Leper; Leprosy – Levitical Cities

Leper; Leprosy

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 (Numbers 12:13) and that of the Samaritan (Luke 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.

1. Old Testament Instances:

The first Old Testament mention of this disease is as a sign given by God to Moses (Exodus 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 (Numbers 12:10), where the disease is graphically described (EP2). In Deuteronomy 24:8 there is a reference to the oral tradition concerning the treatment of lepers, without any details, but in Leviticus 13:1–59; Leviticus 14:1–57 (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 Kings 5:7).

The case of Naaman (2 Kings 5:1) shows that lepers were not isolated and excluded from society among the Syrians. The leprosy of Gehazi (2 Kings 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 Kings 7:3 had been excluded from the city and were outside the gate.

The leprous stroke inflicted on Uzziah (2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chronicles 26:23) for his unwarrantable assumption of the priestly office began in his forehead, a form of the disease peculiarly unclean (Leviticus 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 Luke 17:12, and the leper whom our Lord touched (Matthew 8:2; Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12), but it is probable that these are only a few out of many such incidents. Simon the leper (Matthew 26:6; Mark 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 (Luke 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 (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 Psalms 51:7, but this refers to Numbers 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.")

(1) Leprosy in Garments.

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 Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 14:34).

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.

4. The Legal Attitude:

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

Leshem

le'-shem.

See LAISH.

Lessau

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).

Let

(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 Thessalonians 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."

Lethech

le'-thek (lethekh): A liquid measure equivalent to half a homer (Hosea 3:2 margin) and containing about 5 1/2 bushels.

See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Letter

let'-er.

See EPISTLE.

Letters

let'-erz.

See ALPHABET; WRITING.

Letushim

le-too'-shim, le-tu'-shim (leTushim): A Dedanite tribe in North Arabia (Genesis 25:3). With it are connected the ASSHURIM and LEUMMIM (which see).

Leummim

le-um'-im (le'ummim): A Dedanite tribe of North Arabia, connected with the LETUSHIM (which see).

Levi (1)

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 (Luke 3:24,Luke 3:29).

(4) The apostle Matthew.

See MATTHEW.

Levi (2)

(Lewi; Leuei): The third of Leah's sons born to Jacob in Paddan-aram (Genesis 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 Numbers 18:2,Numbers 18:4, 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 (Genesis 34:1–31). Jacob's displeasure was expressed at the time (Genesis 34:3), and the memory was still bitter to him in his last days (Genesis 49:5 f). The fate predicted for the descendants of Simeon and Levi (Genesis 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 (Exodus 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 (Genesis 37:1–36), and shared their experiences in Egypt before Joseph made himself known (Genesis 42:1–38; Genesis 43:1–34; Genesis 44:1–34; Genesis 45:1–28). Three sons, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were born to him in Canaan, and went down with the caravan to Egypt (Genesis 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

Leviathan

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 Isaiah 27:1, where it is characterized as "the swift serpent .... the crooked serpent"; in Psalms 104:26, where a marine monster is indicated; also in Psalms 74:14 and Job 3:8. The description in Job 41:1–34 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

Levirate; Law

lev'-i-rat.

See MARRIAGE.

Levis

le'-vis (Leuis): 1 Esdras 9:14, properly the Levite of Ezra 10:15; "Shabbethai the Levite" for "Levis and Sabbateus."

Levites

le'-vits.

See PRIESTS AND LEVITES.

Levitical Cities

le-vit'-i-kal

I. LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Numbers

2. Deuteronomy

II. WELLHAUSEN'S VIEW

III. ALTERNATIVE VIEW AND EVIDENCE

1. Traces of the Cities

2. Wellhausen's Arguments Answered

3. Van Hoonacker's Reply

4. Ezekiel's Vision

5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell

LITERATURE

I. Legal Provisions.

1. Numbers: Numbers 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, Numbers 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 (Leviticus 25:32 f).

2. Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 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.

II. Wellhausen's View.

Joshua 21:1–45 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. Joshua 16:10; Judges 1:29 as to Gezer, and Judges 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 (Ezekiel 45:1–25) 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.

1. Traces of the Cities:

In point of fact, there are traces of some of the Levitical cities in the later history. Such are Anathoth (1 Kings 2:26; Jeremiah 1:1; Jeremiah 2:13), Jattir (2 Samuel 20:26, where, as shown in the article PRIESTS AND LEVITES (which see), Jattirite should be read for the Massoretic Jairite), Beth-shemesh (1 Samuel 6:13–15; see PRIESTS AND LEVITES as to the text). (From Amos 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 Kings 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.

3. Van Hoonacker's Reply:

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).

4. Ezekiel's Vision:

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 Ezekiel 48:1–35 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 (Ezekiel 44:28) and nevertheless grouped on a common territory, in the conditions described in Ezekiel 48:1–35, 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 Joshua 21:1–45 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