Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-07-2013, 05:47 AM

Z

Quote:

Why does stephan huller refuse to accept the releveance of jewish law accepting polygamy as an indicator as to the biblical position on it? It's like he has a compulsive obsessive disorder forcing him to disregard relevant data points and toot his own horn (the samaritans) all the fucking time.

Wow. Let's think about this. I am a Jew who happens to think the Samaritans are basically more in keeping with original Jewish beliefs. I think the Sadducees and Karaites often agree with the Samaritans against the Rabbanites and Pharisees. Part of this understanding is implied in Charlesworth's recent article on evidence from Qumran which implies that at least some Jews accepted the sanctity of Gerizim. It is obvious that Deuteronomy 21 tolerates having two wives (v. 15 - 17). But it is worth noting according to the Damascus Document, polygamy is fornication. The builders of the wall are accused of being caught twice in Belial's net of “fornication” by taking two wives “in their lifetime”. This accusation is then followed by three biblical proof texts, (two explicit and one implicit) from the Pentateuch to back this up.

Why exclusively cite the opinions of modern Jewry over their ancestors? The idea state of marriage was clearly always taken to be two - man and woman. I am not supporting that claim, just reporting what the ancients believed, the opinion I think is decisive.

Clivedurdle · 06-07-2013, 06:44 AM

Don't forget David and Jonathan! And btw, aren't they with Solomon mythical stories with possible local warlords at base?

andrewcriddle · 06-07-2013, 11:12 AM

Hi Stephan

I agree that the ideal of marriage in the Hebrew Bible is monogamous.
However before the DSS I can't find any indication that polygamy was considered unlawful or illegitimate or invalid.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 06-07-2013, 11:37 AM

Andrew,

I think the only unresolved question among Qumran scholars is whether the Temple Scroll was produced by the same community that wrote the Damascus Document. From Baumgartner's summary:

Quote:

There has been a great deal of scholarly debate about the denunciation of polygamy found in CD 4.20–21, ‘they take two women in their lifetime’, which can be taken to apply to remarriage after divorce as well.6 One of the questions which should have been posed but has not, to my knowledge, is how such restrictions would have been reconciled by the Qumran exegetes with Pentateuchal law which explicitly condones both polygamy and divorce. The whole subject of Qumran marriage halakhah must now be reassessed in the light of the Temple Scroll.

The author of the Temple Scroll was fully aware of the legality of polygamy and remarriage after divorce in the Torah. This can be inferred from the reference in 11QT 54.4 to the ‘vow of a widow or a divorced woman’ (Num. 30.10) and the beginning of 11QT 64 which, though only partially preserved, cites the provisions in Deut. 21.15 concerning a man who has two wives. Yet in elaborating the law of the king, the Temple Scroll provides that ‘he shall not take in addition to her [his first wife] another wife, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life; and if she dies, he shall take for himself another from his father’s house’ (11QT 57.17–19). The only logical way to account for this discrepancy is to assume that the king as a role model for moral behavior was subject to supererogatory restrictions limiting him to one wife during her lifetime; divorcing her would not free him, as it would a commoner, to marry another. This two-tiered approach to halakhah is manifested elsewhere in the Temple Scroll in the sphere of ritual purity; here a distinction is made between ordinary men and those who aspire to a higher level of purity.7

What we have noted is, of course, directly pertinent to the proper understanding of the marriage restrictions in the Damascus Document. Here the ban of polygamy and by extension the prohibition of remarriage after divorce applicable to the king (nasi’) is held up as a model of the higher moral standard in marriage. According to this standard, marriage is an exclusive covenant between one man and one woman ‘in their lifetime’. It is called the ‘foundation of creation’, derived from the words in Gen. 1.27, ‘male and female He created them’. The further consequence drawn in the Gospels that what God has joined together cannot by man be put asunder8 is not explicitly stated in the Damascus Document, but we may infer from the Temple Scroll that the king as well as any morally scrupulous adherent of the sect could not remarry while his first spouse was still living. Needless to say, this lends a dimension of fateful finality to the one and only choice of a partner in matrimony.

Both Levine and Schiffman argued against Yadin's identification of the Temple Scroll as stemming from the community associated with the primary sectarian scrolls (e.g., the Community Rule, the Damascus Document). Levine shows that the Temple Scroll in several respects is distinct enough from the Qumran Scrolls to warrant its identification outside of the community that authored the Community Rule and the Damascus Document. At the same, both Schiffman and Levine highlight the sectarian nature of the text in a more general sense.

Juma · 06-07-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But the idea that Genesis 2:24 isn't about the absolute sanctity of marriage is ridiculous:

Eh. No it isnt. It says absolutly nothing about sanctity of marriage.

stephan huller · 06-07-2013, 01:46 PM

Yes it is. What else can it possibly be about? There are even reasons to think that Jesus's interpretation of the material derives from traditional Samaritan exegesis which may have been held in common with Jewish sectarian groups. http://books.google.com/books?id=396...aritan&f=false

Juma · 06-07-2013, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

What else can it possibly be about?

Itgat your best argument? "I dont have a clue so it must say this (even if it doent say so)"..
I hope you can better then that.

Sabine Grant · 06-07-2013, 02:20 PM

:blank:

stephan huller · 06-07-2013, 02:42 PM

Ummm. What else can this be about? We've seen the Samaritan interpretation, now the Karaites: http://www.karaitejudaism.org/talks/...lationship.htm

Quote:

Bereshit/Genesis 2:23-24

23 Then the man (ha’adam הָאָדָם) said, “This one at last Is bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman (ishah אִשָּׁה), For from man (me’iysh מֵ*אִישׁ) was she taken.”24 Hence a man (iysh אִישׁ) leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife (ba’ish’to בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ), so that they become one flesh.

Here we see the meeting of Ish and his ishah. Adam and Chava meet and he takes her to him. Verse 24, appears to be a statement from Yehovah but some have stated that Adam could have said it since quotes are not in Hebrew and are purely arbitrary in this verse. In other words, Adam could have said this also.

We see that Ishah (Aleph-Shin-Hey) is the Hebrew word for woman. It is reference number 802, which is from Ish. It is found on page 175-178 of the NEHC and on pages 61 of the BDB.

We see that in this verse that we just read that her man or her husband would be ish’to and so we will focus on these places in the Tanakh so we can see what specifically does her husband/man do with her.

Iskander · 06-07-2013, 02:57 PM

Gen 2:24 is about prohibiting forbidden unions to inferiors

And making rabbis. Like this

N/A

Genesis 2
24. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Rashi's comments:

Therefore, a man shall leave: The Divine Spirit says this, to prohibit forbidden unions to the Noahides. — [from Sanh. 58a]
one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2013, 06:44 AM	#12
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Don't forget David and Jonathan! And btw, aren't they with Solomon mythical stories with possible local warlords at base?

06-07-2013, 11:12 AM	#13
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Hi Stephan I agree that the ideal of marriage in the Hebrew Bible is monogamous. However before the DSS I can't find any indication that polygamy was considered unlawful or illegitimate or invalid. Andrew Criddle

06-07-2013, 01:46 PM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes it is. What else can it possibly be about? There are even reasons to think that Jesus's interpretation of the material derives from traditional Samaritan exegesis which may have been held in common with Jewish sectarian groups. http://books.google.com/books?id=396...aritan&f=false

06-07-2013, 02:20 PM	#18
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	:blank:

06-07-2013, 02:57 PM	#20
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Gen 2:24 is about prohibiting forbidden unions to inferiors And making rabbis. Like this N/A Genesis 2 24. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Rashi's comments: Therefore, a man shall leave: The Divine Spirit says this, to prohibit forbidden unions to the Noahides. — [from Sanh. 58a] one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a] http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.