3. The most striking office of the goel was that of acting as the avenger of blood in case of the murder of his next of kin; hence the phrase Q'nfj bxj, the blood- avenger. In the heart of man there seems to be a deep- rooted feeling that where human life has been destroyed by violence the offence can be expiated only by the life of the murderer; hence, in all nations where the rights of individuals are not administered by a general execu- tive acting under the guidance of law, the rule obtains that where murder has been committed the right and duty of retaliation devolves on the kindred of the mur- dered person. Among the Shemitic tribes this took the form of a personal obligation resting on the nearest of kin — a custom which still prevails among the Arabs (Niebuhr, /^ps. d\Arahie,c\\.l). This deep-rooted feel- ing and established usage the Mosaic legislation sought to place under such regulations as would tend to prevent the excesses and disorders to which personal retaliation is apt to lead, without attempting to i)reclude the indul- gence of it. (Mohammed also sought to bring the prac- tice under restraint without forbidding it [see Koran, ii, 173-5 ; xvii, 33J.) Certain cities of refuge were pro- vided, to which the manslayer might endeavor to escape. If the goel overtook him before he reached any of these cities, he might put him to death ; but if the fugitive succeeded in gaining the asylum, he was safe until at least an investigation had been instituted as to the cir- cumstances of the murder. If on inquiry it was found that the party had been guilty of deUberate murder, tlie law delivered him up to the goel, to be put to death by
him in anj' way he pleased ; but if the murder was acci- dental, the manslayer was entitled to the protection of the asylum he had reached. See City of Refuge. He ■was safe, however, only within its precincts, for if the goel found him beyond these he was at liberty to kill him. Among some of the Oriental nations the right of blood-revenge might be satisfied by the payment of a sum of money, but this practice, which obviously gave to the rich an undue advantage over the poor in matters of this sort, the law of Moses absolutely prohibits (Numb. xxxv, 31). See Blood-revenge.
From the narrative in Ruth iii and iv it has been con- cluded that among the duties of the goel was that of marrj'ing the wiilow of a deceased kinsman, so as to raise up seed to the deceased, thus identifying the office of the goel with that of the levir, as provided fur in Deut. XXV, 5-10. See Marriage. But the levirate law ex- pressly limits the obligation to a brother, and, according to the Jewish commentators, to a full brother b}^ the fa- ther's side (Maimonides, quoted by Otho, Lex. Rahhin. p. 372), and in this relation neither Boaz nor the other kinsman stood to Elimelech or his sons. It is further evident that tlie question was one of right rather than one of duty, and that the kinsman who waived his right incurred no disgrace therebj-, such as one who declined to fulfil the levirate law incurred. The nearest kinsman had the right to redeem the land, and the redemption of the land probably involved the marrying of the widov.' of the deceased owner, according to usage and custom ; but the law did not enjoin this, nor did the goel who declined to avail himself of his right come under any penalty or ban. The case of the goel and that of the levir would thus be the converse of each other: the goel had a right to purchase the land, but in so doing came under an obligation from custom to marry the widow of the deceased owner; the levir was bound to marry the widow of his deceased brother, Avhich in- volved, as a matter of course, the redemption of his property if he had sold it (see Selden, De Success, in ban. defunct, c. 15; Benary, JJe Hebrceonim Leviraiu, p. 19 sq. ; Bertheau, Exeget. Ildb. sum A. T. pt. vi, p. 249; Michaelis, On the Laws of Moses, ii, 129 sq.). — Kitto, s. v. See Levirate Law.
Kipling, TiiOJiAS, an English divine, born in York- shire about the middle of the 18tli century, was educa- ted at St. John's College, Cambridge, where he graduated as B.A. in 17G8, and became D.D. in 1784. His first prominent position was that of deputy regius professor of divinity under bishop Watson, and later he was pro- moted to the deanery of Peterborough. In 1792 Kip- ling preached the Boyle Lectures, which were not pub- lished. In 1793 he brought out at the university press a very handsome edition of the famous " Codex Bezte" of the N. T., with fac-simile types {Codex Bezce, Quad- ratis Uteris, Grceco-Latinis, 2 vols, folio), which was im- mediately assailed with a vindence amounting to per- sonal hostility by tlie party which had espoused the cause of the once notorious Frend, who was banished the university for Unitarianism, and in whose case Kip- ling had come forward as promoter, or public prosecutor. Dr. Edwards, the leader of the party, charged him with ignorance and want of fidelity. But, tliough his prole- gomena do not manifest much accurate scholarship, and he commits the serious error of printing the corrections instead of the original reading of the text, which he rel- egated to the notes at the end, Tregelles (^Introd. to Text. Crit. of N. Test.) allows that he '"appears to have used scrupulous exactitude in performing his task efficiently according to the plan -which he had proposed to him- self." Kipling also published The A rticles of the Church of England proved not to be Calvinistical (1802, 8vo), written in answer to Overton's True Churchman ascer- tained. He dicil in 1822. See Kitto, Cyclop. Bib. Lit. s. V. ; Allibone, Diet. Engl, and A mer. A uthors,\oL ii, s. v. ; Hoefer, Xouv. Biog. Gen. xxvii, 7GG.