Talk:Handfasting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isn't skyclad a preference? Sybil Leek never performed ceremonies skyclad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Two16 (talk • contribs) 10 January 2003
- Yes, it is preference. --Morningstar2651 17:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Jumping the broom
I am a Modern Orthodox Jew. My wife (civil marriage) is African American. Soon, she will have completed her conversion, and we will have an Orthodox Jewish wedding. In order to incorporate the a-religious African American tradition of Jumping the Broom, I need to determine if it is a religious act as currently practiced by any other culture. If it is, then we will not be able to incorporate this. The Rabbi is researching. I am, sort of, counter-researching. This article is not very detailed, other than saying that it is sometimes done, and is symbolic. Yeah, got that. Is it religious, is then the question. In West African culture, it is simply a custom, as benign as carrying the bride over the threshhold - which can have plenty of symbolism (entering a new life together, support, and so forth). I would say that the difference lies in the purpose, possible origins, and the ritual aspect. Eventually, after we argue a little, the Rabbi will issue a psak (ruling that I must abide by). So, I need my face time to be good and filled with evidence.
Insights? Further explanations?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jndrline (talk • contribs) 5 May 2006
[edit] tying the knot?
Is it not a hindu ritual as well. RhettFester 18:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's also a Catholic thing, though it's not so much a binding, as wrapping a Bride and Groom's hands together for a short period while kneeling. It is POV to say that its definitive orgin is in handfasting. In general, it is POV to assert a definitive origin for most anything. Phrases like "possible origins","may have come from", "generally accepted", "modern scholars believe", and "commonly thought" are your friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jndrline (talk • contribs) 5 May 2006
- Beware of weasel words. -Phoenixrod 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- better than completely unsubstantiated possible psuedoetymologies. Novium 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Different Conclusions
This article draws a different conclusion to the page Historical Handfasting that it references at the bottom of the page. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't either, the content be altered, or the webpage deleted as a reference?
Just wondering.--Jcvamp 23:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Riddled With Inaccuracies
Sorry, but much of the information based on the early history of Handfasting is based on medern neopagan concepts, and has little to do with any historical reality. I'll clean it up as soon as I get a chance.
Aguyanon.
- I agree.--Jcvamp 06:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, this needs serious help. I'll deal with a couple glaring things right now, but don't have time for a full-scale edit tonight. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Permanent or Trial?
I like how the article concludes that handfasting was a trial marriage, and then references a page, Historical Handfasting, that says the exact opposite. What references do we have that say handfasting was only a trial marriage? LadySunflower 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Oxford English Dictionary's entry on handfasting quotes a book several centuries old that say so. I suspect that about five centuries or so ago, when that book was written, it was used in that way, and that may be one of a number of reasons why the church objected to it (another being that it was not one of the church's sacraments), and that in ancient times (e.g. more than 15 centuries ago) it was the usual permanent marriage ceremony. But at this point I need to reserve the right to change my mind when I learn more. Michael Hardy 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- The only books the Oxford English Dictionary quotes that claim that handfasting was trial marriage are 18th century and later books talking about something that their authors (mistakenly) believed used to be practiced a century or (usually) more before their own time. The 1541 Coverdale quote does not say handfasting was trial marriage -- to the contrary, Coverdale's use of of the term "handfasting"s is clearly with the meaning "betrothal":
- In some places..at the Handefasting ther is made a greate feaste and superfluous Bancket, and even the same night are the two handfasted personnes brought and layed together, yea, certan wekes afore they go to the Chyrch.
-
- The OED's interpretation that it is an example of the definition "Formerly treated as an uncanonical, private, or even probationary form of marriage" is most charitably interpreted as a confusing reference to the fact that in Scotland and England in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, if a couple had sex on the strength of having exchanged future tense promises to marry (that is, if a betrothed couple had sex), they were then legally (permanently) married, though such marriages were considered "clandestine" or "irregular". --68.164.87.98 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It turns out that the "trial marriage" is a product of late 18th to 19th century Romanticism. The term handfast is attested (per OED) from the 13th to the 16th century, simply meaning "marry, betroth". I suggest this article should focus on the Neopagan ceremony. The discussion of marriage laws in Early Modern Scotland would belong on Marriage in Scotland. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Asked for her hand...
Did that expression also arise from this custom? Michael Hardy 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

