^^ Wve ihwIofftVaf j^

PRINCIJTON, N. J.

! ,,

BS440 .S547 1871 v. 3

Smith, William, Sir, 1813-18^ ^

3.

Dictionary of the Bible . . .

* ^ < ' -31

:i^>

L\

^'

^f^H^<C^

,r>v:

>-^	?^^
^	^M
R	tt

V ^ -1 id

DR. WILLIAM SMITH'S

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;

COMPRISING ITS

ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND NATURAL HISTORY.

KKVISED AND KDITKD HY

PROFESSOR H. B. HACKETT, D. D

WITH TIIK COOPEKATION OF

EZRA ABBOT, LL. I).

ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN OF HARVARD COLLEGE.

VOLUME III. MARRIAGE to REGEM.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY HURD AND HOUGHTON.

C a m b r i b g e : K i o c r s i b c |) r c s s .

1871.

Entered according to Act of Congress, m the year 1870. by

HuRD AND Houghton,

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

HIVKKSIDE, CAMBRIDGE!

BTEREOTYPED AND PRINTED I". ¥

H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.

R.	AV.	B.
E.	H.	B.
W	. T.	B.

WRITERS IN THE ENC^ilSH EDITION.

mriALS. NAMES.

H. A. Very Rev. Henry Alford, D. D., Dean of Canterbury.

H. B. Rev. Henry Bailey, B. D., Warden of St. Augustine's College, Can-

terbury ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. H. B. Rev. HoRATius Bonar, D. D., Kelso, N. B. ; Author of " The Land

of Promise." [The geographical articles, signed H. B., are written by Dr. Bonar : those on other subjects, signed H. B., are written by Mr. Bailey.]

A. B. Rev. Alfred Barry, B. D., Principal of Cheltenham College ; late

Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

W. L. B. Rev. William Latham Bevan, M. A., Vicar of Hay, Brecknock- shire.

J. W. B. Rev. Joseph Williams Blakesley, B. D., Canon of Canterbury ; late Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge.

T. E. B. Rev. Thomas Edward Brown, M. A., Vice-Principal of King Wil- liam's College, Isle of Man ; late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Ven. Robert' William Browne, M. A., Archdeacon of Bath, and

Canon of Wells. Right Rev. Edward Harold Browne, D. D., Lord Bishop of Ely. Rev. William Thomas Bullock, ]\1. A., Assistant Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.

S. C. Rev. Samuel Clark, M. A., Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury,

Herefordshire.

F. C. C. Rev. Frederic Charles Cook, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the

Queen.

G. E. L. C. Right Rev. George Edward Lynch Cotton, D. D., late Lord Bishop

of Calcutta and INIetropolitan of India. J. LI. D. Rev. John Llewelyn Davies, M. A., Rector of Christ Church,

Marylebone ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. G. E. D. Prof George Edward Day, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn. E. D. Emanuel Deutsch, M. R. A. S., British Museum.

W. D. Rev. William Drake, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen.

E. p. E. Rev. Edward Paroissien Eddrup, M. A., Principal of the Theolog-

ical College, Salisbury. C. J. E. Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D. D., Lord Bishop of Glouces- ter and Bristol.

F. W. F. Rev. Frederick William Farrar, M. A., Assistant Master of Har-

row School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

J. F. James Fergusson, F. R. S., F. R. A. S., Fellow of the Royal Insti-

tute of British Architects.

E. S. Ff. Edward Salusbury Ffoulkes, M. A., late Fellow of Jesus College. Oxford.

W. F. Right Rev. William Fitzgerald, D. D., Lord Bishop of Killaloe

(iii)

LIST OF WRITERS.

DOTIALS.
F.	G.
F.	W.	G.
G.
H.	B.	H.
E.	H-	-s.
H.	H.
A.	c.	H.
J.	A.	H.
J.	D.	H.
J.	J.	H.
W	. H
J.	S.	H.
E.	H,
AV	. B	. J.
A.	H.	L.
S.	L.

J. B. L.

D.	W	. M.
F.	M.
OprERT.
E.	R.	0.
T.	J.	0.
J.	J.	S. P
T.	T.	P.
*
H.	\V	'. P.
E.	H.	P.
E.	S.	P.
R.	s.	P.
J.	L.	P.

Rev. Francis Garden, M. A., Subdean of Iler Majesty's Chapels

Royal. Rev. F. William Gotch, I^L. D., President of the Baptist College,

Bristol ; late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London. George Grove, Crystal Palace, Sydenham.

Prof. Horatio Balcii Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institu- tion, Newton, Mass. Rev. Erxest Hawkins, B. D., Secretary of the Society for the Propa- gation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Rev. Henry Hayman, B. D., Head Master of the Grammar School,

Cheltenham ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. Ven. Lord Arthur Charles Hervey, M. A., Archdeacon of Sud- bury, and Rector of Ickworth. Rev. James Augustus Hessey, D. C. L., Head Master of Merchant

Taylors' School. Joseph Dalton Hooker, M. D., F. R. S., Royal Botanic Gardens,

Kew. Rev. James John Hornby, M. A., Fellow of Brasenose College, Ox- ford ; Principal of Bishop Cosin's Hall. Rev. William Houghton, M. A., F. L. S., Rector of Preston on the

Weald Moors, Salop. Rev. John Saul Howson, D. D., Principal of the Collegiate Institu- tion, Liverpool. Rev. Edgar Huxtable, M. A., Subdean of "Wells. Rev. William Basil Jones, M. A., Prebendary of York and of St.

David's ; late Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford. Austen Henry Layard, D. C. L., M. P. Rev. Stanley Leathes, M. A., M. R. S. L., Hebrew Lecturer in

King's College, London. Rev. Joseph Barber Ligiitfoot, D. D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity.

and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Rev. D. W. M.\RKS, Professor of Hebrew in University College, London. Rev. Frederick Meyrick,. M. A., late Fellow and Tutor of Trinity

College, Oxford. Prof Jules Oppert, of Paris. Rev. Edward Redman Orger, M. A., Fellow and Tutor of St.

Auuustine's College, Canterbury. Ven. Thomas Johnson Ormerod, M. A., Archdeacon of Suffolk ;

late Fello-.v of Brasenose College, Oxford. Rev. John James Stewart Perowne, B. D., Vice-Principal of St.

David's College, Lampeter. Rev. Thomas Thomason Perowne, B. D., Fellow and Tutor o^

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Rev. Henry Wright Phillott, M. A., Rector of Staunton-on-Wye,

Herefordshire ; late Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Rev. Edward Hayes Plumptre, M. A., Professor of Divinity in

King's College, London. Edward Stanley Poole, M. R. A. S., South Kensington Museum Reginald Stuart Poole, British Museum. Rev. J. Leslie Porter, M. A., Professor of Sacred Literature, Asseni-

LIST OF WRITERS. ,

MITIALS. NAMES.

hly's College, Belfast ; Author of " Handbook of Syria and Palestine,"' and " Five Years in Damascus."

C. P. Rev. Charles PRircn.\KD, M. A., F. R. S., Hon. Secretary of the

Royal Astronomical Society ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Cam- bridge.

G. R. Rev. Geokoe Rawlinsox, M. A., Camden Professor of Ancient His-

tory, Oxford.

H. J. R. Rev. Hexuy Johx Rose, B. D., Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire.

W. S. Rev. William Selwyn, D. D., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ;

Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, Cambridge: Canon of Ely.

A. P. S. Rev. Akthur Pkxrhyx Staxley, D. D., Regius Professor of Ecclesias- tical History, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; Chaplain to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

C. E. 8. Prof Calvix Elliis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn.

J. P. T. Rev. Joseph Pakrish Thompson, D. D., New York.

W. T. Most Rev. William Thomson, D. D., Lord Archbishop of York.

S. P. T. Samuel Prideai'x Tuegelles, LL. D., Author of " An Introduction

to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament," &c.

H. B. T. Rev. Hexry Baker Tristram, M. A., F. L. S., Master of Greatham Hospital.

J. F. T. Rev. Joseph Fraxcis Tiirupp, M. A., Vicar of Barrington ; late Fel- low of Trinity College, Cambridge.

E. T. Hon. Edward T. B. Twisleton, M. A., late Fellow of Balliol College,

Oxford. Rev. I^DMUXD Ven'ables, M. a., Bonchurch, Isle of Wight. Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., Assistant Master of Han-ow

School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D. D., Canon of Westminster. William Aldis Wright, M. A., Librarian of Trinity College, Cam- bridge.

E.	V.
B.	F.	W.
C.	W.
W	. A.	, W.

WRITERS IN THE AMERICAN EDITION.

A. Ezra Abbot, LL. D., Assistant Librarian of Harvard College,

Cambridge, Mass. S. C. B. Prof Samuel Colcord Bartlett, D. D., Theol. Sem., Chicago, 111.

T. J. C. Rev. Thomas Jeeferson Coxaxt, D. D., Brooklyn, N. Y.

G. E. D. Prof George Edward Day, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn. G. P. F. Prof George Park Fisher, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

F. G. Prof Frederic Gardiner, D. D., MIddletown, Conn.

D. R. G. Rev. Daxiel Rayxes Goodwin, D. D., Provost of the University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

H. Prof Horatio Balch Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institu-

tion, Newton, Mass. J. H. Prof James Hadley. LL. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

F. W. H. Rev. Frederick Whitmore Hollaxd, F. R. G. S., London. A. H. Prof Alvah Hovey, D. D., Theological Institution, Newton, Mass

LIST OF WRITERS.

INITIALS.

A. C. K. Prof. AsAHEL Clark Kendrick, D. D., University of Rochester, N. Y.

C. M. M. Prof. Charles Marsh Mead, Ph. D., Theol. Sem., Andover, Mass.

E. A. P. Prof. Edwards Amasa Park, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass.

W. E. P. Rev. William Edwards Park, Lawrence, Mass.

A. P. P. Prof. Andrew Preston Peabody, D. D., LL. D., Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.

G. E. P. Rev. George E. Post, M. D., Tripoli, Syria.

R. D. C. R. Prof. Rensselaer David Chanceford Robbins, Middlebury Col- lege, Vt.

P. S. Rev. Philip Schaff, D. D., New York.

H. B. S. Prof Henry Boynton Smith, D. D., LL. D., Union Theological Seminary, New York.

C. E. S. Rev. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn.

D. S. T. Prof. Daniel Smith Talcott, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Bangor, Me. J. H. T. Prof Joseph Henry Thayer, M. A., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass. J. P. T. Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson, D. D., New York.

C. V. A. V. Rev. Cornelius V. A. Van Dyck, D. D., Beirut, Syria.

W. H. W. Rev. William Hayes Ward, M. A., New York.

W. F. W. Prof. William Fairfield Warren, D. D., Boston Theological Sem- inary, Boston, Mass.

S. W. Rev. Samuel Wolcott, D. D., Cleveland, Ohio.

T. D. W. President Theodore Dwight Woolsey, D. D., LL. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

*^* The new j)ortions in the present edition are indicated by a star (*), the edi- torial additions being distinguished by the initials H. and A. Whatever is enclosed in brackets is also, with unimportant exceptions, editorial. This remark, however, does not apply to the cross-references in brackets, most of which belong to the origi- nal work, though a large number have been added to this edition.

ABBREVIATIONS.

Aid. The Akline edition of the Septuagint, 1518.

Alex. The Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent.), edited by Baber, 1816-28.

A. V. The authorized (cominon) f^nglish version of the Bible.

Comp. The Septuagint as printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514-17, published

1522. FA. The Codex Friderico-Augustanus (4th cent.), published by Tischendorf in

1846. Rom. The Roman edition of the Septuagint, 1587. The readings of the Septuagint

for wliich no authority is specified are also from this source. Sin. The Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent.), published by Tischendorf in 1862. This

and FA. are parts of the same manuscript. Vat. The Codex Vaticanus 1209 (4th cent.), according to Mai's edition, published

by Vercellone in 1857. " Vat. H." denotes readings of the MS. (differing

from Mai), given in Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint, 1708-

1827. " Vat.^ " distinguishes the primary reading of the MS. from '• Vat.""

or " 2. m.," the alteration of a later reviser.

^EMm^^qir^

BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES, JBIOURAPIIY, GEOGRAPHY, AND NATURAL HISTORY.

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE. The topics -which this subject presents to our consideration in connection with Biblical literature niaj' be most conveniently ar- ranged under the following five heads : — I. Its origin and history. 11. The conditions under which it could be legally elTected.

III. The modes by which it was effected.

IV. The social and domestic relations of married

Ufe. V. The typical and allegorical references to marriage.

I. The institution of marriage is founded on the requirements of man's nature, and dates from the time of his original creation. It may be said to have been ordained by God, in as far as man's nature was ordained by Him ; but its formal ap- pointment was the work of nian, and it has ever been in its essence a natural and civil institution, though admitting of the infusion of a religious element into it. This view of marriage is exhib- ited in the historical account of its origin in the book of Genesis: the peculiar formation of man's nature is assigned to the Creator, who, seeing it " not goo 1 for man to be alone," determined to form an " help meet for him " (ii. 18), and accord- ingly completed the work by the addition of the female to the male (i. 27). The necessity for this step appears from the words used in the declaration of the Divine counsel. Man, as an intellectual and spiritual being, would not have been a worthy rep- resentative of the Deity on earth, so long as he lived in solitude, or in communion only with beings either high above him in the scale of creation, as angels, or far beneath him, as the beasts of the field. It was absolutely necessary, not only for his comfort and happiness, but still more for the per-

« T^iJJS, literal!}', " as over against," an J so "cor- responding to." The renderings, lu the A. V. "meet for him," in the LXX. Kar avrov, o/iiotos auTw, ami in the Vulg. .■n'miU sihi, are inadequate.

'' The LXX. introduces Svo into the text in Gen. ii. 24. and is followed by the Vulgate.

"^ ti?^W and ntt7N, We are unable to express the

verbal correspondence of those words in our language.

The Vulgate retains the etymological identity at the

expense of the sense : " Virago quoniam de t)(>o." The

113

MARRIAGE

fection of the Divine work, that he should have a " help meet for him," « or, as the words more properly mean, " the exact counterpart of himself " — a being capable of receiving and reflecting hia thoughts and affections. No sooner was the forma- tion of woman effected, than Adam recognized in that act the will of the Creator as to man's social condition, and immediately enunciated the impor- tant statement, to which his posterity might refer as the charter of marriage in all succeeding ages, " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his motlier, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh " (ii. 24). From these words, coupled with the circumstances attendant on the formation of the first woman, we may evolve the following principles; (1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man, and as expressed in the words "one flesh;" (2) the indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on the strongest grounds (comp. Matt. xix. 9); (-3) monogamy, as the original law of marriage, result- ing from there having been but one original cou- ple,'' as is forcibly expressed in the subsequent ref- erences to this passage by our Lord (" they iwain,'" Matt. xix. 5), and St. Paul (" two shall be one flesh," 1 Cor. vi. 16); (4) the social equality of man and wife, as implied in the terms ish and ish- s/kiI/c the one being the exact correlative of the other, as well as in the words " help meet for him;-" (5) the subordination of the wife to the husband, consequent upon her subsequent forma- tion (1 Cor. xi. 8, 9; 1 Tim. ii. 1.3); and (6) the respective duties of man and wife, as implied in the words "help meet for him."

The introduction of sin into the world modified to a certain extent the mutual relations of man and wife. As the blame of seduction to sin lay on the latter, the condition of subordination was turned

old Latin term vira would have been better. Luther is more successful with manit and mdnnin : b>it even this fails to convey the double sense of isksha'i as = " woman " and " wife," both of which shovild be pre- served, as in the German w/'ib, in order to convi'y the full force of the original. We may here observe that ishskak was the only term in ordinary use among the

Hebrews for " wife.'

They occasionally used /3ti7,

as we use " consort,'' for the wires of kings (Ps. xlr. 9 ; Neh. ii. 6 ; Dan. v. 2).

1794 MARRIAGE

into subjection, and it was said to her of her hus- band, " he shall rule over thee " (Gen. iii. 16.) — a sentence which, regarded as a prediction, has been strikingly fulfilled in the position assigned to women in Oriental countries," l)ut which, regarded as a rule of life, is fully sustained by the voice of nature and by the teaching of Christianity (1 Cor. xiv. 34; Eph. V. 22, 23; 1 Tim. ii. 12). the evil effects of the fall were soon apparent in the corrupt usages of marriage; the unity of the bond was impaired by polygamy, which appears to have originated among the Cainites (Gen. iv. 19); and its purity was deteriorated by the promiscuous intermarriage of the "sons of God " with the "daughters of men," i. e. of the Sethites with the Cainites, in the days preceding the flood (Gen. vi. 2).

In the post-diluvial age the usages of marriage were marked with the simplicity that characterizes a jjatriarchal state of societ)'. The rule of monog- amy was reestablished by the example of Noah and his sons (Gen. vii. 13). The early p.atriarchs selected their wives from their own family (Gen. xi. 29, xxiv. 4, xxviii. 2), and the necessity for doing this on religious grounds superseded the pro- hibitions that afterwards held good against such marriages on the score of kindred (Gen. xx. 12; Ex. vi. 20; comp. Lev. xviii. 9, 12). Polj-ganiy prevailed (Gen. xvi. 4, xxv. 1, 6, xxviii. 9, xxix. 23, 28; 1 Chr. vii. 14), but to a great extent divested of the degradation which in modern times attaches to that practice. In judging of it we must take into regard the following considerations: (1) that the principle of monogamy was retained, even in the practice of polygamy, by the distinction made between the chief or original wife and the secondary wives, or, as the A. V. terms them, " concubines " — a term which is objectionable, inasmuch as it conveys to us the notion of an illicit and unrecog- jiized position, whereas the secondary wife was regarded by the Hebrews as a wife, and her rights were secured bylaw;'' (2) that the motive which led to polygamy was that absorbing desire of progeny which is prevalent throughout eastern countries, and was especially powerful among the Hebrews; and (3) that the power of a parent over his child, and of a master over his slave (the po- iestas i^'trin and dominica of the Romans), was paramount even in matters of marriage, and led in many cases to phases of polygamy that are otherwise quite unintelligible, as, for instance, to the cases where it was adopted by the husband at the request of his u'i/e, under the idea that children born to a slave were in the eye of the law the

a The i-elation of the husband to the wife is ex- pressed in the Hebrew term baai (v272), literally lord, for husband (Ex. xxi. 3, 22 ; Dent. xxi. 13 ; 2 Sam. xi. 26, etc., etc.). The respectful term used by

Sarah to Abraham (''DTN, " my lord," Gen. xviii. 12 ; comp. 1 K. i. 17, 18, Ps. xlv. 11) furni.shes St. Peter with an illustration of the wife's proper position (1 Pet. iii. 6).

b The position of the Hebrew concubine may be com- pared with that of the concubine of the early Christian Church, the sole distinction between her and the wife consisting in this, that the marriage w.as not in accord- ance with the rivil law : in the eye of the Church the m.arriage was perfectly valid (Bingham, Ant. xi. 5, § 11). It is worthy of notice that the term piUegesh

(Wy^f^ J A. V. " concubine ") nowhere occurs in the Mosaic law. The terms used are either "wife" (Dcut.

MARRIAGE

children of the mistress ^^ (Gen. xvi. 3, xxx. 4, 9); or, tigain, to cases where it was adopted at the instance of the father ((Jen. xxix. 23, 28; Ex. xxi. 9, 10). It must be allowed that polygamy, thus legalized and systematized, justified to -a certain extent by the motive, and entered into, not only without offense to, but actually at the suggestion of, those who, according to our notions, would feel most deeply injured by it, is a very different thing from what polygamy would be in our own state of society.

Divorce also prevailed in the patriarchal age, though but one instance of it is recorded (Gen. x.xi. 14). Of this, again, we must not judge by our own standard. Wherever marriages are effected by the violent exercise of the patria potestas, or with- out any bond of affection between the parties con- cerned, ill-assorted matches must be of frequent occurrence, and without the remedy of divorce, in such a state of society, we can understand the truth of the Apostles' remark, that " it is not good to marry" (Matt. xix. 10). Hence divorce prevails to a great extent in all countries where marriage is the result of arbitrary appointment or of purchase: we may instance the Arabians (Burckhardt's Notes, i. Ill; Layard's Nineveh, i. 357) and the Egyp- tians (Lane, i. 235 ff.). From the enactments of the Mosaic law we may infer that divorce was effected by a mere verbal declaration, as it still is in the countries referred to, and great injustice was thus coijimitted towards the wives.

The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating rather than removing evils which were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed (1) to the discouragement of polygamy; (2) to obviate the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; (3) to bring divorce under some restric- tion ; and (4) to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond. The first of these objects was forwarded by the following enactments: the prohibition imposed upon kings against multiplying'' wives (Deut. xvii. 17); the prohibition against marrying two sisters together (Lev. xviii. 18); the assertion of the matrimonial rights of each wife (Ex. xxi. 10, 11); the slur cast upon the eunuch state, which has been ever regarded as indispensable to a system of polygamy (Deut. xxiii. 1); and the ritual observances entailed on a man by the duty of marriage (I^ev. xv. 18). The second object was attained by the humane regula- tions relative to a captive whom a man might wish to marry (Deut. xxi. 10-14), to a purchased wife^

xxi. 15) or " maid-servant " (Ex. xxi. 7) ; the latter applying to a purchased wife.

c The language in 1 Chr. ii. 18, " these are her sons," following on the mention of his two wives, admits of an interpretation on this ground.

<' The Talmudists practically set aside this prohibi- tion, (1) by explaining the word "multiply" of an inordinate number ; and (2) by treating the motive for it, "that his heart turn not away," as a matter of dis- cretion. They considered eighteen the maximum to be allowed a king (Selden, Ux. Ebr. i. 8). It is note- worthy that the high-priest himself authorizes bigamy in the case of king Joash (2 Chr. xxiv. 3).

e The regulations In Ex. xxi. 7-11 deserve a detailed notice, as exhibiting the extent to whi^-h the power of the head of a family might be carried. It must be premised that the maiden was born of Hebrew parents, was under age at the time of her sale (otherwise her father would have no power to sell), and that the

MARRIAGE

(Ex. xxi. 7-11), and to a slave who either was mar- ried at the time of their purchase, or who, liaviiig since received a wife " at the hands of lus master, was unwilling to be parted from her (Ex. xxi. 2-0), and, lastly', by the law relating to the legal distri- bution of property among the children of the differ- ent wives (Ueut. xxi. 15-17). The third object was effected by rendering divorce a formal proceed- ing, not to be done by word of mouth as heretofore, l)ut by a "bill of divorcement" (Deut. xxiv. 1), which would generally demand time and the inter- vention of a third party, thus rendering divorce a less easy process, and furnishing the wife, in the event of its being carried out, witii a legal evidence of her marriageability: we may also notice that Moses wholly prohibited divorce in case the wife had been seduced prior to marriage (Deut. xxii. 29), or her chastity had been groundlessly impugned (Deut. xxii. 19). The fourth object forms the sub- ject of one of the ten commandments (Ex. xx. 14), any violation of which was punishable with death (Lev. XX. 10; Deut. xxii. 22), even in the case of a betrothed person (Deut. xxii. 23, 21).

The practical results of these regulations may have been very salutary, but on this point we have but small opportunities of judging. The usages themselves, to which we have referred, remained in full force to a' late period. We have instances of the arbitrary exercise of the paternal authority in the cases of Achsah (-Judg. i. 12), Ibzan (Judg. xii. 9), Samson (-Tudg. xiv. 20, xv. 2), and Michal (1 Sam. xvii. 2.5). The case of Abishag, and the language of Adonijah in reference to her (1 K. i. 2, ii. 17), prove that a servant was still completely at the disposal of his or her master. Polygamy also prevailed, as we are expressly informed in reference to Gideon (Judg. viii. 30), Elkanah (1 Sam. i. 2), Saul (2 Sam. xii. 8), David (2 Sam. v. 13), Solo- mon (1 K. xi. 3), the sons of Issachar (1 Chr. vii. 4), Shaharaim (1 Chr. viii. 8, 9), Rehoboam (2 Chr. xi. 21), Abijah (2 Chr. xiii. 21), and Joash (2 (Jhr. xxiv. 3); and as we may also infer from the number of children in the cases of Jair, Ibzan, and Abdon (Judg. x. 4, xii. 9, 14). It does not, however, follow that it was the general practice of the country: the inconveniences attendant on polyg- amy in small houses or with scanty incomes are

MARRIAGE

1795

so great as to put a serious bar to its general adoption,* and hence in modern countries where it is fully established the practice is restricted to comparatively few ( Niebuhr, Voyage, p. 05 ; Lane, i. 239). The same rule holds good with regard to ancient times: the discomforts of polygamy are exhibited in the jealousies between the wives of Abraham (Gen. xvi. 0), and of Elkanah (1 Sam. i. 0); and the cases cited above rather lead to the inference that it was confined to the wealthy. Meanwhile it may be noted that the theory of monogamy was retained and comes prominently forward in the pictures of domestic bliss portrayed in the poetical writings of this period (Ps. cxxviii. 3; Prov. v. 18, xviii. 22, xix. 14, xxxi. 10-29; Eccl. ix. 9). The sanctity of the marriage-bond was but too frequently violated, as appears from the frequent allusions to the " strange woman " in the book of Proverbs (ii. 10, v. 20, &c.), and in the denunciations of the prophets against the prev- alence of adultery (Jer. v. 8; Ez. xviii. 11, xxii 11).

In the post-Babylonian period monogamy appears to have become more prevalent than at any pre- vious time: indeed we have no instance of polyg- amy during this period on record in the Bible, all the marriages noticed being with single wives (Tob. i. 9, ii. 11; Susan, vv. 29, 03; Matt, xviii. 25; Luke i. 5; Acts v. 1). During the same period the theory of monogamy is set forth in Ecclus. xxvi. 1-27. The practice of polygamy nevertheless still existed ; = Herod the Great had no less than nine wives at one time (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1, § 3) ; the Tal- mudists frequently assume it as a well-known fact (e. g. Kehih. 10, § 1; Yebam. 1, § 1); and the early Christian writers, in their comments on 1 Tim. iii. 2, explain it of polygamy in terms which leave no doubt as to the fact of its prevalence in the Apostolic age. The abuse of divorce continued unaliated (Joseph. Vit. § 70 ) ; and under the Asmo- nasan dynasty the right was assumed by the wife as against her husband, an innovation which is attrib- uted to Salome by Jo.sephus {Ant. xv. 7, § 10); but which appears to have been prevalent in the Apostolic age, if we may judge from passages where the language implies that the act emanated from the wife (Mark x. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 11), as well as

object of the purchase was that when arrived at puberty she should become the wife of her master, as is implied ia the difference iu the law relating to her (Ex. xxi. 7), and to a slave purchased for ordinary work (Deut. xv. 12-17), as well as in the term amah, " maid-servant," which is elsewhere used convertibly with " concubine " (.Judg. ix. 18 ; comp. viii. 31). With regard to such it is enacted (1) that she is not to " go out as the men-servants " (/. e. be freed after six years' service, or in the year of jubilee), on the understand- ing that her master either already has made, or intends to make her his wife (ver. 7) ; (2) but, if he has no such intention, he is not entitled to retain her in the event of any other pei'son of the Israelites being will- ing to pui'chase her of him for the same purpose (ver. 8) ; (3) he might, however, assign her to his son, and in this case she was to be treated as a daughter .and not as a slave (ver. 9) ; (4) if either he or his son, liav- ing married her, took another wife, she was still to be treated as a wife in all respects (ver. 10) ; ami, lastly, if neither of the three contingencies took place, ('. e. if he neither married lier himself, nor gave her to his son, nor had her redeenied, then the maiden was to become absolutely free without waiting for the ex- piration of the six years or for the year of jubilee (Ter. 11).

a In this case we must assume that the wife assigned was a non-Israelitish slave ; otherwise, the wife would, as a matter of course, be freed along with her hus- band in the year of jubilee. In this case the wife and children would be the absolute property of the master, and the position of the wife would be analo- gous to that of the Roman contiibernalu', who was not supposed capable of any connubium. The issue of such a marriage would remain slaves in accordance with the maxim of the Talmudists, tliat the child is liable to its mother's disqualification {Kid/lush. 3, § 12). Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, § 28) states that in the year of jubilee the slave, having married during service, carried off his wife and children with him: this, how ever, may refer to an Israelite maid-servant.

I> The Talmudists limited polygamists to four wives. The same number was adopted by Mohammed in the Koran, and still forms the rule among his followers (Niebuhr, Voya'j;e, p. 62).

c Michaelis {Laws of Muses, iii. 5, § 95) asserts that polygamy ceased entirely after the return from tlie Captivity ; Selden, on the other hand, that polygamy prevailed among the Jews until the time of Honoriua and Arcadius (circ. a. i). 400), when it was prohibited by an imperial edict ( Ux. Ehr. i. 9).

1796 MARRIAGE

from some of the comments of the early writers on 1 Tim. V. 9. Our Lord and his Apostles reestab- lished the integrity and sanctity of the marriage bond by the following measures: (1) by the con- firmation of the original charter of marriage as the basis on which all regulations were to be framed (Matt. xix. 4, 5); (2) by the restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and the prohibition of re-marriage in all persons divorced on improper grounds (Matt. v. 32, xix. 9; Horn. vii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11); and (3) by the enforcement of moral purity generally (Heb. xiii. 4, &c.), and especially by the formal condemnation of fornication," which appears to have been classed among acts morally indifferent (aStd(popa) by a certain party in the Church (Acts xv. 20).

Shortly before the Christian era an important change took place in the views entertained on the question of marriage as affecting the spiritual and intellectual parts of man's nature. Throughout the Old Testament period marriage was regarded as the indispensable duty of every man, nor was it surmised that there existed in it any drawl)ack to the attainment of the highest degree of holiness'. In the interval that elapsed between the Old and. New Testament periods, a spirit of asceticism had been evolved, probably in antagonism to the foreign notions with which the Jews were brought into close and painful contact. The Essenes were the first to propound any doubts as to the propriety of marriage : some of them avoided it altogether, others availed themselves of it imder restrictions (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8, §§ 2, 13). Similar views were adopted by the Therapeuta;, and at a later period by the Gnostics (Burton's Lectures, i. 214); thence they passed into the Christian Church, forming one of the distinctive tenets of the luicratites (Burton, ii. IGl), and finally develojiing into the system of monachisni. The philosophical tenets on which the prohibition of marriage was based are generally condemned in Col. ii. l(i-23, and specifically in 1 Tim. iv. 3. The general propriety of marriage is enforced on numerous occasions, and abstinence from it is commended only in cases where it was rendered expedient by the calls of duty (Matt. xix. 12 ; 1 Cor. vii. 8, 26 ). With regard to re-marriage after the death of one of the parties, the Jews, in common with other nations, regarded abstinence from it, particularly in the case of a widow, laud- able, and a sign of holiness (Luke ii. 30, 37 ; Joseph. Ant. xvii. 13, § 4, xviii. 6, § G); but it is clear from the example of Josephus ( Vit. § 76 ) that there was no prohibition even in the case of a priest. In the Apostolic Church re-marriage was regarded as occasionally undesirable (1 Cor. vii. 40), and as an .ibsolute disqualification ibr holy func- tions, whether in a man or woman (1 Tim. iii. 2, 12, V. 9 ) : at the same time it is recommended in the case of young widows (1 Tim. v. 14).

II. The conditions of legal marriage are decided by the prohibitions which the law of any country imposes upon its citizens. In the Hebrew com-

MARRIAGE

monwealth these prohibitions were of two kinds, according as they regulated marriage, (i.) between an Israelite and a non-Israelite, and (ii.) between an Israelite and one of his own conmiunity.

i. The prohibitions relating to foreigners were based on that instinctive feeling of exclusiveness, which forms one of the bonds of every social body, and which prevails with peculiar strength in a rude state of society. In all political bodies the right of marriage (jus connubii) becomes in some form or other a constituent element of citizenship, and, even where its nature and limits are not defined by legal enactment, it is supported with rigor by the force of public opinion. The feeling of aversion against intermarriage with foreigners becomes more intense, when distinctions of religious creed super- vene on those of blood and language; and hence we should naturally expect to find it more than usually strong in the Hebrews, who were endowed with a peculiar position, and were separated from surrounding nations by a sharp line of demarcation. The warnings of past history and the examples of the patriarchs came in support of natural feeling: on the one hand, the evil effects of intermarriage with aliens were exhibited in the overwhelming sinfulness of the generation destroyed by the flood (Gen. vi. 2-13): on the other hand, there were the examples of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, marrying from among their own kindred (Gen. XX. 12, xxiv. 3, &c., xxviii. 2), and in each of the. two latter cases there is a contrast between these carefully-sought unions and those of the re- jected sons Ishniael, who married an Egyptian (Gen. xxi. 21), and Esau, whose marriages with Hittite women were "a grief of mind" to his parents ((4en. xxvi. 34, 3.5). The marriages of Joseph with an Egyptian (Gen. xli. 45), of Jlanas- seh with a Syrian secondary wife (1 Chr. vii. 14; comp. Gen. xlvi. 20, LXX.), and of Moses with a jMidianitish woman in the first instance (Ex. ii. 21), and afterwards with a Cushite or Ethiopian woman (Num. xii. 1), were of an exceptional nature, and yet the last was the cause of great dissatisfaction. A far greater objection was entertained against the marriage of an Israelitish ^oman with a man of another tribe, as illustrated by the narrative of Shechera's proposals for Dinah, the ostensible ground of their rejection being the difference in religious observances, that Shechem and his coun- trymen were uncircumcised (Gen. xxxiv. 14).

The only distinct prohibition in the Mosaic law refers to the Canaanites, with whom the Israelites were not to marry '' on the ground that it would lead them into idolatry (Ex. xxxiv. 16 ; Deut. vii. 3, 4) — a result which actually occurred shortly after their settlement in the Promised Land (Judg. iii. 6, 7). But beyond this, the legal disabilities to which the Ammonites and Moabites were sub- jected (Deut. xxiii. 3) acted as a virtual bar to intermarriage with them, totally preventing (ac- cording to the inter|iretation which the Jews them- selves put upon that passage) the marriage of

« The term TropveCa is orcasionally used in a broad sense to include both adultery (Matt. v. 32) and incest (1 Cor. y. 1). In the decree of the Council of Jeru- salem it must be regarded in its usual and restricted sense.

6 The act of marriage with a foreigner is described

in the Hebrew by a ppecial term, c/iatan (^np^ expreBsive of the njfinity thus produced, as appears

from the cognate terms, chatan, clwtcn, and choteneh, for " son-in-law." " father-in-law," and " mother-in- law." It is u.sed in Gen. xxxiv. 9 ; Deut. vii. 3 ; .}o.sh. xxiii. 12 ; 1 K. iii. 1 ; Ezr. ix. 14 ; and metaphorically in 2 Chr. xviii. 1. The same idea comes prominently forward in the term chdlhn in Ex. iv. 26. where it i8 used of the affinity produccil by the rite of circimicision between Jehovah and the child.

MARRIAGE

Israelitish women with Moabites, but permitting that of IsraeUtes with Moabite women, such as that of Mahlon with Ruth. The prohibition against marriages witli the Edomites or I'^gyptians was less stringent, as a male of those nations received the riffht of marriage on his admission to the fuU citizenship in the third generation of proselytism (Deut. xxiii. 7, 8). There were thus three grades of prohibition — total in regard to the Canaanites on either side; total on the side of the males in regard to the Ammonites and Moabites; and tem- porary on the side of the males in regard of the Edomites and Egyptians, marriages with iemales in the two latter instances being regarded as legal (Selden, </e Jui: Nat. cap. 14). Marriages between Israelite women and proselyted foreigners were at all times of rare occurrence, and are noticed in the Bible, as though they were of an exceptional nature, such as that of an Egyptian and an Israelitish woman (Lev. xxiv. 10), of Abigail and Jether the Ishmeelite, contracted probably when .Jesse's family was sojourning in Moab (1 Chr. ii. 17), of Sheshan's daughter and an Egyptian, who was staying in his house (1 Chr. ii. 35), and of a Naphthalite woman and a Tyrian, living in adjacent districts (1 K. vii. 14). In the reverse case, namely, the marriage of Israelites with foreign women, it is, of course, highly probable that the wives became proselytes after their marriage, as instanced in the case of Ruth (i. 16); but this was by no means invariably the case. On the contrary we find that the I'^gyp- tian wife of Solomon (1 K. si. 4), and the Phoeni- cian wife of Ahab (i K. xvi. 31), retained their idolatrous practices and introduced them into their adopted countries. Proselytism