The "Genesis" of Marriage

[whag]

The origin of marriage isn't what Jesus says it was.

One of the justifications for traditional male/female marriage is Jesus' citing Adam and Eve as the first married couple. But there never was a first married couple. Humanity's origins are a bit more crude and certainly don't indicate such traditional one male/one female pairings that we're accustomed to today. The tradition of marriage is about 5000 years old. Going back further than that, it's generally agreed that families consisted of groups with many male leaders; multiple women with whom the men mated; and, of course, lots of children.

People can make the case for traditional marriage, but citing Jesus' reference to a first married couple doesn't really help. Marriage isn't something that began happening when human beings came to be. That's myth. Rather, marriage was non-existent for a long time after we originated (no real shock that) and evolved in many different iterations over time for different reasons.

[tabibito]

Five thousand years seems a little too recent on first sight, though maybe not for monogamy.
Is there compelling evidence that Jesus said Adam and Eve were the first married couple?

[hamster]

Well if Jesus decided that's the way it should be a trillion years before he created Humans than it seems like the definition doesn't depend on human behavior. But it seems semantic

[whag]

Five thousand years seems a little too recent on first sight, though maybe not for monogamy.

To makes things easier, I'll grant that 1 male/1 female marriages began, say, 30,000 years ago. That's probably a kind estimation.

Is there compelling evidence that Jesus said Adam and Eve were the first married couple?

Clearly when Jesus referenced the beginning, his Jewish audience understood it as the specific mythical first couple. Whether there's compelling evidence that Jesus said the things attributed to him seems to be another conversation. This thread assumes that Jesus asked the famous question in Matthew 19:4,5:

"Haven't you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?"

[whag]

Well if Jesus decided that's the way it should be a trillion years before he created Humans than it seems like the definition doesn't depend on human behavior. But it seems semantic

That'd be more of a metaphysical claim. We now know that anthropological beginnings were far different than he says they were. "The beginning" assumes an abrupt establishment of an institution and dismissed the rich history of male/female interaction before it. This is completely understandable if, as it seems, Jesus knew really nothing about the history of human society that preceded the time when men actually began leaving their parents to live with (arranged) helpmeets.

[tabibito]

That'd be more of a metaphysical claim. We now know that anthropological beginnings were far different than he says they were. "The beginning" assumes an abrupt establishment of an institution and dismissed the rich history of male/female interaction before it. This is completely understandable if, as it seems, Jesus knew really nothing about the history of human society that preceded the time when men actually began leaving their parents to live with (arranged) helpmeets.

Yup - It is a reasonable supposition that Genesis is a constructed history or myth. I don't believe it is myth - but I have to admit the reconciliation is kind of funky. It is also a reasonable assumption that Jesus' knowledge was limited to what any man of his milieu had available, other than matters imparted by the Holy Spirit - and that information wasn't related to science.

[shunyadragon]

The origin of marriage isn't what Jesus says it was.

One of the justifications for traditional male/female marriage is Jesus' citing Adam and Eve as the first married couple. But there never was a first married couple. Humanity's origins are a bit more crude and certainly don't indicate such traditional one male/one female pairings that we're accustomed to today. The tradition of marriage is about 5000 years old. Going back further than that, it's generally agreed that families consisted of groups with many male leaders; multiple women with whom the men mated; and, of course, lots of children.

People can make the case for traditional marriage, but citing Jesus' reference to a first married couple doesn't really help. Marriage isn't something that began happening when human beings came to be. That's myth. Rather, marriage was non-existent for a long time after we originated (no real shock that) and evolved in many different iterations over time for different reasons.

It is true the institution of marriage gets vaguer the further back you go in human history, but the highlighted above is basically not well known in ancient human history. I believe there is good evidence in China of family unites older than 5,000 years ago. Now these family units would most likely not be the same as more recent history. Part of the evidence lies in the layout of ancient villages indicating individual family sized huts, and their contents indicated a family. Ancient human social structure was likely consisted of tribes divided into clans, and divided into some sort of hierarchal family structure. Polygamy was probably the norm in these Neolithic cultures older than 5000 years. It is not known how old this social structure existed.

Human were at one time most likely nomadic following the seasonal migration of animal herds. Currently the nomadic family structure was similar to the above. Within some variation the Neolithic Native Americans had distinct social structure as described above.

[shunyadragon]

The nature of the clan and family units varies mostly on the species level. This observed variation would most likely indicate that the basic homo sapien family unit we see in human history is more related to the evolution of the species and not cultural development over time. This by no means does not mean the family unit may evolve and change, but it does indicate that the social structure is more likely associated at the species level.

For example:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Social_systems

Monogamous species – a male–female bond, sometimes accompanied by a juvenile offspring. There is shared responsibility of parental care and territorial defense. The offspring leaves the parents' territory during adolescence. Gibbons essentially use this system, although "monogamy" in this context does not necessarily mean absolute sexual fidelity.

© Copyright Original Source

Monogamous species would include homo sapiens.

Other social systems include:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Social_systems

Female transfer systems – females move away from the group in which they were born. Females of a group will not be closely related whereas males will have remained with their natal groups, and this close association may be influential in social behavior. The groups formed are generally quite small. This organization can be seen in chimpanzees, where the males, who are typically related, will cooperate in defense of the group's territory. Among New World Monkeys, spider monkeys and muriquis use this system.[89]

A social huddle of ring-tailed lemurs. The two individuals on the right exposing their white ventral surface are sunning themselves. Male transfer systems – while the females remain in their natal groups, the males will emigrate as adolescents. Polygynous and multi-male societies are classed in this category. Group sizes are usually larger. This system is common among the ring-tailed lemur, capuchin monkeys and cercopithecine monkeys.

© Copyright Original Source

There are other social structures for different species.

It is more likely that homo sapiens have been relatively Monogamous ranging from Monogamy to Polygamy since homo sapiens have been homo sapiens.

[ShrimpMaster]

The origin of marriage isn't what Jesus says it was.

One of the justifications for traditional male/female marriage is Jesus' citing Adam and Eve as the first married couple. But there never was a first married couple. Humanity's origins are a bit more crude and certainly don't indicate such traditional one male/one female pairings that we're accustomed to today. The tradition of marriage is about 5000 years old. Going back further than that, it's generally agreed that families consisted of groups with many male leaders; multiple women with whom the men mated; and, of course, lots of children.

People can make the case for traditional marriage, but citing Jesus' reference to a first married couple doesn't really help. Marriage isn't something that began happening when human beings came to be. That's myth. Rather, marriage was non-existent for a long time after we originated (no real shock that) and evolved in many different iterations over time for different reasons.

How do you get: "The origin of marriage isn't what Jesus says it was" from "humanity's origins are a bit more crude". There is no logical flow there. Just because culturally humans have been promiscuous whores doesn't make Jesus claim false.

And again, you are making a claim like 'generally agreed'... 'therefore'... Sociology as a secular institution is a joke and riddled with relativism. Christianity does not to submit to such garbage.

I think you would be better off evaluating Adam and Eve as contemporaries, but the scientific data in that respect is inconclusive.

[shunyadragon]

How do you get: "The origin of marriage isn't what Jesus says it was" from "humanity's origins are a bit more crude". There is no logical flow there. Just because culturally humans have been promiscuous whores doesn't make Jesus claim false.

And again, you are making a claim like 'generally agreed'... 'therefore'... Sociology as a secular institution is a joke and riddled with relativism. Christianity does not to submit to such garbage.

I think you would be better off evaluating Adam and Eve as contemporaries, but the scientific data in that respect is inconclusive.

First, whag's understanding of sociology as what is generally agreed is not correct.

Second, whag made no specific claim makes no description of ancient morality as 'humans being promiscuous whores' is very much an over statement. The actual truth by the evidence is that, even though most likely basically 'monogamous/polygamous' throughout the natural history of humanity for tens of thousands, maybe over 100,000 years, humanity is historically fairly promiscuous.

[whag]

How do you get: "The origin of marriage isn't what Jesus says it was" from "humanity's origins are a bit more crude". There is no logical flow there.

If Jesus meant to say that a first human couple existed, that'd be incorrect. Human beings didn't originate by way of a married couple. Humanity emerged more crudely, and the marriage rite was established much later in the history of human beings during the Bronze Age, though possibly the Copper Age, but still post-dating the Stone Age by millenia.

Moreover, the religious construct of monotheism followed the more animistic beliefs of early humanity, not vice versa, whereas Jesus implies otherwise (likely because he didn't know). Those animistic belief tendencies were informed by the forces that threatened and sustained humanity--such as climate, predators, and game.

Just because culturally humans have been promiscuous whores doesn't make Jesus claim false.

I said nothing of promiscuity and prostitution, which are anachronisms in the context of the Stone Age.

And again, you are making a claim like 'generally agreed'... 'therefore'... Sociology as a secular institution is a joke and riddled with relativism. Christianity does not to submit to such garbage.

Um, what? Sociology is a branch of science that's recognized by many Christians such as Karl Giberson, John Schneider, and many others.

I think you would be better off evaluating Adam and Eve as contemporaries, but the scientific data in that respect is inconclusive.

No idea what you're talking about here. Please explain.

[whag]

First, whag's understanding of sociology as what is generally agreed is not correct.

Second, whag made no specific claim makes no description of ancient morality as 'humans being promiscuous whores' is very much an over statement. The actual truth by the evidence is that, even though most likely basically 'monogamous/polygamous' throughout the natural history of humanity for tens of thousands, maybe over 100,000 years, humanity is historically fairly promiscuous.

The concept of promiscuity is more recent. Early humanity wasn't any more promiscuous than its mammalian kin, who all discriminate on the basis of complicated factors. We can reasonably assume that males within groups had sex with females in order to reduce the childbearing burden of females and also increase the number of helpers in the group to hunt and prepare food, etc.

Re: cromags breeding with neanderthals--which genomic evidence proves occurred--it's reasonable to assume both species evaluated signals before shagging, just like all other fauna do. Such breeding doesn't constitute promiscuity in the modern sense and blithely dismisses the circumstances our early ancestors faced.

[shunyadragon]

The concept of promiscuity is more recent. Early humanity wasn't any more promiscuous than its mammalian kin, who all discriminate on the basis of complicated factors. We can reasonably assume that males within groups had sex with females in order to reduce the childbearing burden of females and also increase the number of helpers in the group to hunt and prepare food, etc.

Re: cromags breeding with neanderthals--which genomic evidence proves occurred--it's reasonable to assume both species evaluated signals before shagging, just like all other fauna do. Such breeding doesn't constitute promiscuity in the modern sense and blithely dismisses the circumstances our early ancestors faced.

It is true that moral judgments per say are more recent, but based on the evidence primitive Neolithic societies, tribes and clans did have rules, ie ethics and morality that related to the times and situations they lived. Even primate societies today have rules that can be described as morals and ethics.

I was not making a moral judgment when I am referring to promiscuity concerning the nature of relationships outside monogamy or polygamy family units, which is likely the basic social family unit of homo sapiens as a species.

Actually you cannot reasonably assume your generalizations in the argument you have been presenting concerning the nature of the society and family in the primal history of the human species. Evidence does not support the highlighted supposed comparison with 'mammalian kin.'

The actual paleontological evidence, and the comparative nature of family and social units in the primate species living today tells a different story, which is a bit more complex.

[whag]

It is true that moral judgments per say are more recent, but based on the evidence primitive Neolithic societies, tribes and clans did have rules, ie ethics and morality that related to the times and situations they lived. Even primate societies today have rules that can be described as morals and ethics.

I was not making a moral judgment when I am referring to promiscuity concerning the nature of relationships outside monogamy or polygamy family units, which is likely the basic social family unit of homo sapiens as a species.

Actually you cannot reasonably assume your generalizations in the argument you have been presenting concerning the nature of the society and family in the primal history of the human species. Evidence does not support the highlighted supposed comparison with 'mammalian kin.'

The actual paleontological evidence, and the comparative nature of family and social units in the primate species living today tells a different story, which is a bit more complex.

You realize that primates are mammals, yes? The behavior of primates today more resembles the behavior of early human tribes, not a refined story about an initial married couple in a mythical paradise.

As for the story being "complex," that's entirely my point. What Jesus says about the first nuptials is too simplistic. The human family has a long messy history and certainly didn't begin and radiate outwards from a neat and tidy "first couple."

[shunyadragon]

You realize that primates are mammals, yes? The behavior of primates today more resembles the behavior of early human tribes, not a refined story about an initial married couple in a mythical paradise.

You failed to say 'primates.' You used a general category 'mammals.' Your correct concerning the mythical married couple in paradise, but that does not connect to the rest of your argument.

As for the story being "complex," that's entirely my point. What Jesus says about the first nuptials is too simplistic. The human family has a long messy history and certainly didn't begin and radiate outwards from a neat and tidy "first couple."

This is correct concerning the problem with the Biblical story of human monogamy, though complex, it is not best described as a 'messy history.' It is best described as a very natural history. The natural history of human sexuality is indeed more real and reflects the reality of our behavior today. Some aspects, like homosexuality, and polygamy, are challenging rigid Victorian morality based on Biblical naïve views, are confronting these unnatural views of human sexuality. The major flaw in these standards based on ancient Biblical stories is they have become 'absolute' inflexible standards of morals and intolerant of any deviation, with often cruel and brutal punishments. Nonetheless morals and ethics are essential for human society throughout our history.

This does not translate that we should reject the moral and ethics of society, and openly accept promiscuous behavior as moral. What is 'natural' behavior is not necessarily moral behavior. It is apparent that even primitive Neolithic societies do have moral standards that limit this behavior. An anything goes morality can threaten the basic moral and ethical foundation of family in society.

The evidence remains that the basic social family unit for homo sapiens is a monogamous/polygamous relationship.