RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Family Farel
with the wealthy (II Sam. iv. 4; II Kings xi. 2; cf. Ex. ii. 9). Nursing continued two or three years as in modern Palestine (cf . II Mace. vii. 27; according to the rabbis two years). Weaning was the occasion of a family celebration (Gen. xxi. 8; I Sam. i. 24). The birth of a child rendered the mother unclean (see Defilement and Purification, Ceremonial). This notion, still common to uncivilized peoples, was generally held by ancient peoples. The foundation of this belief was either the view that child-birth was a disease and like other diseases, under the influence of certain demons; or else, that it was protected by some spirit, together with other processes of sexual life. For circumcision and naming see Circumcision; Names.
The father had almost unlimited power over his children. He could sell his daughter as a bride, or even as a slave, but not to foreigners (Ex. xxi. 7 sqq.). To assault or even curse the father was an offense deemed worthy of the death-penalty (Ex. xxi. 15, 17; for the later period cf. Lev.xx.9; Prov. xx. 20; Matt. xv. 4). There is no mention of an age-limit to the father's authority, though in practise this was attained when the son married and founded a home. During the early years the education of the children was an affair of the mother (Prov. xxxi. 1). Boys and girls were left together in the harem where the girls remained 15. Legal till marriage. When the boys began Status and to grow up they came under the care Training of of the father, or, if the family was Children, well-to-do, they might be entrusted to special tutors (Num. xi. 12; II Kings x. 1 sqq.; I Chron. xxvii. 32; Isa. xlix. 23). Special weight was laid upon early religious training (Ex. xiii. 8; Deut. iv. 9 sqq.); otherwise the main thing was to impart practical knowledge of some industry. The wealthier class also learned reading and writing, an art that was probably fairly well known at the time of Isaiah, and even earlier (Isa. viii. 1, x. 19; cf. Judges viii. 14). In the Old Testament there is no mention of a school. Not till a much later period were schools established, and then only in the larger cities (Josephus, Ant. XV., x. 5). After the exile particular stress was laid on the study of the law; and Deuteronomy contains numerous admonitions to instruct the children in the statutes and sacred history. Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus contain a sort of pedagogy. Stress was laid on education rather than instruction ; and all knowledge was summed up in fear of God and obedience to parents (Prov. i. 7, and often). Strict discipline was to be maintained, nor was the rod to be spared (Prov. x. 17, xiii. 14, xxiii. 13, xxix. 17). These precepts applied to sons only.
The first-born son occupied a position of distinction among the remaining children; and as heir he received a double portion. The father might deprive him of his prerogatives and put 16. Position the favorite younger son in his place of the First- (Gen. xxi. 1 sqq., xlix. 3 sqq.; I Kings i. born. 11 sqq.); but custom did not approve of this, and later it was prohibited (Deut. xxi. 15 sqq.). In return it was the eldest son's duty to take care of the female members of
the family, since he became the head of the family at his father's death. Unfortunately it is not known whether landed property was partitioned or whether it all went to the eldest son, who then settled in some way with his brothers. This custom rested upon a religious foundation. The first-born was thought to take a certain precedence in holiness, since in him the common blood of the tribe flowed in its purest state (Gen. xlix. 3; Deut. xxi. 17). This superiority was deduced from the particular claim of Yahweh to all the first-bom (Ex. xxii. 29). The supposed sacred character of the first-born accounts for his consecration to the service of Yahweh (I Sam. i. 11, vii. 1). But usually the first-born was redeemed (Ex. xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20); for the worshipers of Yahweh had always opposed the sacrifice of children, a custom common among their Semitic neighbors (Gen. xxii.). The idea of dedicating the first-born to Yahweh was first introduced into the law in the Priest-code, according to which all first-born belonged to Yahweh. Since, however, the first-born in Israel could not always maintain the purity necessary for the service of the sanctuary, the Levites (q.v.) took their place (Num. iii. 39 sqq., viii. 16 sqq.).
I. Benzinger.
Bibliography: The best single book in English covering the whole subject is E. Day, Social Life of the Hebrews, New York, 1901. Of high value are: G. M. Maokie, Bible Manners and Customs, London, 1898; Benzinger, Archaologie; Nowack, Archaologie; DB, i. 846-850, ii 341-342, iii. 262-277; EB, ii. 1498-1505, iii. 2942-51.
On the primitive institution: Smith, Kinship (the important book for Semites); idem, in Journal of Philology, ix. 75 sqq.; J. F. McLennan, Primitive Marriage, in Studies in Ancient History, London, 1876; G. A. Wilken, Das Mairiarchat bei den alien Arabern, Leipsic, 1884; C. M. Starcke, Primitive Family in its Origin and Development, London, 1889; E. Westermarck, Hist, of Human Marriage, ib. 1901 (the standard work).
On Hebrew marriage: J. Selden, Uxor Hebraica, ib. 1546 (collects the Talmudic material); M. M. Kalisch, Matrimonial Laws of the Hebrews, in his Commentary on Leviticus, ib. 1872; C. Stubbe, Die Ehe im A. T., Jena, 1886; J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, ii. 36-77, New York, 1896; T. Engert, Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebraer, Munich, 1906; F. Wilke, Das Frauenideal und die Schatzung des Weibes im Alien Testament, Leipsic, 1907.
Consult also: G. M. Redslob. Die Levirats-Ehe bei den Hebrdern, Leipsic, 1836; D. W Amram, Jewish Law of Divorce according to the Bible and Talmud, London, 1897 (important); J. Simon, L'Education des enfants chez les anciens Juifs, Nimes, 1879; B. Strassburger, Erziehung bei den Israeliten, Stuttgart, 1885. For the Code of Hammurabi see the literature cited under Hammurabi and His Code.
FAREL, fa"rel', GUILLAUME: French Reformer; b. of noble family at Gap (46 m. s.s.e. of Grenoble) 1489; d. at Neuchatel, Switzerland, Sept. 13, 1565. After finishing his studies in Paris he taught in the college of Cardinal le Moine, which was part of the University, and was led to adopt the Reformed views by his teacher Faber Stapulensis (q.v.) In 1521 he went to Meaux and preached the new faith. Bishop Guillaume Briconnet was personally favorable to these views, but Farel's preaching was so direct and unsparing that it gave great offense to the adherents of the old Church and the bishop silenced him, Apr. 12, 1523. Thus early he exhibited a zeal which, much greater than his discretion, was to involve him in continual
Farel Fast-Day