Prostitution and the Bible

[bilby]

A good thing about polygamy involving one man is it is obvious who the mother and the father of the child is.

That's a thing. You have quite a lot of work to do if you want to claim that it's a good thing.

Anyway, it's no sure bet. With today's do-it-yourself DNA tests, something like 3% of the customers are finding out the secrets their mama never told them. Mama's baby, Papa's maybe. The New Yorker ran a piece about it in the Aug. 25 ish.

I'm surprised it's as low as 3%

 

[excreationist]

I just read the story in I Kings 3 where Solomon says he'll decide who gets the baby by cutting it in half with a sword. When I've heard this story before, it has been a retelling, and it simply calls the two mothers 'women'. In the Bible account, they are 'harlots' sharing a roof.

Wow I didn't know about those prostitutes...

 

[steve_bank]

Learner

Jesus warned of mixing politics and religion? Judaism was the state. According to the gospels Jesus was a rabbi preaching to fellow Jews. Jesus preched about swpratioj of church and state? Must be one hell of an interpretation.

Still today.

England's state religion is the Church of England, an Anglican church established by law and linked to the state. The Monarch of the United Kingdom serves as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the church has a formal role in national traditions and ceremonies, such as coronations.

And of course the Vatican with ots quasi international state status. The pope from on high presuming to tell us and our politician what to do.

You arr a run of the mill Christian spouting an endless stream of quotes and spins. It i8s what keeps Christians going.

Did you know Jesus left a recipe for cookies? He was quite the chef.

 

[Bronzeage]

Polygamy has always been a method of concentrating wealth. In an age where humans are property and human labor is the main source of wealth, more wives and children means more money.

I didn't think King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines would be making money for him. Though in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 it said Solomon got 666 talents of gold yearly which is about 23 tons or about $1.3b.

I don't think Solomon had 700 wives or 300 concubines. The interpretation of numerals in Hebrew texts is vague to the point of uncertainty. When we discount the hyperbole which inflates the wealth and accomplishments of ancient Kings, a more practical count would be seven and three. As for the gold, the same applies.

 

[excreationist]

Polygamy has always been a method of concentrating wealth. In an age where humans are property and human labor is the main source of wealth, more wives and children means more money.

I didn't think King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines would be making money for him. Though in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 it said Solomon got 666 talents of gold yearly which is about 23 tons or about $1.3b.

I don't think Solomon had 700 wives or 300 concubines. The interpretation of numerals in Hebrew texts is vague to the point of uncertainty. When we discount the hyperbole which inflates the wealth and accomplishments of ancient Kings, a more practical count would be seven and three. As for the gold, the same applies.

It says Solomon got $1.3b worth of gold a year so he could easily afford that many wives and concubines. I'd might do the same if I was him. Though 1 Kings 11:3 says "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray". I think it would be impossible for 700 wives to be of royal birth.
The gold was probably exaggerated - perhaps the number 666 (of "talents") was a special number?

a more practical count would be seven and three

Wajid Ali Shah (1822–1887, last Nawab of Awadh, India)

370 wives (though only ~120 confirmed)

Genghis Khan (1162–1227, Mongol Empire)

~14 principal wives + 500+ concubines

Fath Ali Shah Qajar (1772–1834, Persia/Iran)

160 wives

Giovanni Vigliotto (1929–1999, Italy/USA)

104–105 wives

So Solomon could have had way more than 10.

 

[steve_bank]

Polyandry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources. It is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival.[6][7] It is a rare form of marriage that exists not only among peasant families but also among elite families.[8] For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided. If every brother married separately and had children, family land would be split into unsustainable small plots. In contrast, very poor persons not owning land were less likely to practice polyandry in Buddhist Ladakh and Zanskar.[6][verification needed]

Mormon polygamy

Mormonism and polygamy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are renegade polygamist Monsoons today. Widely reported abuses. Teen marriages. Wom,e essentially trapped.

Mormon polygamy is not practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which officially ended the practice in 1890 and excommunicates members who practice it today. However, breakaway fundamentalist groups, who are not affiliated with the LDS Church, continue to practice polygamy in isolated communities.

 

[excreationist]

Polyandry from Ancient Greek πολύ (polú) 'many' and ἀνήρ (anḗr) 'man') is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

The problem with that though is that it could be difficult to know who the father of the child is...

 

[bilby]

Polyandry from Ancient Greek πολύ (polú) 'many' and ἀνήρ (anḗr) 'man') is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

The problem with that though is that it could be difficult to know who the father of the child is...

That's not a problem, if the cultural belief is that they all are.

It would be a problem for you, and for those who share your cutural norms; But why would it be a problem for those who practice it?

It takes a village to raise a child. If all (or many of) the men in the village agree that they are all the child's fathers, so much the better.

Wherein lies the "problem"?

 

[excreationist]

Polyandry from Ancient Greek πολύ (polú) 'many' and ἀνήρ (anḗr) 'man') is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

The problem with that though is that it could be difficult to know who the father of the child is...

That's not a problem, if the cultural belief is that they all are.

It would be a problem for you, and for those who share your cutural norms; But why would it be a problem for those who practice it?

It takes a village to raise a child. If all (or many of) the men in the village agree that they are all the child's fathers, so much the better.

Wherein lies the "problem"?

What if you wanted to do a genealogy (like Jesus' contradictory genealogies)? If all of the men are your fathers then it gets really messy trying to do the genealogies. Genesis, etc, also liked to talk about genealogies.

 

[Bronzeage]

Polygamy has always been a method of concentrating wealth. In an age where humans are property and human labor is the main source of wealth, more wives and children means more money.

I didn't think King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines would be making money for him. Though in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 it said Solomon got 666 talents of gold yearly which is about 23 tons or about $1.3b.

I don't think Solomon had 700 wives or 300 concubines. The interpretation of numerals in Hebrew texts is vague to the point of uncertainty. When we discount the hyperbole which inflates the wealth and accomplishments of ancient Kings, a more practical count would be seven and three. As for the gold, the same applies.

It says Solomon got $1.3b worth of gold a year so he could easily afford that many wives and concubines. I'd might do the same if I was him. Though 1 Kings 11:3 says "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray". I think it would be impossible for 700 wives to be of royal birth.
The gold was probably exaggerated - perhaps the number 666 (of "talents") was a special number?

a more practical count would be seven and three

Wajid Ali Shah (1822–1887, last Nawab of Awadh, India)

370 wives (though only ~120 confirmed)

Genghis Khan (1162–1227, Mongol Empire)

~14 principal wives + 500+ concubines

Fath Ali Shah Qajar (1772–1834, Persia/Iran)

160 wives

Giovanni Vigliotto (1929–1999, Italy/USA)

104–105 wives

So Solomon could have had way more than 10.

He could have has a thousand, but we have a text which reads 7-something and 3-something. Maybe it's 7 and maybe it's 700. Hard to say.

 

[excreationist]

He could have has a thousand, but we have a text which reads 7-something and 3-something. Maybe it's 7 and maybe it's 700. Hard to say.

1 Kings 8:63
Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the Lord: twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the temple of the Lord.

That's also a case of 22-something and 120-something related to Solomon... those numbers also seem exaggerated...

 

[bilby]

What if you wanted to do a genealogy

Why would you want to do that?

 

[excreationist]

What if you wanted to do a genealogy

Why would you want to do that?

Well it can be an interesting hobby. My father said he found almost 2000 people on his side of the family going back to the 1600s. He used a program called "Brother's Keeper".

 

[bilby]

Polyandry from Ancient Greek πολύ (polú) 'many' and ἀνήρ (anḗr) 'man') is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

The problem with that though is that it could be difficult to know who the father of the child is...

That's not a problem, if the cultural belief is that they all are.

It would be a problem for you, and for those who share your cutural norms; But why would it be a problem for those who practice it?

It takes a village to raise a child. If all (or many of) the men in the village agree that they are all the child's fathers, so much the better.

Wherein lies the "problem"?

What if you wanted to do a genealogy

Why would you want to do that?

Well it can be an interesting hobby. My father said he found almost 2000 people on his side of the family going back to the 1600s. He used a program called "Brother's Keeper".

I am underconvinced that a significant driver of our choice of basic social structures is their suitability to provide "interesting hobbies".

"Sorry that we screwed up your life and left you an emotional basket case and societal outcast, dear; But we were concerned that somebody might prefer to have an interesting hobby as a geneologist, so we had no other choice"

 

[excreationist]

I am underconvinced that a significant driver of our choice of basic social structures is their suitability to provide "interesting hobbies".

"Sorry that we screwed up your life and left you an emotional basket case and societal outcast, dear; But we were concerned that somebody might prefer to have an interesting hobby as a geneologist, so we had no other choice"

POLYANDRY (MARRIAGE TO MULTIPLE HUSBANDS) IN TIBET | Facts and Details

factsanddetails.com

"Two, three, four, or more brothers jointly take a wife"

Since they're brothers the genealogies are basically the same eventually (assuming the brothers share the same parents or their fathers are brothers).

In the Bible there are dozens of names in genealogies in many different books

Genealogies in the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That would only be possible if many of the people memorised the genealogies - or the names were just made up or copied from Genesis, etc.