It seems that Alex Frantz of Public Nuisance has analyzed marriage from the dictates of the Old Testamament,* complete with footnoted references. The Biblical view of marriage is a real eye opener.
*However, the lawyer side of me does note a bit of a paradoxical conflict between the dictates of Rule 2 and Rule 4. It would appear that if the situation that existed in Rule 4 should occur, in almost all cases, in accordance with Rule 2, the Rule 4 marriage would be invalid and the bride would be subject to immediate execution.
attribution: James at OTB
Posted by Tiger at August 20, 2003 08:24 AMSTOP spreading the misinformation! A quick perusal
of the original text shows that this is just
Dowdification.
Hmmm, I suppose it depends upon whether you read the King James Version, the original Greek version or had an opportunity to view the Dead Sea Scrolls, or whatever. I doubt everything anyway and just posted this as a point for discussion. I thought it was pretty inane anyway, as I pointed out in my footnote. However, thanks for your informative comment. I decline to delete the post and will allow the readers to decide for themselves whether they find anything of merit in my take or in the linked post.
Posted by: Tiger at August 20, 2003 12:00 PMTwo would presumably apply only to first marriages, although as Deuteronomy is written, it doesn't explicitly exclude second marriages:
13: "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her,
14: and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, `I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,'
However, you should remember that the text predates the development of sophistry and legal quibbling, so a certain amount of common sense interpretation is understood. There are other circumstances which permit a non-virginal marriage, such as 28 - 29 in the same chapter, which sanction the traditional shotgun marriage for an unmarried man and woman caught in flagrante.
I certainly didn't intend to distort and I don't believe that I did, although I am aware that other passages can be cited to lead to other conclusions. For instance, although I quoted texts against divorce, there are also texts that clearly permit it. (Deut. 24 1 - 4) But the divorce procedure in Deut 24 has its own problems, since it permits only men to file for divorce. Orthodox Jewish law - and Israeli civil law - is based on that, and to this day rabbis expend a great deal of time and energy alternately pleading and threatening wifebeaters, adulterers, and deserters to grant their wives a divorce.
It is generally possible in the Bible to cite one passage against another. I cited real passages, which do say what I said they do. Obviously, I wasn't trying to gave a comprehensive discussion of marriage in the Bible.
The traditional Western concept of marriage is just that - traditional, not biblical. On the obvious if unstated subject of the post, there are passages in the Torah which forbid homosexuality. But there are also passages which forbid eating shellfish and many other practices which Christians do routinely. The distinction that the first rule is a universal moral law and the second only a Jewish ritual practice is one that I consider largely arbitrary. (There are, to my knowledge, no verses in either the OT or NT which explicitly bar polygamy.)
If you believe that marriage should be exclusively heterosexual, that's fine. I have no problem with calling gay unions by some title other than marriage, as long as the partners are granted the same legal rights as a traditional couple. But those who take that stance should admit that it is their own belief and defend it as such, rather than hiding behind the quite dicey claim that it is scriptural law.
Posted by: Alex at August 20, 2003 01:10 PM"you should remember that the text predates the development of sophistry and legal quibbling,"
It does? Says who? Maybe the sophistry and legal quibbling was rendered simultaneously. In fact your characterization that Biblical analysis is sophistry is arrogant and shows inherent bias.
The Bible says "Thou shall not kill" yet G-d commands the Jews to prosecute a war. Tradition reveals that the commandment is referring to murder.
You are right that the Bible is only referring to Jews when it explicitly declares homosexuality as an abomination.
The same could be said for the prohibition against murder. However, the same tradition that tells us that "Thou shall not kill" is referring to murder, tells us that the prohibition against homosexuality is universal. Granted, without tradition you can not interpret the Bible in a way that is consistent but it is ridiculous to think that the Bible was
published on Monday and then on Tuesday people started arguing about it without consulting the publisher.