There can be no doubt that but one nation is intended in these passages, and it seems that thus far the prepon- derance of evidence is in Aivor of the Mizraitish Ludim. There are no indications in the Bible known to be posi- tive of mercenary or allied troops in the Egyptian ar- mies, except of Africans, and perhaps of tribes bordering Egypt on the east. We have still to inquire how the evidence of the Egyptian monuments and of profane history may affect our supposition. From the former we learn that several foreign nations contributed allies or mercenaries to the Egyptian armies. Among them we identify the Kenu with the Lubira, and the Siiary- ATANA with the Cherethim, who also served in David's army. The latter were probably from the coast of Pal- estine, although they may have been drawn in the case of the Egyptian army from an insular portion of the same people. The rest of these foreign troops seem to have been of African nations, but this is not certain. The evidence of the monuments reaches no lower than the time of the Bubastite line. There is a single foreign contemporary' inscribed record on one of the colossi of the temple of Abu-Simbcl in Nubia, noting the pas- sage of Greek mercenaries of a Psammetichus, probably the first (Wilkinson, Modern Egypt and Thebes, ii, 329). From the Greek writers, who give us information from the time of Psammetichus I downwards, we leam that Ionian, Carian, and other Greek mercenaries formed an important element in the Egyptian army in all times when the country was independent, from the reign of
LUDKE
548
LUFT
that king until the final conquest by Ochus. These mercenaries were even settled in Egypt by Psammeti- chns. There does not seem to be any mention of them in the Bible, excepting they be intended by Lud and the Ludim in the passages that have been considered. It must be recollected that it is reasonable to connect the Shemitic Lud with the Lydians, and that at the time of the prophets by whom Lud and the Ludim are mentioned the Lydian kingdom generally or always in- cluded the more western part of Asia Minor, so that the Lud and Ludim might well apply to the Ionian and Ca- rian mercenaries drawn from this territory. See Lur>.
The manner in which these foreign troops in the Egyptian army are characterized is perfectly in accord- ance with the evidence of the monuments, which, al- though about six centuries earlier than the prophet's time, no doubt represent the same comUtion of military matters. The only people of Africa beyond Egypt por- trayed on the monuments whom we can consider as most probably of the same stock as the Egyptians are the ReBU, who are the Lubim of the Bible, almost cer- tainly the same as the Mizraitish Lehabim (q. v.) ; therefore we may take the ReBU as probably illustra- ting the Ludim, supposing the latter to be Mizraites, in which case they may indeed be included under the same name as the Lubim, if the appellation ReBU be wider than the Lubim of the Bible, and also as illustrating (!"ush and Phut. The last two are spoken of as handling the buckler. The Egyptians are generally represented with small shields, frequently round; the ReBU with small round shields, for which the term here used, "J'O, the small shield, and the expression '' that handle," are perfectly appropriate. That the Ludim should have been archers, and apparently armed with a long bow that was strung with the aid of the foot by treading (r.'^P "'5"''^)) is noteworthy, since the Africans were always famous for their archery. The ReBU, and one other of the foreign nations that served in the Egyptian army — the monuments show the former only as enemies — were bowmen, being armed with a bow of moderate length ; the other mercenaries — of whom we can only identify the Philistine Cherethim, though they probably include certain of the mercenaries or auxiliaries men- tioned in the Bible — carrying swords and javelins, but not bows. These points of agreement, founded on our examination of the monuments, are of no little vreight, as showing the accuracy of the Bible. — Smith, s. v. See Shield.
LUdke, Fkiedricii Germanus, a German theolo- gian, was born at Stendal, Prussia, April 10, 1730. He began his academical course very young, and, upon its completion, became pastor of the Nicolai Church at Ber- lin, which office he held until his death, March 8, 1792. He was looked upon by his contemporaries as a man of an independent, decided, and philosophical mind, and ably defended the Christian truths. He was also an earnest advocate of tolerance, and ^v•rote " About Toler- ance and Freedom of Conscience."' — Dijting, Gelehrfe Theol. Deutschlunds, vol. ii, s. v.
Ltidlow, John, D.D., LL.D., a (Dutch) Reformed minister, was l)orn at Acijuackanonck, now Passaic, N. J., Dec. 13, 1793; graduated at Union College, 1814, and at the Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, N. J., 1817. His first settlement was in the First Reformed (Dutch) Church of New Brunswick, 1817; in 1819 he was elect- ed professor in the theological seminary at that place ; in 1823 he became pastor of the First Reformed (Dutch) Church in Albany, where he sustained himself with great power as a preacher, pastor, and public man. In 1834 he was made provost of the University of Penn- sylvania, and retained that position with distinguished ability until 1852, when he j-eturned to New Brunswick as professor of ecclesiastical history and Church govern- ment in the theological seminary, and also as professor of mental philosophy in Rutgers College. He died in 1857, in the full assurance of hope and of faith. In