Ben Ben Ben *tsk tsk*
Submitted by Triple Q on April 17 1999 at 03:16:02
In reply to Re: A Question, please Submitted by Ben on April 15 1999 at 07:31:49
|
Women of that era where not the servant-girls that they are envisioned to be: They sometimes held important offices and took part in matters of public interest (I Sam 18:6-7, the books of Ruth and Esther). They took their part in family affairs and enjoyed a certain amount of independence (II Kings 4:8; Judges 4:18; I Sam 25:14). They were protected by a number of laws (Exo 21: 7-11, 20:12; Deut 22:13-19, 24:1-2, 27:16; Lev 18:18, etc.) They could appear in a court of law (Num 27:1). They could entertain guests, male or female, in the absence of her husband (II Kings 4:8) and even against his wishes (I Sam 25:14). They could criticize the conduct of their husbands (I Sam 25:25; II Sam 6:20) and were equal respecting the marriages of their children (Gen 27:46). They, whether married or unmarried, could go about with their faces unveiled (Gen. 12:14; 24:16, 65; 29:11). So the "barefoot and pregnant serving wench-wife" is basically a mischaracterization of the real Biblical woman. And, to put all this into context of the main topic, they were considered adult at 12 (or the age of puberty) so they gained these rights immediately. But the Talmudists forbade marriage in the case of a woman under 12 1/2 and the case of a man under 13 1/2 (presumably the general age of puberty). And, as Heather pointed out, Roman boys couldn't even own property until they were 16. So why are boys (the, in the Bible, superior of the male and female) being penalized just because they achieved puberty later than girls? Weird, huh? |