Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

is mentioned, whereas St. Matthew, in the parallel passage, mentions two. In St. Mark's account of St. Peter's denial of Christ, the very same woman who addressed St. Peter the first time, addressed him likewise the second time, whereas, according to St. Matthew, he was addressed by a different person; for Mark (14. 69) uses the expression Taidion, the maid,' which, without a violation of grammar, can be construed only of the same maid who had been mentioned immediately before, whereas Matthew 26. 71 has aλλn, another maid.' Now, in whatever manner harmonists may reconcile these examples, there will always remain a difference between the two accounts, which would have been avoided if St. Mark had copied from St. Matthew. But what shall we say of instances in which there is no mode of reconciliation? If we compare Mark 4. 35 and 1. 35, with Matthew 8. 28-34, we shall find not only a difference in the arrangement of the facts, but such a determination of time as renders a reconciliation impracticable. For, according to St. Matthew, on the day after the sermon on the Mount, Christ entered into a ship, and crossed the Lake of Gennesareth, where he encountered a violent tempest; but according to St. Mark, this event took place on the day after the sermon in parables; and on the day which followed that on which the sermon on the Mount was delivered, Christ went, not to the sea side, but to a desert place, whence he passed through the towns and villages of Galilee. Another instance in which we shall find it equally impracticable to reconcile the two Evangelists, is Mark 11. 28, compared with Matthew 21. 23. In both places, the Jewish priests propose this question to Christ, By what authority doest

thou these things?' alluding to his expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the Temple. But according to what St. Mark had previously related in the same chapter, this question was proposed on the third day of Christ's entry into Jerusalem; according to St. Matthew, it was proposed on the second. If St. Mark had copied from St. Matthew, this difference in their accounts could hardly have taken place."

Since it is, therefore, evident that St. Mark did not copy from the Gospel of St. Matthew, the question naturally recurs, How are we to reconcile the striking coincidences between them which undoubtedly exist? Koppe, and after him Michaëlis, endeavoured to account for the examples of verbal harmony in the three first Gospels, by the supposition that in those examples the Evangelists retained the words which had been used in more ancient Gospels, such as those mentioned by St. Luke in his preface. But there does not appear to be any necessity for resorting to such an hypothesis; for, in the first place, it contradicts the accounts given from the early Christian writers; and secondly, it may, as we have already seen, be accounted for from other causes. St. Peter was, equally with St. Matthew, an eye-witness of Our Lord's miracles, and had also heard his discourses, and on some occasions was admitted to be a spectator of transactions to which not all the other disciples were admitted.

MARK ON THE FOREHEAD.
MARK UPON CAIN. See CAIN.

See FOREHEAD.

[graphic][ocr errors][merged small]

MARKET, MARKET-PLACE. The word maarab, in Ezekiel 27. 13,17,19,25, rendered in our version "market," refers to commerce, exchange, traffic by barter. The "market-place" of Matthew 20. 3 is termed in the Greek ayopa, which signifies the forum or market-place, where things were exposed for sale, and where, also, assemblies and public trials were held. (Mark 7. 4; Acts 16. 19.) In very early periods, markets were held at or near the gates of cities, sometimes within and sometimes without the walls. Here commodities were exposed for sale, either in the open

[ocr errors]

air, or in tents. (2Kings 7. 18.) It is still not unusual in the East for the wholesale market for country produce and cattle to be held (for a short time in the early part of the morning) at the gates of towns; but manufactured goods and various sorts of fruits are retailed in the bazaars within the towns. In the time of Our Saviour, as we learn from Josephus, the markets were inclosed in the same manner as the modern Eastern bazaars, which are shut at night, and where traders' shops are disposed in rows or streets, and in large towns the dealers in particular commodities are confined to certain streets; that

MARKET-PLACE

this was also the case in the time of the prophet Jeremiah, we may infer from his expression, "the bakers' street." (37. 21.)

The market, or forum, in the cities of antiquity, was usually a public market on one side only, the other sides of the area being occupied by temples, theatres, courts of justice, and other public buildings. In fact, the forums were sumptuous squares. Here the philosophers met and taught; here laws were promulgated; and here devotion, as well as amusement, occupied the public attention. The nearest approach to the composition of an ancient forum in England is Covent Garden Market; where we have a market in the middle, a church at one end, a theatre at one corner, and sitting magistrates close adjacent. In short, if we add a school for philosophical instruction, or divinity lectures, we have nearly the composition of an ancient forum or market-place. Hence, when the Pharisees desired salutations in the market-places, (Mark 12. 38,) it was not from those who brought their produce for sale; but as they loved to be admired by such as frequented the temple, synagogues, &c., so they desired salutations from judges, magistrates, and other persons of consequence, in the forum, that they might display their importance to the people.

Mr. Robinson describes the bazaar, or street of shops at Jerusalem, as being arched over and very dark and gloomy, the shops paltry, and the merchandise of an inferior quality; and at Damascus, he says, "On either side of the bazaars are rows of diminutive recesses, around which the articles for sale are invitingly displayed, having small platforms in front, furnished with carpets and cushions for the purchaser to sit down upon. No sooner has the latter taken his seat than the vender commences filling a pipe, which he offers to his customer, at the same time beckoning to the kavedji, who is in constant attendance, to bring two cups of coffee. A mutual exchange of complimentary phrases follow, but meaning nothing, and intending little. These preliminaries, which are rigorously observed, being once over, the parties commence talking upon business, but not till then. The bazaars are closed at night with iron gates, a few guardians alone remaining to prevent robbery, and to give the alarm in case of fire. Besides the bazaars, there are several large khans or caravanserais, where the wholesale merchants have their counting-houses and warehouses. There is one superior to the rest, the entrance to which is from one of the bazaars near the great mosque. A superb gateway of the pointed arch, vaulted and highly ornamented with sculpture, leads into a spacious quadrangular court, paved with broad flat stones, smoothly polished and admirably joined together. Around the sides are arcades for merchandise, above which a broad open gallery runs round, the outer portion of which is distributed into offices. The whole is covered with lofty domes. The masonry is of black and white stone, one of the peculiar features of the Saracenic style, of which this structure is an admirable specimen.”

The bazaars of the East are in general, like that of Jerusalem, covered walks, but in some instances they are open streets; of this latter description is the bazaar of Aleppo, which is besides of a more ornamented structure than the majority of such edifices.

MARRIAGE, ♫ hhathunnah; yapos, a marriage, or wedding. (Cant. 3. 11; John 2. 1.)

Marriage, in the Scriptures, besides its literal sense of a nuptial union, also denotes the mystic union of God and his Church; the latter, in the Old Testament, being often spoken of as the spouse, in terms borrowed from

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

| the marriage contract. the marriage contract. Thus, by the prophet Isaiah, she is exhorted to rejoice on her promised reconciliation to her Maker and husband, and on the accession of the Gentiles to her family. (Isai. 54. 6.) It has been a question in all ages, whether the literal and obvious meaning of the Song of Solomon be all that was ever intended; or whether it does not at the same time, under the veil of a sublime and mystical allegory, delineate the bridal union between Jehovah and his pure uncorrupted Church. Bishop Lowth and others consider it as a mystical allegory, and are of opinion that, under the figure of a marriage is typified the intimate connexion between God and his Church, of which a more concise model was furnished in the forty-fifth Psalm. In this form of expression, God is supposed to bear exactly the same relation to the Church as a husband to a wife; God is represented as the spouse of the Church, and the Church is betrothed to God. Thus also, when the same figure is maintained with a different mode of expression, and connected with different circumstances, the relation is still the same: thus the piety of the people, their impiety, their idolatry, and rejection, stand in the same relation with respect to the sacred covenant, as chastity, modesty, adultery, divorce, with respect to the marriage contract. Of this mode of speaking, the elder sacred writers furnish us with abundant examples; and the writers of the New Testament have freely admitted the same image in the same allegorical sense with their predecessors, and have consecrated it by their authority. St. Paul says, "For I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2Cor. 11. 2.) The same union is hinted at by the Apostle in writing to the Ephesians. (5. 32.) In the visions of St. John, a period is spoken of when the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his bride hath made herself ready. (Rev. 19. 7.) As marriages were usually celebrated with great rejoicing, the marriage of the Lamb with his Church is a fit emblem of the state of prosperity and happiness to which God will, in the fulness of time, raise it, after all its sufferings for the sake of truth and righteousness.

Marriage among the Jews was esteemed a matter of the strictest obligation, for they understood literally those words uttered to our first parents, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." (Gen. 1. 28.) Their expectation of the advent of the Messiah added great weight to this obligation. Every family lived in the hope that this blessing would attend their posterity; hence celibacy was esteemed a great reproach in Israel, for they not only thought that no one could live a single life without great danger of sin, but they esteemed it also a counteracting of the Divine counsels in the premise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent. On this account it was that Jephthah's daughter deplored her virginity, and for the same reason also sterility was regarded among the Jews as one of the greatest misfortunes that could befal any woman, insomuch that, to have a child, though the woman immediately died thereupon, was deemed a less affliction than to have none at all; and in this view Rachel was comforted in her sorrow, even though at the point of death, in these terms: "Fear not, for thou shalt bear this son also." (Gen. 35. 17.) This was likewise the reason why the Jews usually married very young. The age prescribed to men by the Rabbins was eighteen years. A virgin was ordinarily married at the age of twelve years, whence her husband is called the guide of her youth, (Prov. 2. 17,) and the husband of her youth, (Joel 1. 8;) and the not giving of maidens in marriage is, in Psalm 78. 63, represented as one of the effects of the Divine anger towards Israel. In like manner, among the

[blocks in formation]

From the first institution of marriage, it is evident that God gave but one woman to one man; and if it be true as a common observation, that there are everywhere more males than females born in the world, it follows that those men act contrary to the laws, both of God and nature, who have more than one wife at the same time. The first who violated this primitive law of marriage was Lamech, who took unto him two wives. (Gen. 4. 19.) Afterwards we read that Abraham had concubines, (Gen. 25. 6,) and his practice was followed by the other patriarchs. Though the example of Noah and his sons was a good one, it was not followed, and polygamy prevailed very much among the Hebrews in the time of Moses, as we may gather from the fact, that the first-born of six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty men, above twenty years of age, amounted merely to the number of twenty-two thousand three hundred and seventy-three. (Numb. 3. 42.) That this evil might, in process of time, be diminished, Moses gave a narration how the institution originally stood, (Gen. 1. 27,28; 2. 23,24;) stated the first transgression of it, (Gen. 4. 19,) and the inconveniences which had sub. sequently resulted from having a plurality of wives, (Gen. 16. 4-10; 30. 1-3,15;) evils which travellers in Eastern. countries assure us are very great. Moses likewise interdicted to the kings, whom the Hebrews might hereafter elect, a multiplicity of wives. It is true he did not say precisely how many they should have, but probably intended the number should be limited by the custom of his time. Perhaps, therefore, the number was four, which is the exposition advanced by the Rabbins and Mohammedans, and is in a measure supported by the example of Jacob. (Deut. 17. 17.)

pro

Michaëlis remarks upon this subject, "I am of opinion that, with regard to the polygamy allowed among the Israelites, we can say nothing else than what Christ has said on the subject of divorce. Moses tolerated it on account of their hardness of heart, and because it would have been found a difficult matter to deprive them of a custom already so firmly established. The Egyptian monarchs endeavoured to prevent the multiplication of the Israelites, and for this purpose went so far as to order all their male children, as soon as born, to be thrown into the Nile; and yet Moses found polygamy among them, which of course could not have been hibited by the Egyptian government. A people, whose children a tyrant drowned to hinder their increase, while he yet dared not to check their polygamy, must have clung very closely to that privilege and not have been likely to surrender it without rebelling. Whether the climate may have, in any degree, contributed to produce this hardness of heart, I will neither confidently affirm nor deny, so long as we are destitute of what I would call a geographical history of polygamy and monogamy, which a person might survey at a short glance; for thus much is certain, that, in the most northerly regions of Siberia and Tartary, there are nations that live in polygamy; and in the very warmest climates, on the contrary, we find Christians, and even heathen nations, satisfied with monogamy. If the former is more prevalent towards the south, we must bear in mind that in regard to laws, though much depends on climate, yet every

thing does not, but still more on accidental circumstances; and that ancient usage or religion may have a very powerful influence on the nature of the law. But should even the climate actually cause a difference in the point in question, and make it more difficult to put a stop to polygamy by law, among southern than northern nations, because they are naturally more addicted to it; still the cause would not be referable to any irregularity in the proportion of the sexes, but to the earlier puberty of southern nations. The natural consequence of early and strong feelings of love, is early marriage; the wife in such a case can hardly be more than two years younger, and the appropriated concubine is perhaps even older, than her husband. Although the Mosaic laws do not prohibit more than one wife, still they did not thereby authorize polygamy in the whole extent of the word, and that a man might have as many wives as he pleased. But if more than one wife was allowed, and many forbidden, the question comes to be, what is meant by many? And to that question I can only give what may be called a probable answer, and to this effect; that by many seems to be meant more than four, that number being permitted, but not more. This is the doctrine of the Talmud and the Rabbins, of which the reader will find a more detailed account in Selden de Uxore Hebraica. To their testimony and opinion, indeed, I would mony and opinion, indeed, I would pay but little respect, in most points relating to the original Mosaic jurisprudence; but here they seem for once to be in the right. For Mohammed, who generally follows the ancient Arabian usages, in the fourth chapter of the Koran, also fixes four as the number of wives to be allowed, and commands that it be not exceeded; and before the time of Moses there would seem to have been likewise an ancient usage, in the patriarchal families, which limited polygamy to this same number, and which may also have continued among the Jews and Arabs. We have reason to presume that this was the case from a passage in Genesis 31. 50. Jacob had four wives, Leah, Rachel, and their two maids. Laban, his father-in-law, was so little an enemy to polygamy, that instead of one of his daughters, whom Jacob wished to have, he contrived by a piece of artifice, and contrary to Jacob's inclination, to force them both upon him; but notwithstanding this, we find him in this passage requiring Jacob to take an oath that he would not take any more wives. Now as Moses does not explain what he calls many, he must, from some established custom, have pre-supposed it perfectly known."

Polygamy has proved, in all ages, and in all countries where it has been suffered, a teeming source of evil. The jealousy and bitter contentions in the family of Abraham and of his grandson Jacob, which proceeded from that cause, are well known; and still more deplorable were the dissensions which convulsed the house and shook the throne of David. Such mischiefs are the natural effects of the practice; for polygamy divides the affections of the husband, and consequently gives rise to incurable jealousies and contentions among the unhappy victims of his licentious desires. To prevent his abode from becoming the scene of unceasing confusion and uproar, he is compelled to govern it, as the Oriental polygamist still does, with despotic authority, which at once extinguishes all the rational and most endearing comforts of the matrimonial state. The husband is a stern and unfeeling despot; his harem, a group of trembling slaves. The children espouse, with an ardour unknown to those who are placed in other circumstances, the cause of their own mother, and look upon the children of the other wives as strangers or enemies. They regard their common father with indifference or

MARRIAGE.

terror; while they cling to their own mother with the | fondest affection, as the only parent in whom they feel any interest, or from whom they expect any suitable return of attention and kindness. This state of feeling and attachment is attested by every writer on the manners of the East, and accounts for a mode of speaking so common in the Scriptures: "It is my brother, and the son of my mother." "They were my brethren," said Gideon, speaking to his prisoners, Zebah and Zalmunnah, "even the sons of my mother; as the Lord liveth, if ye had saved them alive, I would not slay you." (Judges 8. 19.) It greatly aggravated the affliction of David, that he had become an alien to his mother's children; the enmity of his brethren, the children of his father's other wives, or his more distant relatives, him less concern: "I am gave become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to my mother's children." (Psalm 69. 8.) The same allusion occurs in the complaint of the spouse: "Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards." (Cantic. 1. 6.) The children of one wife scarcely looked upon the children of the other wives as their brothers and sisters at all; and they scarcely felt more regard for their father. An Oriental, in consequence of this unnatural practice, takes little notice of an insult offered to his father, but expresses the utmost indignation when a word is spoken to the disadvantage of his mother. To defame or to curse her, is the last insult which his enemy can offer, and one which he seldom or never forgives.

Among the Hebrews the father of a family it seems selected wives for his sons and husbands for his daughters, (Gen. 21. 21; 24. 31; Exod. 21. 9; Deut. 22. 16; Judges 14. 1-4,) but he did not ordinarily marry the daughter without the consent of the brothers. (Gen. 24. 50; 34. 11-27; 2Sam. 13. 20-29; comp. Gen. 12. 11-13; 20. 2-6; 26. 7-17.) The restraints by which the fathers of families were limited in making choice of wives for their children, are mentioned in Leviticus 18. 7-18; 20. 11-20. Intermarriages moreover were prohibited with the Canaanites, lest the Hebrews should be seduced to idolatry. (Exod. 34. 15,16; Deut. 7. 3.) The law was extended by Ezra and Nehemiah to intermarriages with all foreigners, on the ground that there was as much danger of contamination from other nations in their time, as there was from the Canaanites anciently. (Ezra 9. 2-12; 10. 3; Nehem. 13. 23.) It was not lawful for a priest to marry a divorced or a profane woman, and in the case of the high-priest the interdiction was extended to widows, and to women of foreign extraction. (Levit. 21. 7,13,14.) Daughters who through a want of brothers were heiresses to an estate, were commanded to marry some one of their own tribe, and indeed, if possible, some kinsman of more or less remote relationship, lest the estate should go to another tribe or family. (Numb. 27. 1-11; 36. 1,12.) The marriage vow, wires, was a covenant between the father and the brothers of the bride, and the father of the bridegroom, made in the presence of witnesses. At a somewhat recent period, the covenant was committed to writing, and was sometimes confirmed by the additional precaution of an oath. (Prov. 2. 17; Ezek. 16. 8; Mal. 2. 14.) A reference seems to have been had to this oath in the nuptial sacrifices, of which mention is made by Josephus. By the marriage vow or covenant, not only the wedlock was confirmed, but the amount of presents was determined, which was to be given to the brothers; and also the dowry mochar, which went to the father of the bride: this, formerly, was estimated at a certain price, (Gen. 29. 18,27; 34.

829

11,12; Josh. 15. 16; 1Sam. 18. 23-26,) but afterwards varied according to circumstances. In the time of Moses, the medium estimation was thirty shekels, and the highest fifty. (Deut. 22. 29, comp. with Hosea 3.1,2.) Wives who were thus purchased were too often regarded as mere servants by their husbands, though there are not wanting instances, where they obtained the ascendancy. (1Sam. 25. 19-30; 1Kings 11.2-5; 19. 1,2; 21. 7,8.) The wife who was freely given up by her father, without his receiving for her any pecuniary compensation, was the more highly esteemed. (Gen. 16. 5,6; 21. 9-11; comp. 31. 14,15.) Some obtained a wife as the reward of their bravery, (Josh. 15. 16-19; Judges 1. 15; 1Sam. 18. 24-27;) and it was sometimes, though rarely the case, that the bride, instead of being purchased by the bridegroom, received a dowry from the father. (Josh. 15. 18,19; 1Kings 9. 16.)

Similar customs to these obtained among the Greeks and other ancient nations, and are practised to this day in several Eastern countries. Mr. Buckingham, in his travels among the Arab tribes, informs us that young girls are given in marriage for certain sums of money, varying from 500 to 1000 piastres, among the better order of inhabitants, according to their connections or beauty; though among the labouring classes it descends as low as 100 or even 50. This sum being paid by the bridegroom to the bride's father adds to his wealth, and makes girls (particularly when handsome,) as profitable to their parents as boys are by the wages they earn by their labour.

Herodotus gives us a somewhat amusing account of a custom, which he says obtained among the ancient inhabitants of Babylon, in respect to marriage. Once a year all the young marriageable women were collected together in a certain spot, and surrounded by the bachelors of all classes, whose inclinations prompted them to become candidates for the marriage state. An auctioneer then put the women up severally for sale, beginning with those of the handsomest and most agreeable person; for these, there was always great competition between the most wealthy of the bidders, and thus a considerable sum of money was collected. When all those of the assembled maidens who had any pretensions to beauty were disposed of, the mode of sale was reversed, and a dowry was given with those whose want of personal attraction rendered their disposal a matter of greater difficulty, the sum always varying in proportion to the plainness of the damsel. Thus all the young women were certain of meeting with a partner; for even if there existed any absolute deformity, the irresistible charm of a weighty dower soon obtained for her a husband from among those who, either from avarice or want of taste, were willing to overlook the fleeting advantage of possessing a handsome wife for the sake of the more substantial benefits which were to be gained by espousing an ugly one.

With the Israelites there was usually an interval of ten or twelve months between the time when the agreement to marry was made and the time when the marriage was celebrated. (Gen. 24. 55; Judges 14. 8.) From the time of the agreement until the marriage, although there was no intercourse between the bride and bridegroom, not even so much as conversation, they were nevertheless considered and spoken of as man and wife. If, at the close of this probationary period, the bridegroom felt unwilling from any cause to solemnize his engagement by the marriage of the bride, he was bound to give her a bill of divorce, the same as if she had been his wife; and if the bride had been guilty of unchastity with any person during this period, she was condemned to be stoned, the same as if she had been

married. (Matt. 1. 18-20; Luke 2. 5.) When the day of marriage had arrived, the bride adorned herself with the choicest of those ornaments which were considered appropriate to the women. Her head was encircled with a crown; a fact which is a sufficient reason of itself why the word kalah, which primarily means a person that is crowned, should possess the secondary signification of bride. We learn from the Mishnah that the Jews were accustomed to place crowns or garlands on the heads of newly-married persons, and it would appear from Canticles 3. 11, that the ceremony of putting it on was performed by one of the parents. Among the Greeks the bride was crowned by her mother; and among them, as well as among the Orientals, it was customary on festal occasions to wear crowns or garlands, not merely of leaves or flowers, but also of gold or silver, in proportion to the rank of the person presenting them; but those prepared for the celebration of a nuptial banquet, as being a festivity of the first consequence, were of peculiar splendour and magnificence. It was the duty of the bridegroom to see that a feast was made ready on the occasion, and in case he was a person of wealth it was prolonged through the whole week. (Judges 14. 17.) The Jews say that the nuptial feast for a virgin lasted seven days, while that for a widow was limited to three days. This week was spent in feasting and mirth. To the festivites of this occasion Our Lord refers: "Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast." (Mark 2. 19,20.) About evening, the bridegroom, clothed in the festal robe, (Isai. 61. 10,) attended with a company of young men about the same age, and cheered with songs and instrumental music, conducted from her father's house the bride, who was in like manner surrounded with virgins of her own age, to his father's house. (Judges 14. 11-16; John 3. 29; comp. Jerem. 7. 34; 25. 10; 33. 11.) These attendants are termed children of the bride-chamber. (Matt. 9. 15; Mark 2. 19.)

At every wedding two persons were selected who devoted themselves for some time to the service of the bride and bridegroom. The companion of the bride nan bithulah, gave her personal attendance during the marriage season; but the offices assigned to the bridegroom's friend, ja susebin, were more varied and important; and on account of these the Baptist compares himself to the friend of the bridegroom. (John 3. 29.) The offices of the paranymph were threefold: before, at, and after the marriage. Before the marriage of his friend it was his duty to select a chaste virgin, and to be the medium of communication between the parties till the day of the marriage. At that time he continued with them during the seven days allotted for the wedding festival, rejoicing in the happiness of his friend, and contributing as much as possible to the hilarity of the occasion. After the marriage, the paranymph was considered as the patron and friend of the wife and her husband, and was called in to compose any differences that might take place between them. As the forerunner of Christ, the Baptist may very suitably be compared to the paranymph of the Jewish marriages.

It seems to have been customary for the Hebrew bridegroom to prepare garments for his guests, (Matt. 22. 11,) which it appears from Revelation 19. 8 were white. In the time of Our Saviour, whenever the bride was conducted by the bridegroom and his attendants to the house of the bridegroom's father, the way before them was lighted by torches or flambeaux, as we learn

from Matthew 25.1-10, and also from the Talmud. The ten virgins are represented as taking their lamps to meet the bridegroom; five of whom were prudent, and took with them a supply of oil, which the others had neglected. In the mean time they all slumbered and slept, until the procession approached; but in the middle of the night there was a cry made, "Behold, the bridegroom cometh! go ye out to meet him." On this, all the virgins arose speedily to trim their lamps. The wise were instantly ready; but the imprudent virgins were thrown into great confusion. Then, first they recollected their neglect; their lamps were expiring, and they had no oil to replenish them. While they were gone to procure a supply, the bridegroom arrived; they that were ready went in with him to the marriage; and the door was shut, and all admittance was refused to the imprudent virgins.

The solemnities here described are still practised by the Jews in Podolia, and also by the Christians in Syria and in Egypt. The custom of conveying the bride with great state to her future husband is universal in the East; but the details are modified by the local usages and religions of the different countries; and sometimes there are differences even in the same country. In Syria, Persia, and India, the bridegroom in person brings home his bride; the Turks more usually devolve this duty on a near relative, and remain at home to receive the lady on her arrival. We may collect from Scripture and the Rabbinical traditions, that the Jews had both usages, but that the former was the most common. Again, in Egypt the bridegroom goes to the mosque when the bride is expected, and returns home in procession after she has arrived. In Western Asia the procession usually walks, if the bride's future house is at no great distance in the same town. The bride then generally walks under a canopy, but when the distance is too great, and in Central and Eastern Asia whether the distance be great or small, the bride rides upon a mare, mule, ass, or camel, or is carried in a litter or palanquin. Sometimes when the distance is not great, the bride alone (or the bridegroom also if present) rides, and the rest walk, as among the Druses in Lebanon. Much depends on the circumstances of the parties. The Jews it seems practised nearly all these methods; but that when the bridegroom's residence was near, the bride walked under a canopy.

The Rev. Mr. Hartley, in his Researches in Greece and the Levant, describing an and the Levant, describing an Armenian wedding, says, "The large number of young females who were present naturally reminded me of the wise and foolish virgins in Our Saviour's parable. These being friends of the bride, the virgins, her companions, (Psalm 45.14,) had come to meet the bridegroom. It is usual for the bridegroom to come at midnight; so that literally, at midnight the cry is made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh! go ye out to meet him.' But on this occasion, the bridegroom tarried; it was two o'clock before he arrived. The whole party then proceeded to the Armenian church, where the bishop was waiting to receive them; and there the ceremony was completed."

Mr. Ward gives us the following description of a Hindoo wedding, which furnishes some parallels to the parable of the wedding feast in the Gospel. "At a marriage, the procession of which I saw some years ago, the bridegroom came from a distance, and the bride lived at Serampore, to which place the bridegroom was to come by water. After waiting two or three hours, at length near midnight it was announced, as if in the very words of Scripture, 'Behold, the bridegroom cometh! go ye out to meet him.' All the persons employed now lighted their lamps, and ran with them in their hands

« FöregåendeFortsätt »