An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Biblical Marriage
Posted by HOLLY IN CINCINNATI, Copy Editor in Health, Religion, Society.
Sep 6th, 2007 | 43 responses
Sep 6th, 2007 | 43 responses
Biblical Marriage consists of the following:
A man, whether married or single, has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman. That’s it.
I don’t think the PureFest/True Love Waits sponsors realize this when they ask students to pledge “I will remain pure until I am biblically married.”
43 Responses to “Biblical Marriage”
Not that I have a dog in his race, but someone has to ask it: And your citations for that are…?
All you need to do is read the Pentateuch.
Holly,
That’s just Greek for the first six books of the Bible – so you’re merely restating (which marginally more specificity) your original assertion about what the Bible says sabout marriage, which doesn’t answer my question. In other words, your reply is “you’re the one disputing my assertion, so you do the research to disprove it.”
I’ll start with the disproving.
read more here
I have no connection with that site and am not even slightly a christian but come that assertion was ridiculous.
Sorry, the Five Books of Moses came in Hebrew, not Greek. I am referring to the Hebrew Bible and from a Jewish standpoint my assertion is correct.
Holly, you’re really doing yourself no favors here.
To register a concession first, you’re correct, and I was wrong: from memory I said six books when it is, in fact, only five. However, regardless of what language they are or were written in, “Pentateuch” is the Greek name for the first six books of the Bible. Furthermore, finessing your standpoint (Jewish vs. christian) (a) is irrelevant when the point under dispute is from the books both faiths take as canonical, and (b) doesn’t provide specific support for your assertion any more than limiting the inquiry to five books. You made a statement about what the Bible says, Holly. When called out on it, you invert the burden of proof, demanding that if I don’t agree with you, I (and by implication any other reader who’s dubious of your claim) should provide citations to disprove your assertion. That isn’t your prerogative. You made the assertion, so you either back it up with citations, or you withdraw the assertion.
This isn’t to say you’re wrong, by the way, only that it is your burden to prove your factual assertions.
Doh, I should have written in the link that it’s the Greek name for the first five books, as Holly correctly noted.
Anyone that has read the books of Kings should now that Biblical Marriage involves polygamy and concubines.
Good – thanks for recognizing the difference between the Pentateuch and the Hexateuch. Now go read the Holy Scriptures because I am correct and any scholar knows it.
Holly – you are reverting to old form.
If you can prove your assertion, do so. Should be simple if what you say is true, and is from first hand knowledge.
Otherwise, many of us, myself included, will just assume you are flinging out second-hand BS rumors that you have heard from friends, that you have no direct knowledge of their veracity, and cannot cash that check.
Because of course it would be the Jewish “Bible” that most Americans, especially the ones going on about biblical marriage, think of right? Give us a break!
In addition I don’t believe what you are referring to is part of the Torah, but rather the Mishnah.
Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1 where, as I understand, it states that a woman is acquired in three ways. Money, documents, or sexual intercourse. It also states that she acquires herself thru a divorce or husbands death.
Wow, remarkable statments with twisted logic and shakey backing.
All of which just goes to show that you can find something in the Bible to back any view you care to have.
I was fascinatied to learn from a documantary that some orthodox Jeweish women who are lesbian value marriage (to a man) very highly because they want to fulfill the role of raising children in a tradional family setting. The rabbi in the documentay found biblical justification for having a same sex lover, as long as family duties were not neglected (including intimate duties) .
I thought that was very sensible, siince all parties (including the husband) seemed satisfied with the arrangement.
So, why does it matter if the Christians who have one interpretation of Biblical marriage are aware or not of the Jewish interpretation based on the earliest manuscripts that described customs of an ancient culture? Modern Jews don’t define marriage that way anymore either, and the other books of Christian Scripture lend a different interpretation altogether.
domajot said:
That would only be so if she had “shown[n]” that the Bible says what she asserts it to say. But Holly hasn’t done that, despite being called out on it. In the absence of citations – which Holly has repeatedly refused to provide, instead demanding that anyone who doubts the assertion do her research for her – your statement amounts to this: “unsupported allegations that the Bible backs up your view just goes to show that you can find something in the Bible to back any view you care to have.”
Fortunately, the Bible warns about this. Jesus says very specifically “2007 years after my birth, Holly in Cincinnati will make an unsupported allegation and will sacrifice credibility by not only failing but refusing to back it up.” It’s right there in the gospels. Huh? What do you mean “Simon it doesn’t say that?” I don’t have to back up my assertions! “All you need to do is read the [New Testament]!” “[F]rom a Jewish standpoint my assertion is correct”! “Now go read the Holy Scriptures because I am correct and any scholar knows it”! See how silly it sounds, Holly?
Getting hung up on details prevents understanding how dependent every religious person is on the particular understanding of one’s own religious guides and teachers.
Knowing how bibilical texts have been applied to life’s dicta historically gives rich context to current interpretations.
When citing chapter and verse as the basis of scriptural understanding,, one is still doing so with a particular interpretation of the cited text.
Just being aware that other interpretations are quite possible would be quite helpful in this God-sensitized US culture.
But Domajot, last week you told me that the devil was in the details and that you didn’t think that making general unsupported assertions was helpful to the debate.
Simon,
This week I’m telling you that just being aware of others’ asseretions, supported and unsupported, can be illuminating in itself.
Domajot, congratulations on evading the trap.
You never said that – but getting hung up on details like whether you actually said it or not prevents me from attributing any statement I want to you.
Lookit, the bottom line is this: when one makes a factual assertion – as I did about what you said and Holly did about what the Bible says – one ought to be able to support it. If I announce that Holly just e-mailed me, admitting that I’d caught her out but she wasn’t going to admit that in public so could I just shut up about it and she’d be more careful in the future, she’d say, correctly, that I was lying, and if I insisted that I was telling the truth, I suspect one of the editors would – reasonably enough – demand evidence of it, and so would you.
Holly made a very specific assertion about what the Bible says. I had no idea at the start of this thread whether she was right or wrong, but her repeated evasions and refusals to back up her assertion makes an increasingly convincing case that she flat-out made it up, perhaps because it was a convenient frame for the story she wanted to sneer at. Honestly, at this point, I think Holly flat-out made it up. I think her statement characterizing the Biblical definition of marriage is a lie. I think Holly has no scripture to cite that backs up her assertion, and if she did, she’d have done so already. On the other hand, if I’m wrong, if Holly didn’t lie and if the Bible really does define marriage as occurring when any “man, whether married or single, has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman,” Holly can easily prove me wrong by posting supporting citations. I yet again invite her to do so.
Her post rests on the factual assertion as its major premise: the Bible defines marriage purely in terms of sex, the “True Love Waits” crowd abstain until “Biblically married,” therefore the TLW crowd don’t understand what Bibical marriage involves and advance an incoherent position. If the factual assertion is false, the syllogism fails and the bottom drops out of Holly’s post. So you’re wrong to the extent that Holly’s assertion about the Biblical definition of marriage isn’t “illuminating” about the subject at hand, although concededly, it might be “illuminating” about Holly: if a writer is willing to make unsupported allegations about verifiable facts because it suits their purpose, that casts suspicion on every factual allegation they make that can’t be easily-verified. It goes to credibility.
If I asserted something you didn’t agree with, perhaps that both the original understanding of Article II clearly gives the President inherent wartime power to detain any person in the United States for any reason and that the Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld this in case after case, I think you’d demand that I back up the assertion. I suspect you share Holly’s dim view of the “true love waits” people, and it’s making you excessively credulous and willing to forgive an incredible lapse on her part. I doubt that you give John Yoo’s assertions about what the Constitution says on executive power quite the same level of deference.
Simon -
Whatever.
I find observing how people relate to religious dogmas, whether based on sacred texts or not, very interesting.
I think that familiarity with the historical and cultural contexts of religious dogma is extemely illuminating and very interesting.
A squabble about who said what on a blog – not so interesting.
In short, for the SELFISH reasons of feeding my personal interests, I find Holly’s assertion more valuable than the resolution of your complaint that it’s not documented by her.
Sorry, but that’s the view from my vantage point.
PS
To be honest, if the topic were different, I might well see your arguments in a different light.
Domajot, I just don’t understand what you’re arguing. What does Holly’s post “illuminate,” if the factual accuracy of her assertion is besides the point? What is the “value” to you of the assertion? Are you saying that it “illuminates” Holly’s opinion about what the Bible says (which is the most it can possibly illuminate without deciding on the facutal predicate – it can’t tell you anything at all about the TLW folks Holly’s sneering at) and is therefore “valuable” because it tells you something about Holly’s views? What is your vantage point?
Excluding the New Testament from discussion is required for the original assertion–as is reading very selectively out of context. The Bible, in all its parts, is self-contradictory, and anyone claiming one bit as authoritative while disregarding the remainder AND the whole is doing hat tricks.
The passage from Matthew 19:5 (also found in Mark 10:7) is the closest thing to a clear definition of marriage as can be found in the New Testament.
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
The passage at 1 Corinthians 7:2 is confirmatory.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Also selective quotation, but the New Testament passages do not require that one accept Old Testament standards of women as property, or accept polygamy as legal, and are not contraverted anywhere in the NT. By restricting the definition to the Pentateuch, one is actively excluding the bulk of the Bible in claiming that one single selective interpretation (and narrowly and very selectively construed at that) as the only possible definition of “biblical marriage,” when the Bible carries more than one possible definition. One can NOT ignore the New Testament basis for “one man, one woman” in assigning meaning to the phrase “biblical marriage” as understood by Christians in a couple of millenia of usage.
A man, whether married or single, has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman. That’s it.
Not even remotely. A married man having sex with a single woman is committing the sin of adultery, not contracting a marriage. A single man having sex with a single woman is committing fornication (also frowned upon), not contracting a marriage. In both cases the woman is likewise either committing fornication, or being raped, in which case the man involved has an extra sin to answer for. Contracting a marriage requires intent to do so, even in the Pentateuch, even though that contractual right belonged to the bride’s family rather than the bride at the time. (Marriage in the Old Testament required a literal transfer of property rights as well. No transfer of those property rights, no binding marriage.)
It is obvious in context that the TLW people are referring to the Christian church ritual that officially sanctifies the joining of a man and a woman as “one flesh” in the eyes of the Church, and said basis is soundly supported in both the NT and in church doctrine, regardless of misconstructions and misapplications of the Pentateuch.
Dear Fans (or not): I have not bothered with the proof-texting you seem to desire because
1) I am busy and,
2) It is elementary and obvious from reading the Five Books of Moses that I am correct.
I am not known for either ignorance or unproved assertions.
Go back to the beginning, when neither the Talmud nor your Christian Scriptures existed and READ THE TEXT.
Why are you so ignorant of the Bible?
Time has passed since Moses and there is a new convenant, as Tully discussed.
What do you want to call the Bibie, Holly?
There are those who reject the New Testament entirely.
Simon,
I find Holly’s conceptualization far more interestiing than Tully’s scripture quoting. One is exciting becuase it’s new and opens the door to fresh ways of thinking; the other is a here-we-go-again experience.
It’s like the ‘what is art’ argument.
The exciting and mind broadening aspect of the discussion comes from seeing what people are capable of conceiving as art, not from a final resolution to the question.
Sorry, to clarify, that last comment was quoting and replying to Holly’s 10:55 comment.
Domajot, I still don’t understand. At most, Holly offered an idiosyncratic “conceptualization” of marriage that neither she nor (unless she can tie it to scripture, which she refuses to do) anyone else agrees with. Why is that “interesting”?
Nice mark of Hebraic fundamentalism there–only the Torah counts, and only Holly’s holistic contextual interpretation of it may be considered.
And you still didn’t cite anything specific, Holly. You appear to be claiming your interpretation is found through a comprehensive holistic contextual reading of the Torah. As you are not offering any specific citation or reasoning to support your assertion, I can’t take it any other way.
It is elementary and obvious from reading the Five Books of Moses that I am correct.
No, it’s not, and I’ve read them, as I have read the both New and Old Testaments in their entirety, and the Apocrypha as well, both the Church-acknowledged non-doctrinal books excluded in the time fo Constantine, and those discovered since then and not acknowledged by the RCC. Which pretty much covers all the Gnostic Gospels as well.
Actually knowing something about and paying attention to the 90% of the Bible written past 700 BC or so hardly makes me ignorant. I’m not the one who seems to be completely unaware of them, and who wants to confine the term “Biblical” to only five books out of the fifty-plus found in a standard Bible.
Doma, while I also find the changing nature of religious interpretation fascinating, as well as the way certain texts are cherry-picked as the “true expression” of the “intentions” of “God” Simon does have a point, though he could have put it less aggressively. The Bible is a very very large book, supporting your claim with “it’s right there in the Bible!” is like saying “It’s right there in the library!” The first burden of proof is on who makes the observation, and only then does it fall on who refutes it. Think of all those who would say “prove God DOESN’T exist”, also a shifting of the appropriate burden of proof.
Mind you, I find the religious conversation more interesting than the one on scholarly integrity as well. There’s no end of horrific things justified in the Bible, I’d cite some but if I did I’d be late for dinner trying to find the pages. Some other time/post, I suppose.
One is exciting becuase it’s new and opens the door to fresh ways of thinking; the other is a here-we-go-again experience.
I believe that’s the first time I’ve ever heard fundamentalist dogmatism referred to as “exciting” and “new.”
Geez, Austin, it was Mr. Hoover on the Grassy Knoll, with the candlestick. Didn’t you know?
Simon
“Why is that “interesting”"
On a very basic level, it;s interesting because it’s an example of the various ‘understndings’ people are capable of reaching.
You won’t get my point, if you don’t get my ‘what is art’ comment.
I’ll give it one more try, but this is my last stab at making my point clear. To wit:
I was wtih a group of artists sitting together in a mountainous setting. They decided to draw/paint while looking in the same direction and compare the results. Some of them changed or added a few details which weren’t in the scene, but helped with the compositon or aided in conveying the mood of the scene. . The others cried ‘foul’..
What was interesting to me was to see how each artist interacted with the scene and the task of depicting it. I learned something about how artists, (or humans,) function. Whether what they did was fair or foul was less interesting, because that would only teach me something about rules, not human nature.
Now, if I were personally afftected by the fair or foul decision, I would prabably be less philosophical and more result oriented. But even in that case, I would still find it mind broadening to see how the various artists executed the task.
That’s it. Take it or leave it.
Lynx -
Yes, Simon does have a point.
As I’ve said, if the subject were different, I might be less passive about it.
Just to add to what Tully said, Holly, let me make it even easier for you. If you can’t cite primary authority, viz. scripture, cite some kind of credible secondary authority – with nearly two millenia of Catholic theologians and hundreds of years of protestant theologians, to say nothing of Jewish scholars, you can’t seriously tell me that the only authority you can cite is yourself.
As Lynx put it above, “supporting your claim with ‘it’s right there in the Bible!’ is like saying ‘It’s right there in the library’” – you’re asking other people to do your research for you. I think at this point, you’ve really forfeited any credibility, and if you really won’t cite some kind of authority, you should do the decent thing and withdraw the post.
domajot:
Well, of course, you can reach any “understanding” if you aren’t interested in factual accuracy!
I could reach the “understanding” that Karl Marx was primarily interested in ensuring the continued oppression of the working class if I was intellectually dishonest enough to completely misrepresent everything he ever wrote and bald-faced enough to make this assertion while flatly refusing to cite any evidence of my assertion in Marx’s writing or the vast body of writing about Marxism, and insisting that “It is elementary and obvious from reading the four volumes of Das Kapital that I am correct.”
What makes no sense to me at all, Holly, is why you would expect Christians to use the ancient Hebrew Scriptures as their definition of “the Bible”. In other words, if you believe you are correct about the Judaic definition of “Biblical marriage”, why is that relevant when obviously the Bible to Jews is something different (and only a subset of) the Bible that Christians refer to?
Everyone’s entitled to their own interpretation, and their own definition of sacred Scripture (or lack thereof) but it seems really odd to act as though you’ve caught the Christians in some kind of foul up of their interpretation. Theirs is different because they’re using a different text, obviously. If a Muslim person spoke of a scriptural basis for their beliefs (which would come from the Koran), I wouldn’t say, “AHA, you’re wrong because the Bible doesn’t say that.” That person might be very well aware that our Bible doesn’t say it, but his does.
What makes no sense to me at all, Holly, is why you would expect Christians to use the ancient Hebrew Scriptures as their definition of “the Bible”. In other words, if you believe you are correct about the Judaic definition of “Biblical marriage”, why is that relevant when obviously the Bible to Jews is something different (and only a subset of) the Bible that Christians refer to?
Everyone’s entitled to their own interpretation, and their own definition of sacred Scripture (or lack thereof) but it seems really odd to act as though you’ve caught the Christians in some kind of foul up of their interpretation. Theirs is different because they’re using a different text, obviously. If a Muslim person spoke of a scriptural basis for their beliefs (which would come from the Koran), I wouldn’t say, “AHA, you’re wrong because the Bible doesn’t say that.” That person might be very well aware that our Bible doesn’t say it, but his does.
Sorry for the double post. I just wanted to add: Doma, I understand your art analogy and I partly agree with your fascination of religious interpretation. It’s why I find the Catholic religion most compelling; we’re honest enough to say that the Bible requires interpretation, and as Simon mentioned, there’ve been theologians who’ve relied on Church tradition and reason in order to formulate a consistent theology that interprets the Bible as a whole, not as a nitpicking of verses.
“I am referring to the Hebrew Bible and from a Jewish standpoint my assertion is correct.”
And you are applying this to a Christian organization why? Second, if you have an interpretatoin, someone wants you to back it up, the bible has this really neat chapter and verse labeling system for answering such questions with great specificity.
Holly c’mon.
“1) I am busy and,”
“Go back to the beginning, when neither the Talmud nor your Christian Scriptures existed and READ THE TEXT.”
So, even though its your thread its upon us, because we have so much more free time apparently, to read the entire Pentateuch? And to locate a version of it thats been out of print for a few thousand years no less.
Several commenters need to stop making this personal. Disagree all you want. Debate the facts and interpretations all you want. Keep making aspersions about the personal integrity or respectability of the poster, and your comments may be edited or deleted without any warnings, as will any comments that seek to debate or dispute this.
Obviously, the new rules are beyond my ability to live within, so the time has come to move on.
It has been a fun few years here. This election cycle should be interesting, to say the least.
While I will miss the interplay with almost all of you, it doesn’t seem like it would have been the same anymore, anyhow.
Hope to see some of you on other, more free-wheeling boards.
Holly you are wrong.
The sex=marriage part of judaism is not stated in the Pentateuch. It was part of the Mishnah (oral law) that is used to interpret the Torah. It sure seems like you repeated a sound bite that you heard or read without really knowing the facts. Sex was never, in any culture or religion that I have ever heard of, all that was necessary for a marriage.
I would also add that as far as written biblical authority, the Mishnah post-dates almost ALL of the Old Testament. Being oral tradition, one can claim it extends back to the dawn of time, I suppose, but good luck proving it.
On the basis of written authorities, then, even if one stops one’s reading at 70 BCE or so, one still must include the OT books past the Pentateuch for consideration. And the Mishnah as codified law does not settle into more-or-less final form until around 200 CE, which would be after the Xian Gospels and the Paulite texts. The Talmud itself, incorporating the Mishnah, does not settle into redacted form for another three centuries, around 500 CE at earliest, which places it well after the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and the preliminary formation of the current canonical form of the Xian Bible.