LEPROSY j

themselves in a leopard's skin. Its fierceness (Hos 13')> , its agility (Hab l*), and untamableness (Is IP) are all mentioned. The name Nimr is a favourite one with the Arabs, who admire these qualities. In the names 'waters of Nimrlm' ('leopards,' Is 15«, Jer 48*1) and ' Beth-nimraft' ('f. leopard,' Nu 32^- "*) references to the leopard also occur; cf. the 'mountains of nerrilTim' (i.e. 'the leopards,' Ca 48). The cheetah (Felix jubata) is found also in Galilee, and it too may have beenincluded under the Heb. word nSTner. E. W. G. Masterman.

LEPROSY. — This term, as used in Scripture, seems to include not only true leprosy (elephantiasis) — prob-ably the disease of Job — but also such skin diseases as psoriasis, ring-worm, and mtiligo. For the priestly regulations as to the diagnosis of the disease and the treatment of lepers, see art. Clean and Unclean, § 5. The 'leprosy' in garments -(Lv 13"«) seems to be an effect of fungus or mildew, while that in houses (14*") is probably dry-rot.

LESHEM. — A form, occurring only in Jos IQ"'**, of the name Laish (see Dan).

LESSAIT. — A village where an encounter took place between the Jews and Nicanor (2 Mac 14"). The site is unknown, and the text is uncertain.

LET. — In Anglo-Saxon loetan meant 'to permit' and lettan, ' to hinder.' In course of time both words were spelled 'let.' Consequently In AV, besides its modern meaning of 'permit,' the vb. 'let' sometimes has the opposite meaning of ' hinder.' Thus 2 Th 2', ' only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.' The other places are Ex 5', Nu 22«m, Is 43'*, Wis 7^, Ro 1".

LETHECH, LETHEK.-See Weights AND Measubes.

LETTER.— See Writing.

LETUSHIM.— One of the Dedanite tribes in N. Arabia (Gn 25'), the others being Leummim and Asshurim (wh. see). In this verse LXX adds two other tribes; but in the parallel passage, 1 Ch 1^, the sons of Dedan are omitted altogether both in MT and in most MSS of LXX. None of the three tribes has been identified.

J. F. M'Cdkdy.

LEUMMIM.— A tribe of the Dedanites (Gn 253). cf. Lbtushim.

LEVI.— 1. The third son of Jacob by Leah (Gn 29" [J]). The genealogical story connects the name with the verb ISwah, 'to be joined,' and P (Nu 18^- *) plays upon the same word, saying to Aaron: 'Bring the tribe of Levi . . . that it may be joined (yillawU) unto thee.' Many modern scholars hold to this improbable etymology of the name — improbable, among other reasons, because, unlike other tribal names, it is not nominal, but adjectival. It is said to signify ' the one who attaches himself.' Accordingly 'the Levites are those who attached themselves to the Semites who migrated back from the Delta, therefore, Egyptians' (Lagarde, Or. ii. 20, Milt. i. 54). Others say ' those who were attached to the ark ' as priestly attendants. Still others make it a gentilic noun, and connect it with the South- Arabian tom'M, (f.toOT'af), 'priest.' Against this is the primitive use of 'Levite' as one of the tribe of Levi. The word is probably a gentilic from Leah (' wild-cow ' ) as Wellh. (Proleg. 146) suggests, and as Stade (GVI 152) asserts. If this be correct, and it has the greater prob-ability in its favour, it points to early totem worship.

In the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49'-') we have one of the most important passages bearing upon the early history of this tribe and that of Simeon :

'Simeon and Levi are brethren; Weapons of violence are their swords.

Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; And their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel.'

LEVIATHAN

From this passage it is abundantly evident that Levi was, like all the other Israelitish tribes, a purely secular organization. Simeon and Levi are both set forth as bloodthirsty characters, and there is not the slightest hint of Levi being a priestly caste. The treacherous act referred to, which was so serious a violation of tribal morals that it cost them the sympathy of the other tribes, is probably recorded in Gn 34 in two different versions, the oldest of which is J's. The other now interwoven with it is probably P's enlargement of the original. According to the story, Shechem, the son of Hamor, became enamoured of Dinah, the sister of Simeon and Levi, and seduced her. He made an honourable arrangement to marry the girl and to dis-charge whatever obligations her family might impose upon him. Simeon and Levi took advantage of the Shechemites' disability and slew them. Like other stories, though related in personal form, it is tribal in intention. It portrays early relations between the Israelites and the original inhabitants. The love of the Shechemite for the daughter of Jacob points to some sort of an alliance in which the right of connuMum was acknowledged, and the act of Simeon and Levi was, therefore, a barbarous repudiation of the rights of their native allies. From Jg 9 it is clear that the sons of Hamor re-possessed themselves of the city, the other tribes having withheld their assistance, probably more from fear of Canaanite revenge than from any over-whelming moral detestation of the act. The result was fatal for the future of the tribes, at first more particu-larly for Levi, but later also for Simeon. So complete were the disastrous consequences to Levi at this time that the tribal independence was lost, and the members became absorbed by the other tribes, especially by Judah. There is no mention of Levi and Simeon in Jg 5.

Some early connexion with Moses may have aided them in finding recognition about the sanctuaries in the early days. Then the altar did not call for a conse-crated servitor; but, as we see in the case of Micah, who had a private sanctuary in Ephraim, there existed apparently a preference for a Levite (Jg 17). It is not absolutely clear from the reference here that ' Levite ' is equal to 'priest,' as is commonly held. This would imply that by this time all Levites were priests. ' Filling up of the hand' (translated 'consecrated' in vv.'- ") may refer to a ceremony of induction into the priestly office, the principal act of which was the solemn placing of the god (or other religious symbol) in the hands of the future officiant at the shrine. It is the phrase used by the Assyrian kings when they speak of the gods bestowing upon them the kingship. It is the phrase which became the terminus technicus for con-secration to the priesthood, and there is no reason for giving a different meaning to it here. In Jg 3-16 there is no mention of a priest. For the altar-service alone priests were not necessary, as we see in the case of Gideon and Manoah. The fact that the word 'levite' became synonymous with 'priest' indicates that the priesthood drew heavily from the tribe. It is not the only time that worldly misfortune has contributed to religion. See also Priests and Levites, Tribes of Israel.

2. See Matthew. 3. 4. Two ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3«- 28). James A. Craig.

LEVIATHAN. — In four of the five passages where this word appears, the LXX have dragon, and their belief that a creature of serpentine form was meant is con-firmed by the derivation of Heb. lavah, which signifies 'to twist or wind.' The leviathan of Job 41'-" is the crocodile, with added traits drawn from the ancient Creation myths. On the assumption that Ps 74'^-" refers to the Exodus, we should again find the crocodile in v.". But it is at least equally probable that the allusion is to the creation of the world (vv."- "), and to the mythological sea-monsters then vanquished.

541