Over for others

JUNIOR KiGHT. The excep- tions to the rule of the succession of the eldest son are numerous and striking. The line of divine election among the patriarchs usually f asses through younger sons, Abraham apparently, saac, Jacob. According to 1 Ch o'- -, the bikliordh was transferred from Reuben to Joseph. In Gu 40 Jacob puts Ephraim before his elder brother Manasseh. According to Ex 7' (P), Moses was the junior of Aaron.

David was the youngest son of Jesse ; and Solomon, one of the youngest, at any rate, among the many sons of David. We may take the circumstances of the succession of Solomon as typical. The father would often secure the succession for a favourite son by appointing him his successor, or even by associating him with himself in his lifetime. Such arrangements have always been common, especially in the East.

The fa\ ourite wife would often be the one last married, and the favourite sou the youngest. Apart from 2 Ch 21^ it is never stated that the eldest -son succeeded his father as a right. Great men with large harems and numerous families would follow the example of the kings.

The transference of the bikhurdh from Reuben to Joseph, and from Esau to Jacob, shows that such a change might be made for sufficient cause, and therefore, of course, on any plausible pretext : a cise is mentioned in 1 Ch '26'". A further [)roof of the occasional trans- ference of the heklujrdh at the will of the father is the prohibition of the practice in Dt 21"'". The frequent succession of youngest sons suggests that the very widespreail custom of 'Junior Right' or succe.

ssion by the youngest existed in pre-mon- archical Israel, and survived in some me;isure in later times. J. Jacobs iStudies in JiiUical Archce- v/oi/tj, p. 47), partly following Sir H. Maine, says: ' The custom would naturally arise during the later stages of the pastoral period, when the elder sons would in the ordinarj- course of events have set up for themselves by the time of the father's death.

The j'oungest would in these circumstances naturally step into the father's shoes, and acquire the patrui potestas, and with it the right of sacrificing to the family gods by the paternal hearth.' On the other hand, wlien the heir was a minor, the inheritance was probably often seized by adult kinsmen. Witness the con- stant complaints of the wrongs done to orphans. V. Who INHERITED WHEN THERE \VEI!E NO SoNS.

In Nu '27''"'(1'), in connexion with the daughters of Zelophchad, the tollowing provision is made for this and similar cases : ' If a man die and have no son, j-e shall cause his inheritance to p.ass unto his dauj;hter. If he have no daughter, ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. If he have no brethren, ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren.

If his father have no brethren, ye shall give his in- heritance unto his kinsman, ^xf, who is next to him in his clan, ^QH":.' In Nu 30" it is furthei provided that lieire.'wes must marry in their own clan. Though the law itself is late, the provisions are obvious and probably ancient, except perhapa the preference given to daughters. A member of another clan marrying an heiress joined her clan, En '2", Neh 7°, cf. Bkkiah.

Jeremiah's acquisi 342 HEIR HELDAI tion of his uncle's field, Jer 32', is an example of the riylits of a kinsman in the family property. Jacob's action in reckoning Ephraini and Man- as<<eh as his sons is doubtless tj'pical of cases of adoption. Similarly, women would .sometimes, as in tiie case of Sarali, llacliel, and Leali, reckon children bom to their hu.sbands by their slaves as their own ; but, as we have seen, the rights of such children were uncertain.

In 1 Ch 2"- " a genealo^' is traced through the issue of a Jewess and an Egyptian. Abraham, Gn 15', expects that his slave will be his heir, cf. Pr 30^, wiiere, however, the translation is not certain. The last two cases would also be typical. The succession is as anile confined to the father's kin on account of the family sacra. W. R. Smith [Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 95) points out that women could not inherit in early Arabia (cf. Benzinger, p.

355), and that there could be no question of a widow inheriting because she was a part of a man's property, and went with the rest of the estate to the heir. This principle is illustrated in Israel by the law of the levirate marriage, the case of Ruth, the incident in 2 S 16"'^, and the incident of Adonijah and Abishag . — to succeed to the king's widow implied succeeding to the throne. By the law of the levirate marriage (Dt 25»-"' ; cf.

Gn 38, Ru 4) the firstborn son of a man's widow by his brother, or goel, became his heir ; (cf. GoEL, Makiuaoe, and see Driver on Dt 25'"'-). vi. Provision for Children other than the Chief Heir. The principle that the land belongs to the family, involves the providing for the rest of the family "by the head who controls the family property. Probably, in early times the maintenance of younger children was provided for according to this prmciple by customs no longer traceable.

Abraham, however, sends his younger children away with gifts (Gn 25' [JE]) ; according to 2 Ch ll'^ Rehoboam dispersed his sons among the walled towns of Judah and Benjamin, made ample provision for them, and gave them wives, in order to secure the throne for a favourite son, Abijah. Sons would often be got rid of in this fashion to secure an undisputed succession for a fa\ourite. Other typical cases are those of Ishmacl and Jephthah, who were sent away without any share of the inheritance.

Daughters would almost always be married ; unmarried daughters would be kept and have husbands found for them by their brothers, and where there were sons there would be no question of their sharing the inheritance. Job 42'' specially mentions that Job's daughters shared with their brothers, doubtless because this was exceptional.

Dt 21"* speaks of the father 'causing the son to inherit that which he hath,' which seems to imply some power on the j)art of the father to determme the iniieritance of his property (Dillm., Driver, i.l.; cf. ii.) But this is strictly limited by the context, and it must have been similarly limited by ancient custom. The law, probably, is partly a protest against the violation of such, and partly a pro- vision for new conditions.

There is nothing in the history to suggest the subdivision of the family land at each successive generation. Benzinger (p. 354) is doubtful whether any such subdivision took place. It seems very unlikely. Unless, therefore, the above Deut. laws are confined to personal property they are probably late, perhaps were never ell'ective. The New Testament. No question of the laws or customs of inheritance arises in connexion with the NT.

Christ is the (firstborn) son and heir in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mk 12' etc., and in He P) ; Christians are heirs of God's promises, etc. (Ro 8", Gal 3^ 4'-', He 6", Ja 2* etc. ). The figure of inheritance is also used ia reference to Abraham, and to the Israelites, etc. AiaOiiKTi is often translated ' testament ' by AV, especially in reference to the institution of the Lord's Supper (Lk •.>2-'» etc.

, 1 Co 11"»), but it should be ' covenant,' except perhaps in He Q'"- ", where the rendering ' testament ' is defended by many scholars (see commentaries, i.l.) RV baa ' covenant ' throughout, often with ' testament ' in the margin, except that in He 9"- " ' testament ' ia placed in the text, and the margin states that the Greek word means either ' covenant ' or ' testament.' In Lk 12" we read that ' one said unto him, .Mjuster, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.'

See also INHERITANCE. LiTEKATtmE. — Benzinffer, Ueb. Arch. p. 364 ff.; Nowack. Lehrbuch der lleb. Arch. p. 348ff. ; Jacobs, Studiejt in liil'liral Arcliaotoijy, p. 48iY. See alao Sandav-Hcadlain on Ro 8'2 17 . ncysclilBii, ST Theot. i. 3SS t., ii. 340 ; Weiss, Dibl. Throt. of -NT, Index; Westcott, Hebrews, 167-169. W. H. BENNETT.