than elsewhere; indeed there would probably be a disposition on the part of unemployed priests to go astray in a direction that would prove lucrative.
With regard to the other objection, Van Hoonacker's answer is convincing: "As to the way in which the measurements were to be carried out in the mountainous country of Palestine, the legislator doubtless knew what method was usually employed. Besides, we are free to believe that he only gives these figures as approximate indications" (Sacerdoce levitique, 433).
The same writer's reply to theory that the idea originated with Ezekiel is wholly admirable. "Strictly we could ask .... whether Ezekiel did not found himself on the description of the camp of the Israelites in the desert. It is only too manifest that the division and appointment of the territory as presented in Ezek 48 of the prophet are scarcely inspired by practical necessities, that they have a very pronounced character of ideal vision; and `as no fancy is pure fancy,' we ought also to find the elements which are at the basis of Ezekiel's vision. The tents of the tribe of Levi ranged around the tabernacle explain themselves in the Priestly Code; we may doubt whether the Levites, deprived of territory (Ezek 44:28) and nevertheless grouped on a common territory, in the conditions described in Ezek 48, explain themselves with equal facility. A camp is readily conceived on the pattern of a chessboard, but not the country of Canaan. We need not stop there. It is in fact certain that Ezekiel here has in view the protection of the holiness of the temple from all profanation; and in the realm of the ideal, the means are appropriate to the end" (op. cit., 425 f).
5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell:
Lastly there runs through Wellhausen's discussion the confusion between a city where priests may be dwelling and a priestly city. There were priests in Jerusalem, as there are today in London or Chicago; but none of these three places can be regarded as a priestly city in the same sense as the Levitical cities. Not one of them has ever been a patrimonial city of priests, or could be the origin of such an arrangement.
While therefore the whole of the cities mentioned in Josh 21 were certainly not reduced into possession at the time of the conquest, the Wellhausen theory on this matter cannot be sustained.
LITERATURE.
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 159-63; A. Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce levitique, 423-35 (very brilliant and important).
Harold M. Wiener
le-vit'-i-kus:
3. Unity of Book: Law of Holiness Examination of Critical Theory
(1) Theories of Disintegration
(3) Insufficiency of These Reasons
2. Structure of the Biblical Text
(2) Structure of the Individual Pericopes
1. Against the Wellhausen Hypothesis
(2) Attitude of Prophets toward Sacrificial System
(4) Indiscriminate Sacrificing
(5) Deuteronomy and Priestly Code
2. Connection with Mosaic Period
(1) Priestly Code and Desert Conditions
(2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin
(1) The Law Contains God's Will
(2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity
(3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ
LITERATURE
The third book of the Pentateuch is generally named by the Jews according to the first word, wayyiqra' (Origen Ouikra, by the Septuagint called according to its contents Leuitikon, or Leueitikon, by the Vulgate, accordingly, "Leviticus" (i.e. Liber), sometimes "Leviticum"). The Jews have also another name taken from its contents, namely, torath kohanim, "Law of the Priests."
As a matter of fact ordinances pertaining to the priesthood, to the Levitical system, and to the cults constitute a most important part of this book; but specifically religious and ethical commands, as we find them, e.g. in Lev 18 through 20, are not wanting; and there are also some historical sections, which, however, are again connected with the matter referring to the cults, namely the consecration of the priests in Lev 8 and 9, the sin and the punishment of two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (10:1 ff), and the account of the stoning of a blasphemer (24:10 ff). Of the Levites, on the other hand, the book does not treat at all. They are mentioned only once and that incidentally in 25:32 ff. The laws are stated to have been given behar Cinay (7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34), which expression, on account of Lev 11, in which Yahweh is described as speaking to Moses out of the tent of meeting, is not to be translated "upon" but "at" Mt. Sinai. The connection of this book with the preceding and following books, i.e. Exodus and Numbers, which is commonly acknowledged as being the case, at least in some sense, leaves for the contents of Leviticus exactly the period of a single month, since the last chronological statement of Ex 40:17 as the time of the erection of the tabernacle mentions the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year of the Exodus, and Nu 1:1 takes us to the 1st day of the 2nd month of the same year. Within this time of one month the consecration of the priests fills out 8 days (Lev 8:33; 9:1). A sequence in time is indicated only by Lev 16:1, which directly connects with what is reported in Lev 10 concerning Nadab and Abihu. In the same way the ordinances given in 10:6 ff are connected with the events described in 8:1 through 10:5. The laws are described as being revelations of Yahweh, generally given to Moses (compare 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 6:19,24 (Hebrew 12,17); 7:22,28, etc.); sometimes to Moses and Aaron (compare 11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1, etc.), and, rarely, to Aaron alone (10:8). In 10:12 ff, Moses gives some directions to the priests, which are based on a former revelation (compare 6:16 (Hebrew 9) ff; 7:37 ff). In 10:16 ff, we have a difference of opinion between Moses and Aaron, or rather his sons, which was decided on the basis of an independent application of principles given in Leviticus. Most of these commands are to be announced to Israel (1:2; 4:2; 7:23,19; 9:3 ff; 11:2; 12:2; 15:2; 18:2, etc.); others to the priests (6:9,25 (Hebrew 2,18); 21:2; 22:2, etc.); or to the priests and the Israelites (17:2; 22:18), while the directions in reference to the Day of Atonement, with which Aaron was primarily concerned (16:2), beginning with 16:29, without a special superscription, are undeniably changed into injunctions addressed to all Israel; compare also 21:24 and 21:2. As the Book of Exodus treats of the communion which God offers on His part to Israel and which culminates at last in His dwelling in the tent of meeting (40:34 ff; compare underEXODUS , I, 2), the Book of Leviticus contains the ordinances which were to be carried out by the Israelites in religious, ethical and cultural matters, in order to restore and maintain this communion with God, notwithstanding the imperfections and the guilt of the Israelites. And as this book thus with good reason occupies its well established place in the story of the founding and in the earliest history of theocracy, so too even a casual survey and intelligent glance at the contents of the book will show that we have here a well-arranged and organic unity, a conviction which is only confirmed and strengthened by the presentation of the structure of the book in detail (see underII , below).
3. Unity of Book: Law of Holiness:
As a rule, critics are accustomed first of all to regard Lev 17 through 25 or 26 as an independent section, and find in these chapters a legal code that is considered to have existed at one time as a group by itself, before it was united with the other parts.
It is indeed true that a series of peculiarities have been found in these chapters of Leviticus. To these peculiarities belongs the frequent repetition of the formula: "I am Yahweh your God" (18:2,4; 19:2,4, etc.); or "I am Yahweh" (18:5,6,21; 19:14,16, etc.), or "I am Yahweh .... who hath separated you" (20:24), or "who sanctifieth you" (20:8; 21:8,15,23, etc.). To these peculiarities belong the references in words, or, in fact, to the land of Canaan, into which Israel is to be led (18:3,14 ff; 19:23 ff,29; 20:22 ff; 23; 25), and also to Egypt, out of which He has led the people (18:3; 19:34; 22:33; 26:13,15, etc.); as, further, the demand for sanctification (19:2), or the warning against desecration (19:12; 21:23, etc.), both based on the holiness of Yahweh. In addition, a number of peculiar expressions are repeatedly found in these chapters. Because of their contents these chapters have, since Klostermann, generally been designated by the letter H (i.e. Law of Holiness); or, according to the suggestion of Dillmann, by the letter S (i.e. Sinaitic Law), because, according to 25:1; 26:46, they are said to have been given at Mt. Sinai, and because in certain critical circles it was at one time claimed that these chapters contain old laws from the Mosaic period, although these had been changed in form. These earlier views have apparently now been discarded by the critics entirely.
Examination of Critical Theory.
We, however, do not believe that it is at all justifiable to separate these laws as a special legal code from the other chapters. In the first place, these peculiarities, even if such are found here more frequently than elsewhere, are not restricted to these chapters exclusively. The Decalogue (Ex 20:2) begins with the words, "I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Ex 22:31 contains the demand, "Ye shall be holy men unto me." Ex 29:44,45 contains a promise that God will dwell in the midst of the Israelites, so that they shall learn that He is Yahweh, their God, who has brought them out of Egypt in order to dwell in their midst as Yahweh, their God (compare, further, Ex 6:6-8; 31:13 f; Lev 10:10,11; 11:44; Nu 15:37-41; 33:52 f,55 f; Dt 14:2,21). It is a more than risky undertaking to find in these and in other sections scattered remnants of H, especially if these are seen to be indispensable in the connection in which they are found, and when no reason can be given why they should be separated from this collection of laws. Then, too, the differences of opinion on the part of the critics in assigning these different parts to H, do not make us favorably inclined to the whole hypothesis. Hoffmann, especially (Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, 16 ff), has shown how impossible it is to separate H from the other ordinances of the Priestly Code in so radical a manner. In saying this we do not at all wish to deny the peculiar character of these chapters, only we do not believe that Lev 17 can be added or Lev 26 can be taken away from this section; for in Lev 17 all the characteristic peculiarities of the Holiness Law are lacking; and, on the other hand, in Lev 26 the expression "I am Yahweh your God," or a similar one in 26:12,13,14 f, is found. The subscription in 26:46 connects Lev 26 with the preceding; and, further, the reference to the Sabbatical year as described in Lev 25, found in 26:34 f,43, is not to be overlooked. Finally, also, other legal codes, such as that in the first Book of the Covenant (Ex 23:20-33) and that of Dt (27:11-28:68) close with the offer of a blessing or a curse.
The chapters under consideration (Lev 18 through 26) are most closely connected with each other solely through their contents, which have found expression in a particular form, without these facts being sufficient to justify the claim of their being a separate legal code. For since in Lev 1 through 17 all those things which separate the Israelites from their God have been considered and bridged over (compare Lev 1 through 7, the laws concerning sacrifices; Lev 8 through 10, the mediatorship of the priests; Lev 11 through 15, the unclean things; Lev 16, the Day of Atonement; Lev 17, the use made of blood), we find in Lev 18 through 26 an account of the God-pleasing conduct, which admits of nothing that desecrates; namely, Lev 18 through 20 contain laws dealing with marriage and chastity and other matters of a religious, ethical or cultural kind, together with the punishments that follow their transgression; Lev 21 f determine the true character of the priests and of the sacred oblations; Lev 23 f, the consecration of the seasons, of life and death, etc.; Lev 25, the Sabbath and the Jubilee year; Lev 26 contains the offer of a blessing or a curse. Lev 1 through 17 have, as it were, a negative character; Lev 18 through 26 a positive character. In Lev 1 through 17 the consciousness of what is unclean, imperfect and guilty is awakened and the possibility of their removal demonstrated; while in Lev 18 through 26 the norm of a holy life is set forth. Even if these two parts at certain places show so great a likeness that the occurrence of an interchange of ordinances could be regarded as possible, nevertheless the peculiar character of each part is plainly recognized; and this is also a very essential argument for the view that both parts have one and the same author, who intentionally brought the two parts into closer connection and yet separated the one from the other. On this supposition the peculiarities of Lev 18 through 26 are sufficiently explained, and also the positive contents of these chapters and the fact that just these chapters are referred to in pre-exilic literature oftener than is the case with Lev 1 through 17, and particularly the close connection between Ezekiel and H is to be regarded as a consequence of the common tendency of both authors and not as the result of their having used a common source (See EZEKIEL ,II , 2). In Lev 26:46 we have what is clearly a conclusion, which corresponds to 25:1; 7:37 f; 1:1, and accordingly regards Lev 1 through 26 as a unity; while Lev 27, which treats of vows and of tithes, with its separate subscription in 27:34, shows that it is an appendix or a supplement, which is, however, in many ways connected with the rest of the book, so that this addition cannot, without further grounds, be regarded as pointing to another author.
Modern criticism ascribes the entire Book of Leviticus, being a special legal code, to the Priestly Code (P). The questions which arise in connection with this claim will be discussed under III, below. At this point we must first try to awaken a consciousness of the fact, that in this special particular, too, the documentary theory has entered upon the stage of total disintegration; that the reasons assigned for the separation of the sources are constantly becoming more arbitrary and subjective; and that the absurd consequences to which they consistently lead from the very outset arouse distrust as to the correctness of the process. Just as in the historical parts the critics have for long been no longer content with J (Jahwist) and E (Elohist), but have added a J1 and Later additions to J, an E1 and Later additions to E, and as Sievers and Gunkel have gone farther, and in detail have completely shattered both J and E into entirely separate fragments (See GENESIS ), So the Priestly Code (P), too, is beginning to experience the same fate. It is high time that, for both the historical and the legal sections, the opposite course be taken, and that we turn from the dismemberment to the combination of these documents; that we seek out and emphasize those features which, in form and content, unite the text into a clear unity. For this reason we lay the greatest stress on these in this section, which deals with the structure of the book, and which treats of the matter (1) negatively and (2) positively (see also EXODUS ,II ).
(1) Theories of Disintegration.
We have already seen in the article DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, (2)) in connection with Lev 16 an example of these attempts at dissection, and here still add several examples in order to strengthen the impression on this subject.
If we for the present disregard the details, then, according to Bertholet (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament), not only Lev 17 through 26 (see, above, under I) at one time existed as a separate legal corpus, but also the sacrificial legislation in Lev 1 through 7, and also the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Lev 11 through 15. Concerning Lev 16 see above. Then, too, Lev 27 is regarded as a supplement and is ascribed to a different author. Finally, the so-called "fundamental document" of P (marked Pg) contained only parts from Lev 9 f (also a few matters from Lev 8), as also one of the three threads of Lev 16, for Lev 8 through 10, it is said, described the consecration of the priests demanded in Ex 25 ff, which also are regarded as a part of Pg, and Lev 16:1 is claimed to connect again with Lev 10 (compare on this pointDAY OF ATONEMENT , I, 2). All these separate parts of Leviticus (i.e. Lev 1 through 7; 8 through 10; 11 through 15; 16; 17 through 26; 27) are further divided into a number of more or less independent subparts; thus, e.g., Lev 1 through 7, containing the sacrificial laws, are made to consist of two parts, namely, Lev 1 through 5 and Lev 6 through 7; or the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Lev 11 through 15 are divided into the separate pieces, Lev 11; 12; 13:1 through 46; and these are regarded as having existed at one time and in a certain manner independently and separated from each other. But how complicated in detail the composition is considered to be, we can see from Lev 17 through 26.
(b) Leviticus 17 through 26 Considered in Detail:
While Baentsch (Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament) accepts, to begin with, three fundamental strata (H1 = Lev 18 through 20 and certain portions from Lev 23 through 25; H2 = Lev 21 f; H3 = Lev 17), Bertholet, too (op. cit., x), regards the development of these chapters as follows: "In detail we feel justified in separating the following pieces: (i) Lev 17:3,4 (5,7a),8,9,10-14; (ii) 18:7-10,12-20,22 f; and this united with (iii) 19:3 f,11 f,27 f,30,31,35,36, which was probably done by the author of (iii). The following were inserted by the person who united these parts, namely, 18:6,27,25,26,28,30; (iv) 19:9,10,13-18,19,29,32; (v) 19:5-8,23-26; (vi) 20:2(3),6(27); (vii) 20:9,10-21; 19:20; (viii) 21:1b-5,7,9-15,17b-24; 22:3,8,10-14,18b-25,27-30; (ix) 23:10-20,39-43; (x) 24:15-22, except verses 16a(?)b; (xi) 25:2-7 (4),18-22,35-38,39,40a,42 f,47,53,15; (xii) 25:8a,9b,10a,13,14-16,17,24 f. In uniting these pieces Rh (the Redactor of the Law of Holiness) seems to have added de suo the following: 17:5 (beginning); 18:2b-5,21,24,26a(?),29; 19:33 f,37; 20:4 f,7 f,22-26; 21:6,8; 22:2,9,15 f,31-33; 23:22; 25:11 f; 26:1 f. At the same time he united with these an older parenetic section, 26:3-45, which, by inserting 26:10,34 f,39-43, he changed into a concluding address of this small legal code. All the rest that is found in Lev 17 through 26 seems to be the result of a revision in the spirit of the Priestly Code (P), not, however, as though originally it all came from the hand of Rp (Redactor P). That he rather added and worked together older pieces from P (which did not belong to Pg) is seen from an analysis of Lev 23. .... As far as the time when these parts were worked together is concerned, we have a reliable terminus ad quem in a comparison of Neh 8:14-18 with Lev 23:36 (P),39 ff (H). Only we must from the outset remember, that still, after the uniting of these different parts, the marks of the editorial pen are to be noticed in the following Lev 17 through 26, i.e. that after this union a number of additions were yet made to the text. This is sure as far as 23:26-32 is concerned, and is probable as to 24:1-9,10-14,23; 25:32-34; and that this editorial work even went so far as to put sections from P in the place of parts of H can possibly be concluded from 24:1-9."
(c) Extravagance of Critical Treatment:
This is also true of all the other sections, as can be seen by a reference to the books of Bertholet and Baentsch. What should surprise us most, the complicated and external manner in which our Biblical text, which has such a wonderful history back of it, is declared by the critics to have originated, or the keenness of the critics, who, with the ease of child's play, are able to detect and trace out this growth and development of the text, and can do more than hear the grass grow? But this amazement is thrust into the ackground when we contemplate what becomes of the Bible text under the manipulations of the critics. The compass of this article makes it impossible to give even as much as a general survey of the often totally divergent and contradictory schemes of Baentsch and Bertholet and others on the distribution of this book among different sources; and still less possible is it to give a criticism of these in detail. But this critical method really condemns itself more thoroughly than any examination of its claims would. All who are not yet entirely hypnotized by the spell of the documentary hypothesis will feel that by this method all genuine scientific research is brought to an end. If the way in which this book originated had been so complicated, it certainly could never have been again reconstructed.
(2) Reasons for Dismemberment.
We must at this place confine ourselves to mentioning and discussing several typical reasons which are urged in favor of a distribution among different authors.
We find in the parts belonging to P a number of so-called repetitions. In Lev 1 through 7 we find a twofold discussion of the five kinds of sacrifices (1-5; 6:1 ff); in Lev 20 punitive measures are enacted for deeds which had been described already in Lev 18; in 19:3,10; 23:3; 26:2 the Sabbath command is intensified; in 19:5 ff; 22:29 f, we find commands which had been touched upon already in 7:15 ff; 19:9 f we find almost verbally repeated in 23:22; 24:2 ff repeats ordinances concerning the golden candlestick from Ex 27:20 ff, etc. The existence of these repetitions cannot be denied; but is the conclusion drawn from this fact correct? It certainly is possible that one and the same author could have handled the same materials at different places and from different viewpoints, as is the case in Lev 1 through 7 in regard to the sacrifices. Lev 18 and 20 (misdeeds and punishments) are even necessarily and mutually supplementary. Specially important laws can have been repeated, in order to emphasize and impress them all the more; or they are placed in peculiar relations or in a unique light (compare, e.g., 24:1 ff, the command in reference to the golden candlestick in the pericope Lev 23 through 24; see below). Accordingly, as soon as we can furnish a reason for the repetition, it becomes unobjectionable; and often, when this is not the case, the objections are unremoved if we ascribe the repetitions to a new author, who made the repetition by way of an explanation (See EXODUS ,II , 2, (5)).
Other reasons will probably be found in uniting or separating materials that are related. That Lev 16 is connected with Lev 8 through 10, and these connect with Ex 25 ff, is said to prove that this had been the original order in these sections. But why should materials that are clearly connected be without any reason torn asunder by the insertion of foreign data? Or has the interpolator perhaps had reasons of his own for doing this? Why are not these breaks ascribed to the original author? The sacrificial laws in Lev 1 through 7 are properly placed before Lev 8 through 10, because in these latter chapters the sacrifices are described as already being made (9:7,15, the sin offering; 9:7,12,16, the burnt offering; 9:17; 10:12, the meal offering; 9:18, the peace offering; 9:3 f, all kinds). In the same way Lev 11 through 15, through 15:31, are inwardly connected with Lev 16, since these chapters speak of the defiling of the dwelling-place of Yahweh, from which the Day of Atonement delivers (16:16 f,33). As a matter of course, the original writer as well as a later redactor could have at times also connected parts in a looser or more external manner. In this way, in 7:22 ff, the command not to eat of the fats or of the blood has been joined to the ordinances with reference to the use of the peace offerings in 7:19 ff. This again is the case when, in Lev 2, verses 11-13 have been inserted in the list of the different kinds of meal offering; when after the general scheme of sin offerings, according to the hierarchical order and rank in Lev 4, a number of special cases are mentioned in 5:1 ff; and when in 5:7 ff commands are given to prevent too great poverty; or when in 6:19 ff the priestly meal offerings are found connected with other ordinances with references to the meat offerings in general (6:14 ff); or when the share that belongs to the priest (7:8 ff) is found connected with his claim to the guilt offering (7:1 ff); or the touching of the meat offering by something unclean (7:19 ff) is found connected with the ordinances concerning the peace offerings; or when in Lev 11 the ordinances dealing with the unclean animals gradually pass over into ordinances concerning the touching of these animals, as is already indicated by the subscription 11:4,6 f (compare with 11:2). Still more would it be natural to unite different parts in other ways also. In this way the ordinances dealing with the character of the sacrifices in 22:17-30 could, regarded by themselves, be placed also in Lev 1 through 7. But in Lev 22 they are also well placed. On the other hand, the character of Lev 1 through 7 would have become too complicated if they were inserted here. In such matters the author must have freedom of action.
(c) Change of Singular and Plural:
Further, the frequent change between the singular and the plural in the addresses found in the laws which are given to a body of persons is without further thought used by the critics as a proof of a diversity of authors in the section under consideration (compare Lev 10:12 ff; 19:9,11 ff,15 ff, etc.). But how easily this change in numbers can be explained! In case the plural is used, the body of the people are regarded as having been distributed into individuals; and in the case of a more stringent application the plural can at once be converted into the singular, since the author is thinking now only of separate individuals. Naturally, too, the singular is used as soon as the author thinks again rather of the people as a whole. Sometimes the change is made suddenly within one and the same verse or run of thought; and this in itself ought to have banished the thought of a difference of authors in such cases. In the case of an interpolator or redactor, it is from the outset all the more probable that he would have paid more attention to the person used in the addresses than that this would have been done by the original writer, who was completely absorbed by the subject-matter. Besides, such a change in number is frequently found in other connections also; compare in the Book of the Covenant (Ex 22:20-25,29 f; 23:9 ff; compare Dt 12:2 ff,13 ff). In regard to these passages, also, the modern critics are accustomed to draw the same conclusion; and in these cases, too, this is hasty. In the same way the change in the laws from the 3rd to the 2nd person can best be explained as the work of the lawgiver himself, before whose mind the persons addressed are more vividly present and who, when speaking in the 2nd person, becomes personal (compare Lev 2:4 ff with 2:1-3, and also 1:2; 3:17; 6:18,21,25 ff).
(d) Proofs of Religious Development:
A greater importance seemingly must be attributed to the reasons based on a difference in the terminology or on contradictions in the laws, as these appear to lead to a religio-historical development. But the following examples are intended to show how all important it is to be slow in the acceptance of the materials which the critics offer in this connection.
(3) Insufficiency of These Reasons.
(a) In Lev 5:1-7, in the section treating of the sin offering (4:1 through 5:13), we find the word 'asham, which also signifies "guilt offering" (compare 5:14 ff; 7:1 ff). Accordingly, it is claimed, the author of 5:1-7 was not yet acquainted with the difference between the two kinds of offerings, and that this part is older than that in 4:1 ff; 5:14 ff. However, in 5:1 ff the word 'asham is evidently used in the sense of "repentance," and does not signify "sin offering" at all; at any rate, already in 5:6 f we find the characteristic term chaTTath to designate the latter, and thus this section appears as entirely in harmony with the connection.
(b) Critics find a contradiction in Lev 6:26; 7:33,7, and in 6:29; 7:31,6, since in the first case the officiating priest and in the other case the entire college of priests is described as participating in the sacrifice. In reply it is to be said that the first set of passages treat of the individual concrete cases, while the second set speak of the general principle. In 7:8 f, however, where the individual officiating priest is actually put in express contrast with all the sons of Aaron, the matter under consideration is a difference in the meal offerings, which, beginning with Lev 2, could be regarded as known. Why this difference is made in the use of this sacrifice is no longer intelligible to us, as we no longer retain these sacrifices, nor are we in possession of the oral instruction which possibly accompanied the written formulation of these laws; but this is a matter entirely independent of the question as to the author.
(c) According to Ex 29:7; Lev 4:3,5,16; 6:20,22; 8:12; 16:32; 21:10,12, the high priest is the only one who is anointed; while, on the other hand, in Ex 28:41; 29:21; 30:30; 40:15; Lev 7:36; 10:7, all the priests are anointed. But the text as it reads does not make it impossible that there was a double anointing. According to the first set of passages, Aaron is anointed in such a manner that the anointing oil is poured out upon his head (compare especially Ex 29:7 and Lev 8:12). Then, too, he and all his sons are anointed in such a way that a mixture of the oil and of the blood is sprinkled upon them and on their garments (compare especially Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30). Were we here dealing with a difference in reference to theory and the ranks of the priesthood, as these discussions were current at the time of the exile (see III , below), then surely the victorious party would have seen to it that their views alone would have been reproduced in these laws, and the opposing views would have been suppressed. But now both anointings are found side by side, and even in one and the same chapter!
(d) The different punishments prescribed for carnal intercourse with a woman during her periods in Lev 15:24 and 20:18 are easily explained by the fact that, in the first passage, the periods are spoken of which only set in during the act, and in the second passage, those which had already set in before.
(e) As far as the difference in terminology is concerned, it must be remembered that in their claims the critics either overlook that intentional differences may decide the preference for certain words or expressions; or else they ignore the fact that it is possible in almost every section of a writer's work to find some expressions which are always, or at least often, peculiar to him; or finally, they in an inexcusable way ignore the freedom of selection which a writer has between different synonyms or his choice in using these.
All in all, it must be said that however much we acknowledge the keenness and the industry of the modern critics in clearing up many difficulties, and the fact that they bring up many questions that demand answers, it nevertheless is the fact that they take the matter of solving these problems entirely too easily, by arbitrarily claiming different authors, without taking note of the fact that by doing this the real difficulty is not removed, but is only transferred to another place. What could possibly be accepted as satisfactory in one single instance, namely that through the thoughtlessness of an editor discrepancies in form or matter had found their way into the text, is at once claimed to be the regular mode of solving these difficulties--a procedure that is itself thoughtlessness. On the other hand, the critics overlook the fact that it makes little difference for the religious and the ethical value of these commands, whether logical, systematic, linguistic or aesthetic correctness in all their parts has been attained or not; to which must yet be added, that a failure in the one particular may at the same time be an advantage in the other. In this respect we need recall only the anacoluths of the apostle Paul.
2. Structure of the Biblical Text:
The most effective antidote against the craze to split up the text in the manner described above will be found in the exposition of all those features which unite this text into one inseparable whole. What we have tried to demonstrate in the arts GENESIS; EXODUS, II; DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2 (compare also EZEKIEL , I, 2, (2)) can be repeated at this point. The Book of Leviticus shows all the marks of being a well-constructed and organic literary product, which in its fundamental characteristics has already been outlined under I above. And as this was done in the several articles just cited, we can here add further, as a corroborative factor in favor of the acceptance of an inner literary unity of the book, that the division of the book into its logical parts, even down to minute details, is here, as is so often the case elsewhere, not only virtually self-evident in many particulars, but that the use made of typical numbers in many passages in this adjustment of the parts almost forces itself upon our recognition. In other places the same is at least suggested, and can be traced throughout the book without the least violence to the text. The system need not be forced upon the materials. We often find sections but loosely connected with the preceding parts (compare under 1 above) and not united in a strictly logical manner, but which are nevertheless related in thought and association of ideas. In harmony with the division of the Book of Gen we find at once that the general contents, as mentioned under I above, easily fall into 10 pericopes, and it is seen that these consist of 2 sets each of 5 pericopes together with an appendix.
(a) Ten Pericopes in Two Parts:
Part I, the separation from God and the removal of this separation: (i) Lev 1 through 7; (ii) Lev 8 through 10; (iii) Lev 11 through 15; (iv) Lev 16; (v) Lev 17.
Part II, the normal conduct of the people of God: (i) Lev 18 through 20; (ii) Lev 21 through 22; (iii) Lev 23 through 24; (iv) Lev 25; (v) Lev 26.
Appendix, Lev 27; compare for the number 10 the division of Ex 1:8 through 7:7; 7:8 through 13:16; 13:17 through 18:27; also the Decalogue, 20:1 ff; 21:1 through 23:19; 32:1 through 35:1; and See EXODUS ,II , 2; and in Lev probably 18:6-18; 19:9-18, and with considerable certainty 19:1-37 (see below).
(b) Correspondence and Connections:
I leave out of consideration in this case the question whether an intentional correspondence among the different parts be traced or not, even in their details. Thus, e.g.; when the 2nd pericope (Lev 8 through 10 and 21 f) treats particularly of the order of the priests, or when the 4th pericope of the 2nd set (Lev 25) states that the beginning of the Year of Jubilee fell on the 10th day of the 7th month, i.e. on the Day of Atonement as described in Lev 16, in the 4th pericope of the 1st set (compare 25:9 with 16:29); or when both sets close with two shorter pericopes, which evidently express high stages of development (Lev 16 and 17, respectively, Lev 25 and 26 treating of the Day of Atonement, of the use made of blood and the purposes of blood for the altar or the Jubilee Year, of the blessing and the curse).
And, as far as the order in other respects is concerned, it is throughout to be regarded as founded in the subject-matter itself that Lev 1 through 17 must precede Lev 18 through 26. First that which separates the people from God must be removed, and then only is a God-pleasing conduct possible. Just as easily, and in agreement with the context, it is possible that the consecration of the priests in Lev 8 through 10 presupposes the sacrificial torah (Lev 1 through 7; compare under 1 above) and follows the latter, and is immediately introduced by the mention made of the installation sacrifices for which otherwise there are no reasons assigned in the concluding formula in 7:37 (compare 8:22-32). The Day of Atonement (Lev 16), which in 16:16 f and 33 is spoken of in connection with the purification of the sanctuary, is in turn introduced by Lev 11 through 15, or more particularly by the remark in 15:31, where mention is made of the pollution of the dwelling-place of Yahweh. And on the other hand, the ordinances dealing with the priests (Lev 8 through 10) in 10:10, where the command is given to discriminate between what is holy and what is unholy and to teach Israel accordingly, already point to the contents of Lev 11 through 15. The sacrifices, with which the first part in Lev 1 through 7 begins, are taken up again by the conclusion in Lev 17, in the commandment concerning the blood for the altar. The second part, too, already at the beginning (Lev 18 through 20) in its religiously cultural and ethical ordinances, shows in the clearest possible manner what matters it proposes to discuss. In this way the systematic structure of the book is apparent in all particulars.
Close connections: comparison with Exodus: And, further, the different pericopes are also so closely Connected among themselves and with the corresponding pericopes in the books of Ex and Nu, that many have thought it necessary to regard them as a special body of laws. But the connection is so close and involves all the details so thoroughly, that all efforts to divide and distribute them after the examples described under 1 above must fail absolutely. We shall now give the proofs for the different pericopes in Lev, but in such a manner as to take into consideration also Ex 25 through 31; 35 ff, treating of the tabernacle and its utensils and the Aaronitic priesthood, which are most intimately connected with Lev. All details in this matter will be left out of consideration.
(i) Tabernacle and priesthood: That Lev 8 through 10 (the consecration of the priests, etc.), together with Ex 25 ff, constitutes a single whole is accepted on all hands. But the tent of meeting and its utensils, and also the priesthood, both with and without any emphasis on the Aaronitic origin, are presupposed also in almost each one of the other pericopes of Leviticus; compare for Lev 1 through 7, e.g., 1:3,1; 3:2,8,13; 4:4,5,7,14,16,18; 6:26 (tent of meeting); 1:5,12; 3:5; 4:7,25,30; 6:12 (altar of burnt sacrifices); 4:7,18 (altar of incense sacrifices); 4:6,17 (veil); 6:9,19 (court); 1:5,7,8,11; 2:2; 3:2,5,8,13; 6:9,14,16,20,25, etc. (Aaron and his sons as priests); for Lev 11 through 15 See 12:4,6; 14:11,23; 15:14,29,31 (sanctuary, tent of meeting, dwelling-place); 11:1; 12:6 f; 13:1 ff; 14:2 ff,33 ff; 15:1 (priesthood); for Lev 16 see verses 2,7,16 f,20,23,13 (sanctuary and Holy of Holies tent of meeting); 16:2,12 (veil); 16:2,13 ff (lid of the Ark of the Covenant); 16:12,18,20,33 (altar); 16:1 ff (Aaronitic priesthood); for Lev 17 see verses 4-6,9 (tent of meeting); 17:6,11 (altar); 17:5 (priesthood); for Lev 18 through 20 See 19:30,21 (sanctuary of Yahweh, tent of meeting); 19:22 (priesthood); for Lev 21 f see 21:12 (sanctuary); 21:23 (sanctuaries of Yahweh); 21:23 (veil, altar); 21:1 ff,21 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Lev 23; 24 see 23:2,4,21,24,27,36 f (sanctuary); 24:1 ff (candlestick, tent of meeting); 24:5 ff (table of showbread); 23:10,20 (priesthood); 24:3,1 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Lev 26 see verses 2,11,31 (sanctuary, dwelling-place of Yahweh, sanctuaries); for Lev 27 see verses 10,33 (sanctuary); 27:8 ff (priesthood).
(ii) In the same way the sacrificial laws of Lev 1 through 7 are mentioned in the following pericopes as matters that are well known. For Lev 8 through 10 See 9:7,15 (sin offering); 9:7,12,16 (burnt offering); 9:17; 10:12 (meal offering); 9:18 (peace offering); 9:3 f (all together); compare also Ex 29:14,18,28. In Lev 9:21; 10:14 f (wave-breasts and heave-thigh) direct reference is made to 7:30-36. In the same manner 10:16 ff presupposes the ordinances dealing with the different ways of offering the sin offerings in 4:3 ff,13 ff; 6:24-30; for Lev 11 through 15 See 12:6 ff; 14:12 ff (compare especially 14:13 with 4:24); 14:21 ff; 15:14 f,29 f; for Lev 16 see verses 3,5 f,9,11,15,24 f,27; for Lev 17 see verses 5 ff,8,11; for Lev 18 through 20 see 19:6 ff,21 f (here is therefore the 'asham found in H, which is claimed to be of a later date); for Lev 21 f see 21:6,21 f; 22:17 ff,29 f; for Lev 23; 24 See 23:12 f; 18:19,27,37; 24:9; for Lev 26 see verses 30 f; for Lev 27 compare verses 15,19,27,31 with 5:16; 6:5.
(iii) Laws on clean and unclean: The laws in reference to the clean and the unclean in Lev 11 through 15 are also interwoven with the whole book. For Lev 1 through 7 See 5:2 f; 6:27; 7:19 ff; for Lev 8 through 10 See 10:10 f; for Lev 16 see verses 16,19; for Lev 17 see verses 13,15 f; for Lev 18 through 20 compare 20:25 with 11:44, and in general with Lev 11; for Lev 21 f see 21:10; 13:45; 22:3 ff with Lev 13 through 15; for Lev 27 see verses 11 and 27, as also Lev 11.
(iv) The laws in reference to the Day of Atonement found in Lev 16 are prepared for by those found in Lev 11 through 15, namely, in 14:4 ff,49 ff (the ceremony with the two birds in connection with the purification from leprosy), and in 15:31 (compare 16:16,19; see above). For Lev 23; 24 compare 23:26 ff with 16:29 if, and for 25:9 with 16:29 see above; compare also Ex 30:10.
(v) Leviticus 17 is re-echoed in Lev 1 through 7 (7:26 f) and in Lev 18 through 20 (19:26).
(vi) Finally Lev 25 (Year of Rest and Year of Jubilee) is presupposed in Lev 26:34 f,43 and in Lev 27:17 ff,23 f.
The above, however, by no means exhausts this list of references and similar thoughts, and we have here given only some leading illustrations. What literary tricks must be resorted to when, over against this overwhelming mass of evidence, critics yet insist that the different parts of the book were originally independent writings, especially, too, when the entire tabernacle and utensils of the Aaronitic priesthood, the Day of Atonement, the Year of Jubilee, the whole sacrificial scheme and the laws dealing with the great festivals, the restriction of the slaying of the sacrificial animals to the central sanctuary, are regarded as the products of imagination alone, according to the Wellhausen hypothesis (compare III , below, and see alsoEXODUS ,III , 5;DAY OF ATONEMENT ,III , 1;EZEKIEL ,II , 2). And how little is gained in addition when, as is sometimes done, in a most arbitrary manner, the statements found in Lev 1 through 3 concerning the tabernacle of revelation ("tent of meeting") and concerning Aaron's sons, or concerning Aaron and his sons together, are regarded as later additions. In Lev and Ex 25 ff; 35 ff, everything is so entirely of one and the same character and has so clearly emanated from one and the same spirit, that it is impossible to separate from this product any constituent parts and to unite these into groups that were originally independent, then to split up these still further and to trace the parts to their sources, and even to construct a scheme of religious and historical development on this reconstruction of the sources.
(2) Structure of the Individual Pericopes.
As the windows and the column capitals of a medieval cathedral are arranged according to different schemes and this divergence is regarded as an enrichment of the structure, thus, too, we find it to be in the structure of the various pericopes of the Book of Leviticus. These latter, too, possess a certain symphony of different tones, but all are rhythmically arranged, and only when united do they produce the entire symphony.
(a) The Laws Concerning the Sacrifices (Leviticus 1 through 7):
In the first place, the five different kinds of sacrifices in Israel are mentioned in succession twice, in Lev 1:1 through 7:21: Part I, Lev 1 through 5, namely (i) Lev 1, burnt offerings; (ii) Lev 2, meal offering; (iii) Lev 3, peace offerings; (iv) 4:1 through 5:13, sin offering; (v) 5:14-26, guilt offering; Part II, 6:1 through 7:21, namely (i) 6:8-13, burnt offerings; (ii) 6:14-23, meal offering; (iii) 6:24-30, sin offering; (iv) 7:1-7 with appendix, 7:8-10, dealing with that part of the sacrifices which belongs to the priest (see under 1, above), guilt offering; (v) 7:11-21, peace offerings. With this is found connected in 7:22-27 the prohibition of the use of the fat or the blood, and in 7:28-36, the laws concerning the wave-breast and the heave-thigh. We have accordingly at once twelve of these laws (compare on Ex 25:1 through 30:10 in article on EXODUS, II, 2, (5) and on EZEKIEL, I, 2, 5)). But even apart from this we have no right to ascribe Lev 1 through 5 and 6:1 through 7:21, on the ground that they are duplicates, to different authors.
That there is a difference between these two accounts is proved, not only by the fact that the first set of laws from Lev 1 through 5 is addressed to all the Israelites (compare 1:2; 4:2), and the second set 6:8; 7:21 to Aaron and his sons (compare 6:9,25); but the second set has also in content a number of altogether different viewpoints as compared with the first set, so that the same author found himself induced or compelled to write both sets. On the other hand, the fact that both have the same author is evident from the very close connection between the two sections. In addition to the fact that both make mention of all five kinds of sacrifices, we can yet compare 3:5 with 6:22 (fat pieces of the peace offering over the burnt sacrifices upon the pieces of wood); and, further, the express reference of 6:17 to Lev 4, while 6:30 presupposes the distinct separation of the sin offering, the blood of which is brought into the tent of meeting, from the other sacrifices, as these are given in 4:3 ff,13 ff over against 4:22 ff,27 ff. Leviticus 4, with its reference to the peace offerings (4:10,26,31,35), is again most closely connected with Lev 3. We must accordingly insist that the whole account is most intimately interwoven. Over against this, the omission within the first set, Lev 1 through 5, in 5:14-16, of the ritual for the peace offering, is sufficiently explained only by the fact that this ritual was to be used in the second set (6:8 through 7:21), and here for the first time only in 7:1-15, which fact again speaks for the same author for both sets and against the supposition that they were merely mechanically united by a redactor. The fact that the second set 6:8 through 7:21 has a different order from that of Lev 1 through 5, by uniting the sin offering immediately with the meal offering (6:24 ff with 6:14-23), is probably on account of the similar ordinances in 7:9 and 7:19 (manner of eating the meal offering and the sin offering). On the other hand, the position of the peace offering at the close of the second set (7:11 ff) furnished the possibility of giving to the piece of the entire pericope embraced in 7:22-27,28-36 a suitable conclusion; since 7:22 ff (prohibition of the eating of the fat and the blood), connected with 7:19 ff, contained in 7:28 ff an ordinance that pertained to the peace offering (heave-breast and wave-thigh). At any rate, these last two pieces are to be regarded separately from the rest, since they are no longer addressed to the priests, as is 6:8 through 7:21, but to all Israel; compare 7:23,29. On some other data less intimately connected with the matter, compare above under 1.
(b) Consecration of priests and related matters (Lev 8 through 10): In this pericope, as in the following, down to Lev 17 inclusive, but especially from Lev 11 on, the principle of division on the basis of the number four predominates, in many cases in the details, too; so that this could scarcely be regarded as an accidental feature (compare also the history of Abraham in Gen 12 through 26; further, in Ex 35:4 through 40:38; and in EXODUS, II, 2, (7); Lev 16, under DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2, (1)); Dt 12 through 26, too, is probably to be divided on this principle, even to the minutest details (compare finally Lev 21 through 22:16; 22:17-30; Lev 23 f and 26).
(i) Leviticus 8, treating of the first seven days of the consecration of the priests: The outline is found in 8:2, namely Aaron, the sacred garments, the anointing oil, the bullock of the sin offering, two rams, unleavened bread (compare 8:6,7 ff,10 ff,14 ff,18 ff,22 ff,26 ff). (ii) Leviticus 9 the first sacrifices of Aaron and his sons on the 8th day (9:2-4 contain the outline, after the manner of 8:2; compare 9:7 ff,11 ff, the sin offering and the burnt offering of Aaron, with 9:2; also 9:15-18, treating of what the people brought for the sacrifices, with 9:3 f; but it is to be noticed that the meal offering and the peace offering (9:17,18) are given in inverted order from that found in 9:3 f). Here too we find the number seven, if we add the burnt offering for the morning (9:17). (iii) 10:1-7, the sin of Nadab and Abihu and their punishment by death; (iv) 10:8-20, ordinances concerning the priests, occasioned by 8:1 through 10:7 and provided with a new superscription in 10:8, namely 10:8, dealing with the prohibition of the use of wine and intoxicants; 10:9 f, distinction between the holy and the unholy; 10:12-15, the eating of the sacred oblations; 10:16-20, the treatment of the goat for the sin offering.
(c) Laws Concerning the Clean and Unclean (Lev 11 through 15):
(i) Lev 11, treating of clean and unclean animals. The outline of the chief contents is found in 11:46 with a free transposition of one number. There are accordingly four pieces, namely, 11:2-8, quadrupeds; 11:9-12, water animals; 11:13-23, birds (with an appendix, treating of contact with the unclean, 11:24-28, which give a summary of the animals mentioned (see under 1); 11:29-45, the small animals upon the earth (again in four subdivisions, namely, (i) 11:29-38; (ii) 11:39 ff; (iii) 11:41 f; (iv) 11:44 f).
(ii) Leviticus 12 treats of women in confinement, also in four pieces (12:2-4, birth of a male child; 12:5, birth of a female child; 12:6 f, purification ceremony; 12:8, ordinances in case of extreme poverty). These parts are not joined logically, but in a rather external manner.
(iii) The passage 13:1 through 14:53, containing the laws of leprosy, with the subscription in 14:54 ff. (Because seven points are to be enumerated, 14:55 (garments and houses), this is not as in its further exposition separated from the other laws and is placed in their midst.) The exposition contains four pieces, namely, 13:1-44, leprosy on human beings (with concluding 13:45 f), with seven subdivisions, of which the first five longer ones are constructed along fairly parallel lines, and again can be divided into four sub-subdivisions, namely, 13:1-8; 1:9-17; 1:18-23; 1:24-28; 1:29-37; 1:38 f; 1:40-44. The significance of the number seven for the structure (see (2), (b), i, above) is akin to that found, e.g., in Ex 24:18b through 31:18 (See EXODUS ,II , 2, (5)); Lev 8; 9 (see above); Lev 23; 25; and 27; and possibly 26:3-13,14-39 (see below); finally, the whole Book of Ex is divided into seven parts (seeEXODUS ,II , 1). 13:47-59, leprosy in connection with garments, with four subdivisions, namely 13:47-50; 13:51 f; 13:53 f; 13:55 ff. The last subdivision can again be readily separated into four sub-subdivisions, namely, 13:55; 13:56; 13:57; 13:58; 14:1-32, purifications (14:2 being a special superscription), with 4 subdivisions, namely, (i) 14:2b-3a, the leper before the priest; (ii) 14:3b-9, the purification ceremonies on the first seven days, again divided into 4 sub-subdivisions: 14:3b f; 14:5-7; 14:8; 14:9; (iii) 14:10-20, the ceremony of the eighth day (4 sacrifices, namely 14:12-18, guilt offering; 14:19a, sin offering; 14:19b, burnt offering; 14:20, meal offering; in the 4 sacrifices (5:12 through 6:7) there are again 4 different actions: 14:14; 14:15 f; 14:17; 14:18; (iv) 14:21-32 (in cases of poverty) 14:33-53, leprosy in houses, with four subdivisions: 14:33-35; 14:36-38; 14:39-42; 14:43-53.
(iv) Leviticus 15, sickness or natural issues, with 4 subdivisions, namely, 15:1-15, checked or running issues together with their purification (15:3-12 contain 12 laws: 15:3; 15:4a; 15:4b; 15:5; 15:6; 15:7; 15:8; 15:9; 15:10a; 15:10b; 15:11; 15:12); 15:16-18, issue of seed; 15:19-24, periods; 15:25-30, other flows of blood and their purification. Lev 15:1-15 and 15:16-18 refer to men, and 15:19-24 and 15:25-30 to women; and in addition to these implied suggestions, as 15:1-15 and 15:25-30 to dealing with abnormal issues and their purification ceremonies, 15:16-18 and 15:19-24 deal with normal issues.
(d) The Day of Atonement (Lev 16):
See IV , 1, (2), 2, and underATONEMENT ,DAY OF .
(e) Uses and significance of the blood of sacrifices (Lev 17): (i) 17:3-7, only one place for killing the Sacrifices and the rejection of all foreign cultures; (ii) 17:8,9, only one place for sacrificing; (iii) 17:10-14, prohibitive of eating the blood; (iv) 17:15, pertaining to carcasses of animals found dead or which have been torn by wild beasts.
Here the form and the contents of the section have been brought into perfect harmony by the author. Lev 17:3 ff,8 ff,10 ff,13 ff begin with same words, and each contains a similar formula in reference to the punishment, while logically 17:10 ff and 13 ff are evidently only subdivisions of the third part in 17:10-14, which treats of the prohibition of eating blood. In the fourth division, again, while in substance connected with the rest, there is lacking the formal agreement with the first three divisions.
(f) (g) (Lev 18 through 20; 21): These naturally fall each into 2 parts. Leviticus 18 through 20 contain (i) Lev 18 f, religious and ethical laws; (ii) Lev 20, laws dealing with punishments.
(f) (i) Religious and ethical laws (Lev 18 f): (a) Lev 18: Ordinances with reference to marriage and chastity. Lev 18:1-5, introductory; 18:6-18, prohibition of marriage between kindred of blood; 18:19-23, prohibition of other sexual sins; 18:24-30, warnings.
The subdivision can perhaps be divided into 10 subordinate parts, if it is permitted to combine the different degrees of relationship mentioned in Lev 18:12-14 (namely, 18:7,8,9,10,11,12-14,15,16,17,18). Since it, of itself, manifestly consists of 5 ordinances (18:19,20,21,22,23), this whole section, if we are permitted to divide it into 5 commandments (18:2,3a,3b,4,5) and also into 5 (18:24 f,26-28,29,30a,30b), would contain 5 X 5 words; but this is uncertain.
(b) Leviticus 19: various commands of the deepest significance. In order to discover the divisions of this chapter we must note the characteristic formula, "I am Yahweh, your Gods" or a similar expression, which often appears at the beginning and at the end of certain divisions, e.g. in series (1) (9) and (10), but which in the middle series appears in each case only once, and which in all the series is found also at the conclusion.
In this way we can compute 10 tetralogues.