![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
Henry Imler March 18th, 2008
A comment by Hank on The Way I need Jesus got me thinking. Is there such a thing as a “biblical notion of husband and wife?” What notion are we talking about? Pre-Israel marriage? We gonna pattern it after the marriages in Genesis? Ancient Israel? 2nd Kings? Isn’t that what got us good US citizens up in arms against the Mormons a hundred or so years ago (poly-what?)? Are we gonna talk about the Jewish ideas of what marriage is in the time of Jesus? Are we gonna talk about marriage as it was practiced by the Romans (i.e. baby factories = wives)? Are we going to talk about those writing in the name of Paul when they are giving advice on how to be a couple of equality under the yoke of the empire?
The more I look at actual marriages in the Bible the less I am enamored with the monolithic notion of the so-called “biblical notion of husband and wife.” We need to realize that marriages in our Holy Scriptures are described (not prescribed) in different structures with different power realationships between the parties involved.
We see in the myth of Genesis 3 the consequences of the fall in marriages - women and men will try to dominate each other. This arragement (both women looking to dominate their husbands and husband dominating their wives) is unnatural; God teaches us this in Genesis and He confirms it in the writings of Paul.
It gives me great pleasure to see people attempt to justify our culture’s (or rather the 1950’s) version of marriage where one party dominates the other.
With the coming of the Kingdom of God, we must work to restore the equality inherent in the “two becoming one flesh” by means of our practice and our teachings. What we need to do is rediscover the the pre-fall power relations between husband and wife and make those relations real in our lives. It is up to us to enact the Kingdom of God on Earth - now.
Comment from: Danny [Visitor] Email · http://personman.com
I think I agree with your basic point, but I’m a bit confused by something else. You call the story in Genesis 3 a myth and you say that someone was writing in the name of Paul, but then you say, “God teaches us this in Genesis and He confirms it in the writings of Paul.” Which is it?
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/19/08 @ 07:31
Comment from: Henry Imler [Visitor] Email · http://hundiejo.com
Sorry, I was not clear on what I am talking about up there.
Firstly, I don’t think all of the Pauline letters were penned by Paul. I distinguish between the Pauline, the Deutero-Pauline, and the Pastoral letters. The Pauline letters are 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Galatians, and Romans, written roughly in that order. The Deutero-Pauline epistles are Colossians, Ephesians, and II Thessalonians; the Pastoral Epistles are I & II Timothy and Titus.
Given that, when I refered to the people writing in Paul’s name, I was refering to people writing in Paul’s name in Ephesians and the Timothies. When I said, “[God] confirmed it in Paul’s writings,” I was talking about Galatians, which was written by Paul. I hold all of these writings to be inspired, but I don’t think that Paul wrote them all.
Secondly, about the myth term, this one is a bit more complicated. For starters there is no way that the opening of Genesis (1-11) is modern history. Instead, it looks like and functioned like ancient myths. I think of them as true non-historical stories. The meanings contained within them are true and binding and in my mind emmanate from God.
I hope this makes my opaque post a bit clearer.
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/19/08 @ 09:07
Comment from: Danny [Visitor] Email · http://personman.com
Thanks for the clarification. I understand the Pauline distinction, but maybe you can expand on your thoughts of Genesis. Do you think that God dictated the stories to an ancient author such as Moses? Even if the morals of the stories are good (and that’s debatable), why would a good god dictate a history that never happened. You have to admit that a lot of believers, past and present, have taken it as literal history. Why introduce the confusion?
A much simpler way to understand it is to put it in context with the mythologies of all other ancient cultures. They were made up by people over thousands of years and they tell you something about the beliefs and values of the culture, but not about any real god.
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/19/08 @ 11:56
Comment from: Henry Imler [Visitor] Email · http://hundiejo.com
You are correct for the most part. These stroies we find in the old testament were not dictated by God to Moses or anyone in particular. Instead they began as a people’s oral history and myth that over time were collected and put into written form. That was the visable structure of their composition, as best as we can tell. However, an elements of my faith include the propositions that these stories are rooted in actual experiance with the divine and that God guided certain parts of this process and that we can learn truths from these texts.
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/19/08 @ 13:24
Comment from: Danny [Visitor] Email · http://personman.com
That’s really puzzling to me. How do you view Greek and Roman mythology? Are those stories rooted in actual experience with the divine? Is it coincidence that the one mythology that turns out to be true is the one you were raised with?
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/19/08 @ 15:02
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor] Email · http://www.brendoman.com/kyle
“Even if the morals of the stories are good (and that’s debatable), why would a good god dictate a history that never happened.”
I think the simple answer to that, Danny, is that an insistence on literal truth is a very modern development. Why should we expect God to inspire people to write a document in a style that would only be culturally relevant during a specific period of time thousands of years in the future?
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/19/08 @ 20:04
Comment from: Honzo [Member] Email · http://hundiejo.com
I see those as stories that were collected and involved percieved experiances with the divine. Mine (and it is not really mine in some senses as it was the Jews’ story and then the Jewish-Christian story) makes the most sense. The story as a whole seems to be the most real.
It may be a coincidence and it may not be one, but the mere possiblity of coincidence is not proof that the faith is invalid.
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/19/08 @ 20:36
Comment from: Danny [Visitor] Email · http://personman.com
Kyle, that explanation feels like smoke and mirrors to me. Can you back it up with any evidence that the ancients didn’t see their stories as literally true?
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/20/08 @ 07:12
Comment from: Danny [Visitor] Email · http://personman.com
Honzo, I think your brand of Xianity is a big improvement over fundamentalism, but to me the story that is simplest and makes the most sense is that humans made it all up. That explains why there are hundreds of religions which all make the most sense to their adherents. It also explains why the “Biblical” notion of marriage has not been consistent. And it frees us totally from trying to understand and follow that view of marriage.
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/20/08 @ 07:44
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor] Email · http://www.brendoman.com/kyle
If you’re wanting a specific quote, Danny, I don’t have one right now, but I remember this is an idea that I picked up from Mark Appold.
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/20/08 @ 08:35
Comment from: Danny [Visitor] Email · http://personman.com
Dr. Appold is a smart guy. I took a class on Islam with him. Even if it was never supposed to be literally true, then in what sense is it true?
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/21/08 @ 11:55
Comment from: Danny [Visitor] Email · http://personman.com
Kyle, why shouldn’t we expect God to inspire people to write a document in a way that would be relevant for all times?
And why would he make his communications with people basically indistinguishable from the stuff that humans make up?
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/21/08 @ 12:32
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor] Email · http://www.brendoman.com/kyle
I just heard on the latest Fresh Air podcast a replay of a 2004 interview with John Dominic Crossan about the historicity of the crucifixion. I thought it was very relevant to what you were asking about nonliteral truth, Danny. Here’s the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88675603
In discussing the biblical accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection, Terry Gross asks him to explain the difference between metaphorical and actual. Crossan corrects her by saying that the difference is between metaphorical and literal, and that metaphorical truth is actual truth.
He goes on to say that he believes in a metaphorical resurrection, which he claims is closer to the way the first Christians understood it. He says that as Christians have moved from the metaphorical to a literal interpretation, they have lost the actual truth of it.
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/22/08 @ 17:57
Comment from: Henry Imler [Visitor] Email · http://hundiejo.com
Danny,
First off, thanks for the compliment - I’ve worked hard the last 5 years to forge some understanding that does not have the intellectual trappings of fundamentalism. With that said, it seems as though you are skilled with Ockam’s razor. I try to bring that out as well, but with one major caveat. I leave unknowables open. Or at least I try to do that.
When it comes to the resurection (I am thinking of Crossan), given the givens it is possible. However, the givens are unprovable and the “history” is not history as we would like it to be. So, I could cut it out because it is much easier intelectually to say it is just a fairy tale, like a Christian version of Apollonius of Tyana. But if I do that, so much more falls away. I can no longer find answers to other questions, such as the meaning of life, the worth of humans, etc… This is my best educated guess. There are spots where the information at hand won’t let me build a concrete picture, but if I leave out everything that is fuzzy, the shapr picture still has holes, and those holes are where the real important stuff is at.
Crossan is an awesome and brutally honest biblical scholar. He is absolutely right on what historically probably happenedd, that is, all things being equal. Only thing is, it is possible that this was an unequal case. If the ifs are as the Christians say they are, then all bets are off, if not, then Crossan is absolutely correct (in one work I read, he concluded that Jesus’ body was most likely eaten by wild dogs).
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/22/08 @ 23:42
Comment from: Danny [Visitor] Email · http://personman.com
Kyle, thanks for the link. I’m listening to it right now. What do you guys think about 1 Corinthians 15? It seems like Paul is advocating a very literal view of the crucifixion.
Henry, I think you’re right that Christianity becomes less valuable as you start removing content from it. And I understand your concern that once the content of Christianity is dismissed that all meaning comes into question. But I haven’t found it to be the case. I feel that my life is even richer in meaning now than before. For one thing, it’s shorter. I don’t see my life as a brief prelude to an eternal existence. This is it. Scarce commodities are more valuable.
Edit Edit…Del Delete! 03/23/08 @ 10:07