The parts of the fat or suet of the victims which belong to God, and are especiallj' to 1 e a))piojiriated to the altar, are given in Exod. xxix, 13-22, and Lev- iii, 3-5, as follows : 1. The fat which covers the en- trails (""ijyrjTX nsr'cn :ipnn) = fc7ri'7rXoi'c, as Jo-
sephus rightly has it {Ant. iii, 9, 2); the omentum, which is only to be found in man and mammals, and is verj' fat in ruminants (comp. Aristot. Hid. Anim. i, 16 ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xi, 80). 2. The fat which ac cumulates around entrails (3"i|?il"?:^'' T^N "^nri), and is easily separated therefrom, i. e. the reticular adherings to the colon. 3. The two kidneys, with the fat on them, at the internal muscles of the loins ("^P'j
n-iborn b? irx -nb:' nbnri rxi r^brn), asthe
most fat accumulates near the kidneys (Deut. xxxii, 14 ; Isa. xxxiv, 6), and to such an extent in sheep that the}^ sometimes die of it (oi vt(po\ fiaXiarn riLv mrXdyxt'ijJv t\oj'cri Tzi/jitXijr, Aristot. De Pai-t. Anim. iii, 9, and Hist. Ai.im. iii, IG ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xi, 81). 4. The f^'T}^, yotht'rtth, which is taken by the Sept. and Josephus {Ant. iii, 9, 2) to mean o \o\ilc, rov yna- Toc, the ffreattr lobe of the llvir, siniilarh' the Syriac and Chaldee (XI^D ?"1 X^lin); and is explained by the Talmud {Chidin, xlix, 6), Rashi, Kimchi, Solomon ben-Melech, etc., as N"rQ"iI2 = r()fi7r£so,'Avherel)3' the Greeks, according to Hippocrates, understood the greater and thickest of the five segments of the liver (Biihr, Symb. ii, "54). This meaning of T'lrT^ is ably- defended by Bochart {Hieroz. lib. ii, c. xlv), and fol- lowed by Le Clerc, J. D. RosenmUller, Kalisch (on Exod. xxix, 13), and others. But the Vulgate, Lu- ther, Tj'udale, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the A. v., Piscator, De Wette, Knobel, Fiirst, etc., take it to denote omentum minus, which is preferable, for the lobes have no accumulation of fat. 5. The tail (n*3X, a'yah' , A. V. "rump") of a sheep (Lev. vii, 3), which, in a certain species {oris laticaudatd), contains a great quantity of fat. It is for this reason that the eating of fat is forbidden (Lev. iii, 17). It affords a delicate marrowy substance much used in pillaus and other messes which require to be lubricated by animal juices. The Rabbinical Jews maintain that the prohibition of it is restricted to the sacrifices, while the Karaite Jews regard the eating of the tail as absolutely forbidden.— Kitto, s. v. ; Smith, s. v. See Shkep.
One of the metaphorical senses of " fat" (in the He- brew) is noticed above. Bj' a natural figure, " fat" is occasionally put in Scripture for a dull and torpid state of mind, as if the heart were covered witii tliick fat, and therefore insensible (Psa. xvii, 10). See On..
Fatalism, the doctrine of an inevitable necessity', implying an omnipotent and arbitrary superior power-. It is derived frcm the Latin yi(^(/?;j ("what is spoken or decreed," passive participle of far i). The Greeks expressed it also by the passive participle i'lj^ian/th'!] ; but their woi-ds /iwlpa {Destiny, the Goddess of Fate") and «7(Trt {decree, destiny, goddess who dispenses fate) have an active meairing.
I. In Homer, i\foira has a twofold force ; it is some- times considered as superior to Zens, then again as in- ferior to liinr ; a twofold force which Nagelsbach cor- rectly expounds (after Delbriick and Creuzer) by say- ing that in Homer the monarchical will of Zeus does not appear as directly opposed to the contrary efforts of the other gods. Yet the human mind has a monothe- istic tendency even among the heathen, and therefore seeks to give to the heavens one siqiren.e ruler, and to unite all the gods into one exclusive unity. On the other hand, however, this unity is inert and dead, and this leads Homer to identify it with the highest, I the living god — w-ith the "total will" of the other gods. The grv.diial devcloi>uient of Greek philosophy led to the thought of i-epresenting tlie supreme ruling power by Moira : so we find it in Herodotus, i, 91, ti]v -f Trpoj-
FATALISM
495
FATHElx
fitvrjv fiolpav acuvara ioriv aTro(pvyiav Kol 5iV'j . This agency of Fate was afterwards made to apph' to the reguhition of the outward life of men, and tlie concep- tion of Fate as the ruling power of the universe be- came deeper and more spiritual : so Anaxagoras rec- ognises 'Sot'c, the spirit, as ruler of the world; and Plato does the same, especially in Philebue (:]!, 4, iv TV Tov AiuQ (pvnti /3rt(T(A((C/;i' f^dv ■'pv\ijv, iiadiKiKuv Ci voi'i' iyyiyi'ta^ai). This same tendencj' towards a spirit iialization of Fate is found in the tragic authors, especially in Sophocles, who has happih' expressed these views in his OCdipits Coloneus, "iGG, 267 (edition Scimeidewiii) : tirti ret y' tpya /.wo Tmroi'OoT' inri fiuX- Xui' i"; ctOpaKora (Jor my actions are rather to be called mi/ d^sliinfs than wy own). But this fate does not ex- clude guilt on the j)art of man, for the curse rested from the first on individual sin, as is shown cspeciallj- in the revelation of fearful guilt in the Q^dipug L'ex, and the possibility of pardon in the Coloticus. The Greek tragedy is based on this very antagonism between in- dividu.il being and t!ie supreme world-power. After Sop!iocles, the two notions of the word ^loiprt were sei)arated, and eacli was gradually brought out more distinctly. From Euripides down to the Epicureans a tendenc}' prevailed to make the power of fate sul)- servient to human caprice, and to make it subordinate ti) 'I'l'YV (cliance), which plays an important part in Thucydides. Blind chance was made to rule the earth. The Epicureans proclaimed their gods the " essence of pure inactive self-indulgence, indiflferent to the condi- tion of mankind and the world," so that, the gods no longer interfering in human affairs, it became matter of indiff.TPnce whether they were worshipped or not. On the other hand, Stoicism maintained that to live according to the laws of nature, i. e. to resign one's self to the necessary course of things, is the true wis- dom of life. In this point, as in others, the views of the Stoics and the Epicureans were directly o[)posed to each other [see Epicurean Philosophy], yet in their results the}' arrived at the same point, viz. that against the ineluctabilefaf urn, whether the result of sep- arate accidental chances or of the general law of na- ture, there is nothing to be done. The Moira, acting according to higher laws incomprehensible to human- ity, is thus confounded with blind destinj'.