Christianity and Age of Marriage

Schuhart

This thread grows out of another on the Islam Forum. The background is the UNICEF photo of the year, which shows a eleven year old Afghan girl on the day of her wedding to a man in his forties.

I raised a question which PDN probably rightly suggested is best pursued here. Islam hasn’t any particular problem with early marriage, and Mohammed is believed to have married a girl of nine. Does Christianity do any better?

I can recall that as recently as the 1980s the Catholic Church used to facilitate early marriages (so far as I know, mostly involving the Travelling community, but I don’t doubt including some settled people too). Some (admittedly a handful) of those marriages involved people under the age of 16.

I take it, therefore, that Christianity has no hard and fast rule on early marriage. Like Islam, it would be comfortable in facilitating whatever local customs prevail.

PDN

I am amazed that weddings occurred with under-16s in Ireland so recently. Was this legal?

In Alabama you can get married at 14 years of age with parental consent. A number of other US states allow under 16s to marry in exceptional circumstances with a court's permission. http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

I'm pretty sure the Bible does not speak specifically to this subject one way or another. I can't think of any Scriptural examples of anyone marrying a child.

The Salvation Army were the prime movers in the Nineteenth Century for having the age of consent in the UK raised to 16.

Marrying children, and sexual abuse of children in general, seems to be a characteristic of some of the crazier cults (David Koresh etc).

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I am amazed that weddings occurred with under-16s in Ireland so recently. Was this legal?

The short answer is yes. If you search the Dail Debates and you’ll see the matter featuring in questions from the sixties as the Irish minimum age for marriage was low by European standards and apparently even lower than that permitted by Catholic Canon Law. (Just put the words 'age' and 'marriage' into the 'Search for word(s)/phrase in Heading' field on the linked form).

The minimum legal age seems to have been 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy. If memory serves, parental consent was required for marriages below a certain age (I’m not sure what that threshold was). As I recall, its only in recent times (my feeling is within the last ten years) that action was actually taken to raise the minimum age - notwithstanding the promise of change in 1961.

philologos

Schuhart wrote: »

The minimum legal age seems to have been 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy. If memory serves, parental consent was required for marriages below a certain age (I’m not sure what that threshold was). As I recall, its only in recent times (my feeling is within the last ten years) that action was actually taken to raise the minimum age - notwithstanding the promise of change in 1961.

That's about right. In the Bible Mary is described as being a young woman, which means she could have become married to Joseph at about 12 years of age. This was the year in the Jewish system whereby a girl attained womanhood. Christianity probably inherited this. However nowadays we have to comply by the laws of the State in terms of minimum age.

ryoishin

I can remember hearing in college that 16 was the age but it was lowered slightly to allow for various cultures like the travelling community. The age is in the canon just look it up. At the very least you would have to be sexually mature and be able to mentally carry out married life (in the sense that you knew what you were getting into).

izzyflusky

I've read somewhere that Mary was about 14 when she got pregnant of Jesus. So at the time she would have been engaged. But then again, times were different back then. Some one already said, but the bible doesn't actually give us an age when it is appropriate for a girl to get married. Saying that I do believe, however, that the Lord does tell each one of us (when you are saved), when the right time is, and also the right person.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

That's about right. In the Bible Mary is described as being a young woman, which means she could have become married to Joseph at about 12 years of age. This was the year in the Jewish system whereby a girl attained womanhood. Christianity probably inherited this. However nowadays we have to comply by the laws of the State in terms of minimum age.

The fact is that nobody knows at what age Mary married Joseph. To say "she could have" is pure speculation. She could have had red hair. She could have had a hare lip. She could have been a hunchback. She could have had 6 fingers on each hand. etc. etc.

Nobody knows, so why speculate? She could have been 16. She could have been 60.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

Nobody knows, so why speculate? She could have been 16. She could have been 60.

60 really doesn't fit into "young woman".

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

60 really doesn't fit into "young woman".

Fair point.

ryoishin

Well we could look and see what marrying off age was in the early jewish faith but its tradition that she was young and joseph was older (and in Catholicism he had a few kids from a previous marraige).

philologos

ryoishin wrote: »

Well we could look and see what marrying off age was in the early jewish faith but its tradition that she was young and joseph was older (and in Catholicism he had a few kids from a previous marraige).

could you cite some sources for that? ^^

ryoishin

The marrying age of Jews ill leave to someone else.

The bit about Joseph being older comes from one of the apocrypha (ill fish out the name which one later and the try and find the verse) and it relates to who would take Mary as their wife. Its really nice actually it sort of makes out that the community knew God was responcible for Marys pregnancy and wanted to to find out from God who would be her husband. They take the rods used in the temple and when the men take the rods a bird flys out of the top of josephs rod. He then is like "im too old, how can this be ....." and so takes her as his wife.

The bit about him having kids from another marraige I think might be part of the same above text but its in relation to "Jesus brother" and the Catholic belief that Jesus was Marys only birth child. Ill do my best to get you other stuff on the topic but it might take awhile. But as a Catholic your open to your own view about the brother issue.

Have i just taken the this thread further off topic by mentioning Jesus brother

izzyflusky

Don't know what if I understood properly what you're saying. By that you mean that Mary got pregnant first and then she found a husband?? If that's the case well, it doesn't make much sense because the bible says that Mary and Joseph were engaged, then angel told her she was pregnant.

ryoishin

Yep thats why its not in the Bible used by Catholics but its still used a source text to look at in studies and stuff. Same as Jesus being born in cave or stable kind of thing.

Its along time since I read that text so I could have it all over the place.

izzyflusky

look at in studies of what? if you don't mind me asking

ryoishin

Stuff that theologians would argue over or sometimes the apocrypha have more of a background.

Like in one of them theres a bit about Jesus as a young boy moulding a piece of clay into the shape of a bird and it then flys out of his hands. That might help in trying to understand when Jesus realised he was divine etc. But they re not considered divinely inspired texts by the Catholic Church.

Im no expert on the apocrypha (or anything else) so Im open to being correct just thought Id poke the fire so to speak.

izzyflusky

I knew about it, as in they existed. But thats as far as my knowledge about it goes tbh. Interesting, although, why would they use it at all if it contradicts the bible and it is known that they are not inspired?
I'm aware that I'm going off the point of the whole post...sorry.

PDN

I think ryoishin is referring to the Infancy Gospel of James, a work that is thought to date from the 2nd Century AD.

ryoishin

It can still be a useful text to read and as a source material just not to be used in a church setting etc but can be read like any other piece of writing.
I have to admit ive never seen a copy of it anywhere except in college, and it was photocopied for me.


PDN is correct but like I said I dont have a copy to quote o just going from memory so I could have it wrong.

PDN

ryoishin wrote: »

It can still be a useful text to read and as a source material just not to be used in a church setting etc but can be read like any other piece of writing.
I have to admit ive never seen a copy of it anywhere except in college, and it was photocopied for me.


PDN is correct but like I said I dont have a copy to quote o just going from memory so I could have it wrong.

http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancyjamestranslation.html

philologos

ryoishin wrote: »

PDN is correct but like I said I dont have a copy to quote o just going from memory so I could have it wrong.

I have a copy of it. I'll see if I can find it for you all later.

Edit: Unfortunately there are no verses in this but it says.

Infancy Gospel of James (from The Other Bible - Willis Barnstone pg 388) wrote:

Joseph refused saying, "I have sons, and I am an old man, but she is a young maiden - lest I be the laughing stock to the children of Israel.

And it also suggests that marriage took place when Mary was 12 years of age, presented at the Temple.

Infancy Gospel of James (pg 387 of previous) wrote:

When she was twelve years old there took place a conference of the priests saying, "Behold, Mary has become twelve years old in the Temple of the Lord our God. What, therefore shall we do with her, lest she defile the sanctuary of the Lord"

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

I have a copy of it. I'll see if I can find it for you all later.

Er, just click on link in my previous post.

And it also suggests that marriage took place when Mary was 12 years of age, presented at the Temple.

It does indeed. It also suggests that Mary's hymen remained unbroken even after giving birth to Jesus - which would seem to me to be a particularly pointless miracle. Thank God the early Christians had the sense not to include later books such as these in the canon of Scripture.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

Er, just click on link in my previous post.

Ah sorry. I have a compendium of these kind of texts in a one volume edition, reading from it is easier than flicking through a web document. Quoting from that would have been easier though

I agree with you in relation to the authenticity claim, these should be taken with a pinch of salt.

ryoishin

Yeah I have it on a disc to but its not numbered or versed so I prefare it on paper.

About PDNs comment about the hymen. This was a big issue when I did mariology and the older people (really old) in the class would argue at length about it. Some of them believed that God took Jesus out of Marys womb like there was some sort of flash of light and there Jesus was in the hay (i made the flash of light bit up but you know what im getting at). But when they asked us (3 of us who were between 18-23) what we thought we had always just assumed it was a natural birth. I think its the generational gap and the old view of child birth being unclean or dirty, that kind of attitude where its gross and how can you say that about Mary versus the modern idea of child birth being beautiful and a miracle in itself etc.

Also the the hymen still being intact might be seen as Marys ever virginness. But again thats up to your own view. Others might also argue that a miraclus birth would be in relation to origional sin and the making of child birth painful and how could Jesus be rought into the world as a product of that.


Sure what would I know about giving birth.