t. 4). His contemporary, Clement of Rome, makes a similar statement (Epist. i. sec. 1); and so, in the next century, does Irenceus (iv. 5 t, 64). But their evidence is of little original value on a point like this. Josephys and the author of Wis dom no doubt believed what they stated : and their testimony amounts to this, that in their day an object existed which was said to be the pillar into which Lot's wife was turned, and which they be lieved to be such. But in the present day, when the sources of historical evidence arc more carefully investigated than in former times, we regard these authorities, 2000 years after the event, as having no particular weight, unless so far as they may be supported by anterior probabilites and documents, which in this case do not exist Further, it is all but impossible that if so strange a monument had existed on the borders of the Dead Sea, it should not have been noticed by the sacred historians, and alluded to by the poets : and we may be almost certain that if it had remained when the book of Genesis was written, the frequent formula, that it was there unto this day,' would not have been omitted. Indeed there is every probability that, if such a monument had then existed, the Canaanites would have made it one of their idols. The ex pression of our Lord, Remember Lot's wife ' (Luke xvii. 32), appears from the context to be solely intended as an illustration of the dang,er ot going back or delaying in the day of God's judg ments. From this text, indeed, it would appear as if Lot's wife had gone back, or had tarried so long behind, in the desire of saving some of their property. Then, as it would seem, she was struck dead, and became a stiffened corpse, fixed for the time to the soil by saline or bituminous incrusta tions. The particle of similitude must here, as in many other passages of Scripture, be understood— like a pillar of salt.' With respect to Lot's daughters, Whiston and others are unable to see any wicked intention in them. He admits that the incest was a horrid crime, except under the unavoidable necessity which apparently rendered it the only means of preserving the human race : and this justifying necessity he holds to have existed in their minds, as they appear to have believed that all the inhabi tants of the land had been destroyed except their father and themselves. But it is incredible that they could have entertained any such belief. The city of Zoar had been spared, and they had been there. The wine also with which. they made their father drunk must have been procured from men, as we cannot suppose they had brought it with them from Sodom. The fact would therefore seem to be that, after the fate of their sisters, who had married men of Sodom and perished with them, they became alive to the danger and impropriety of marrying with the natives of the land, and. of the importance of preserving the family connection. The force of this consideration was afterwards seen in Abraham's sending to the seat of his family in Mesopotamia for a wife to Isaac. But Lot's daughters could not go there to seek husbands; and the only branch of their own family within many hundred miles was that of Abraham, whose only son, Ishmael, was then a child. This, there fore, must have appeared to them the only prac ticable mode in which the house of their father could be preserved. Their making their father dnink, and their solicitous concealment of what they did from him, shew that they despaired of persuading him to an act which, under any circum stances, and with every possible extenuation, must have been very distressing to so good a man. That he was a good man is evinced by his deliver ance from among the guilty, and is affirmed by St. Peter (2 Pet. ii. 7); his preservation is alluded to by our Saviour (Luke xvii. 28, etc.); and in Deut. ii. 9, it9, and Ps. lxxxiii. 8, his name is used to designate the Moabites and Ammonites, his de scendants.—J. K.
LOT (6, sometimes written M.1) is mentioned in two passages of Scripture, in both of which it is erroneously translated myrrh in the A. V. In
Gen. xxxvii. 25, Behold a company of Ishmeelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery (necoth), and balm (tzeri), and myrrh (/ot), going to carry it down to Egypt.' Again, in chap. xliii. II, Jacob directs his sons to take into Eg,ypt of the best fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little balm (tzerz) and a little honey, spices (necoth) and myrrh (lot), nuts (botnint) and almonds (shakadim). In this enumeration, in one case, of merchandise, and in the other, of several articles intended for a present, and both destined for Egypt, at that time a highly civilized nation, it is evident that we are to look only for such substances as were likely to be accept able in that country, and therefore not such as were pi oduced there, or as were more easily procurable from elsewhere than from Syria, as was the case with myrrh, which was never produced in Syria, and could not have been an article of export from thence. This difficulty bas been felt by others, and various translations of Tot have been proposed, as /otus, chestnuts, mastiche, stacte, balsam, tur pentine, pistachio nuts. Jnnius and Tremellius render it ladanum, which is suitable, and appears to be correct.
Ladazzum, or gum lazianum, as it is often called, was known to the Greeks as early as the times of Herodotus and Theophrastus, and bore the names of lerlon and ladanon, which are very closely allied to ladun, the Arabic name of the same drug. It has been well observed by Rosenmiiller that the proper root and origin of these names is led, but that the Hebrew has the hard consonant t instead of the softer d, of which letters many permutations are to be found in these, as well as in other lan guages. A Hebrew author, as quoted by Celsius (Llierobot. p. 28i), says, Est aroma, ex succo arboris cujusdam proveniens.' Ladanum is de scribed by Herodotus as particularly fragmnt, though gathered from the beards of goats, where it is found sticking. This is explained by referring to the description of Dioscorides, from which we learn that goats, after browsing upon the leaves of the ladanum plants, necessarily have this viscid substance adhering to their hair and beards, whence it is afterwards scraped off. Tournefort, in modern times, has given a detailed description of the mode of obtaining ladanum, and relates that it is now gathered by means of a kind of rake with whip like thongs, which is passed over the plants. When these thongs are loaded with the odoriferous and sticky resin, they are scraped with a knife, and the substance rolled into a mass, in which state it is called ladanum or labdanum. It con sists of resin and volatile oil, and is highly fra grant, and stimulant as a medicine, but is often adulterated with sand in commerce. The lacla Mint which is used in Europe is collected chiefly in the Greek isles, and also in continental Greece. It is yielded by species of the genus ashes (espe cially by C. creams), which are known in this country by the name of Rock Rose. They are natives of the south of Europe, the Mediterranean islands, and the north of Africa. Species are also found in Judxa; and C. creams in some parts of Syria. Some authors have been of opinion that one species, the Cistus roseus, is more likely than any other to be the Rose of Sharon, as it is very common in that locality, while nothing like a true rose is to be found there. Ladanum seems to have been produced in Judma, according to writers in the Talmud (Gels. /oc. p. 286). It is said by Pliny, as long before by Herodotus, to be a pro duce of Arabia, though this has not been proved to be the case in modern times. Sufficient, how ever, has been adduced to show that ladanum was known to, and esteemed by, the ancients, and as its Greek and Arabic names are similar to the Hebrew, and as it is stated to have been a produce of Syria, it was very likely to have been sent to Egypt both as a present and as merchandise.— J. F. R.