Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-06-2013, 05:06 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3397304.html

Quote:

A trio of Iowa-based religious scholars penned an op-ed in a local paper this week, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.

But in all fairness, it has to be admitted that it isn't as simple as that. If the Pentateuch acknowledges polygamy it was before the revelation at Sinai. Even as early as the Zaddokite Document of Qumran (section 7) polygamy was an example of fornication, on the basis of the Pentateuch. Even David, according to the written Torah would be guilty of polygamy, but since the Torah was hidden until Zadok (presumably during the reign of Solomon). One would have to think that monogamy was enshrined in the giving of the Law. This understanding becomes even stronger outside the Masoretic text. The LXX supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch has 'twain' in Genesis 2:24 in order to enjoin monogamy. The LXX has 'from the two' the Samaritan 'from the two of them.' The Vulgate and Peshitta read similarly.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8Hy...ateuch&f=false

Toto · 06-06-2013, 07:01 PM

From the Des Moins Register article:

Quote:

The fact that marriage is not defined as only that between one man and one woman is reflected in the entry on “marriage” in the authoritative Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): “Marriage is one expression of kinship family patterns in which typically a man and at least one woman cohabitate publicly and permanently as a basic social unit” (p. 861).

The phrase “at least one woman” recognizes that polygamy was not only allowed, but some polygamous biblical figures (e.g., Abraham, Jacob) were highly blessed. In 2 Samuel 12:8, the author says that it was God who gave David multiple wives: “I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom. ... And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more” (Revised Standard Version).

In fact, there were a variety of unions and family configurations that were permissible in the cultures that produced the Bible, and these ranged from monogamy (Titus 1:6) to those where rape victims were forced to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and to those Levirate marriage commands obligating a man to marry his brother’s widow regardless of the living brother’s marital status (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4). Others insisted that celibacy was the preferred option (1 Corinthians 7:8; 28).

Cheerful Charlie · 06-06-2013, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From the Des Moins Register article:

Quote:

The fact that marriage is not defined as only that between one man and one woman is reflected in the entry on “marriage” in the authoritative Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): “Marriage is one expression of kinship family patterns in which typically a man and at least one woman cohabitate publicly and permanently as a basic social unit” (p. 861).

The phrase “at least one woman” recognizes that polygamy was not only allowed, but some polygamous biblical figures (e.g., Abraham, Jacob) were highly blessed. In 2 Samuel 12:8, the author says that it was God who gave David multiple wives: “I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom. ... And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more” (Revised Standard Version).

In fact, there were a variety of unions and family configurations that were permissible in the cultures that produced the Bible, and these ranged from monogamy (Titus 1:6) to those where rape victims were forced to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and to those Levirate marriage commands obligating a man to marry his brother’s widow regardless of the living brother’s marital status (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4). Others insisted that celibacy was the preferred option (1 Corinthians 7:8; 28).

Biblically, you can sell your daughter into concubinage.

Exodus 21
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Note that the laws of Moses only mentions marriage 8 times.

Cheerful Charlie

stephan huller · 06-06-2013, 08:02 PM

These kind of arguments are the worst:

Quote:

The fact that marriage in the authoritative Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): “Marriage is one expression of kinship family patterns in which typically a man and at least one woman cohabitate publicly and permanently as a basic social unit” (p. 861).

Yes, Eerdman's is supposed to be the last word, the 'Bible of the Bible.' Nonsense. I can accept any argument if it is developed rationally - the argument that the Bible is wrong, that the Bible is nonsense, that people who follow the Bible are misguided or worse - but that all the traditions which cleave to the Pentateuch should be understood to be fucking clueless because of a recent American publication is the height of stupidity. But then again how many words can you fit into a newspaper article ...

Toto · 06-06-2013, 10:02 PM

I guess I don't understand - are you trying to say that plural marriages are not sanctioned in the Bible, at least at some point?

These Iowa scholars are not arguing in favor of polygamy. They are arguing in favor of gay marriage, or against the idea that the Bible endorses only one man and one woman.

stephan huller · 06-06-2013, 10:14 PM

Yes I know what the purpose of this article is. I'd have to be living in a cave not to understand that. I have no problem with same sex marriages. But the Pentateuch begins with the assumption of the sanctity of man and woman (= the two). I don't think this should have any relevance as to whether society at large sanctions same sex marriage. I think even religious people should be thankful that they can go back to being a separate culture within the greater culture. That will be good for Christianity. Everyone wins. But the idea that Genesis 2:24 isn't about the absolute sanctity of marriage is ridiculous:

Quote:

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother, and cleaves to his wife, and from the two of them there becomes one flesh" (Gen. 2:24 SP).

The words are explicitly employed in Samaritan marriage contracts (see Pummer Samraritan Marriage Contracts http://books.google.com/books?id=B93...%3A%22&f=false)

How much more explicit does it/can it get? Samaritans apparently tolerated second wives under certain special conditions in order to fulfill the fundamental commandment to be fruitful and multiply http://books.google.com/books?id=B93...lygamy&f=false

Toto · 06-06-2013, 10:43 PM

How much more explicit? It evidently has not been explicit enough for some Jews:

Does Jewish Law Forbid Polygamy?

Short answer: No

stephan huller · 06-07-2013, 12:35 AM

Well yes and no. There is before the giving of the Law and after. This is what I think get's lost in this discussion. The Patriarchs weren't 'saints' in the Christian sense. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph commit 'sins' again in the Christian sense. The reason Moses stands above the rest is because he was the most like God - that is perfect - but even then he is described as 'meek.' (Numbers 12:3).

There is a pre-existent sense I think that the Torah was something 'god-given' (I think the origin of the term 'Dosithean') which makes man and mankind better. To date the revelation of this law which heals the imperfections of Creation to the time of Moses is silly. For the critical historian dates the revelation to the early Persian period. But I think it must have been difficult to impose these mystical ideas on a Semitic culture which accepted monogamy. Hence the description of the Patriarchs as polygamous. But then there was Moses, the original Paul, the original Mohammed, and then the truth, the 'perfect religion' was revealed and along with it monogamy.

I think there is a pre-existent Jewish mystical interest in sex and sexuality which was 'meant' for the confines of monogamy. It is at least as old as the Shir Hashirim. The Samaritans however do not extend this sexuality to God.

Zwaarddijk · 06-07-2013, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How much more explicit? It evidently has not been explicit enough for some Jews:

Does Jewish Law Forbid Polygamy?

Short answer: No

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.

stephan, grow up already.

Roger Pearse · 06-07-2013, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

These Iowa scholars are not arguing in favor of polygamy. They are arguing in favor of gay marriage, or against the idea that the Bible endorses only one man and one woman.

It would be interesting to try to imagine something that such people would NOT "argue in favour of", if the people who control the media agenda in their day suddenly required it.

Servility is always repulsive.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

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

06-06-2013, 10:02 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I guess I don't understand - are you trying to say that plural marriages are not sanctioned in the Bible, at least at some point? These Iowa scholars are not arguing in favor of polygamy. They are arguing in favor of gay marriage, or against the idea that the Bible endorses only one man and one woman.

06-06-2013, 10:43 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	How much more explicit? It evidently has not been explicit enough for some Jews: Does Jewish Law Forbid Polygamy? Short answer: No

06-07-2013, 12:35 AM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well yes and no. There is before the giving of the Law and after. This is what I think get's lost in this discussion. The Patriarchs weren't 'saints' in the Christian sense. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph commit 'sins' again in the Christian sense. The reason Moses stands above the rest is because he was the most like God - that is perfect - but even then he is described as 'meek.' (Numbers 12:3). There is a pre-existent sense I think that the Torah was something 'god-given' (I think the origin of the term 'Dosithean') which makes man and mankind better. To date the revelation of this law which heals the imperfections of Creation to the time of Moses is silly. For the critical historian dates the revelation to the early Persian period. But I think it must have been difficult to impose these mystical ideas on a Semitic culture which accepted monogamy. Hence the description of the Patriarchs as polygamous. But then there was Moses, the original Paul, the original Mohammed, and then the truth, the 'perfect religion' was revealed and along with it monogamy. I think there is a pre-existent Jewish mystical interest in sex and sexuality which was 'meant' for the confines of monogamy. It is at least as old as the Shir Hashirim. The Samaritans however do not extend this sexuality to God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.