scigirl

Hey everyone,

Well once again I'm writing a letter to the editor about this "biblical marriage" nonsense. One of these days they'll actually publish one.

I want to make a list of "biblical marriages" and then modern secular marriages - it would look something like this:

Biblical marriage:
Male rapists were ordered to marry their victims
Slaves were married and bred by their owners
Females were often treated as property in a marriage, and the average age of marriage for a female was ??????????

Today's "evil secular marriage":
Rapists are put in jail
Slavery does not exist

You get the idea.

Anyway - I'm hoping to specifically learn the average age of marriage for a female during OT times. My guess is it is much younger - and would not be accepted today by Focus on the Family.

Thanks in advance for all your help...

scigirl

DrJim

scigirl:

You can probably find more detailed answers, but P. J. King and L. E. Stagers' "Life in Biblical Israel" (Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), (a rather conservative ppublication if there ever was one) makes the following points:


They write:
"It is difficult to determine the age of the bridge and groom at the time of marriage. The Bible provides no specific information on this subject. AS indicated above, it is save to assume the bride was considerably younger than the groom, and childbearing would have begun shortly after puberty." (p. 54).

On p. 37 they write:
"For the other parameter [the first being life expectancy, under 40], age at marriage, no real statistic exist for ancient Israel. A few anecdotal incidents, and a wealth of ancient documentation, suggests that wome married young, while still in their teens, sometimes early teens, if fact; men waited until well into their twenties or even early theirties before marrying. in Egypt, girls were married between twelve and fourteen; boys, between fourteen and twenty."

Some other interesting points you might want to inform the editor of:

from p. 55: "Marriage between cousins was not unusual in the Bible: Isaace married his cousin's daughter Rebekah (Gen. 24:15, 24, 47). Jacob married his maternal uncle's daughter Rachel (Gen. 28:2, 5; 29:9-10).

p. 55. "Marriages were orignarily arranged by the parents according to Near Eastern custom, although this practice is not required by biblical law."

p. 56: the authors make another point which may be of interest, I don't know thier proof for it: "Marriage was not considered a religious ite but a "civil contract"". It seems to me that the union of Adam and Eve (in Gen 2:24) is a charter myth for the sacralization of marriage, whetehr or not the actual society understood it in that way.

Anyway, you might also want to look into levirate marriage too. This is hardly acceptable in the modern world too!
p. 56: "If a married man died without children, his borther was to cohabit with the widow for several reasons: to prevent the widow from marrying an outsider (exogamy), to perpetuate the name of the deceased, and to preserve within the family the inherited land of hte deceased."

You might be able to strenghten you letter by showing how the "biblical" family is part and parcel of a whole mass of other social and economic considerations which are completely incompatible with the modern world, even with modern Christianity itself!

Dr. Jim.

PS: I met a judge in my town several months ago who said he was a very traditional Christian. He got visibly angry when someone brought up the very issue you are writing about, and argued exactly what you are intending to write about! He said the selectivity of the conservative "family" advocates make the whole thing absurd form a legal point of view.

Anyway, sorry I could't come up with some firm numbers for you.

Good luck getting published!

Toto

Polygamy

Regarding the OP,

Women were treated as "property" in a marriage, and the value of the property depended on its virginity. That is why a "rapist" had to marry his victim - he had devalued the property and therefore had to take on support of the woman. But the word "rape" may only mean "illicit sexual intercourse," not the forcible rape that is implied by the modern term. Or it may include forcible rape. The woman's consent was apparently irrelevant compared to her father's consent.

I don't know that Biblical slaves were bred. I think that was the practice in the American south, where slavery was a commercial enterprise.

In modern society we have an "age of consent" - the minimum age at which a person can consent to either marriage or sexual intercourse. I don't think there is an age of consent in any ancient or traditional society, which lacks the extended adolescence of our times. When the girl reaches puberty, it's time to marry her off.

The issue of age of consent has come up in regard to Mohammed, who is alleged to have taken a 6 year old girl as one of his 12 wives and consummated the marriage when she was 9.

Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs

Another notable Biblical marriage you might want to mention is the story of Rachel

You should also note Landover Baptists Bible based marriage amendments

Vinnie

My readings suggested a 12-13ish number.

Vinnie

scigirl

Thanks so much you guys!

I'll post the final draft of my letter here at some point...

sci

rlogan

Sounds to me like you need a scripture refresher, young lady:

1 Corinthians 14: 34-35

In Christ,
Rlogan

spin

Methinks you be pushin' the word "church" a little too far, you be.


spin

rlogan

Well, we can't very well have them preaching in a public forum can we?

Think of the chaos and confusion...

Wayne Delia

Hmmm. Let's see...

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 reads "34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame. 35 But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?"

Considering the original question involved the average age of marriage in Biblical times, the first verse avoids the question (essentially, "Don't ask that question until you have learned not to ask that question") and the second verse is entirely irrelevant. That seems to be a stereotypical fundamentalist Christian response.

WMD

Amaleq13

You've somehow gotten the wrong passage and, thus, missed the joke. The actual passage commands women to be quiet in church:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (KJV)