Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Eve is described as purposed to become the mother of all mankind.
Does this mean that Yah purposed for Adam to have sex with Eve only?

It is clear that the warning in Deuteronomy 17:17 has direct relation 
to what happened to Solomon. However, it is also clear that this 
warning was in no way related to a feeling that having multiple wives 
was a morally bad thing. But rather to the observation that more wives 
means less time for being an earnest king.

Paul warned young Christians that they would better be able to dedicate 
their lives to the spreading of the good news if they were to remain 
single and further warned of the problems that come along with marriage.

Also, overseers were expressly limited to having one wife. Perhaps because 
if they had had more than one wife they would have had insufficient time 
for shepherding Yah's flock.

The proportion of females to males would also lend to a view that the creator 
originally intended one man to be with one woman. Although, if nature is 
to be taken into account it is clear that a large proportion of men would 
like to have more than one woman. Or at least until they find out what that 
entails (e.g Jacob's little family problems).

All in all, it seems that polygamy is not morally wrong from a scriptural 
point of view but rather just ill-advised.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Harold R. Holmyard III
Sent: Mon 10/17/2005 9:50 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Leviral marriage
 
Dar Bill,

>  > I think we can make a good argument that, although this was tolerated by
>>  God, it was not his original purpose, which seems to have been
>>  mongamous, as in Genesis 2:24 which mentions only one wife.
>
>I think this is projecting later beliefs on to the text.

HH: Genesis 2:24 speaks of a physical and 
emotional union between two people, a man and a 
woman. There is no discussion of more than one 
wife, and that of course would interfere with the 
one flesh union of the man and woman.

>  As a number
>of list members have pointed out polygamous marriages are just accepted
>in the texts as being a normal part of life. Whether than be wives or
>some combination of wife, wives, concubine or concubines. Beyond that
>there is 2 Sam 12:8 KJV:-
>
>``And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy
>bosom...''
>
>If you are going to make the case that the writer(s) thought God's ideal
>was monogamous marriages why would they include a verse which portrays
>God as actively taking Saul's wives away from him and giving them
>to David?

HH: A lot of OT language attributes to God the 
providential reality, whatever it was. God is 
sovereign, so all events are ultimately due to 
Him, whether He actually approves of them or not, 
if He allows them. God does not approve of 
individuals hating one another, but Psalm 106: 
says about the Egyptians:

Psa. 105:25 whose hearts he turned to hate his 
people, to conspire against his servants.

HH: God allowed and indirectly caused this hatred 
by blessing Israel. David as the new king had a 
certain right, according to Near Eastern 
thinking, to take from the harem of the deceased 
king. So God gave David circumstances that put 
him in that condition, but we do not know that he 
took Saul's wife. Saul had only one wife (1 Sam 
14:50). He had one concubine, whom Abner took (2 
Sam 3:7). But what suggests this kind of language 
to be providential rather than a specific divine 
intent is that God forbid the Israelite kings 
from multiplying wives:

Deut. 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his 
heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate 
large amounts of silver and gold.

HH: David already had more than one wife before he even became king.

>  Monogamy came to us from the Romans, not from either the
>Jews or the Christians.

HH: This is not what the NT says in the person of Jesus:

Matt. 19:3 ¶ Some Pharisees came to him to test 
him. They asked,  "Is it lawful for a man to 
divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
Matt. 19:4 ¶  "Haven't you read," he replied, 
"that at the beginning the Creator 'made them 
male and female,'
Matt. 19:5 and said,  'For this reason a man will 
leave his father and mother and be united to his 
wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Matt. 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one. 
Therefore what God has joined together, let man 
not separate."
Matt. 19:7 ¶  "Why then," they asked,  "did Moses 
command that a man give his wife a certificate of 
divorce and send her away?"
Matt. 19:8 ¶ Jesus replied,  "Moses permitted you 
to divorce your wives because your hearts were 
hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

>For purely numerical reasons I expect monogamy was the more common
>form of marriage, there appears to be nothing in the texts which
>elevates that above polygamous marriages.

HH: The fact that God prohibits kings from 
multiplying wives suggests that it was an 
inferior practice. It is fraught with 
complications and unhappiness in the biblical 
narratives.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Mon Oct 17 19:45:14 2005
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing2.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A76C4C00C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:45:14 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        089DD180036A
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:45:12 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.49)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 17 Oct 2005 23:44:40 -0000
Received: by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id D153083BFF; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:44:39 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:44:39 -0500
Received: from [69.226.228.119] by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:44:39 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 69.226.228.119
X-Originating-Server: ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20051017234439.D153083BFF AT ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] consonant vowel order of )EHYEH & YAHWEH
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:45:14 -0000

Peter:

When was the waw first used as a mater lectionis?

I have seen materes lectionis used as early as on a proto-
Sinaitic inscription, and waw is used several times in the 
Siloam inscription as a mater lectionis, so where is YHWH 
attested to before waw is attested to as a mater lectionis?

Karl W. Randolph.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> 
> On 12/10/2005 22:10, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > I will add to this, how do we know that the waw in the name is 
> > not a mater lectionis? Why is it always read as a consonant?
> >
> >
> >
> One reason, if I remember correctly, is that the consonantal form 
> YHWH is found in texts dating from before vav was ever used as a 
> mater lectionis.
> 
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/


-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/