In our search for the real origin of the latter, two points have to be kept in mind : both the cuttings and the baldness are expressly stated to lie ' for the dead,' and, not less explicitly, to be incom- patible with Israel's unique relation to J", a relation at once of sonship (Dt 41') and of con- secration ("S tnji 14'). Now it is admitted on all hands ( 1 ) that such mutilations of the body as are here condemned have in almost all countries formed part of the religious rites of heathenism. And, in particular, they must have been familiar enough in the Pal. of tnose days where such self- inflicted bloodshed formed part of the everyday ritual of the Canaanite Baal (see 1 K IS**, the only passage not already cited where the Heb. word has this signification, and note 'after their manner '). (2) Both the shedding of the blood and the dedica- tion of the hair are found, as we have seen, in the most intimate connexion with the ritual of heathen bui ial and the belief in the necessity of propitiat- ing the spirit of the deceased. Thus (to give but a single example) we are told that 'a Samoan ceremony, on the occasion of a decease, was " beat- ing the head with stones till the blood runs " ; and this they called "an offering of blood" for the dead ' (quoted from Turner's Samoa by Spencer, Princip. of Social, p. 166).
In view of the facts now stated, we are led to the conclusion that both the tokens of grief pro- hibited by the Heb. legislation were so prohibited because they carried with them associations of a character incompatible with the pure religion of J". Whether we hold with Stade and others that a
developed ancestor-worship was practised by the primitive Hebrews or not, there can be little doubt that the gashing of the body and the shaving of the head as practised by the Semitic peoples gener- ally must, in the last resort, be traced to the desire to propitiate the manes of the departed, and ' to make an enduring covenant with the dead ' ( W. R. Smith, iJ6'' p. 305). But while we are forced by the evidence to this conclusion as to the ultimate origin of the practices in question, we would not have it supposed that any such animistic concep- tion was present to the minds of the contempor- aries of Isaiah and Jeremiah. In nothing is man- kind so conservative as in all that concerns the respect due to the dead, and so, to the spiritually- minded at least, the practices prohibited were but the wonted outward signs of excessive grief. All excesses, then — so we conclude — such as making incisions in the hand (Jer 48") or other part of the body to the effusion of blood, and sfiaving the head in whole or in part, were strictly forbidden by the legislation of D and of H, not merely or even chiefly qiiA excesses, but as being alike in origin and association unworthy of those who had attained to the dignity of the sons of J".
iii. Under the head of ' cuttings in the flesh ' falls to be considered also the particular practice for- bidden in Lv ISP'' [Ye shall not] ' print any marks (VtUfi "Jnj, LXX yp&iifiaTa (micri, Vulg. stigmata) upon you.' The expression does not occur elsewhere, but we may be sure that the reference is to the ancient and widely -spread cu.stom of tattooing or branding. Which of these two modes of marking is to be understood here it is impossible to say with absolute certainty, the verbal stem, SPi'P, having both meanings in post-biblical Heb., while the same ambiguity attaches to orifu and its derivatives, arlyiw., etc. In favour of tattooing, however, the following may be urged : (1) the exegetical tradi- tion ; Rashi, for example, explains the marks in question as made ■\rith a needle ( Comm. in loc. ) ; (2) the probable origin of the custom, as advocated by the acute author of ES. 'In Lv 19**, where tattooing is condemned as a heathenish practice, it is immediately associated with incisions in the flesh made in mourning or in honour of the dead, and this suggests that in their ultimate origin the stigmata are nothing more than the permanent scars of punctures made to draw blood for a cere- mony of self-dedication to the deity ' (p. 316, note 1 ).
The best-known illustration of the prevalence of the practice of tattooing or making stigmata in Syria is supplied by the priests of ' the Syrian goddess' in Lucian's treatise of that name, who were tattooed on wrist and neck (ch. 59 — on which cf. the classical work of John Spencer, below). Philo (De Monarch, i.) refers to the allied practice of branding, familiar to us in the case of slaves and criminals, as practised by certain misguided idol- worshippers in his own time. In 3 Mac, also, Ptolemy IV. (Philopator) is represented as having the contumacious Jews branded with the i^-y-leaf, the symbol of Dionysus (2^). These passages, then, show that it was not an unusual practice to have tattooed or branded in one's flesh the name or symbol of the deity to whom one was specially devoted — a practice which at once gives us the true explanation of the interesting passage. Is 44' (another shall mark on his hand ' Yahweh's,' cf. KVni, also Gal 6" <nlyixa.Ta 'IijcroC). Jewish tradi- tion, we may add, has it that the obscure phrase of the Chronicler with regard to Jehoiakim, ' that which was found in him ' (2 Ch 36'), refers to his breach of the command in Lv ig-^*", letters having been discovered tattooed on his flesh, pre.suiiiably the name of some heathen deity (Micirash Lcvit. Babbn 19 — quoted by Strack, Comm. in loc.; Jerome, Queest. Heb. in Paraiipom. I.e.).