Could someone provide a description of what marriage was for first century jews and romans?

Question

The apostle Paul wrote of the virtues of marriage, but what did the institution look like that he spoke of? Was it arranged? Was polygamy common? Was marriage something average people engaged in? If someone can point me towards some scholarly research on this matter I'd love to read it.

Answer 1

Marriage hasn't changed all that much over the course of two thousand years. It is a union of two people (usually) with the goal of furthering the human race. Sometimes the two partners are genuinely in love, most often it is more a matter of convenience. Arranged marriages were more common among the rich the well born for both Jews and Romans and neither of them embraced polygamy. Pauls views on mariage were influenced by his Jewish upbringing but whereas Jewish traditions encourages fun healthy sexuality, Paul imparted a freakish view that sex was foul & evil an ugly nasty act one had to endure in order to produce children.

But yes the average person hoped for marriage, and most settled into mundane married life.

Here are links and a few words.
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/lion/373/roman/romarriage.html
"""""""""Unlike our contemporary society, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage; only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly. (Gardner,1986;47) Although not a legal necessity, some weddings, usually the first marriage of elite couples was accompanied by much revelry and song, as featured in one of Catullus' poems. It describes the celebration of the marriage with dancing, singing and the brandishing of torches. Ribald jokes are shouted at the bride and nuts are scattered as she makes her way towards her husband's house. The groom arrives before the bride so that he can personally invite her to come and share his home.

Now married, what does the couple expect to gain from the experience? The young bride is most probably in her early teens, as is the girl described in Catullus' poem with the words, "Young boy, release the little girl's small smooth arm". After marriage she will be transformed from a "little girl" into a respected wife. Elsewhere Catullus assures his readers that young daughters are unloved by their parents until they are married.

"If, when she is ripe for marriage, she enters into wedlock, she is ever dearer to her husband and less hateful to her parents…" (Catullus, Poems 62.57-65)"""

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/marriage/a/RomanMarriage.htm
"""Motives for Marriage
In ancient Rome, if you planned to run for office, you could increase your chances of winning by creating a political alliance through the marriage of your children. Parents arranged marriages to produce descendants to tend the ancestral spirits. The name matrimonium with its root mater (mother) shows the principle objective of the institution, the creation of children. Marriage could also improve social status and wealth. Some Romans even married for love.
The Legal Status of Marriage
Marriage was not a state affair -- at least until Augustus made it his business. It was private, between husband and wife, their families, and between parents and their children. Nonetheless there were legal requirements. It wasn't automatic. People getting married had to have the right to marry, the connubium.
Connubium is defined by Ulpian (Frag. v.3) to be "uxoris jure ducendae facultas", or the faculty by which a man may make a woman his lawful wife. -- Matrimonium

Who Had the Right to Marry?
Generally, all Roman citizens and some non-citizen Latins had connubium. However, there was no connubium between patricians and plebians until the Lex Canuleia (445 B.C.). The consent of both patres familias was required. Bride and groom must have reached puberty. Over time, examination to determine puberty gave way to standardization at age 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Eunuchs, who would never reach puberty, were not permitted to marry. Monogamy was the rule, so an existing marriage precluded connubium as did certain blood and legal relationships.
The Betrothal, Dowry, and Engagement Rings
Engagements and engagement parties were optional, but if an engagement were made and then backed out of, breach of contract would have had financial consequences. The bride's family would give the engagement party and formal betrothal (sponsalia) between the groom and the bride-to-be (who was now sponsa). Dowry, to be paid after the marriage, was decided on. The groom might give his fiancee an iron ring (anulus pronubis) or some money (arra).
How Roman Matrimonium Differed From Modern Western Marriage
It's in terms of property ownership that Roman marriage sounds most unfamiliar. Communal property was not part of marriage, and the children were their father's. If a wife died, the husband was entitled to keep one fifth of her dowry for each child, but the rest would be returned to her family. A wife was treated as a daughter of the pater familias to whom she belonged, whether that was her father or the family into which she married.
Distinctions Between Confarreatio, Coemptio, Usus, and Sine Manu
Who had control of the bride depended on the type of marriage. A marriage in manum conferred the bride on the groom's family along with all her property. One not in manum meant the bride was still under the control of her pater familias. She was required to be faithful to her husband as long as she co-habited with him, however, or face divorce. Laws regarding dowry were probably created to deal with such marriages. A marriage in manum made her the equivalent of a daughter (filiae loco) in her husband's household.
There were three types of marriages in manum:

Confarreatio
Confarreatio was an elaborate religious ceremony,
with ten witnesses,
the flamen dialis (himself married confarreatio) and
pontifex maximus in attendance.
Only the children of parents married confarreatio were eligible.
The grain far was baked into a special wedding cake (farreum) for the occasion; hence, the name confarreatio.
Coemptio
In coemptio, the wife carried a dowry into the marriage,
but was ceremoniously bought by her husband in front of at least five witnesses.
She and her possessions belonged to her husband.
Usus
After a year's cohabitation, the woman came under her husband's manum,
unless she stayed away for three nights (trinoctium abesse).
Since she wasn't living with her pater familias, and
since she wasn't under the hand of her husband,
she acquired some freedom.
Sine manu (not in manum) marriages began in the third century B.C. and became the most popular by the first century A.D. There was also a marital arrangement for slaves (contuberium) and between freedmen and slaves (concubinatus). ""

http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ancientweddings5.html
"""excitusque hilari die,
nuptialia concinens
uoce carmina tinnula,
pelle humum pedibus, manu
pineam quate taedam.
... and excited for a fortunate day,
singing wedding songs
with ringing voice,
beat the ground with feet, with a hand
shake the pine torch."""

Not all that different for Jews - - - but this is long enough so will end it---

Pax-----------------------

Answer 2

I don't know the bible very well, but I do know that Paul was a misogynist and what he actually said was that it was better to marry than to burn. He must have burned, 'cause I don't remember that he ever married, so he must not have seen much virtue in that state. Probably given the choice of a sheep or a woman he would have reluctantly agreed that a woman was preferable, but just.

I would guess that marriages then are like marriages now, entered into for a variety of reasons, financial, political, and sexual, with love coming in last. Divorce was available to both Jews and Romans, but frowned upon more by the Jews and less frequent, lots less frequent. Polygamy was not a practice of either Jews or Romans generally, although there are instances of Jewish polygamy in the Old Testament.

Strange you didn't include that new weird sect, the christians, in your question.

Anyhow, nothing changes. Some were happy, some weren't. Some were faithful, some weren't. Some stayed together, some didn't. Just like today. The only difference I can think of is that there were probably many more marriages arranged by parents and others than today, although I don't think that arranged marriages were any more or less successful.

Answer 3

Roman Law recognised 3 levels of marriage. The first was what we would call a de facto relationship. Not formal, and easy to separate. The second was like what we regard as marriage, at least in western societies. Some formality in getting married, and divorce possible but more difficult. The third sort was a dynastic marriage, designed to cement family alliances. The parties probably had little choice in who they married and theoretically such marriages could not be dissolved. Which is why so many of them ended in murder - it was the oly way to end them.

Could be wrong about this - it is a few decades since I studied Roman law. This also reflects the law at the time of Justinian - 6th century. There may have been changes on the way.

Answer 4

I am sure you can find research on this subject it just requires a lot of time. I found some quick sources which you might follow

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Marriage/AboutMarriage/EvolutionAncient.htm
http://www.galleryjudaica.com/articles/KetubahTextExp.html
http://www.liberaljudaism.org/lj_wherewestand_marriage.htm
http://www.itim.org.il/bin/itim_E.jsp?o=AdditionalInfo%5El132&z=AdditionalInfo&fe=yes&origin=CeremonySuperTopic&originId=5
http://marriage.about.com/od/jewishmarriagetraditions/Jewish_Marriage.htm
http://ldolphin.org/risk/ult.shtml
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0190-5945(188501)4%3A5%3C236%3ATJLOMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=25&pid=413936&agid=2
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Marriage-Divorce-Ancient-Relation/dp/1846644496
http://www.biblecenterwv.org/wedding.htm