72 John Makujina ἐκδιδόναι καὶ λαμβάνειν γυναῖκας παρ᾿ ἀλλήλων, “And so, since there was a custom of giving and taking wives from one another…”. This exam- ple is especially intriguing because ἐκδιδόναι καὶ λαμβάνειν γυναῖκας παρ᾿ ἀλλήλων has an idiomatic connotation, meaning something like “making marriage alliances”40. An older but nearly identical expression from Herodotus reports that the ruling class in Corinth ἐδίδοσαν δὲ καὶ ἤγοντο ἐξ ἀλλήλων, “gave and took (in marriage), among themselves” (Hist. 5.92). Its significance is that these marriages were clearly endogamous—unlike the previous example—indicating that giving and taking in marriage does not, sans qualification, signal exogamy, which was the point made earlier with respect to jql-/tn in the OT. The laconic wording of 5.92—no direct objects, “daughters”, “wives”—further increases the idiomatic likelihood of the expression, which, like the previous one, means “making marriage alliances”, i.e., family expansion. Next in relevance is Julian’s Misopogon 37.16 (A.D. 363), which when understood within its (political) context, can easily mean “make mar- riage alliances”, or at the very least is idiomatic for “intermarry”: “For none of us has purchased a field or garden near you, or built a house, or married (any) of you, or given (any) in marriage to you [οὐδὲ ἔγημε παρ᾿ ὑμῶν οὐδὲ ἐξέδωκεν εἰς ὑμᾶς]; neither did we desire your handsome men, nor covet the riches of Assyria”41. Our final specimen comes from Plato’s Leg. 11.926.c.1-3, “the legislator himself, if present and alive (today), would never have forced them to do so, namely taking and giving in marriage [μηδὲ γῆμαι μηδὲ γήμασθαι]”. The regulations for the betrothal of daughters (whose fathers die intes- tate), which precede this text, disclose that “taking and giving in mar- riage” is to be read holistically as “partaking in arranged marriages”—in this case, marriages arranged by the State. Although none of the forgoing examples connote family building, as in Jer 29,6, they nevertheless, indirectly support the thesis of this paper by demonstrating that our expression is inherently hospitable to idiomatic meanings–some of which are identical to OT examples of family expansion. The citation of these texts, however, is no indication that this com- bination always yields an idiomatic sense in Greek literature. In fact, a number of times a literal and atomistic reading is entirely appropriate: Plato, Leg. 5.742.c, “And in marrying and giving in marriage [γαμοῦντα δὲ καὶ ἐκδιδόντα], one must neither give nor receive any dowry at all”; See Dio Chrysostom, Troj. 48 (Cohoon, LCL). 40 Otherwise, a marriage alliance could be expressed via κηδεύω and συνάπτω τινὶ 41 γάμους/λέκτρα/κῆδος, and intermarriage via ἐπιγαμίας ποιοῦμαι. LSJ 946, 1698.