Babylonian Talmud Tractate Kethuboth. It is very interesting reading mostly focused on the family.
Era as I understand it is circa 400 ish BC
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
biblically speaking
- Thread starter ginger2
- Start date
Era as I understand it is circa 400 ish BC
You may be correct but I have yet to see this model in Jewish culture. The only model similar to this that I have seen is as I posted where the wife “loans” a portion of her dowry to the husband or allows him to manage its use. Either way, for the father to entrust her dowry to the husband for the husbands benefit makes no sense at all. The dowry was the daughters portion of her fathers inheritance as she got her share at marriage and the sons typically had to wait for his passing. Why would the father include a son in law as a par taker in his inheritance if an inheritance was for the grandchildren.
The only instance I’ve seen of a man exercising fiduciary responsibilities was a kinsman redeemer for a minor who would of course be barred from marriage with her when she came of age.
Apparently the code of Hammurabi and the Jewish culture had differences.
As you so often point out about gender specific cases, Scripture only discusses a good mans inheritance for his grandchildren. A dowry was his grandchildren’s inheritance entrusted to their mother until her passing or she chose to entrust it to them.
In a monogamous household, of course his children would naturally be the recipients of her fathers inheritance.
In a polygamous household, only his children by her were the recipients of her fathers inheritance, but not his children by the other wives.
The husbands inheritance would be divided between all of his children. Hers would only be divided between her children only unless she so stipulated which could happen I suppose, I just haven’t seen it.
A culture that is monogamy only is capable of claiming patriarchy in name only.
A monogamy only culture by default empowers the wife with leverage that gives ultimate if hidden authority to the wife. I think it’s safe to say that a monogamy only culture will inevitably result in a matriarchy just as we witness today in our society. Thus, Roman Law, though professing to uphold patriarchy, has an Achilles heel that will inevitably result in matriarchy even if it’s not acknowledged.
C
Cap
Guest
This is typically the pattern that is also currently used in today's blended families, which would include children from different fathers. Yes, I know, screwed up, but that's just one of the many pitfalls of a monogamous culture.
And I would further comment along with others, that a monogamous culture is inherently matriarchy based.
Reminds me of a blog article I just read:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/feminism-responsible-for-the-fall-of-rome/
That’s quite an analysis
I woke this morning rolling 'monogamy-only is inherently matriarchal' around in my head.... article coming.
Then you drop this sobering article. Wow. Scary stuff that needs research!
I agree with a lot of you said except the monarchy part. God made it quite clear what He though of human monarchy as a system when He warned the people ahead of Saul's appointment. And He took their desire for a king as a rejection of His own kingship over the people (1 Sam 8:7). This is why the promised future king in the line of David was to be God in the flesh; it is a return to God's intended system.
God's predictions were true, and with the exception of only a couple kings, they became worse and worse.
There are many who argue that clans result in low-trust societies and all there attendant problems. How do you counter that? And how do you counter the adverse effects of multi-generational wealth turning into aristocracies hostile to the nation?
I find this a facinating idea. Not that wealth is any goal of mine. But in it's potential for restoring family and community and overthrowing the church/state/corportate nexus that rules us and fights against God.
Very true. There was an academic who systematized this and showed from anthropology that this arch was true of all civilizations. I can't remember the name though. All organisms go through a process of birth, increase, stagnation, decrease and death. But for civilizations, feminism is the poison that does them in. I agree with Heartiste that we are going through it much quicker than Rome. Even absent the technological aspect increasing the speed, our system is just so much more fragile and won't hold out as long.
But that may be to our advantage as well. The long timeframe meant that the Romans were mostly bred out of existence; a quick collapse may save our people and help solidify for the next generations a better understanding of the causes of the collapse.
I see what you're getting at now about grandchildren. It was the same way in the Code of H. Money went from father to daughter via dowry, and from her to her sons (but not the sons of her husband by other women). And when a father died his estate was split between his sons from all women (that he recognized), he previously having given dowry to any daughters. In the case of dowry, it was an inheritance to a man's grandchildren via the daughter. I'd have to check again but the code either said or implied it was first used to support her after her husband passed.
It would be entrusted to the husband for the wife's benefit. He exercises fiduciary responsibility and was responsible to preserve it until his death or when she left. And it is wise to entrust him with this given women's generally high time preference and emotional nature in making decisions. If he couldn't be trusted with this, the father wouldn't have chosen him to be her husband.
While The Babylonian Talmud may define "Jewish culture" it doesn't necessarily define OT culture as God would have had it. The traditions encoded by the Babylonian Talmud were influenced by their time in Babylon and by the foreign influences they had prior to the exile (e.g. Assyrian, Philistine, Egyption) and after (Greece, Rome, Persian, etc). Remember this is the same people that forgot the Law existed and was wholesale into burning babies on high places prior to the exile. Not to mention the hazards of oral tradition. I can't even trust a preacher to tell it straight today and I've got the text in front of me.
Conversely, the Code of Hammurabi influences the Jew's from the other direction. The reason it explains a lot of Abraham's actions is because Abram was a semite from Ur in lower Mesopotamia. The code of Hammurabi was contemporary, or close to it, to Abraham. Same for the code of Ur-Nammi that predated it. Considering the history of Israel after David and all her foreign ways and influences; the Code of H. may well be closer to Hebrew practice at the time they came into the promised land. There is both less time and fewer cultural influences between it and Moses.
But I don't take these or the Talmud as authoritative or definitive. Only informative. There is too much we don't know.
Is the "nation" an important enough concept for threats to it to even be a problem?
Depends on how you define it. We have enemies who are united as a nation or even several nations against us. If we are not unified at least enough to coordinate defense against those hostile to us then none of our tribes will survive. And then what is the benefit to tribalism? So yes I think it is important to that extent...
That may be true. My point was not that the "nation" didn't matter, but rather that we should not automatically assume that it is more important than the tribe. This should be pondered, not just assumed.
To relate that back to @rockfox's original statement - if the aristocracy becomes more powerful than the nation, then they are likely powerful enough to also coordinate defense against those hostile to those living in the area formerly ruled by the nation and now ruled by the aristocracy.
To relate that back to @rockfox's original statement - if the aristocracy becomes more powerful than the nation, then they are likely powerful enough to also coordinate defense against those hostile to those living in the area formerly ruled by the nation and now ruled by the aristocracy.
The defense against invaders is the only remotely good excuse for a central government. And in truth I can't totally discount it. Peace comes through strength and weakness invites evil.
No man, or family, is an island. The tribe still needs the nation.
The problem is, they repeatedly throughout history come to view themselves as more important and separate from the nation, almost by definition, and begin to act contrary to the interests of the nation. This has lead to wars, famine, genocide, and more.
Now you take a utilitarian approach, that they must be more powerful than the nation in order to serve a defense of it. However the defense of a nation is a goal, and from this perspective, the aristocracy but a tool. A system. And a tool or a system are not greater than their makers, not more important than those they were created to protect. Yet that is what happens with aristocracy; they too often eat out the substance of the nation; even destroy it entirely.
And there are other ways to achieve defense of the nation.
Maybe aristocracy can work, I don't know, but one must deal with its downfalls.
I think we're conflating the words "nation" and "government". A nation is "A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory." It's the people, not the government. Whether ruled by someone or nobody, they're a nation. You can overthrow the government without harming the nation - or destroy the nation while leaving the government intact.
One major benefit of aristocratic government is that the people don't trust them. So they're more likely to see tax as theft, to see wrongful imprisonment as a personal vendetta of the ruler. And therefore more likely to revolt if the aristocracy gets too oppressive. The fear of revolt then places a limit on the amount of corruption possible - the aristocracy may still be corrupt, and may do great evil to a small number of people, but there's a limit to what they can do before they get their heads chopped off by an angry mob.
The major flaw of democratic government is that people think they can trust the government, because they think they represent them. That's why the tax rates in democratic countries are way higher than in undemocratic ones, and the number of laws is far higher also. People just roll over and allow themselves to be oppressed - actually vote for it, because they all have a hand in oppressing each other.
This article expresses the point more clearly.
One major benefit of aristocratic government is that the people don't trust them. So they're more likely to see tax as theft, to see wrongful imprisonment as a personal vendetta of the ruler. And therefore more likely to revolt if the aristocracy gets too oppressive. The fear of revolt then places a limit on the amount of corruption possible - the aristocracy may still be corrupt, and may do great evil to a small number of people, but there's a limit to what they can do before they get their heads chopped off by an angry mob.
The major flaw of democratic government is that people think they can trust the government, because they think they represent them. That's why the tax rates in democratic countries are way higher than in undemocratic ones, and the number of laws is far higher also. People just roll over and allow themselves to be oppressed - actually vote for it, because they all have a hand in oppressing each other.
This article expresses the point more clearly.
I’m skeptical of this one. I know a lot of people who definitely do not trust the federal government in the USA, perhaps the trust of local and sate governments is somewhat higher but even that isn’t extremely high.
Also we don’t have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic and there is a huge difference.
So how come the people revolted under the situation on the left, yet tolerate the situation on the right?
