Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tna Swg <tnaswg AT yahoo.com>]

Might the condemnation of polygamy, and for that matter, same-sex marriage, 
simply and only be a retrojection of current mores?
 
Marc Bauer

George Athas <gathas AT hotkey.net.au> wrote:

2 Samuel 12.8 (ESV) - Yahweh's words to David through Nathan:

And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your
arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too
little, I would add to you as much more.


This suggests that Yahweh, at least in the Hebrew Bible, is not opposed
to polygamy. He may not like it, but he certainly permits it. In a
patriarchal society like Ancient Israel (and other such societies),
polygamy was sometimes the only means of social welfare for some women.
That is, one man would marry multiple women in order to grant them
social refuge and security. The Tamar (Gen) and Ruth narratives intimate
this quite well.

If you take a canonical approach, then you could say that while Yahweh
permits polygamy, it's not his preferred option. Gen 1 and 2 certainly
proposes one-man-one-woman as the ideal. That is, it only takes one man
and one woman to form the adequate social unit to uphold society and to
give each other companionship. When there were women vulnerably outside
this unit, polygamy would have provided a means for social incorporation
and wellbeing. Polygamy needs to be seen in its context. It does not
seem to be condoned, but it is permitted for reasons of social
wellbeing.


Best regards, 
GEORGE ATHAS 
(Sydney, Australia) 




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

                
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  
>From klriley AT alphalink.com.au  Thu Oct 27 20:05:13 2005
Return-Path: <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from pop1.alphalink.com.au (pop1.alphalink.com.au [202.161.124.205])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D8C4C00C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:05:13 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from k (58-84-92-46.dial-lns7.vic.chariot.net.au [58.84.92.46])
        by pop1.alphalink.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB3B2FEE2
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:05:02 +1000 
(EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <43616B25.000003.41557@K>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:04:53 +1000 (AUS Eastern Standard Time)
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mailer: IncrediMail (4002031)
From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
References: <20051027235008.4143.qmail AT web60020.mail.yahoo.com>
To: "'b-hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
X-FID: PLAINTXT-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on pop1.alphalink.com.au
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Leviral marriage
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:05:13 -0000

 Some retrojection is unavoidable - we are all children of our time - but
the basis is also an understanding of the story of Adam and Eve [whether
understood literally or otherwise] as a paradigm of God's ideal for human
families.  The current fashion for nuclear families undoubtedly contributes
to that, but the basis is there to begin with.  The Bible itself is silent
on the issue of whether Adam and Eve where meant to be the ideal for all
families in all times.  Most current 'mainstream' commentators focus on both
the 'twoness' and the 'maleness and femaleness' of Adam and Eve.  Whether
that is the correct, or only correct, reading is a matter of opinion, and
probably a debate we could avoid as it has little to do with Hebrew.  As was
said in another context, the Bible is not exhaustive truth.
 
Kevin Riley
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Tna Swg
Date: 10/28/05 09:50:08
 
Might the condemnation of polygamy, and for that matter, same-sex marriage,
simply and only be a retrojection of current mores?
 
Marc Bauer
 
George Athas <gathas AT hotkey.net.au> wrote:
 
2 Samuel 12.8 (ESV) - Yahweh's words to David through Nathan:
 
And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your
arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too
little, I would add to you as much more.
 
 
This suggests that Yahweh, at least in the Hebrew Bible, is not opposed
to polygamy. He may not like it, but he certainly permits it. In a
patriarchal society like Ancient Israel (and other such societies),
polygamy was sometimes the only means of social welfare for some women.
That is, one man would marry multiple women in order to grant them
social refuge and security. The Tamar (Gen) and Ruth narratives intimate
this quite well.
 
If you take a canonical approach, then you could say that while Yahweh
permits polygamy, it's not his preferred option. Gen 1 and 2 certainly
proposes one-man-one-woman as the ideal. That is, it only takes one man
and one woman to form the adequate social unit to uphold society and to
give each other companionship. When there were women vulnerably outside
this unit, polygamy would have provided a means for social incorporation
and wellbeing. Polygamy needs to be seen in its context. It does not
seem to be condoned, but it is permitted for reasons of social
wellbeing.
 
 
Best regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
(Sydney, Australia)