(1) The Christian system involved the adoption of monogamy, and the prohibition of polygyny and bigamy. It is true that there is no direct con- demnation of the latter. And the omission cannot be explained by saying it would have been super- fluous, for, although in NT times monogamy was the rule, polygamy was certainly practised to some extent (Jos. Ant. XVII. i. 3).* As in the case of slavery, Christianity, without directly
*In opposition to the usual view (Selden, Ux, Heb. i. 9), it is ΤΕΥ k hratiams that monogamy had become the settled Jewish custom in Roman times apart from imperial or Christian influence, and that the theory was only tardily brought inte harmony with the established practice by Rabbi Ge 6. 1000 a.p. (Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, ch. vii.).
rehom
MARRIAGE
man from marrying within his own family group, or at least within that from which his mother sprang(Exogamy). Usually at an earlier but some- times at a later period of the social history there is found the opposite custom, which forbids mar- riage outside the group (Endogamy). When the family comes to be superseded in important fune- tions by the State, both obligations are naturally relaxed ; a man may marry either within or without his ancestral stock, and only near relationships continue to be recognized as bars to union (Post, Stud. p. 79 ff.).
(a) ἜΣ ΕΣ Bars to Marriage. —When the Hebrews emerge into the light of history, exogamy (if it ever prevailed among them) has disappeared, and endogamous marriage is strongly favoured. That a lively prejudice of this kind existed in earl times is shown in the patriarchal histories, in whic great anxiety is shown to procure wives from the original stock—marriages with cousins being most favoured, while loud protests are heard against marriage with aliens. In the period subsequent to the settlement in Canaan, racial intermixture was inevitable, and the old sentiment was in danger of being crushed out. Not only did the kings contract foreign alliances (David 28 33, Solomon 1 K 3! 111}, Ahab 1K 16%), but there is reason to believe that national distinctions were lightly regarded by the common people (Ru 14, 2 Ch 248), Israelitish women also married aliens (1 Καὶ 74), but usually, as it would seem, under the condition that their husbands settled in Israel (2S 115, 1 Ch 27), In this matter, however, religious interests were at stake, a halt was called, and the reaction gradually carried the people back to the
rimitive position. In Dt marriage was expressly orbidden with the original inhabitants of Canaan (78, cf. Ex 3418) as the race most likely to debase
MARRIAGE 267
the religion and morals of the people; but an ex- ception seems to be intended in the case of Edomites and Egyptians (237). During the Exile and for some time subsequent to it the law had again fallen into abeyance, only to be revived in greater strin- gency under Ezra (9? 10%) and Nehemiah (13%). The exclusive spirit was fostered by historical examples of the low type of character that sprang from such mixed marriages (Ly 241),
(ὁ) Forbidden Degrees of Kinship. —The older custom, which confined marriage within the limits of the family group, had its natural counterpart in lax views as to the bars arising from consanguinity and affinity. Unions qaleraved among other nations were indeed regarded as incestuous, viz. with a daughter, or with a uterine sister, but, at least as regards relatives on the peters! side, the utmost latitude was allowed. hus, Abraham is repre- sented as marrying a half-sister, the daughter of his father (Gn 20"), and the words of Tamar imply that this was recognized as lawful down to the time of the Monarchy (2S 13%). As late as the age of Ezekiel, marriage with a stepmother must still have been common (9219), Moses himself seems to have been the offspring of a marriage between a nephew and his paternal aunt (Nu 26%, ef. v.%7). Of these cases the more obnoxious were prohibited in Dt, viz. marriage with a stepmother (27%), a half-sister (ν. 3), and a ΣΟΥ μΕ ΤῚΣ Ἰὸν (ν.3).
The list of forbidden degrees is extended in Ly (1877, ef. 204), and largely on the basis of the general principle that paternal relationships rank equally with maternal for purposes of marriage. The following table gives a conspectus of the code— the names of the prohibited relatives being printed in italics, while those about whose identification or otherwise some doubt exists are marked with a 1 (ef. Selden, Ux. Heb. p. 5).
TABLE OF FORBIDDEN DEGREES.
Paternal Grandfather
Maternal Ganneer
. | | | Uncle= Wife (ἢ Paternal Aunt (v.12) | Maternal Aunt (v.18) A former wife ! A former husband A tormer smc Stepinother (v.8)= Father = Mother(v.7) = Stepfather Stepsister? (v.01) ¢ Paternal half-sister (v.%) Maternal half-sister (v.9) Father-in-law Τ Mother-in-law (v.17) | | Brother=Sister-in-law (v.18) Man = Wife=A former husband. Living wife's sister ? (v.18) | | Stepson Stepdaughter ? (v.17) | Son= ΤΡ eee (v.15) Daughter=Son-in-law Granddaughter (ν.10) Granddaughter (v.19) Stepson's daughter (v.17) Stepdaughter’s daughter (v.1")
Various problems arise out of the table of prohibited degrees.
(1) The prohibitions of marriage with sisters are somewhat obscure. The obvious sense of v.® is that it forbids marri. with a half-sister, whether on the father’s or the mother’s side, and v.11, which prohibits ‘ the father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father,’ simply repeats the prohibition of a half-sister on the father’s side. While the prevalence of the custom (sanctioned as it was by Abraham's example) and the gravity of the evil might justify the repetition, the interposition of different matter in v.10 makes it probable that a fresh case is contem- plated. The most plausible interpretation of v.U is that, in addition to the half-sister of v.¥, it prohibits the daughter of a man’s stepmother by a previous husband, This result has been gotin two ways—either by By fare the phrase ‘ begotten of thy father’ as an interpolation, or by (illegitimately) treating the participle ΠῚ) as active, with the meaning ‘ who hath borne children to thy father’ (Bohl, Contra Matr. Comprivignorum ; οἵ. Michaelis, ii. 107). Another view is that v.11 is to be taken as withholding the half-sister, and that v.9 (where read not ‘or’ but ‘and’ the daughter of thy mother) would point to the full sister. Keil (Comm. in loc.) finds in the text as it stands a dis- tinction—that in ν.}} the prohibition refers to a son by a first , whereas v.® treats of the son by # second marriage.