A Lawyer's Studies in Biblical Law.
83
A LAWYER'S STUDIES IN BIBLICAL LAW. THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY. By David Werner Amram. THE patriarchal family system, although by no means the only system known to the ancient Hebrews, is the one which ex ercised a dominant influence in the develop ment of the Biblical Law of Domestic Re lations. An excellent introduction to the study of this branch of the Biblical law may be found in Sir Henry Sumner Maine's "Ancient Law"; an epoch-making book in its day, and although it is the result of a study of Aryan legal institutions it is likewise of the greatest, value in the study of Semitic legal institutions. And it is true, also, that the student of Maine's book will not only be helped by it to understand the Biblical laws, but will understand it more clearly through his knowledge of the Biblical law, which will serve to give point to many ab stract propositions, and fill out many a gap in Maine's argument. There are many points of similarity in the laws and institu tions of ancient peoples, and the distinctions based upon supposed racial differences are largely imaginary and the result of the theoretical studies of closet philosophers. ' The fundamental differences between the patriarchal system and the system of to-day is summed up by Maine in the phrase, "The unit of ancient society is the family and of modern society, the individual." The patri archal family takes its name from the patri arch or eldest male parent in the family. He was the supreme head, and the family, con sisting of the wives, children, kinsmen, slaves, and inanimate property, was the lit tle kingdom subject to his rule. The families of Terah and Abraham are typical examples. Terah, the father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran, was the head of a patriarchal family group, the Terahites. His son, Abraham, although a married man, and even his grand
son Lot, likewise married, and the father of a family, were, nevertheless, members of the family of Terah (Genesis XI, 27-31). Upon the death of Terah, Abraham became the patriarch, and then we find that Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, remained with him as a member of his family and submitted to his supremacy until force of circumstances compelled them to separate (Genesis XII, 5; XII, 1-11). Even after separating so as to keep their quarreling herdsmen apart, Lot removed but for a short distance from Abraham; and when Lot was made a pris oner of war after the battle in the Vale of Siddim, Abraham promptly performed his duty as kinsman and head of the clan, and went to his rescue. The patriarch Abraham was supreme in the government of his household. He had the power of life and death over the mem bers of his family. He set out to kill Isaac his son, he divorced and cast away Hagar his wife, and sent her and his son Ishmael into the wilderness. The children of the patri arch and his house-servants "born in his house" seem to have had the same legal status. The fact that Ishmael was the son of the bondwoman Hagar did not seem to alter his legal status, and it was Sarah's fear that he would inherit together with Isaac her son that led this imperious woman to in sist upon the dismissal of Hagar and he1 child. It will be seen that Abraham's com pliance with her wish was not really because of the lower status of Hagar and Ishmael, but on account of the greater influence which Sarah wielded over him. Before Abraham had any children, Eliezer of Damascus, "a son of the house," was his heir apparent. When the patriarch died his possessions
