 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 3/13/2002 8:03 PM (GMT -6) |   |
I’m reading a very very cool book right now called “The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel” by Robert Alter. Alter is a comparative lit. buff and I’ve really been interested in all of the really cool insights to be had when the Bible is given up to comparative lit./myth studies. More than anything it is making me appreciate the supreme work of art these texts represent. I can now relish in them the same way I relish in Shakespeare where before they struck me as nothing but foreign and weird in several ways.
Here is but one example that got me thinking. In commentary on 1 Samuel 9:11 Alter points out how the author of Samuel plays with and makes exception to an often used literary form. He writes,
quote:
The encounter between a young man in foreign territory with young women (ne’arot) drawing water seems to signal the beginning of a betrothal type-scene (compare Rebekah, Rachel, and Zipporah at their respective wells). But the betrothal scene is aborted. Instead of a betrothal feast, there will be a sacrificial feast that adumbrates a rite of coronation. The destiny of kingship to which Saul proceeds will lead to grimmer consequences than those that follow in the repeated story of a hero who finds his future bride at a well.
Now this got me thinking, what about Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well in Jn. 4? Might one of the reasons that Jesus’ disciples flipped out when they saw the two of them talking be because in their symbolic tradition this prefigured a wedding? Might they thought that Jesus would betroth himself to this woman, and a Samaritan none the less!? And one with five husbands?!?
Or what about another reading. What if John’s point in this passage was to suggest that Jews and Gentiles unite and offer this suggestion by giving the dialog in a betrothal form?
"When Zarathustra had spoken these words he beheld the people again and was silent. 'There they stand,' he said to his heart; 'there they laugh. They do not understand me; I am not the mouth for these ears." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/15/2002 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Well the betrothel symbolism is a possibility, but I seriously doubt that Jesus had his eye on a lady who was already living with a guy (and had been through 5 husbands). I rather think he'd probably have encouraged her to tie the knot with her live-in and make it life long this time.
just an opinion
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/15/2002 5:22 AM (GMT -6) | | [Here's a speculation.
Sometimes I wish Jesus HAD married.
Among other things, I bet the fiasco we're now seeing going on with the Boston Diocese would have been avoided.
doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 3/15/2002 6:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said:
Sometimes I wish Jesus HAD married.
Among other things, I bet the fiasco we're now seeing going on with the Boston Diocese would have been avoided.
Semeia:
As far as I know, the problem with the Boston Archdiocese is with priests committing homosexual pedophilia. My guess is that many gay men are attracted to Catholic priesthood out of a desire to deny their sexuality (which is condemned by the Church and the world), and follow the only path open to them for fulfilling their calling to God - celibacy.
Unfortunately, celibacy is easier said than done. My feeling is that if homosexual marriages were allowed by the Church, we would have far less pedophilia. However, for those people who have committed pedophilia, there is no known successful treatment - recidivism is a certainty, unless they are locked away, or "chemically" castrated and continually monitered.
I agree with your general thought, though: marriage is certainly the most natural, fulfilling state for human beings to be in - and lifelong celibacy is not. As you suggest, lifelong celibacy can drive people to "secret" fulfillment of sexual desire - tragically resulting in children being victimized in epidemic proportions.
Celibacy is no more natural or sustainable for the homosexual person than for the heterosexual person, and the result of requiring celibacy is often a terrible perversion: pedophilia.
Priests being able to marry (straight or gay) would of course not completely solve the problem of pedophilia in the church, as pedophilia has various causes, none of which are well understood. But certainly some of it might have to do with celibacy.
Jesus marrying would have only partly affected the problem afflicting the Catholic Church today - which predominantly involves homosexual pedophilia. Real progress would have to include the church sanctioning gay marriage - and allowing all people to find fulfilling lifelong relationships before God and the world.
Seymour - sorry to derail your thread. My guess is that you were trying to get at the metaphor of marriage, not so much speculating on a possible literal one. (As well as thinking about the mindset of the disciples.) By the way, I'm reading the same book - and I really like Alter. He also edited (with Frank Kermode) The Literary Guide to the Bible, which is a fascinating collection of essays by a wide range of scholars, both literary and biblical.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:39 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|