LEBNA (Heb. Libhāḥ; Gr. Λεμβάν, Λομβάν). — A town in Palestine situated between Makkedah and Lachish (Josh. 10:29–31). Taken by Joshua (Josh. 10:30, 39; 12:15), it was assigned to the Levites (Josh. 21:13; 1 Chron. 6:57). It became independent by revolting against Judah during the reign of Joram (2 Kings 8:22; 2 Chron. 21:10). It appears to have had a stronghold that Sennacherib took on his return from Lachish while campaigning against Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:8; Isa. 37:8). It was the native place of the mother of Jehoahaz and of Zedekiah, kings of Judah (2 Kings 23:31; 24:18).
According to Origen (120:25), it seems that in the Byzantine period the city was called Lobna. The identification is debated: some locate it at Tell es-Sāfīyeh, called by the Crusaders Alba Specula because of the meaning of “whiteness” in the name L., where excavations have revealed remains dating from 1700 BC to the modern period; others prefer to place L. at Tell Bornāt, 9 km further south, where remains from the Bronze Age III and Iron Age I have been found.
LE BRUN, PIERRE. — Oratorian liturgical scholar and theologian, born 17 June 1661 at Brignoles (Var), died in Paris on 6 January 1729. Ordained priest in 1685, he taught theology for two years at the Seminary of Grenoble (1687–89). An ardent student of history, he obtained permission to spend the rest of his life at the Seminary of Saint-Magloire in Paris.
His fame rests on the classic Explication littérale, historique et dogmatique des prières et des cérémonies de la Messe (4 vols., Paris 1716–26). In the first volume he explains the Roman Mass, steering a middle course between the exaggerated symbolism of Amalarius of Metz and the cold naturalism of Claude de Vert. He maintains that while some ceremonies were introduced for practical necessity, others were adopted for their symbolic value. By this principle he seeks to recover the exact history of each part of the Mass and to penetrate, with keen and exact theological insight, their hidden meanings. In the remaining three volumes he studies, with abundant erudition, the ceremonial of the Mass in the Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, and Eastern rites (Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, Ethiopian, Old-Syriac, Armenian), demonstrating their substantial unity, shattered by Protestantism, with respect to the constitutive elements of the Sacrifice. The work, universally praised, went through many editions (about thirteen in the 18th century) and was translated into Latin by G. A. Dalmasso (Venice 1770).
The first volume, often issued in a compendium, was reprinted separately (about fourteen times in the 19th century). This preference is justified, for while the other three volumes are somewhat outdated, the first retains all its freshness and, apart from a few historical inaccuracies, still constitutes an excellent explanation of the Roman Mass, which, in the judgment of H. Leclercq, has not been surpassed by any substantial modern study. Today it can be consulted in its entirety through the critical edition of E. Bonnardot (Paris 1949). In dissertation 10, article 17, Le Brun advanced the unusual opinion that the words “hoc est corpus meum” etc. have the value of an efficient cause of transubstantiation, subordinated however to the impetratory causality inherent in the formula of the epiclesis (q.v.), which precedes in the Roman Mass (Quam oblationem) and follows in the Eastern liturgies, so that in the West the consecratory words complete the mystery, whereas in the East it is concluded in the subsequent epictetic prayer. A lively controversy ensued, which lasted until the author’s death; he replied to his opponents in several pamphlets, tenaciously defending his view. He also wrote other works on the divining rod (attributing its effects to the devil), on the theatre (arguing against the licitness of theatrical performances in opposition to Fr. Caffaro, a Theatine), on the concordance of times and epochs, and left various manuscripts on Oratorian studies, ecclesiastical history (lectures), and liturgy. Though always respectful toward the Pope, Le Brun did not entirely escape the subtle infiltrations of Jansenism.