FAMILIAR

RV, 'hart' (see Haet). The second is Incorrectly tr. In AV- 'roebuck,' and correctly in KV 'gazelle' (see Gazelle). The third is incorrectly tr. in AV 'fallow-deer,' and correctly in RV 'roebuck' (see Roe, Roebuck).

FAMILIAR. — The expression 'familiar spirit' was taken into the AV from the Geneva Version, as the trans, of Heb. 'oWi. See Magic, etc. The word is also used as a subst. in Jer 20"> 'All my familiars watched for my halting' (RV 'familiar friends,' Heb. 'men of my place').

FAMILT.— 1. Character ot the family in OT.—

' Family ' in the OT has a wider significance than that which we usually associate with the term. The word tr. 'house' (Gn 7') approaches most nearly to our word 'family': but a man's 'house' might consist of his mother; his wives and the wives' children; his con-cubines and their children; sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, with their offspring; illegitimate sons (Jg 11'); dependents and aliens; and slaves of both sexes. Po-lygamy was in part the cause ot the large size of the Hebrew household; in part the cause of it may be found in the insecurity of early times, when safety lay in numbers, and consequently not only the married sons and daughters dwelt, for the sake of protection, with their father, but remote relatives and even foreigners ('the stranger within thy gates') would attach themselves, with a similar object, to a great household. The idea of the family sometimes had an even wider.signiflcance, extending to and including the nation, or even the whole race of mankind. Of this a familiar illustration is the figure of Abraham, who was regarded as being in a very real sense the father of the nation. So also the same feel-ing for the idea of the family is to be found in the careful assigning of a 'father' to every known nation and tribe (Gn 10). From this it is easily perceived that the family played an important part in Hebrew thought and affairs. It formed the base upon which the social structure was built up; its indistinguishable merging into the wider sense of clan or tribe indicates how it affected the political Ufe of the whole nation.

Polygyny and bigamy were recognized features of the family life. From the Oriental point of view there was nothing immoral in the practice of polygamy. The female slaves were in every respect the property of their master, and became his concubines ; except in certain cases, when they seem to have belonged exclusively to their mistress, and could not be appropriated by the man except by her 'suggestion or consent (Gn IB'-'). Tfie slave-concubines were obtained as booty in time of war (Jg 5'°), or bought from poverty-stricken parents (Ex 21'); or, possibly. In the ordinary slave traffic with foreign nations. In addition to his concubines a man might take several wives, and from familiar examples in the OT it seems that it was usual for wealthy and im-portant personages to do so; Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, occur as instances. Elkanah, the husband of Hannah and Peninnah, is an interesting example of a man of no particular position who nevertheless had more than one wife; this may be an indication that bigamy, at least, if not polygamy, was not confined to the very wealthy and exalted. At all events, polygyny was an established and recognized institution from the earliest times. The gradual evolution in the OT of monogamy as the ideal is therefore of the highest interest. The earliest codes attempt in various ways to regulate the custom of polygyny. The Deut. code in particular actually forbids kings to multiply wives (Dt 17"); this is the fruit, apparently, ot the experience of Solomon's reign. In the prophetic writings the note of protest is more clearly sounded. Not only Adam but also Noah, the second founder of the human race,

represents monogamy, and on that account recommends , - - - - -

it as God's ordinance. It is in the line ot Cafn that of life and death over his children (Jg ll™); and the bigamy is first represented, as though to emphasize the ' Law provided that an unworthy son might be stoned to

259

FAMILY

consequences of the Fall. Reasons are given in explana-tion of the bigamy of Abraham (Gn 16) and of Jacob (29*'). Hosea and other prophets constantly dwell upon the thought of a monogamous marriage as being a symbol of the union between God and His people; and denounce idolatry as unfaithfulness to this spiritual marriage-tie.

2. Position of thewife.— Side by side with thegrowth of the recognition of monogamy as the ideal form of marriage, polygamy was practised even as late as NT times. The natural accompaniment of such a practice was the insignificance of the wife's position: she was ordinarily regarded as a piece of property, as the wording of the Tenth Commandment testifies. Also her rights and privileges were necessarily shared by others. The relative positions of wives and concubines were deter-mined mainly by the husband's favour. The children of the wife claimed the greater part, or the whole, of the inheritance; otherwise there does not seem to have been any inferiority in the position of the concubine as compared with that of the wife, nor was any idea of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected with her children.

The husband had supreme authority over the wife. He was permitted by the Deut. code to divorce her with apparently little reason. The various passages (Dt 2213. 19. 28. 2B_ Is 501, Jer 38, Mai 2») referring to and regulating divorce, indicate that it was of frequent occurrence. Yet wives, and even concubines who had been bought in the first place as slaves, might not be sold (Ex 21'-", Dt 21"). Indeed, the Law through-out proves itself sympathetic towards the position of the wife and desirous of improving her condition (Ex 212- «, Dt 2110-"). This very attitude of the Law, however, indicates that there was need of improvement. The wife seems to have had no redress if wronged by the husband; she could not divorce him; and absolute faithfulness, though required ot the wife, was not expected of the husband, so long as he did not injure the rights of any other man.

The wife, then, was in theory the mere chattel ot her husband. A woman ot character, however, could im-prove her situation and attain to a considerable degree ot importance and influence as well as of personal freedom. Thus we read not only of Hagars, who were dealt hardly with and were obliged to submit themselves under the hands of their masters and rivals, but also of Sarahs and Rebekahs and Abigails, who could act independently and even against the wishes ot their husbands in order to gain their own ends. And the Book ot Proverbs testifies to the advantage accruing to a man in the possession of a good wife (19" 31"" ), and to the misery which it is in the power of a selfish woman to inflict (19" etc.).

3. Children. — In a household consisting of several families, the mother ot each set of children would naturally have more to do with them than the father, and the maternal relationship would usually be more close and affectionate than the bond between the father and his children. Although it was recognized to be disastrous for a household to be divided against itself, yet friction between the various families could hardly have been avoided. 'One whom his mother com-torteth' (Is 66") must have been a sight common enough — a mother consoling her injured son tor the taunts and blows of her rivals' children. Thus the mother would have the early care and education ot her children under her own control. The father, on the other hand, had complete power over the lives and fortunes of his children, and would represent to them the idea of authority rather than of tenderness. He it was who arranged the marriage ot his sons (Gn 24< 282, Jg 142), and had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21'). The father seems even to have had powers