referred to in other portions of our discussion, includes those 22,273
first-born male children in Israel, that is, one first born male child
to every 112 persons in Israel; taking the population as represented by
our learned friend, Mr. Newman, at two and a half millions. Thus we see
that there was a law given to regulate the rights of the first-born,
applying to over 22,000 first-born male children in Israel, giving them
a double portion of the goods and inheritances of their fathers.
Having brought forth these statistics, let us for a few moments examine
more closely these results. How can any one assume Israel to have
been monogamic, and be consistent? I presume that my honored friend,
notwithstanding his great desire and earnestness to overthrow the
Divine evidences in favor of polygamy, would not say to this people
that one wife could bring forth eighty-one children. We can depend
upon these proofs--upon these biblical statistics. If he assumes
that the males and females were nearly equal in number, that Israel
was a monogamic people, then let Mr. Newman show how these great and
wonderful households could be produced in Israel, if there were only
two polygamic families in the nation. It would require something more
wonderful than the herb called "mandrake," referred to by Dr. Newman
in his rejoinder to my reply to him in the New York Herald. I think he
will not be able to find, in our day, an herb with such wonderfully
efficacious properties, which will produce such remarkable results.
I have therefore established that Israel was a polygamic nation when
God gave them the laws which I have quoted, laws to govern and regulate
a people among whom were polygamic and monogamic families. The nation
was founded in polygamy in the days of Jacob, and was continued in
polygamy until they became very numerous, very great and very powerful,
while here and there might be found a monogamic family--a man with
one wife. Now if God gave laws to a people having these two forms of
marriage in the wilderness, He would adapt such laws to all. He would
not take up isolated instances here and there of a man having one wife,
but He would adapt His laws to the whole; to both the polygamic and
monogamic forms of marriage throughout all Israel.
But we are informed by the reverend Doctor that the law given for the
regulation of matters in the polygamic form of marriage bears upon the
face of it the condemnation of polygamy. And to justify his assertion
he refers to the laws that have been passed in Paris to regulate the
social evil; and to the excise laws passed in our own country to
regulate intemperance; and claims that these laws for the regulation
of evils are condemnatory of the crimes to which they apply. But when
Parisians pass laws to regulate the social evil they acknowledge
it as a crime. When the inhabitants of this country pass laws to
regulate intemperance, they thereby denounce it as a crime. And when
God gives laws, or even when human legislatures make penal laws, they
denounce as crimes the acts against which these laws are directed,
and attach penalties to them for disobedience. When the law was
given of God against murder, it was denounced as a crime by the very
penalty attached, which was death; and when the law was given against
adultery its enormity was marked by the punishment--the criminal was
to be stoned to death. It was a crime, and was so denounced when the
law was given. God gave laws to regulate these things in Israel; but
because He has regulated many great and abominable crimes by law, has
He no right to regulate that which is good and moral as well as that
which is wicked and immoral? For instance, God introduced the law of
circumcision and gave commands regulating it; shall we, therefore
say, according to the logic of the gentleman, that circumcision was
condemned by the law of God, because it was regulated by the law of
God? That would be his logic, and the natural conclusion according to
his logic. Again, when God introduced the Passover. He gave laws how it
should be conducted. Does that condemn the Passover as being immoral
because regulated by law? But, still closer home, God gave laws to
regulate the monogamic form of marriage. Does that prove that monogamy
is condemned by the law of God, because thus regulated? On, that kind
of logic will never do!
Now, then, we come to that passage in Leviticus, the xviii chapter,
and the 18th verse; the passage that was so often referred to in
the gentleman's reply yesterday afternoon. I was very glad to hear
the gentleman refer to this passage. The law, according to King
James' translation, as we heard yesterday afternoon, reads thus:
"Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover
her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time." That was the
law according to King James' translation. My friend, together with
Doctors Dwight and Edwards, and several other celebrated commentators,
disagree with that interpretation; and somebody, I know not whom, some
unauthorized person, has inserted in the margin another interpretation:
recollect, in the margin and not in the text. It is argued that this
interpretation in the margin must be correct, while King James'
translators must have been mistaken. Now, recollect that the great
commentators who have thus altered King James' translation were
monogamists. So were the translators of the Bible; they, too, were
monogamists. But with regard to the true translation of this passage,
it has been argued by my learned friend that the Hebrew--the original
Hebrew--signifies something a little different from that which is
contained in King James' translation. These are his words, as will be
found in his sermon preached at Washington, upon this same subject:
"But in verse 38 the law against polygamy is given, 'Neither shalt
thou take a wife to her sister;' or, as the marginal reading is, 'Thou
shalt not take one wife to another.' And this rendering is sustained by
Cookson, by Bishop Jewell and by Drs. Edwards and Dwight," four eminent
monogamists, interested in sustaining monogamy. According to Dr.
Edwards, the words which we translate 'a wife to her sister' are found
in the Hebrew but eight times. Now we have not been favored with these
authorities, we have had no access to them. Here in these mountain
wilds it is very difficult to get books. In each passage they refer to
inanimate objects; that is, in each of the eight places where the words
are found. We have searched for them in the Hebrew and can refer you
to each passage where they occur. And each time they refer to objects
joined together, such as wings, loops, curtains, etc., and signify
coupling together. The gentleman reads the passage "Thou shalt not take
one wife to another," and understands it as involving the likeness of
one thing to another, which is correct. But does the language forbid,
as the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife to another? No; we
have the privilege, according to the rules or articles of debate, which
have been read this afternoon, to apply to the original Hebrew. What
are the Hebrew words--the original--that are used? _Veishah el-ahotah
lo tikkah:_ this, when literally translated and transposed is, "neither
shalt thou take a wife to her sister," veishah being translated by
King James' translators "a wife," el-ahotah being translated "to her
sister;" lo is translated "neither;" while tikkah is translated by
King James' translators "shalt thou take." They have certainly given a
literal translation. Appeal to the Hebrew and you will find the word
ishah occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "wife."
The word "ahotah", translated by King James' translators "a sister,"
occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "sister." But
are these the only translations--the only renderings? Ishah, when it is
followed by ahot has another rendering. That is when "wife" is followed
by "sister" there is another rendering.
Translators have no right to give a double translation to the same
Hebrew word, in the same phrase; if they translate veishah one, they
are not at liberty to translate the same word in the same phrase over
again and call it wife. This Dr. Edwards, or some other monogamist, has
done, and inserted this false translation in the margin. What object
such translator had in deceiving the public must be best known to
himself: he probably was actuated by a zeal to find some law against
polygamy, and concluded to manufacture the word "wife," and place it
in the margin, without any original Hebrew word to represent it. Ahot,
when standing alone, is rendered sister; when preceded by ishah, is
rendered another; the suffix ah, attached to ahot, is translated "her;"
both together (ahot-ah) are rendered "her sister," that is sister's
sister; when ahot is rendered "another," its suffix ah represents "her"
or more properly the noun sister, for which it stands. The phrase will
then read: Veishah (one) el-ahotah (sister to another) lo (neither)
tikkah (shalt thou take) which, when transposed, reads thus: _Neither
shalt thou take one sister to another_. This form of translation agrees
with the rendering given to the same Hebrew words or phrase in the
seven other passages of Scripture, referred to by Dr. Newman and Dr.
Edwards. (See Exodus xxvi, 3, 5; Ezekiel i, 9, 11, 23; also iii, 13.)
It will be seen that the latter form of translation gives precisely
the same idea as that given by the English translators in the text. It
also agrees with the twelve preceding verses of the law, prohibiting
intermarriages among blood relations, and forms a part and parcel of
the same code; while the word "wife," inserted in the margin, is not,
and cannot, by any possible rule of interpretation, be extorted from
the original connection with the second form of translation.
Why should King James' literal translation "wife" and "sister" be
set aside for "one to another?" Because they saw a necessity for it.
There is this difference: in all the other seven passages where the
words Veishah el-ahotah occur, there is a noun in the nominative case
preceding them, denoting something to be coupled together. Exodus 26th
chapter, 3rd verse contains ishah el-ahotah twice, signifying to couple
together the curtains one to another, the same words being used that
are used in this text. Go to the fifth verse of the same chapter, and
there we have the loops of the curtains joined together one to another,
the noun in the nominative case being expressed. Next go to Ezekiel,
1st chapter, 9th, 11th and 23rd verses, and these three passages give
the rendering of these same words, coupling the wings of the cherubim
one to another. Then go again to the 3rd chapter of Ezekiel and 13th
verse, and the wings of the living creatures were joined together one
to another. But in the text under consideration no such noun in the
nominative case occurs; and hence the English translators concluded to
give each word its literal translation.
The law was given to prevent quarrels, which are apt to arise among
blood relations. We might look for quarrels on the other side between
women who were not related by blood; but what are the facts in relation
to quarrels between blood relations? Go back to Cain and Abel. Who was
it spilled the blood of Abel? It was a blood relation, his brother.
Who was it that cast Joseph into the pit to perish with hunger, and
afterwards dragged him forth from his den and sold him as a slave to
persons trading through the country? It was blood relations. Who slew
the seventy sons of Gideon upon one stone? It was one of their own
brothers that hired men to do it. Who was it that rebelled against
King David, and caused him with all his wives and household, excepting
ten concubines, to flee out of Jerusalem? It was his blood relation,
his own son Absalom. Who quarrelled in the family of Jacob? Did Bilhah
quarrel with Zilpah? No. Did Leah quarrel with Bilhah or Zilpah?
No such thing is recorded. Did Rachel quarrel with either of the
handmaidens? There is not a word concerning the matter. The little,
petty difficulties occurred between the two sisters, blood relations,
Rachel and Leah. And this law was probably given to prevent such
vexations between blood relations--between sister and sister.
Having effectually proved the marginal reading to be false, I will
now defy not only the learned gentleman, but all the world of Hebrew
scholars to find any word in the original to be translated "wife" if
ishah be first translated "one."
I am informed I have only fifteen minutes. I was not aware I had spoken
a quarter of the time. I shall have to leave this subject and proceed
to another.
The next subject to which I will call your attention is in regard to
the general or unlimited language of the laws given in the various
passages which I have quoted. If a man shall commit rape, if a man
shall entice a maid, if a man shall do this, or that, or the other, is
the language of these passages. Will any person pretend to say that a
married man is not a man? And if a married person is a man, it proves
that the law is applicable to married men, and if so it rests with my
learned friend to prove that it is limited. Moreover, the passage from
the margin in Leviticus was quoted by Dr. Newman as a great fundamental
law by which all the other passages were to be overturned. But it has
failed; and, therefore, the other passages quoted by me, stand good
unless something else can be found by the learned gentleman to support
his forlorn hope.
Perhaps we may hear quoted in the answer to my remarks the passage
that the future king of Israel was not to multiply wives to himself.
That was the law. The word multiply is construed by those opposed to
polygamy to mean that twice one make two, and hence that he was not
to multiply wives, or, in other words, that he was not to take two.
But the command was also given that the future king of Israel was not
to multiply horses anymore than wives. Twice one make two again. Was
the future king of Israel not to have more than one horse? The idea is
ridiculous! The future king of Israel was not to multiply them; not to
have them in multitude, that is, only to take such a number as God saw
proper to give him.
We might next refer you to the uncle of Ruth's dead husband, old Boaz,
who represented himself as not being the nearest kin. There was another
nearer who had the Divine right to take her, and this other happened
to be the brother of Boaz, perhaps a little older. Josephus tells us,
according to the learned gentleman, that this oldest brother was a
married man. Suppose we admit it. Did Boaz not know that his brother
was married when he represented him as the nearest of kin and had the
right before him? And even the brother acknowledges his right, and says
to Boaz: "Redeem thou my right to thyself." He had the right to marry
her. This, then, we arrive at by the assistance of Josephus; and it
proves that married men were required to comply with the law. I have
no further time to remark on this passage. I wish now to examine a
passage that is contained in Matthew, in regard to divorces, and also
in Malachi, on the same subject. Malachi, or the Lord by the mouth
of Malachi, informs the people that the Lord hated putting away. He
gave the reason why a wife should not be put away. Not a word against
polygamy in either passage.
But there is certain reasoning introduced to show that a wife should
not be put away. In the beginning the Lord made one, that is a wife
for Adam, that he might not be alone. Woman was given to man for a
companion, that he might protect her, and for other holy purposes, but
not to be put away for trivial causes; and it was cause of condemnation
in those days for a man to put away his wife. But there is not a word
in Malachi condemnatory of a man marrying more than one wife. Jesus
also gives the law respecting divorces, that they should not put away
their wives for any other cause than that of fornication; and he that
took a wife that was put away would commit adultery. Jesus says, in the
5th chapter, that he that putteth away his wife for any other cause
than fornication causes her to commit adultery. Then the husband is a
guilty accomplice, and if he puts away his wife unjustly he is guilty
of adultery himself, the same as a confederate in murder is himself
a murderer. As an adulterer he has no right to take another wife; he
has not the right to take even one wife. His right is to be stoned
to death; to suffer the penalty of death for his sin of adultery.
Consequently, if he has no right to even life itself, he has no right
to a wife. But the case of such a man, who has become an adulterer
by putting away his wife, and has no right to marry another, has no
application, nor has the argument drawn from it any application, to the
man who keeps his wife and takes another. The law referred to by my
learned opponent, in Leviticus xviii and 18, shows that polygamy was in
existence, but was to be kept within the circle of those who were not
blood relations.
Concerning the phrase "duty of marriage," occurring in the passage,
"If a man take another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of
marriage shall he not diminish." The condition here referred to is
sometimes more than mere betrothal. It is something showing that the
individual has been not merely previously betrothed, but is actually
in the married state, and the duty of marriage is clearly expressed.
What is the meaning of the original word? It does not mean dwelling nor
refuge, as asserted in the New York Herald by Dr. Newman. Four passages
are quoted by him in which the Hebrew word for dwelling occurs, but the
word translated "duty" of marriage, is entirely a distinct word from
that used in the four passages referred to. Does not the learned Dr.
know the difference between two Hebrew words? Or what was his object
in referring to a word elsewhere in the Scripture that does not even
occur in the text under consideration? In a Hebrew and English Lexicon,
(published by Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M., Prof. of Sacred Liter., in the
Theology School in Yale College,) page 160, it refers to this very
Hebrew word and to the very passage, Ex. xxxi, 10, and translates it
thus:--"cohabitation,"--"duty of marriage." "Duty of marriage" then is
"cohabitation:" thus God commands a man who takes another wife, not to
diminish the duty of cohabitation with the first. Would God command
undiminished "cohabitation" with a woman merely betrothed and not
married?
While I have a few moments left let me refer you to Hosea. I wish all
of you, when you go home, to read the second chapter of Hosea, and
you will find, with regard to Hosea's having divorced his first wife
because of her whoredoms, that no such thing is recorded as stated
by Mr. Newman yesterday. The Lord tells Hosea to go and speak to his
brethren, (not to his son,) to his sisters, (not his daughter,) of
the house of Israel, and tell them what the Lord will do; that he may
not acknowledge them any longer as a wife. Hosea bore the word of the
Lord to Israel, whom his own two wives represented, saying that their
whoredoms, their wickedness and idolatries had kindled the anger of the
Lord against them.
Having discussed the subject so far I leave it now with all candid
persons to judge. Here is the law of God; here is the command of the
Most High, general in its nature, not limited, nor can it be proved to
be so. There is no law against it, but it stands as immovable as the
Rock of Ages, and will stand when all things on the earth and the earth
itself shall pass away.
Dr. J. F. NEWMAN Said:
Respected Umpires, and Ladies and Gentlemen:
I had heard, prior to my coming to your city, that my distinguished
opponent was eminent in mathematics, and certainly his display to-day
confirms that reputation. Unfortunately, however, he is incorrect in
his statements. First, he assumes that the slaying of all the male
children of the Hebrews was continued through eighty years; but he has
failed to produce the proof. To do this was his starting point. He
assumes it; where is the proof, either in the Bible or in Josephus?
And until he can prove that the destruction of the male children went
on for eighty years, I say this argument has no more foundation than
a vision. Then he makes another blunder: the 303,550, the number of
men above twenty years of age, mentioned in this case, were men to go
to war; they were not the total population of the Jewish nation, and
yet my mathematical friend stands up here to-day and declares that the
whole male population above twenty years of age consisted of 303,550,
whereas it is a fact that this number did not include all the males.
Then again the 22,273 first-born do not represent the number of
families in Israel at that time, for many of the first-born were
dead. These are the blunders that the gentleman has made to-day, and
I challenge him to produce the contrary and prove that he is not
guilty of these numerical blunders. Then he denies the assertion made
yesterday that there could not be brought forward more than one or
two instances of polygamy in the history of Israel from the time the
Hebrews left Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. Has he disproved
that? He has attempted to prove it by a mathematical problem, which
problem is based on error: his premises are wrong, therefore his
conclusions are false. Why didn't he turn to King James' translation?
I will help him to one polygamist, that is Caleb. Why didn't he start
with old Caleb and go down and give us name after name and date after
date of the polygamists recorded in the history of the Jews while they
were in the wilderness? Ladies and gentlemen, he had none to give, and
therefore the assertion made yesterday is true, that during the sojourn
of the children of Israel in the wilderness there is but one instance
of polygamy recorded.
Now we come to the law that I laid down yesterday--"Neither shalt thou
take one wife to another." I reaffirm that the translation in the
margin is perfect to a word. He labors to show that God does not mean
what He says. That the phrase "one wife to another," may be equally
rendered one woman to another, or one wife to her sister. The very same
phrase is used in the other seven passages named by Dr. Dwight. For
example, Exodus xxvi, 3, Ezekiel i, 9, etc. He admits the translation
in these passages to be correct. If it is correct in these passages,
why is it not correct in the other? His very admission knocks to pieces
his argument. Why then does he labor to create the impression that the
Hebrew ishau means woman, or wife? What is the object of the travail of
his soul? The word ahoot, he contends, means sister; but sister itself,
is a word which means a specific relation, and a generic relation.
Every woman is sister to every other woman, and I challenge the
gentleman to meet me on paper at any time, in the newspapers of your
city or elsewhere upon the Hebrew of this text. I reaffirm it, reaffirm
it in the hearing of this learned gentleman, reaffirm it in the hearing
of these Hebraists, that as it is said in the margin, is the true
rendering, namely, "neither shalt thou take one wife to another." But
supposing that is incorrect, permit me, before I pass on, to remind you
of this fact, he refers, I think, in his first speech, to the "margin;"
the "margin" was correct then and there, but it is not here. It is a
poor rule that will not work both ways; correct when he wants to quote
from the "margin," but not when I want to do so. He quoted from the
margin, and I followed his illustrious example.