T HE AGES D IGITAL L IBRARY
REFERENCE
I NTERNATIONAL S TANDARD
B IBLE E NCYCLOPEDIA
V OLUME 7 L-O Z
To the Students of the Words, Works and Ways of God:
Welcome to the AGES Digital Library. We trust your experience with this and other volumes in the Library fulfills
our motto and vision which is our commitment to you:
MAKING THE WORDS OF THE WISE
AVAILABLE TO ALL —INEXPENSIVELY.
AGES Software Albany, OR USA Version 1.0 © 1996
L
LAADAH
<la’-a-da> (hD:[]l” [la`dah]): A descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:21).
LAADAN
<la,’-a-dan>.
See LADAN.
LABAN
<la’-ban>: The person named Laban, ˆb;l; [labhan]; ([Laba>n, Laban], possibly connected with the root meaning “to be white,” from which in Hebrew the adjective meaning “white” has just this form) is first introduced to the reader of Genesis in the story of the wooing of Rebekah (Genesis 24). He belonged to that branch of the family of Terah that was derived from Abraham’s brother Nahor and his niece Milcah. The genealogy of this branch is traced in Genesis 22:20-24; but, true to its purpose and the place it occupies in the book, this genealogy brings the family down to Rebekah, and there stops without mentioning Laban. Accordingly, when Rebekah is introduced in the narrative of Genesis 24, she is referred to (24:15,24) in a way that recalls to the reader the genealogy already given; but when her brother Laban is introduced (24:29), he is related to his sister by the express announcement, “And Rebekah had brother, and his name was Laban.” In this chapter he takes prominent part in the reception of Abraham’s servant, and in the determination of his sister’s future. That brothers had an effective voice in the marriage of their sisters is evident, not only from extra-Biblical sources, but from the Bible itself; see e.g.
Song 8:8. In Genesis 24, however, Laban is perhaps more prominent than even such custom can explain (compare 24:31,50,55), and we are led to see in him already the same forcefulness and egotism that are abundantly shown in the stories from his later life. The man’s eager hospitality (verse 31), coming immediately after his mental inventory of the gifts bestowed by
the visitor upon his sister (24:30), has usually, and justly, been regarded as a proof of the same greed that is his most conspicuous characteristic in the subsequent chapters.
The story of that later period in Laban’s life is so interwoven with the career of Jacob that little need here be added to what is said of Laban in JACOB, III, 2 (which see). By the time of Jacob’s arrival he is already a very old man, for over 90 years had elapsed since Rebekah’s departure.
Yet even at the end of Jacob’s 20 years’ residence with him he is
represented as still energetic and active (Genesis 31:19,23), not only ready for an emergency like the pursuit after Jacob, but personally superintending the management of his huge flocks.
His home is in Haran, “the city of Nahor,” that is, the locality where Nahor and his family remained at the time when the rest of Terah’s descendants emigrated to Canaan (Genesis 11:31; 12:5). Since Haran, and the region about it where his flocks fed, belonged to the district called Aram (see PADDANARAM; MESOPOTAMIA), Laban is often called “the Aramean”
(English Versions of the Bible, “the Syrian,” from Septuagint 5 [oJ Su>rov, ho Suros]); see Genesis 25:20; 28:5; 31:20,24. It is uncertain how far racial affinity may be read into this term, because the origin and mutual
relationships of the various groups or strata of the Sere family are not yet clear. For Laban himself it suffices that he was a Semite, living within the region early occupied by those who spoke the Sere dialect that we call Aramaic. This dialect is represented in the narrative of Genesis as already differentiated from the dialect of Canaan that was Jacob’s mother-tongue;
for “the heap of witness,” erected by uncle and nephew before they part (Genesis 31:47), is called by the one Jegar-saha-dutha and by the other Galeed — phrases which are equivalent in meaning, the former Aramaic, the latter Hebrew. (Ungnad, Hebrdische Grammatik, 1912, section 6 puts the date of the differentiation of Aramaic from “Amurritish” at “about 1500 BC”; Skinner, “Genesis,” ICC, argues that Genesis 31:47 is a gloss,
following Wellhausen, Dillmann, et al.)
The character of Laban is interesting to observe. On the one hand it shows a family likeness to the portraits of all his relations in the patriarchal group, preeminently, however, to his sister Rebekah, his daughter Rachel, and his nephew Jacob. The nearer related to Laban such figures are, the more conspicuously, as is fitting, do they exhibit Laban’s mingled cunning, resourcefulness, greed and self-complacency. And, on the other hand,
Laban’s character is sui generis; the picture we get of him is too personal and complex to be denominated merely a “type.” It is impossible to resolve this man Laban into a mythological personage — he is altogether human — or into a tribal representative (e.g. of “Syria” over against “Israel” = Jacob) with any degree of satisfaction to the world of scholarship. Whether a character of reliable family tradition, or of popular story-telling, Laban is “a character”; and his intimate connection with the chief personage in Israel’s national recollections makes it highly probable that he is no more and no less historical than Jacob himself (compare JACOB, VI).
J. Oscar Boyd LABANA
<lab’-a-na> ([Labana>, Labana], 1 Esdras 5:29): Called Lebanah in Ezra 2:45.
LABOR
<la’-ber> ([“ygiy” [yeghia`], lm;[; [`amal]; [ko>pov, kopos]): The word (noun and verb) denoting hard work or “toil” (thus in the Revised Version (British and American) of Deuteronomy 26:7; Joshua 7:3; Revelation 2:2) represents several Hebrew and Greek words, chiefly those above.
Occasionally, as in Habakkuk 3:17 ([ma`aseh]), it stands for “fruit of labor.” Sometimes, in conjunction with “travail,” it refers to childbirth (Genesis 35:16,17, [yaladh]; compare 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2
Thessalonians 3:8). Examples of the word in the ordinary sense are: of [yeghia`], Genesis 31:42; Job 39:11,16; Psalm 128:2; of [`amal], common in Ecclesiastes 1:3,8; 2:10,11,18, etc.; of [kopos], 1 Corinthians 15:58 (“your labor is not vain,” etc.); 1 Thessalonians 1:3 (“work of faith and labor of love”; compare Hebrews 6:10); 1 Timothy 5:17 (“labor in the word and in teaching”).
See WORK; SLAVERY.
James Orr LACCUNUS
<lak’-u-nus> ([Lakkou~nov, Lakkounos]; the King James Version Lacunus): One of the sons of Addi who returned with Ezra and had married a foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:31). The name does not, as might have
been expected, occur in Ezra 10:30. See note on the passage (in Lange’s Commentary) as to the reconciliation of the lists in 1 Esdras and Ezra.
LACE
<las> (lytiP; [pathil], variously rendered in Genesis 38:18,25; Exodus 39:3; Numbers 15:38; 19:15; Judges 16:9; Ezekiel 40:3): In modern English the noun “lace” usually denotes a delicate ornamental fabric, but in the word in the sense of “that which binds” is still in perfectly good use, especially in such combinations as “shoelace” etc. It is this latter
significance that is found in Exodus 28:28 (“They shall bind .... with a lace of blue”); 28:37; 39:21,31, and in Sirach 6:30 the King James Version, [klw~sma, klosma] (the Revised Version (British and American) “riband”).
LACEDAEMONIANS
<las-e-de-mo’-ni-anz> ([Spartia~tai, Spartidtai]; once only [Lakedaimo>nioi, Lakedaimonioi], 2 Macc 5:9): The inhabitants of Sparta or Lacedaemon with whom the Jews claimed some kinship and formed alliances (1 Macc 12:2,5,6,20,21; 14:20,23; 15:23; 2 Macc 5:9).
The alliance mentioned in 1 Macc 12:5-23 is based, among other grounds, on that of a common descent of Jews and Lacedaemonians from Abraham, for which the only probable presumption — suggested by Ewald — is the similarity of names, “Pelasgi” and Peleg son of Eber (Genesis 10:25;
11:16). This has been reasonably objected to, and perhaps the most that can be said on this point is that the belief in some relationship between the Jews and the Lacedaemonians seems to have prevailed when 1 Macc was written. The alliance itself is said to have been formed (1 Macc 12:20) between Areus, king of the Lacedaemonians and Onias the high priest; but it is not easy to make out a consistent chronology for the transaction. For the renewal of the alliance (circa 144 BC) by Jonathan (1 Macc 12:5-18) and again by Simon (1 Macc 14:16-23), something can be said, as the Greeks had finally been deprived of independence in 146 BC, and Sparta was only obliged to lend assistance to Rome and may be supposed to have been doing so in helping the Jews against Syria. It is possible, too, that as against Syrian Hellenism the Jews were anxious to show that they had the assistance of distinguished Greeks, though the actual power of Sparta was much reduced from that of former times. The facts, at least of the alliance and the correspondence, seem to be sufficiently attested, though it is not
easy to reconcile all the particulars. Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 10; XIII, v, 8;
XIV, xii, 2,3) gives the correspondence at greater length than the writer of the Maccabees.
J. Hutchison LACHISH
<la’-kish> (vykil; [lakhish]; Septuagint [Laci>v, Lachis] (Joshua 15:39), [Mace>v, Maches]):
1. LOCATION:
A town in the foothills of the Shephelah on the border of the Philistine plain, belonging to Judah, and, from the mention of Eglon in connection with it, evidently in the southwestern portion of Judah’s territory.
Eusebius, Onomasticon locates it 7 miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin) toward Daroma, but as the latter place is uncertain, the indication does not help in fixing the site of Lachish. The city seems to have been abandoned about 400 BC, and this circumstance has rendered the identification of the site difficult. It was formerly fixed at Umm Lakis, from the similarity of the name and because it was in the region that the Biblical references to
Lachish seem to indicate, but the mound called Tell el-Hesy is now generally accepted as the site. This was first suggested by Conder in 1877 (PEFS, 1878, 20), and the excavations carried on at the Tell by the
Palestine Exploration Fund in 1890-93 confirmed his identification. Tell el- Hesy is situated on a wady, or valley, of the same name (Wady el Hesy), which runs from a point about 6 miles West of Hebron to the sea between Gaza and Askelon. It is a mound on the very edge of the wady, rising some 120 ft. above it and composed of debris to the depth of about 60 ft., in which the excavations revealed the remains of distinct cities which had been built, one upon the ruins of another. The earliest of these was evidently Amorite, and could not have been later than 1700 BC, and was perhaps two or three centuries earlier (Bliss, Mound of Many Cities). The identification rests upon the fact that the site corresponds with the Biblical and other historical notices of Lachish, and especially upon the discovery of a cuneiform tablet in the ruins of the same character as the Tell el- Amarna Letters, and containing the name of Zimridi, who is known from these tablets to have been at one time Egyptian governor of Lachish. The tablets, which date from the latter part of the 15th or early part of the 14th century BC, give us the earliest information in regard to Lachish, and it
was then an Egyptian dependency, but it seems to have revolted and joined with other towns in an attack upon Jerusalem, which was also an Egyptian dependency. It was perhaps compelled to do so by the Khabiri who were then raiding this region. The place was, like Gaza, an important one for Egypt, being on the frontier and on the route to Jerusalem, and the
importance is seen in the fact that it was taken and destroyed and rebuilt so many times.
2. HISTORY:
We first hear of it in the history of Israel when Joshua invaded the land. It was then an Amorite city, and its king, Japhia, joined the confederacy formed by Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, to resist Joshua. They were defeated in the remarkable battle at Gibeon, and the five confederate kings were captured and put to death at Makkedah (Joshua 10 passim; 12:11).
Lachish was included in the lot of Judah (15:39), and it was rebuilt, or fortified, by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:5,9). It was besieged by
Sennacherib in the reign of Hezekiah and probably taken (2 Kings 18:13) when he invaded Judah and besieged Jerusalem, but the other references to the siege leave it doubtful (2 Kings 18:14,17; 19:8; 2 Chronicles 32:9;
Isaiah 36:2; 37:8). The Assyrian monuments, however, render it certain that the place was captured. The sculptures on the walls of Sennacherib’s palace picture the storming of Lachish and the king on his throne receiving the submission of the captives (Ball, Light from the East, 190-91). This was in 701 BC, and to this period we may assign the enigmatical reference to Lachish in Micah 1:13, “Bind the chariot to the swift steed, O inhabitant of Lachish: she was the beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion.” The cause of the invasion of Sennacherib was a general revolt in Phoenicia, Palestine, and Philistia, Hezekiah joining in it and all asking Egypt for aid (Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, chapter ix). Isaiah had warned Judah not to trust in Egypt (Isaiah 20:5,6; 30:1-5;
31:1), and as Lachish was the place where communication was held with Egypt, being a frontier fortress, perhaps even having an Egyptian garrison, it would be associated with the “sin” of the Egyptian alliance (HGHL, 234).
The city was evidently rebuilt after its destruction by Sennacherib, for we find Nebuchadnezzar fighting against it during his siege of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 34:7). It was doubtless destroyed by him, but we are informed by Nehemiah (11:30) that some of the returned Jews settled there after the
captivity. It is very likely that they did not reoccupy the site of the ruined city, but settled as peasants in the territory, and this may account for the transference of the name to Umm Lakis, 3 or 4 miles from Tell el-Hesy, where some ruins exist, but not of a kind to suggest Lachish (Bliss, op.
cit). No remains of any importance were found on the Tell indicating its occupation as a fortress or city later than that destroyed by the king of Babylon, but it was occupied in some form during the crusades, Umm Lakis being held for a time by the Hospitallers, and King Richard is said to have made it a base of operations in his war with Saladin (HGHL). The Tell itself, if occupied, was probably only the site of his camp, and it has apparently remained since that time without inhabitants, being used for agricultural purposes only.
See further, PALESTINE (RECENT EXPLORATION), III, 1.
H. Porter LACK
(forms of rsej; [chacer], “to lack,” ˆyIa” [ayin], “nought”): This word in its various forms has the usual meaning of “want,” “need,” “deficiency.”
There is but little change in the use of the word in the different versions.
Sometimes one of the common synonyms is exchanged for the word itself, e.g. in the Old Testament, 1 Samuel 21:15 the Revised Version (British and American) has “lack” (“Do I lack madmen?”) where the King James Version has “need of”; Proverbs 5:23, “for lack,” instead of “without”;
6:32, “void of” for “lacketh”; 10:21, “lack” for “want”; 31:11, “lack” for
“need”; Isaiah 59:15, “lacking” for “faileth.” In the New Testament “lack”
is the translation of [uJstere>w, hustereo], literally, “to be behind,” and [ejndeh>v, endees], “in want.” In Luke 8:6, the Revised Version (British and American) reads “had no” instead of “lacked” in the King James Version.
In 2 Corinthians 11:9, the Revised Version gives “my want” for “which was lacking to me” in the King James Version; in Colossians 1:24 “that which is lacking” for “that which is behind”; James 2:15 “lack” for
“destitute.” It will readily be seen that sometimes the slight variation helps to explain the meaning.
G. H. Gerberding LACUNUS
<la-ku’-nus>.
See LACCUNUS.
LAD
In the Old Testament this word occurs as the translation of [na`ar], “young person,” “child,” “servant,” the Revised Version (British and American) properly substituting “servant” in 2 Kings 4:19; Judges 16:26 is another passage where either sense of the original word may be intended. The word occurs in the New Testament in John 6:9 as the translation of
[paida>rion, paidarion]; in Acts 20:12, [pai~v, pais] (the King James Version “young man”).
LADAN
<la’-dan> (ˆD:[]l” [la`dan], the King James Version, Laadan):
(1) A descendant of Ephraim, and an ancestor of Joshua (1 Chronicles 7:26).
(2) A Levite of the family of Gershon (1 Chronicles 23:7,8,9; 26:21), also called LIBNI (which see).
LADANUM
<lad’-a-num> (flo [loT]): Genesis 37:25 the Revised Version margin;
elsewhere MYRRH (which see).
LADDER
<lad’-er>.
See SIEGE, 4, (e).
LADDER OF TYRE
([ JH kli~max [ajpo< th~v kli>makov] Tu>rou, He klimax (apo tes klimakos) Turou]): Not mentioned in the Old Testament or the New Testament, but in Apocrypha (1 Macc 11:59), where it is said that Antiochus VI, after having confirmed Jonathan in the high-priesthood, appointed his brother Simon captain over the territory included between the Ladder of Tyre and the borders of Egypt. The Ladder has been located at different points on the coast between Tyre and Acre, such as the Ras el-`Abyadh
(“Promontorium Album” of the ancient geographers), about 7 miles South of Tyre, and Ras en-Naqurah, about 6 miles farther South, and Ras el- Musheirifeh, a little farther on. These are capes jutting westward into the sea from the ridge which runs parallel to the general line of the coast.
These capes project more than a mile into the sea, and present a very bold and precipitous front from 200 to 300 ft. in height. The ascent on either side of the promontory is very steep, and at Ras el-`Abyadh steps were cut in the white rock, which led to the identification of this point with the Ladder, but a reference to Josephus (B J, II, x, 2) leads to a different conclusion. He locates it 100 stadia North of Acre, which corresponds fairly well with the southern limit of the whole promontory, which is about 12 miles North of Acre, but not at all with Ras el-`Abyadh. The altitude of el Musheirifeh is greater than that of el-`Abyadh and may have had steps cut in it similar to the latter. It is more probable that the Ladder of Tyre was here, or at en-Naqurah, but the term applied to the whole promontory, which offered a serious obstacle to the passage of armies, or even
caravans, since the approach is precipitous on either side, and at Ras el-
`Abyadh the road skirts the edge of a sheer precipice, where a misstep would hurl one into the sea some 200 ft. below. The application of the term to the whole promontory seems to be indicated by Josephus, since he speaks of it as one of the mountains which encompass the plain of
Ptolemais (Acre) and the highest of all. This would not be true of any one of the three capes mentioned, but would be if the hills behind, which form their base, were included. That it was designated as the Ladder of Tyre rather than of Acre was probably due to the fact that the promontory is nearer the former city (see Thomson, LB, II, edition 1882; SWP, name- lists, under the word).
H. Porter LADE; LADING
<lad>, <lad’-ing>: “To lade” in the sense of “to load” is retained by the Revised Version (British and American) in nearly all passages where the word occurs in the King James Version (but compare the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) reading of Psalm 68:19; Isaiah 46:1), “They laded us with such things” (Acts 28:10 the King James Version). The [ejpiti>qhmi, epithithemi], “to put on,” is rendered by the Revised Version (British and American), “They put on board such
things.” Luke 11:46 the Revised Version (British and American) reads “ye load” instead of the King James Version “ye lade.”
Lading ([forti>on, phortion]) is found in Acts 27:10 in its usual meaning,
“the lading of a ship.”
LADY
<la’-di>: This word should be taken in the sense of “mistress” in Isaiah 47:5,7 (Hebrew [gebhereth]) (so the American Standard Revised Version).
In Judges 5:29; Eat 1:18 it is the translation of another Hebrew word ([sarah]), best rendered “princess” (so the Revised Version (British and American) in Esther, but not in Judges). In 2 John 1:1,5 it is the translation of [kuri>a, kuria], which some interpreters regard as a proper name.
See CYRIA; JOHN, EPISTLES OF; ELECT LADY.
LAEL
<la’-el> (lael; [la’el], “belonging to God”): Father of Eliasaph, the prince of the father’s house of the Gershonites (Numbers 3:24).
LAHAD
<la’-had> (dh”l; [lahaah]): A descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:2).
LAHAI-ROI
<la-hi’-roi>, <la-hi-ro’-i>, <la’hi-roi> (yairo yj”l” [lachay ro’i]).
See BEER-LAHAI-ROI.
LAHMAM
<la’-mam> (µm;j]l” [lachmam]): A town in the Judean Shephelah (Joshua 15:40, the Revised Version margin “Lahmas”) possibly the modern [el-Lachm], 2 1/2 miles South of Beit Jibrin.
LAHMAS
<la’-mas>.
See LAHMAM.
LAHMI
<la’-mi> (ymij]l” [lachmi]): According to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the brother of Goliath of Gath.
See EL-HANAN.
LAISH
<la’-ish> (vyIl” [layish]):
(1) A city in the upper Jordan valley, apparently colonized by the
Sidonians, which was captured by the Danires and called DAN (which see) (Judges 18:7, etc.; Isaiah 10:30 the King James Version). In Joshua 19:47 the name appears as “Leshem.”
(2) A Benjamite, father of Palti or Paltiel, to whom Michal, David’s wife, was given by Saul (1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:15).
LAISHAH
<la-i’-sha>, <la’-ish-a> (hv;y”l” [layshah], the King James Version, Laish): A place named in Isaiah 10:30 with Gallim and Anathoth. It should apparently be sought on the North of Jerusalem. Some would identify Gallim with Beit Jala, near Bethlehem. Conder suggests `Isawiyeh on the eastern slope, to the North-Northeast of the Mount of Olives.
LAKE
<lak> ([li>mnh, limne]): The word is used (Luke 5:1,2; 8:22,23,33) of the Lake of Gennesaret or Sea of Galilee, and (Revelation 19:20; 20:10,14,15;
21:8) of the “lake of fire and brimstone.” Lakes are not abundant in Syria and Palestine. The Dead Sea, which might be called a lake, is in most places in English Versions of the Bible called the Salt Sea. It is called by the Arabs Bachr Lut, Sea of Lot. It is a question whether the Waters of Merom (Joshua 11:5,7) can be identified with the Chuleh, a marshy lake in the course of the Upper Jordan, North of the Sea of Galilee. East of Damascus on the edge of the desert there are saltish lakes in which the water of the rivers of Damascus (see 2 Kings 5:12) is gathered and
evaporates. In the Lebanon West of Ba`albek is the small Lake Yammuneh, which is fed by copious springs, but whose water disappears in the latter part of the summer, being drained off by subterranean channels. The Lake of Kums on the Orontes is artificial, though ancient. On the lower Orontes is the Lake of Antioch.
Alfred Ely Day LAKE OF FIRE
([li>mnh tou~ puro>v, limne tou puros]): Found in Revelation 19:20;
20:10,14(bis),15. Revelation 21:8 has “the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.” The brimstone in connection with “the lake of fire” occurs also in Revelation 19:20 and 10, the latter being a backward reference to the former passage. In Revelation 20:14 the words, “This is the second death, even the lake of fire” are either a gloss originally intended to elucidate 20:15 through a reference to 20:6, or, if part of the text, formed originally the close of 20:15, whence they became displaced on account of the identity of the words once immediately preceding them in 20:15 with the words now preceding them in 20:14. The “lake of fire” can be called “the second death” only with reference to the lost among men (20:15), not with reference to death and Hades (20:14). In all the above references “the lake of fire” appears as a place of punishment, of perpetual torment, not of annihilation (20:10). The beast (19:20); the pseudo-prophet (19:20; 20:10);
the devil (20:10); the wicked of varying description (20:15; 21:8), are cast into it. When the same is affirmed of death and Hades (20:14), it is
doubtful whether this is meant as a mere figure for the cessation of these two evils personified, or has a more realistic background in the existence of two demon-powers so named (compare Isaiah 25:8; 1 Corinthians
15:26,54 ff; 2 Esdras 7:31). The Scriptural source for the conception of
“the lake of fire” lies in Genesis 19:24, where already the fire and the brimstone occur together, while the locality of the catastrophe described is the neighborhood of the Dead Sea. The association of the Dead Sea with this fearful judgment of God, together with the desolate appearance of the place, rendered it a striking figure for the scene of eschatological
retribution. The two other Old Testament passages which have “fire and brimstone” (Psalm 11:6; Ezekiel 38:22) are dependent on the Genesis passage, with which they have the figure of “raining” in common. In Revelation 21:8, “their part” seems to allude to Psalm 11:6, “the portion of their cup.” In Enoch 67:4 ff the Dead Sea appears as the place of
punishment for evil spirits. Of late it has been proposed to derive “the lake of fire” from “the stream of fire” which destroys the enemies of Ahura in the Zoroastrian eschatology; so Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 1906, 433, 434. But the figures of a stream and a lake are different; compare 2 Esdras 13:9-11, where a stream of fire proceeds from the mouth of the Messiah for the destruction of His enemies. Besides, the Persian fire is, in part, a fire of purification, and not of destruction only (Bousset, 442), and even in the apocalyptic Book of Enoch, the fires of purification and of punishment are not confounded (compare Enoch 67:4 with 90:20). The Old Testament fully explains the entire conception.
Geerhardus Vos LAKE OF GENNESARET
<ge-nes’-a-ret>.
See GALILEE, SEA OF.
LAKKUM
<lak’-um> (µWQl” [laqqum]; the King James Version, Lakum): An unidentified town on the border of Naphtali, named with Adami, Nekeb and Jabneel, apparently nearer the Jordan (Joshua 19:33).
LAMA
See ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI.
LAMB
<lam>:
(1) The most used word is cb,K, [kebhes], “a young ram”; compare Arabic kebsh, “ram”; often of sacrifices; (feminine) hc;b]K”
[kabhsah], or hc;b]Ki [kibchsah], “ewe lamb” (2 Samuel 12:3); by transposition bc,K, [kesebh], and feminine hB;c]Ki [kisbah] (Genesis 30:40; Leviticus 3:7; 5:6).
(2) rK” [kar], “lamb” (Deuteronomy 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:9; 2 Kings 3:4).
(3) hc, [seh], “one” of the flock (Genesis 22:7; Leviticus 5:7).
(4) ˆaxo [tso’n], “sheep,” “goats,” “flock”; compare Arabic da’n,
“sheep” (Exodus 12:21); and ˆax ˆB, o [ben tso’n] (Psalm 114:4).
(5) hl,f; [Taleh], “young lamb”; compare Arabic Tali, “young lamb”;
and µyail;f] [Tela’im] (1 Samuel 7:9; Isaiah 40:11; 65:25).
(6) ˆyrIM]ai [’immerin] (Ezra 6:9,17; 7:17).
(7) [a]rnav, arnas], accusative plural (Luke 10:3); diminutive [ajrni>on, arnion] (John 21:15; Revelation 5:6, etc.).
(8) [ajmno>v, amnos] (John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19).
See SHEEP.
Alfred Ely Day LAMB OF GOD
([oJ ajmno<v tou~ qeou~, ho amnos tou theou]): This is a title specially bestowed upon our Lord by John the Baptist (John 1:29-36), “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!” In Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs an apocryphal book, probably of the 2nd century — we have the term used for the Messiah, “Honor Judah and Levi, for from them shall arise for you the Lamb of God, saving all nations by grace.” But the term does not seem to have been of any general use until it received its distinctly Christian significance. It has been generally understood as referring to the prophetic language of Jeremiah 11:19, and Isaiah 53:7.
1. SACRIFICIAL SENSE OF THE TERM:
It is far more probable, however, that the true source of the expression is to be found in the important place which the “lamb” occupies in the sacrifices, especially of the Priestly Code. In these there was the lamb of the daily morning and evening sacrifice. How familiar this would be to the Baptist, being a member of a priestly family! On the Sabbath the number of the offerings was doubled, and at some of the great festivals a still larger number were laid upon the altar (see Exodus 29:38; Numbers 28:3,9,13).
The lamb of the Passover would also occupy a large place in the mind of a
devout Israelite, and, as the Passover was not far off, it is quite possible that John may have referred to this as well as to other suggested ideas connected with the lamb. The sacrificial significance of the term seems to be far more probable than the mere comparison of the character of our Lord with meekness and gentleness, as suggested by the words of the prophets, although these contain much more than the mere reference to character (see below). That this became the clearly defined conception of apostolic teaching is clear from passages in Paul and Peter (1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18 f). In the Book of Revelation the reference to the Lamb occurs 27 times. The word here used differs from that in John. The amnos of the Gospel has become the arnion of the Apocalypse, a diminutive form suggestive of affection. This is the word used by our Lord in His rebuke and forgiveness of Peter (John 21:15), and is peculiarly touched therefore with an added meaning of pathetic tenderness. Westcott, in his
Commentary on John 1:29, refers to the conjecture that there may have been flocks of lambs passing by on their way to Jerusalem to be used at the feast. This is possible, but fanciful. As applied to Christ, the term certainly suggests the meekness and gentleness of our Lord’s nature and work, but could not have been used by John without containing some reference to the place which the lamb bore in the Judaic ritualism.
2. AS VARIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD:
The significance of the Baptist’s words has been variously understood.
Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, among the ancients, Lucke, DeWette, Meyer, Ewald, Alford, among the moderns, refer it to Isaiah 53:7; Grotius, Bengel, Hengstenberg, to the paschal lamb; Baumgarten-Crusius, etc., to the sin offering; Lange strongly urges the influence of the passage in Isaiah 53, and refers to John’s description of his own mission under the influence of the second part of Isaiah, in which he is supported by Schaff. The
importance of the Isaiah-thought is found in Matthew 8:17; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 2:22-25.
3. AS SET FORTH BY ISAIAH:
It is to be observed that the Septuagint in Isaiah 53:7 translates the Hebrew word for sheep ([seh]), by the Greek word for lamb. In 53:10, the
prophet’s “suffering one” is said to have made “his soul an offering for Isaiah sin,” and in 53:4 “he hath borne our griefs,” where bearing involves the conception of sin offering, and as possessing justifying power, the idea
of “‘taking away.” John indeed uses not the Septuagint word ([fe>rein, pherein]), but ([ai]rein, airein]), and some have maintained that this simply means “put away” or “support,” or “endure.” But this surely loses the suggestion of the associated term “lamb,” which John could not have employed without some reference to its sacrificial and therefore expiatory force. What Lange calls a “germ perception” of atonement must certainly have been in the Baptist’s mind, especially when we recall the Isaiah- passages, even though there may not have been any complete dogmatic conception of the full relation of the death of Christ to the salvation of a world. Even the idea of the bearing of the curse of sin may not be excluded, for it was impossible for an Israelite like John, and especially with his surroundings, to have forgotten the significance of the paschal lamb, both in its memorial of the judgment of Egypt, as well as of the deliverance of Israel. Notwithstanding every effort to take out of this striking phrase its deeper meanings, which involve most probably the combination of all the sources above described, it must ever remain one of the richest mines of evangelical thought. It occupies, in the doctrine of atonement, a position analogous to that brief word of the Lord, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), in relation to the doctrine of God.
The Lamb is defined as “of God,” that is, of Divine providing. See Isaiah 53; Revelation 5:6; 13:8. Its emphatic and appointed office is indicated by the definite article, and whether we refer the conception to a specific sacrifice or to the general place of a lamb in the sacrificial institution, they all, as being appointed by and specially set apart for God, suggest the close relation of our Lord to the Divine Being, and particularly to His expiatory sacrifice.
L. D. Bevan LAME
<lam> (j”sePi [piceach], hken: [nakheh]; [cwlo>v, cholos]):
(1) The condition of being unable or imperfectly able to walk, which unfitted any descendant of Aaron so afflicted for service in the priesthood (Leviticus 21:18), and rendered an animal unsuitable for sacrifice
(Deuteronomy 15:21). The offering of animals so blemished was one of the sins with which Malachi charges the negligent Jews of his time (Malachi 1:8-13).
(2) Those who suffered from lameness, such as Mephibosheth, whose limbs were injured by a fall in childhood (2 Samuel 4:4; 9:3). In the prophetic description of the completeness of the victory of the returning Israelites, it is predicted that the lame shall be made whole and shall leap like a hart (Jeremiah 3:18; Isaiah 35:6). The unfitness of the lame for warfare gives point to the promise that the lame shall take the prey (Isaiah 33:23). Job in his graphic description of his helpfulness to the weak before his calamity says, “And feet was I to the lame” (Job 29:15). The inequality of the legs of the lame is used in Proverbs 26:7 as a similitude of the ineptness with which a fool uses a parable.
In the enigmatical and probably corrupt passage describing David’s capture of Jerusalem, the lame and blind are mentioned twice. In 2 Samuel 5:6 it was a taunt on the part of the Jebusites that even a garrison of cripples would suffice to keep out the Israelites. The allusion in 5:8 may be read,
“Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites let him .... slay both the lame and blind, which hate David’s soul” as it is in Septuagint. The Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) says, “David had offered a reward on that day to the man who should smite the Jebusite and reach the water pipes of the houses, and remove the blind and lame who hated David’s soul.” It is possible, however, that Budde’s emendation is more correct and that it is a threat against the indiscriminate slaughter of the Jebusites: “Whoso slayeth a Jebusite shall bring his neck into peril; the lame and blind are not hated of David’s soul.” The proverbial saying quoted in 5:8 cannot be correct as rendered in the King James Version, for we read in Matthew 21:14 that the lame came to our Lord in the temple and were healed.
The healing of the lame by our Lord is recorded in Matthew 11:5;
15:30,31; 21:14; Luke 7:22; 14:13. For the apostolic miracles of healing the lame, see CRIPPLE. In Hebrews 21:13 the Christians are counseled to courage under chastisement, lest their despair should cause that which is lame to be “turned out of the way.”
Alexander Macalister LAMECH
<la’-mek> (°]m,l, [lemekh]; [La>mec, Lamech], “a strong youth”?):
(1) The name is first mentioned in Genesis 4:18-24. Here Lamech, the son of Methushael, is named as the last of the descendants of Cain. He was the
father of Jabel, Jubal, Tubal-cain, and Naamah. As the husband of two wives, namely, Adah and Zillah, he furnishes the first recorded instance of polygamy. It is very instructive to note that this “father of polygamy” at once becomes the first blustering tyrant and a braggadocio; we are fully permitted to draw this conclusion from his so-called “swordlay” (Genesis 4:23 f). He does not put his trust in God, but in the weapons and
implements invented by his sons, or rather these instruments, enhancing the physical and material powers of man, are his God. He glories in them and misconstrues the Divine kindness which insured to Cain freedom from the revenge of his fellow-men.
(2) Another Lamech. is mentioned in Genesis 5:25,28 (compare 1
Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:36), the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah.
His words (Genesis 5:29) show the great difference between this
descendant of Seth and the descendant of Cain. While the one is stimulated to a song of defiance by the worldly inventions of his sons, the other, in prophetical mood, expresses his sure belief in the coming of better times, and calmly and prayerfully awaits the period of comfort and rest which he expected to be ushered in by his son Noah.
William Baur LAMEDH
<la’-meth>: The 12th letter of Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as “1”. It came also to be used for the number 30. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.
LAMENT
<la-ment’>.
See MUSIC.
LAMENTATION
<lam-en-ta’-shun>.
See BURIAL, III, 2; IV, 4, 5, 6.
LAMENTATIONS, BOOK OF
<lam-en-ta’-shunz>, — The Lamentations of Jeremiah:
1. NAME:
This is a collective name which tradition has given to 5 elegies found in the Hebrew Canon that lament the fate of destroyed Jerusalem. The rabbis call this little book hk;yae [’Ekhah] (“how”), according to the word of lament with which it begins, or twOnyqi [qinoth]. On the basis of the latter term the Septuagint calls it [qrh~noi, threnoi], or Latin Threni, or
“Lamentations.”
2. FORM:
The little book consists of 5 lamentations, each one forming the contents of a chapter. The first 4 are marked by the acrostic use of the alphabet. In addition, the [qinah] (“elegy”) meter is found in these hymns, in which a longer line (3 or 4 accents) is followed by a shorter (2 or 3 accents). In Lamentations 1 and 2 the acrostic letters begin three such double lines; in Lamentations 4, however, two double lines. In Lamentations 3 a letter controls three pairs, but is repeated at the beginning of each line. In Lamentations 5 the alphabet is wanting; but in this case too the number of pairs of lines agrees with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, i.e.
22. In Lamentations 2; 3 and 4, the letter `ayin (`) follows pe (p), as is the case in Psalm 34. Lamentations 1, however, follows the usual order.
3. CONTENTS:
These 5 hymns all refer to the great national catastrophe that overtook the Jews and in particular the capital city, Jerusalem, through the Chaldeans, 587-586 BC. The sufferings and the anxieties of the city, the destruction of the sanctuary, the cruelty and taunts of the enemies of Israel, especially the Edomites, the disgrace that befell the king and his nobles, priests and prophets, and that, too, not without their own guilt, the devastation and ruin of the country — all this is described, and appeal is made to the mercy of God. A careful sequence of thought cannot be expected in the lyrical feeling and in the alphabetical form. Repetitions are found in large
numbers, but each one of these hymns emphasizes some special feature of the calamity. Lamentations 3 is unique, as in it one person describes his own peculiar sufferings in connection with the general calamity, and then too in the name of the others begins a psalm of repentance. This person did not suffer so severely because he was an exceptional sinner, but because of the unrighteousness of his people. These hymns were not written during
the siege, but later, at a time when the people still vividly remembered the sufferings and the anxieties of that time and when the impression made on them by the fall of Jerusalem was still as powerful as ever.
4. AUTHOR:
Who is the author of these hymns? Jewish tradition is unanimous in saying that it was Jeremiah. The hymns themselves are found anonymously in the Hebrew text, while the Septuagint has in one an additional statement, the Hebrew style of which would lead us to conclude that it was found in the original from which the version was made. This statement reads: “And it came to pass, after Israel had been taken away captive and Jerusalem had been laid waste, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and uttered this lamentation over Jerusalem and said.” The Targum also states that Jeremiah was the author. The rabbis and the church Fathers have no doubts on the subject.
Jerome (compare on Zechariah 12:11) thinks that 2 Chronicles 35:25 refers to these hymns. The same is said by Josephus (Ant., X, v, 1). If this were the case, then the writer of Chronicles would have regarded Lamentations as having been written because of the death of Josiah. But this
misunderstanding is not to be ascribed to him. It was easily possible that he was acquainted with lamentations of such a nature, but which afterward were lost. At all events, Jeremiah was by nature adapted to the
composition of such elegies, as is proved by his book of prophecies.
Only in modern times has the authorship of these hymns by Jeremiah been seriously called into question; and it is now denied by most critics. For this they give formal and material reasons: The language of these lamentations shows many similarities to the discourses of Jeremiah, but at the same time also many differences. The claim that the alphabetical scheme is not worthy of Jeremiah is a prejudice caused by the taste of our times. Hebrew poets had evidently been making use of such methods for a long time, as it helps materially in memorizing. At the time of the first acute suffering on account of the destruction of Jerusalem, in fact, he would probably not have made use of it. But. we have in this book a collection of lamentations’ written some time after this great catastrophe. The claim has also been made that the views of Jeremiah and those of the composer or the composers of these poems differ materially. It is said that Jeremiah emphasizes much more strongly the guilt of the people as the cause of the calamity than is done in these hymns, which lament the fate of the people and find the cause of it in the sins of the fathers (Lamentations 5:7), something that Jeremiah is said
not to accept (Jeremiah 31:29 f). However, the guilt of the people and the resultant wrath of God are often brought out in these hymns; and Jeremiah does not deny (31:29 f) that there is anything like inherited guilt. He declares rather that in the blessed future things would be different in this respect. Then, too, we are not to forget that if Jeremiah is the author of these patriotic hymns, he does not speak in them as the prophet and the appointed accuser of his people, but that he is at last permitted to speak as he humanly feels, although there is no lack of prophetical reminiscences (of Lamentations 4:21 f). In these hymns he speaks out of the heart that loves his Jerusalem and his people, and he utters the priestly prayer of
intercession, which he was not allowed to do when announcing the judgment over Israel. The fact that he also evinces great reverence for the unfortunate king and his Divinely given hereditary dignity (Lamentations 4:20), although as a prophet he had been compelled to pronounce
judgment over him, would not be unthinkable in Jeremiah, who had shown warm sympathies also for Jehoiachim (22:24,28). A radical difference of sentiment between the two authors is not to be found. On the other hand, a serious difficulty arises if we claim that Jeremiah was not the author of Lamentations in the denunciations of Lamentations over the prophets of Jerusalem (2:14; 4:13). How could the great prophet of the Destruction be so ignored if he himself were not the author of these sentiments? If he was himself the author we can easily understand this omission. In his book of prophecies he has spoken exactly the same way about the prophets. To this must be added, that Lamentations 3 forces us to regard Jeremiah as the author, because of the personal sufferings that are here described. Compare especially Lamentations 3:14,37 f,53 ff,61,63. What other person was during the period of this catastrophe the cynosure of all eyes as was the prophet, especially, too, because he was guiltless? The claim that here, not an individual, but the personified nation is introduced as speaking, is altogether improbable, and in some passages absolutely impossible (Lamentations 3:14,48).
This little book must accordingly be closely connected with the person of Jeremiah. If he himself is the author, he must have composed it in his old age, when he had time and opportunity to live over again all the sufferings of his people and of himself. It is, however, more probable, especially because of the language of the poems, that his disciples put this book in the present shape of uniform sentential utterances, basing this on the manner of lamentations common to Jeremiah. In this way the origin of Lamentaions 3
can be understood, which cannot artificially be shaped as his sayings, as in this case the personal feature would be more distinctly expressed. It was probably compiled. from a number of his utterances.
In the Hebrew Canon this book is found in the third division, called [kethabhim], or Sacred Writings, together with the Psalms. However, the Septuagint adds this book to Jeremiah, or rather, to the Book of Baruch, found next after Jerusalem. The Hebrews count it among the 5
[meghilloth], or Rolls, which were read on prominent anniversary days.
The day for the Lamentation was the 9th of Abib, the day of the burning of the temple. In the Roman Catholic church it is read on the last three days of Holy Week.
LITERATURE.
Comms. of Thenius, Ewald, Nagelsbach, Gerlach, Keil, Cheyne, Oettli, Lohr, Budde; article by Robertson Smith on “Lamentations” in EB.
C. von Orelli LAMP; LAMPSTAND
<lamp’-stand> (rynI rne ryne [nir, ner], dyPil” lappidh, Phoenician dP”m]l” [lampadh], whence [lampa>v, lampas]; [lu>cnov, luchnos] is also used): [Ner] or [nir] is properly “light” or “a light-giving thing,”
hence, “lamp,” and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), but often “candle” in the King James Version. Its use in connection with the tabernacle and the temple (Exodus 25:37 ff; 2 Chronicles 4:20 f), where oil was employed for light (Exodus 35:14;
Leviticus 24:2), shows that this is its proper meaning. Lappidh is properly
“a torch” and is thus rendered generally in the Revised Version (British and American), but “lamp” in Isaiah 62:1, where it is used as a simile. the King James Version renders it “lamp” usually, but “torch” in Nahum 2:3 f;
Zechariah 12:6. In Job 12:5 the Revised Version (British and American) renders it “for misfortune,” regarding it as composed of the noun [pidh], and the preposition [l-]. Lampas in Greek corresponds to it, but luchnos is also rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) “lamp,” while the King James Version gives “candle,” as in Matthew 5:15 and
corresponding passages in the other Gospels.
1. FORMS AND HISTORY:
Lamps were in use in very remote times, though we have few allusions to them in the early history of Egypt. There are indications that they were used there. Niches for lamps are found in the tombs of Tell el-Amarna (Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Tell el-Amarna Letters, Part IV, 14).
Lampstands are also represented (ibid., Part III, 7). Torches were of
course used before lamps, and are mentioned in Genesis (15:17 the Revised Version (British and American)), but clay lamps were used in Canaan by the Amorites before the Israelites took possession. The excavations in Palestine have furnished thousands of specimens, and have enabled us to trace the development from about 2000 BC onward. The exploration carried out at Lachish (Tell Hesy) and Gezer (Tell Jezer) by the Palestine Exploration Fund has given ample material for the purpose, and the numerous examples from tombs all over Palestine and Syria have supplied a great variety of forms.
2. FIGURATIVE USE:
“Lamp” is used in the sense of a guide in Psalm 119:105; Proverbs 6:23, and for the spirit, which is called the lamp of Yahweh in man (Proverbs 20:27), and it of course often signifies the light itself. It is used also for the son who is to succeed and represent his father (1 Kings 15:4), and it perhaps is employed in this sense in the phrase, “The lamp of the wicked shall be put out” (Job 21:17; Proverbs 13:9; and perhaps Job 18:6).
The early Canaanite or Amorite lamp was a shallow, saucer-like bowl with rounded bottom and vertical rim, slightly pointed or pinched on one side where the lighted end of the wick was placed. This form continued into Jewish times, but was gradually changed until the spout was formed by drawing the rim of the sides together, forming a narrow open channel, the remainder of the rim being rolled outward and flattened, the bottom being also flattened. This was the early Hebrew pattern and persisted for
centuries. The open bowl was gradually closed in, first at the spout, where the rim of one side was lapped over the other, and finally the whole surface was closed with only an orifice in the center for receiving the oil, and at the same time the spout was lengthened. This transformation is seen in lamps of the Seleucid period, or from around 300 BC. These lamps have usually a circular foot and sometimes a string-hole on one side. The next
development was a circular bowl with a somewhat shorter spout,
sometimes being only a bulge in the rim, so that the orifice for the wick falls in the rim, the orifice for filling being quite small at the bottom of a saucer-like depression in the center of the bowl. There is sometimes a loop handle affixed on the side opposite to the spout. Sometimes the handle is horizontal, but commonly vertical. This form is called Roman, and the bowl is often ornamented with mythological human or animal figures (Fig.
5). Other forms are elongated, having numerous wick holes (Fig. 6). The mythological and animal forms were rejected by the Jews as contrary to their traditions, and they made lamps with various other designs on the bowl, such as vine leaves, cups, scrolls, etc. (Figs. 7-11). One very marked Jewish design is the seven-branched candlestick (Exodus 25:32) of the temple (Fig. 12). The lamps of the parable of the Ten Virgins were probably similar to these (Matthew 25:1 ff). The latest form of the clay lamp was what is called Byzantine, the bowl of which has a large orifice in the center and tapers gradually to the spout (Fig. 13); they are ornamented commonly with a palm branch between the central orifice and the
wickhole, or with a cross. Sometimes there is an inscription on the margin (Fig. 13). The words on this read [Fwv ku[riou] feni kasin kalh?, Phos ku(riou) pheni pasin kale],”The light of the Lord shines to all (beautifully?).” Others read, “The Lord is my light”; “beautiful light,” etc.
These inscriptions determine the period as being Christian. In Roman times, and earlier also, bronze was much used for the finer lamps, often with covers for the orifice and sometimes with chain and ring for hanging.
Very elaborate designs in this material occur.
These terra-cotta lamps are found in the tombs and burial places
throughout Palestine and Syria, and they were evidently deposited there in connection with the funeral rites. Very few are found in Canaanite tombs, but they become numerous in later times and especially in the early Christian centuries. The symbolism in their use for funeral purposes is indicated by the inscriptions above mentioned (see PEFS, 1904, 326 ff;
Explorations in Palestine, by Bliss. Maclister and Wunsch, 4to, published by the Palestine Exploration Fund). These lamps were used by the peasants of the country down to recent times, when petroleum has superseded olive oil for lighting. The writer has seen lamps of the Jewish and Roman period with surface blackened with recent usage. Olive oil was commonly used, but terebinth oil also (Thomson, LB, III, 472).
H. Poster
LAMPSACUS
<lamp’-sa-kus>.
See SAMPSAMES.
LANCE; LANCER; LANCET
<lans>, <lan’-ser>, <lan’-set>. See ARMOR, III, 4, (3); 1 Kings 18:28 the Revised Version (British and American) “lances.”
LAND
((1) ˜r:a, [’erets];
(2) hm;d:a} [’adhamah];
(3) hd<c; [sadheh], “a piece of land”;
(4) [[gh~, ge], “earth”;
(5) [ajgro>v, agros], “field”;
(6) [cw>ra, chora], “region”;
(7) [cwri>on, chorion], diminutive of chora;
(8) [xhro>v, xeros], “dry land”;
(9) jr:z”a, [’ezrach], “native” the King James Version “born in the land,” “born among you,” the Revised Version (British and American)
“home-born” (Leviticus 19:34; 14:16; Numbers 15:30); “like a green tree in its native soil” (Psalm 37:35)): [’Erets] occurs hundreds of times and is used in much the same way as [’adhamah], which also occurs often: e.g. “land of Egypt,” [’erets mitsrayim] (Genesis 13:10), and [’adhmath mitsrayim] (Genesis 47:20). The other words occur less often, and are used in the senses indicated above.
See COUNTRY; EARTH.
Alfred Ely Day
LAND-CROCODILE (REVISED VERSION (BRITISH AND
AMERICAN))]
<land-crok’-o-dil> (j”Ko [koach]; Septuagint [camaile>wn, chamaileon], Leviticus 11:30; the King James Version Chameleon):
[Koach] is found only here, meaning an animal, the fifth in the list of
unclean “creeping things.” Elsewhere is it translated “strength” or “power,”
and it has been thought that here is meant the desert monitor, Varanus griseus, a gigantic lizard, which is common in Egypt and Palestine, and which attains the length of 4 ft. “Chameleon,” which the King James Version has here, is used by the Revised Version (British and American) for tinshemeth (the King James Version “mole”), the eighth in the list of unclean “creeping things” (compare nasham, “to breathe”; translated
“swan” in Leviticus 11:18 margin). While it is by no means certain what animal is meant, there could be no objection to “monitor” or “desert monitor.” “Land-crocodile” is objectionable because it is not a recognized name of any animal.
See CHAMELEON; LIZARD.
Alfred Ely Day LAND LAWS
See AGRARIAN LAWS.
LANDMAK
<land’-mark> (lWbG” [gebhul], literally, “boundary”): The boundary may have been marked, as at present, simply by a furrow or stone. The iniquity of removing a landmark is frequently insisted on (Deuteronomy 19:14; 27:17; Proverbs 22:28; 23:10; Job 24:2 [gebhulah]), its removal being equivalent to theft.
LANE
<lan> ([rJu>mh, rhume]): An alley or bypath of a city. Occurs once in Luke 14:21, “Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city”; elsewhere translated “street,” e.g. Matthew 6:2; Acts 9:11; Ecclesiasticus 9:7; Tobit 13:18.
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
<lan’-gwaj> (Greek).
See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE also:
I. THE VERNACULAR “KOINE” THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
1. The Old Point of View:
The ghost of the old Purist controversy is now laid to rest for good and all.
The story of that episode has interest chiefly for the historian of language and of the vagaries of the human intellect. See Winer-Thayer, Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1869, 12-19, and Schmiedel’s Winer, sectopm 2, for a sketch of this once furious strife. In the 17th century various scholars tried to prove that the Greek of the New Testament was on a paragraph with the literary Attic of the classic period. But the Hebraists won the victory over them and sought to show that it was Hebraic Greek, a special variety, if not dialect, a Biblical Greek The 4th edition of Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (translated by W. Urwick, 1892) quotes, with approval, Rothe’s remark (Dogmatik, 1863, 238):
“We may appropriately speak of a language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident that the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinctively religious mode of expression out of the language of the country which it has chosen as its sphere, and transforming the linguistic elements which it found ready to hand, and even conceptions already existing, into a shape and form appropriate to itself and all its own.”
Cremer adds: “We have a very clear and striking proof of this in New Testament Greek.”
This was only twenty years ago and fairly represented the opinion of that day. Hatch in 1889 (Essays in Biblical Greek, 34) held that with most of the New Testament words the key lay in the Septuagint. But Winer (Winer-Thayer, 20) had long ago seen that the vernacular koine was “the special foundation of the diction of the New Testament,” though he still admitted “a Jewish-Greek, which native Greeks did not entirely
understand” (p. 27). He did not see the practical identity of New
Testament Greek with the vernacular [koine] — (“common” Greek), nor did Schmiedel in the 8. Auflage of Winer (I. Theil; II. Theil, erstes Heft,
1894-97). In the second edition of his Grammar of New Testament Greek (English translation by Thackeray, 1905, 2), Blass sees the dawn of the new day, though his book was first written before it came. Viteau (Etude sur le grec du Nouveau Testament, I, Leviticus verbe, 1893, II, Leviticus sujet, 1896) occupies wholly the old position of a Judaic Greek. An extreme instance of that view is seen in Guillemard’s Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879).
2. The Revolution:
A turn toward the truth comes with H. A. A. Kennedy’s Sources of the New Testament Greek (1895). He finds the explanation of the vocabulary of both the Septuagint and the New Testament to be the vernacular which he traces back to Aristophanes. It is a good exercise to read Westcott’s discussion of the “Language of the NT” in DB, III (1888), and then turn to Moulton, “Language of the New Testament,” in the 1-vol HDB. Westcott says: “The chief peculiarities of the syntax of the New Testament lie in the reproduction of Hebrew forms.” Moulton remarks: “There is no reason to believe that any New Testament writer who ever lived in Palestine learned Greek only as a foreign language when he went abroad.” Still better is it to read Moulton, “New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery”
in Cambridge Biblical Essays (1909, 461-505); Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (1911); or Angus, “The [koine], the Language of the New Testament,” Princeton Review, January, 1910, 42-92. The revolution has come to stay. It is now clear that the Greek of the New Testament is not a jargon nor a patois. In all essential respects it is just the vernacular [koine]
of the 1st century AD, the lingua franca of the Greek-Roman empire, the legacy of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the East. This world-speech was at bottom the late Attic vernacular with dialectical and provincial influences. It was not a decaying tongue, but a virile speech admirably adapted to the service of the many peoples of the time. The able article in volume III of HDB on the “Language of the New Testament” by Dr. J. H.
Thayer appeared in 1900, and illustrates how quickly an encyclopedia article may become out of date. There is a wealth of knowledge here displayed, as one would expect, but Thayer still speaks of “this species of Greek,” “this peculiar idiom, .... Jewish Greek,” though he sees that its basis is “the common or spoken Greek.” The last topic discussed by him is
“Problems.” He little thought that the biggest “problem” so near solution was the character of the language itself. It was Adolph Deissmann, then of Heidelberg, now of Berlin, who opened the new era in the knowledge of
the language of the New Testament. His Bibelstudien (zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums) appeared in 1895. In this epoch-making volume he proved conclusively from the papyri and the inscriptions that many of the seeming Hebraisms in the Septuagint and the New Testament were common idioms in the vernacular [koine]. He boldly claimed that the bulk of the Hebraisms were falsely so termed, except in the case of translating Greek from the Hebrew or Aramaic or in “perfect” Hebraisms, genuine Greek usage made more common by reason of similarity to the Semitic idiom. In 1897 he produced Neue Bibelstudien, sprachgeschichtliche Beitrage zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Erklarung des Neuen Testaments.
In 1901 (2nd edition in 1903) these two volumes were translated as one by A. Grieve under the title Bible Studies. Deissmann’s other volumes have confirmed his thesis. The most important are New Light on the New Testament (1907), The Philology of the Greek Bible (1908), Licht vom Osten (1908), Light from the Ancient East (translation by Strachan, 1910), Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912). In Light from the Ancient East, Deissmann illustrates the New Testament language with much detail from the papyri, ostraka and inscriptions. He is now at work on a new lexicon of the New Testament which will make use of the fresh knowledge from these sources.
The otherwise helpful work of E. Preuschen, Vollstandiges griechisch- deutsches Handworterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur (1908-10), fails to utilize the papyri and inscriptions while drawing on the Septuagint and the New Testament Apocrypha and other early Christian literature. But this has been done by Ebeling in his Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum New Testament, 1913. The next step was made by A. Thumb, the great philologian, in his Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus; Beitrage zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der “koine” 1901, in which the real character of the koine was for the first time properly set forth.
Winer and Blass had both lamented the need of a grammar of the koine, and that demand still exists, but Thumb went a long way toward supplying it in this volume. It is to be hoped that he will yet prepare a grammar of the koine. Thumb’s interests cover the whole range of comparative philology, but he has added in this field “Die Forschungen fiber die hellenistische
Sprache in den Jahren 1896-1901,” Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, II, 396 f;
“Prinzipienfragen der Koina-Forschung,” Neue Jahrb. fur das kl. Alt., 1906; “Die sprachgeschichtliche Stellung des biblischen Griechisch,”
Theologische Rundschau, V, 85-99.
The other most important name to add is that of J. Hope Moulton, who has the credit of being the first to apply the new knowledge directly to the New Testament Greek His Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prolegomena (1906, 2nd edition, 1906, 3rd edition, 1908, German translation in 1911, Einleitung in die Sprache des New Testament) is a brilliant piece of work and relates the Greek of the New Testament in careful detail to the vernacular koine, and shows that in all important points it is the common Greek of the time and not a Hebraic Greek. Moulton probably pressed his point too far in certain respects in his zeal against Hebraisms, but the essential position of Deissmann and Moulton is undoubtedly sound.
Moulton had previously published the bulk of this material as
“Grammatical Notes from the Papyri,” The Expositor, 1901, 271-82; 1903, 104-21, 423-39; The Classical Review, 1901, 31-37, 434-41; 1904, 106- 12, 151-55; “Characteristics of New Testament Greek, “ The Expositor, 1904.
In 1909 appeared his essay, Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (see above). Since 1908, The Expositor has had a series of papers by J.H.
Moulton and George Milligan called “Lexical Notes from the Papyri,”
which are very useful on the lexical side of the language. Thus the study is fairly launched on its new career. In 1900, A.T. Robertson produced a Syllabus on the New Testament Greek Syntax from the standpoint of comparative philology, which was rewritten in 1908, with the added viewpoint of the papyri researches, as A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament (2nd edition, 1909, 3rd edition, 1912; translations in Italian in 1910, German and French in 1911, Dutch in 1912). In October, 1909, S.
Angus published a good article in the Harvard Theological Review on
“Modern Methods in New Testament Philology,” followed in January, 1910, by another in the Princeton Review on “The koine, the Language of the New Testament.” The new knowledge appears also in Jakob
Wackernagel, “Die griechische Sprache” (pp. 291-318, 2nd edition, of Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache, 1907). L. Radermachcr has set forth very ably “die sprachlichen Vorgange in ihrem
Zusammenhang,” in his Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des
Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache. It is in reality the background of the New Testament Greek and is a splendid preparation for the study of the Greek New Testament. A full discussion of the new knowledge in grammatical detail has been prepared by A.T. Robertson under the title A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Moulton and Schmiedel are planning also to complete their works.
3. The Proof of the New Position:
The proof of the new position is drawn from several sources:
(1) The Papyri.
These rolls have lain in the museums of the world many years and attracted little attention. For lists of the chief collections of the papyri see Moulton, Prolegomena, 259-62; Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, xi, xii;
Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit;
Lautund Wortlehre, vii-x; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 20-41;
Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Bibliography. New volumes of papyri as a result of recent explorations in Egypt are published each year. See PAPYRUS, and in the other encyclopedias under the word.
Most of the papyri discovered belong to the period of the koine (the first three centuries BC and AD in round numbers), and with great wealth of illustration they show the life of the common people of the time, whether in Egypt or Herculaneum (the two chief regions represented). There are various degrees of culture shown, as can be seen in any of the large volumes of Grenfell and Hunt, or in the handbooks of Lietzmann, Griechische Papyri (1905), and of Milligan, Greek Papyri (1910). They come from the scrap-heaps of the long ago, and are mainly receipts, contracts, letters of business or love, military documents, etc. They show all grades of culture, from the illiterate with phonetic spelling to the man of the schools. But we have here the language of life, not of the books. In a most startling way one notes the similarities of vocabulary, forms, and syntax between the language of the papyri of the 1st century AD and that of the New Testament books. As early as 1778, F.W. Sturz, made use of the Charta Borgiana, “the first papyrus ever brought to Europe”
(Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 39), and in 1841 Thiersch likewise saw the value of the papyri for the philology of the Septuagint.
But the matter was not pressed. Lightfoot threw out a hint about the value of letters of the people, which was not followed till Deissmann saw the
point; compare Moulton, Prol., 242. It is not necessary here to illustrate the matter at length. Deissmann takes up in detail the “Biblical” words in Thayer’s Lexicon, and has no difficulty in finding most of them in the papyri (or inscriptions). Thus [plhrofore>w, plerophoreo], is shown to be common in the papyri. See Deissmann, Bible Studies and Light from the Ancient East, for extensive lists. The papyri show also the same meanings for many words once thought peculiar to the Bible or the New Testament.
An instance is seen in the official sense of [presbu>terov, presbuteros], in the papyri, 5 [oJ presbu>terov th~v kw>mhv, ho presbuteros les komes]
(Pap. Lugd. A 35 f), “without doubt an official designation” (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 155). So [ajdelfo>v, adelphos], for members of the
community, [ajnastrofh>, anastrophe], for manner of life, [ajnti>lhmyiv, antilempsis], “help,” [leitourgi>a, leitourgia], “public service,”
[pa>roikov, paroikos], “sojourner,” etc. (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 107). R. Helbing (Grammatik der Septuaginta, 1908) and H.
John Thackeray (A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 1909) have applied the new knowledge to the language of the Septuagint, and it has been discussed with much ability in the first volumes. The use of the papyri for grammatical purposes is made easier by the excellent volume of E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit; Laut- und Wortlehre (1906), though his “Syntax,” is still a desideratum. Useful also is G. Cronert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (1903).
(2) The Ostraka.
The literature on this subject is still small in bulk. In 1899 Ulrich Wilcken published Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien, and in 1902 W.E. Crum produced his book of Christian ostraka called Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum, and Others. This was followed in 1905 by H.R. Hall’s Coptic and Greek Texts of the Christian Period from Ostraka, Stelae, etc. These broken pieces of pottery were used by the lowest classes as writing material. It was very widely used because it was so very cheap. Wilcken has done more than anyone else to collect and decipher the ostraka. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 46) notes that Cleanthes the Stoic “wrote on ostraka or on leather” because too poor to buy papyrus. So he quotes the apology of a Christian for using potsherd for a letter: “Excuse me that I cannot find papyrus as I am in the country” (Crum, Coptic Ostraca, 55).
The use of [ajpe>cw, apecho], on an ostrakon for a receipt in full, illustrates
