Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2.djvu/607

BETHSAN favour of one,, ''Histor. Geogr. of the Holy Land'', 457 sqq.; Marta in Rev Bl, Ul, 445; Bout, Geogr. d. alt. Palast. hee on Br, 1896), at 1 qa: Foren in Zeitechr. d. Deutsch. Pal. Ver., II 66. See also:, Jewish People a New York, isn, a Tait 135; Heer in Vic., Dict. de ta Buble, 1, 1713 saa.

II.—Survey of Western Palest., Jerusalem, 115 sqq.: Palest. Explor. Fund, Quart. Stat., 1888, 115 sqq.;, ''Bibl. Researches'' (London, 1856), I, 330 sq.; Guerin, Jerusalem (Paris, 1889), 282 sqq.; Lievin de Hamme, Terre Sainte (1897), I, 338–340 Tobler, Denkblatter aus Jerus., 53–69; SCHICK in Zeilechr, d. Deutsch. Pal, Ver., XI 178–183; in  ''Dict. de'' la Bible 1723 sqq.

III.—Lequien: Oriens Christ., Il, 1577.

Bethsan (Heb. jxt}-nva, Beth Soh or {t-m3, Beth Shan, “place of rest”), a city within Issachar, but assigned to Manasses (Jos., 11; I Par., vii, ); later Scythopolis, now the village Reisin, three miles west of the Jordan. Because of its strength the Israelites could not take it at the time of the conquest (Jos., xvii, 16; Judges, i, 27), and when the Philistines’ hung up’ the bodies of Saul_and_ his three sons on its walls after the battle of Gelboe (II Kings, xxi, 12), it was probably still in the hands of the Chanaanites. Under Solomon it was the centre of an administrative district (III Kings, iv, About the beginning of the third century it was named Scythopolis, probably because Seythians had settled there. After paying tribute to the Ptolemies, it passed under Syrian rule in 198, and in 107 fell into the hands of John Hyreanus. Pompey took it from the Jews, and thenceforth it was 2 free city and one of the chief towns of Decapolis. In Christian times it became an episcopal and later 4 metropolitan see.

, Bibl. Researches (London, 1850), WI, 326-332; Survey of Western Palest., Mem. II, 101-114:, Jewish People (tr. New York, 1861), II, 1, 110–113;, Palastina (Utrecht, 1714), 992, 998;, Samarie (Paris, 1874, 1875), I, 284–299.

Bethulia (Gr.,  ), the city whose deliverance by Judith, when besieged by Holofernes, forms the subject of the Book of Judith. The view that Bethulia is merely a symbolic name for Jerusalem or a fictitious town, has met with little favour, even among those who deny the historical character of the book. Bett bulia is clearly distinguished from Jerusalem (iv, 6; xi, 14, 19; xv, 5, 8; the references throughout the article being. to the fuller Greek text), and the topographical details leave no doubt that the story, even if it be only a pious romance, is connected with a definite place. Its site, however, is in dispute. Beside Sinur, Mithiliyeh, or Misiliyeh, Tell Kheibar and Beit-Ilfa, which have divided opin- ion for some time, Haraiq el-Mallah, Khirbet. Sheikh Shibel, el-Barid aud Sichem (Bethulia being considered a pseudonym) have recently been proposed as sites of Bethulia.

The city was situated on a mountain overlooking the plain of Jezrael, or Esdrelon, and commanding narrow passes to the south (iv, 6, 7; vi, 11–13); at the foot of the mountain there was an important spring, and other springs were in the neighbourhood (vi, 11; vii, 3,7, 12). Moreover it lay within investing lines which ran through Dothain, or Dothan, now Tell Dothân, to Belthem, or Belma, no doubt the same as the Belamon of viii, 3, and thence to Kyamon, or Chelmon, “which lies over against Esdrelon” (vii, 3). These data point to a site on the heights west of Jenîn (Engannim), between the plains of Exdrelon and Dothan, where Haraig, Kh. Sheikh Shibel, and el-Bârid lie close together, Such a. site best fulfils all requirements. It lies between lines drawn from Tell Dothân to Belʽema, probably Belma, or Belamon, and from the latter to el-Yâmûn, probably Kyamon; there are a number of springs and wells in the neighbourhood, and near by are the two passes of Kefr Adin and Burqîn, so narrow

in places that two horsemen cannot ride abreast. One of the three above-named places is in all probability the site of ancient Bethulia. The other sites are all deficient in some essential requirement.

Bethune, James, See Beaton, James,

Betrothal (Lat. sponsalia), the giving of one's troth—that is, one’s true faith or promise. Betrothal, in the Catholic Church, is « deliberate and free, mutual, true promise, externally expressed, of future marriage between determinate and fit persons. It is a promise, compact, or agreement—not merely an intention; and, like all contracts, it must be entered to with deliberation proportionate to the obligation which it begets; it must be free from force, substantial error, and grave fear. The promise given must be mutual; a promise on the part of one only, with acceptance by the other, does not constitute a betrothal. The consent, of course, as in all contracts, must be true, or sincere, not feigned; it must be given with the intention of binding oneself, and this intention must be expressed verbally, by writing, or by action, in person or by proxy. Lastly, this contract, like matrimony, can exist only between two definite poe whose capacity is recognized by the Church; that is, between whom there is no matrimonial impediment, either as regards the licitness or validity of the contract. The betrothal is a promise of future marriage, and hence it differs from the marriage contract itself, which deals with that state as in the present.

.—Formal betrothal is not in the United States, or in English-speaking countries generally, as it is among certain nations, where the ceremony is sometimes solemn (before ecclesias cal witnesses) and sometimes private (made at home before the family or friends as witnesses). Among English-speaking peoples the betrothal, if it occurs, is generally without the presence of a third party. In Spain & C. G,, 31 January, 1880; 11 April, 1891) and in tin America (Acta et Decreta Cone. PI. Amer. Lat., p. 259, in note 1) a betrothal compact is considered areata by the Church unless written documents pass between the contracting parties. This practice obtains in other countries also, but its observance is not necessary to validate the agreement.

.—A valid betrothal begets chiefly two effects. There arises first an obligation in justice, binding the contracting fone to keep their agreement; viz. to marry at the time specified; or, when the date of marriage is not agreed upon, whenever the second party to the compact reasonably demands the fulfilment of the marriage-promise. Marriage. consequently, with a third party is forbidden, though not invalid. There arises, secondly, owing to an ecclesiastical law, a diriment impediment, known as “public decency”, extending to relatives in the first degree of the’ parties betrothed. Hence, a marriage contracted between the male party to a betrothal and the mother, sister, or daughter of the other party; and, vice versa, between the woman and the father, brother, or son of the man, would be null and void. This impediment continues to exist in all its force, even after the betrothal has been legitimately dissolved. The first of these effects, an obligation of justice, may arise, it will be seen, from a betrothal compact which has not all the essentials of the definition given above; not so, however