παρὸν pw,’ lit. ‘leg upon thigh,’ see art. ΗΤΡ. 4, Sse’ in Is 47? is wrongly translated ‘leg’ τὴ AV. The correct rendering is ‘train.’ The proud
daughter of Babylon is called ἘΠΕ to assume the guise of a slave, to take the millstones and grind meal, to remove her veil, to strip off hei train, to uncover her leg (px ‘thigh’), i.e. to gird uy
94 LEGION
her garments that she may wade through the rivers.
8. In NT oxéXos—only of the breaking of the legs to hasten death, which was practised on the two crucified robbers but not upon Jesus, Jn 19°, This practice, known as σκελοκοπία (cf. the hap. leg. σκελοκοπεῖν in Lv. Petr. 4) or crurifragium, is referred to in Aur. Vict. Ces. 41; Plaut. Asin. I. iv. 68 ; Cic. Rose. Am. 20; Seneca, Jr. iii. 22, ete. (see full list in Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. vi. 253 note 3).
J. A. SELBIE.
LEGION.—This word, familiar as it is to us, was not a familiar word to the inhabitants of Palestine in NT times, for the legions were
] ]
stationed in the frontier provinces, and nothing |
happened to bring them into Judiea until the outbreak of the Jewish war in A.D. 66 (see AvuGustTus’ BAND). λΛεγιών (so spelt in §* B* D; λεγεών usually in AC) occurs in NT only in Mt 26°, Mk δ. 5, Lk 8*%—and even so never in its proper sense of ‘a legion of Roman soldiers’ ; it never occurs in LXX (so Hatch-Redpath) ; and it is rare (if it oceurs at all) in Josephus (τάγμα stands for ‘legion’ in BJ ii. 544, ii. 8, 97, ed. Niese, et passim).* Nor, again, is there much evidence that the word in its Semitic form (2125 or 3129, pl. ΝΟ or p32 or mad) was well known in Palestine early in the Christian era. It is found (S. A. Cook, Glossary of Aram. Inscr.) in the Palmyrene Inscriptions (1st-3rd cents. of the Christian era), and at least once in the OT Peshitta, Nu 24% ‘Legions shall go forth from the land of the Kittim’ (similarly Targ. Jer. ib.). On the other hand, the word is fairly common in Talmudic and Midrashic literature (from 3rd cent. of the Christian era onwards), and some instances may be quoted in illustration of λεγιών in NT.
(1) It connotes a great number. ‘It is easier to feed one legion in Galilee than one sucking child in the land of Israel’ (Genesis Rab. xx. 6 jin., ed. Wilna, 1878).
(2) Connoting special and severe punishment. The waters of the Flood are compared to a ‘cruel legion’ (Gen. Rab. iv. 6; cf. also v. 6).
(3) Connoting (under certain circumstances) un- cleanness. A leyion on the march is unclean because skulls to be used as charms are always carried with it (Talm. Bab., Haul. 123°).
(4) Connoting attendance on a king. God speaks of Israel at the passage of the Tea Sea as ‘My legions’ (Exod. Rab. xxiii. 7). The tribe of Levi is the legion which stands in God the King’s presence (Num. Rab. i. 12). God when He goes forth ‘for peace’ is attended by multitudes (yos>x) and legions (Num. Rab. xi. p. 89, col. a, ed. Wilna).
These references illustrate both Mt 26% (‘ Twelve legions of angels’); ef. (1) (4); and Mk 5° (‘legion; for we are many’); οἵ. (1) (2). The idea of un- cleanness is not prominent in the word.
A Roman legion in our Lord’s time was an army complete in itself, consisting of both infantry and aah and amounting to upwards of 5000 men; cf. Marquardt, Rim. Staatsverwaltung, ii.
. 43°F See also Schiirer, ΠΡ 1. ii. 49-51; Swete, St. Mark 5° note; Plummer, St. Luke 8” note; J. Levy, NHWB, s.v. v2).
W. EMERY BARNES.
LEHABIM (Gn 10%, 1 Ch 1" o3799, Λαβιείμ, Λαβείν, Vulg. Laabim) occurs as the name of a nation de- scending from Mizraim, t.e. nearly related to the Egyptians. Scholars always have noticed the great similarity of the name to that of the Lubim,
* Asyiéy (λ.γιών) does not appear in the Index Voc. Grec. in Havereamp’s ed. of 1726, nor is Josephus cited s.v. in Liddell and Scott (ed. viii.), or in Stephanus (ed. Hase-Dindorf), or in Sophocles, icon (ed. 1870).
LENDING
Libyans. Some suppose Lehabim to be merely ἃ corruption for original 3:9; others, a double writing of this name, which they suppose to be hidden in the om Ludim connected with it; others suppose Lehabim and Ludim (Lubim ?) to have been different tribes of the same nation, therefore, with similar names. Certainly, the graphic similarity between / and τὸ is small, only Ὁ ϊ might form a transition. An insertion of h for phonetic reasons is anything but probable ; the insertions of ἢ in other cases are not sufficiently analogous. Therefore, the origin of the present form remains obscure. On the other hand, it can hardly be doubted that the Libyans are meant (see Luprm). Strange etymologies such as from an, ‘flame,’ i.e. those living in a flaming hot country (!), or wild guesses such as the translation of Walton’s Arabic version, ‘the inhabitants of Behnesa’ (Middle Egypt, near Oxyrhynchus of the Greek time), deserve no consideration. W. MAx MULLER.
LEHI (‘n> ‘jawbone,’ ‘cheek’; LXX Aev(e)l, Aexi, Σιαγών ; Luc. Λεχεί ; A. 2.0, Jos. Ant. V. viii. 8, 9 Siaydév).—A place in Judah, the scene of Samson’s slaughter of the Philistines, Jg 15°. In 2S 23" πιπὸ ‘to Lehi’ (LXX Lue. ἐπὶ σιαγόνα), is to be read for 7:75 ‘to the troop(?).’ The site is unknown. Schick (ZDPV x. 152 f.) suggests Khurbet es-Sijjagh (σιαγών), 2m. §.S.E. of Sor'ah ; but see Smith, HG HL 222 n.,and Moore, Judges 348, where other identifications are quoted. The name ‘jawbone’ must have been suggested by the forma- tion of a prominent rock ; ef. “Ovou γνάθος, the name of a peninsula on the W. of Cape Malea, the S.E. romontory of the Peloponnese (Strabo, p. 363, ed. Basanti). Perhaps Beer-lahai-roi (Gn 16") is to be explained in the same way, ‘x1 ‘7? ‘the jawbone of the antelope,’ Arab. ’wrwiye ‘mountain goat’ (Wellh. Proleg.* 339 and n.; Ball, ‘Genesis’ in SBOT 66); cf. also the place-name in Arab., lahy gamal ‘ camel’s jawbone.’