• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Germania, Tacitus

S

Shibboleth

Seasoned Member
Male
Continuing my trend of listening to historical audiobooks, I came across the first-century Roman historian Tacitus's descriprion of the various Germanic barbarian tribes of Europe. It was a quick and concise listen after the sprawling mass of book 1 from Herodotus' Histories.

The reason I bring it up here is because of his description of early Germanic marriage customs. I've occasionally heard the claim that Greeks and Romans were the ones that created monogamy, but Tacitus praises the Germanic tribes for also being almost totally monogamous. However, he does say that they're nearly unique among barbarians for being so. The exceptions, he notes, are not done out of sensual desire, but for alliances of powerful chiefs.

Marriage Laws. Their marriage code, however, is strict, and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy. Almost alone among barbarians they are content with one wife, except a very few among them, and these not from sensuality, but because their noble birth procures for them many offers of alliance. The wife does not bring a dower to the husband, but the husband to the wife. The parents and relatives are present, and pass judgment on the marriage-gifts, gifts not meant to suit a woman's taste, nor such as a bride would deck herself with, but oxen, a caparisoned steed, a shield, a lance, and a sword. With these presents the wife is espoused, and she herself in her turn brings her husband a gift of arms. This they count their strongest bond of union, these their sacred mysteries, these their gods of marriage. Lest the woman should think herself to stand apart from aspirations after noble deeds and from the perils of war, she is reminded by the ceremony which inaugurates marriage that she is her husband's partner in toil and danger, destined to suffer and to dare with him alike both in in war. The yoked oxen, the harnessed steed, the gift of arms proclaim this fact. She must live and die with the feeling that she is receiving what she must hand down to her children neither tarnished nor depreciated, what future daughters-in-law may receive, and may be so passed on to her grandchildren.

Thus with their virtue protected they live uncorrupted by the allurements of public shows or the stimulant of feastings. Clandestine correspondence is equally unknown to men and women. Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband's power. Having cut off the hair of the adulteress and stripped her naked, he expels her from the house in the presence of her kinsfolk, and then flogs her through the whole village. The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit a husband. No one in Germany laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted. Still better is the condition of those states in which only maidens are given in marriage, and where the hopes and expectations of a bride are then finally terminated. They receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state. To limit the number of children or to destroy any of their subsequent offspring is accounted infamous, and good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.
Click to expand...
 
I have heard in other sources that Tacitus was very unhappy with Roman immorality and that his main point in writing that book was to criticize Roman culture and promote his idea of what Roman society should be. All of his information was through second hand sources at best so that the Germanic tribes alleged sexual piety is at least suspect and at worst a total fabrication to serve a higher goal.
 
ZecAustin said:
I have heard in other sources that Tacitus was very unhappy with Roman immorality and that his main point in writing that book was to criticize Roman culture and promote his idea of what Roman society should be. All of his information was through second hand sources at best so that the Germanic tribes alleged sexual piety is at least suspect and at worst a total fabrication to serve a higher goal.
Click to expand...
Interesting! I hadn't heard that, but it makes sense. Sort of propagating the "noble savage" myth.
 
Shibboleth said:
The reason I bring it up here is because of his description of early Germanic marriage customs. I've occasionally heard the claim that Greeks and Romans were the ones that created monogamy, but Tacitus praises the Germanic tribes for also being almost totally monogamous. However, he does say that they're nearly unique among barbarians for being so. The exceptions, he notes, are not done out of sensual desire, but for alliances of powerful chiefs.
Click to expand...

If the Romans were monogamous, then it is not surprising that the Roman Tacitus finds virtue in the monogamy of the Barbarians.

I am in no way an expert, but my understanding is that the Romans were monogamous in marriage, but not in sex. They advocated only one wife, but sex outside of marriage was not an issue (mistresses and concubines, etc). The Jews did not believe in sex outside of marriage, but did not limit marriage to only one woman. Niether the Romans, not the Jews believed in a monogamous sex life, at least for men. They just handled it differently.

What we have today in Western Civilization is a random crash of the two ideas: one wife only from the Romans, and no sex outside of marriage from Jewish/Christian thought.
 
cnystrom said:
If the Romans were monogamous, then it is not surprising that the Roman Tacitus finds virtue in the monogamy of the Barbarians.

I am in no way an expert, but my understanding is that the Romans were monogamous in marriage, but not in sex.

What we have today in Western Civilization is a random crash of the two ideas: one wife only from the Romans, and no sex outside of marriage from Jewish/Christian thought.
Click to expand...
I'm not an expert either, but I think you have it right about the Romans....perform all kinds of sex acts with anyone...but stay legally monogamous! Sounds all too familiar with our society.

Not sure if sex outside of marriage necessarily applied to Jewish men very strictly, only the women. I can't seem to find where any man was stoned to death for joining up with a harlot.
 
Mojo said:
Not sure if sex outside of marriage necessarily applied to Jewish men very strictly, only the women. I can't seem to find where any man was stoned to death for joining up with a harlot.
Click to expand...

By Jewish I meant Judeo/Christian heritage/culture. I think sex outside of marriage is certainly considered a sin by the time the Christian sect comes along and Paul's teachings have been circulated and then collides with the Roman empire in about 200AD or so.
 
Which got me thinking. Were any harlots stoned to death? Adulterers, yes. But harlots? I do not recall any...
 
cnystrom said:
What we have today in Western Civilization is a random crash of the two ideas: one wife only from the Romans, and no sex outside of marriage from Jewish/Christian thought.
Click to expand...
Great insight. Hadn't quite thought of it that way before.
 
In 1 Kings3:16 King Solomon judges between two harlots. I strongly doubt that they would have brought their case before the king if it involved a capital crime such as adultery. It seems to me that he would have been remiss in not judging them for their confession to a capital crime.. if it were a capital crime. At the end of the chapter it says "the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.".. but not judge a capital crime? Personally, I am not aware of any law prohibiting a woman from from prostituting herself. I've also read other people who try to understand what is written and not press traditions and "morality" of men into the bible, and they seem to also agree that prostitution is not prohibited. Using the services of a harlot seems to be strongly spoken against (Proverbs 5, et al.), but not overtly prohibited with a "thou shalt not".

Edit to add;
Please note well that I am only discussing this with respect to the "Old Testament" and the law of Moses. I have not included anything from "New Testament" such as 1Co 6:15-16, which might impact the discussion.
 
Last edited:
eye4them said:
In 1 Kings3:16 King Solomon judges between two harlots. I strongly doubt that they would have brought their case before the king if it involved a capital crime such as adultery. It seems to me that he would have been remiss in not judging them for their confession to a capital crime.. if it were a capital crime. At the end of the chapter it says "the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.".. but not judge a capital crime? Personally, I am not aware of any law prohibiting a woman from from prostituting herself. I've also read other people who try to understand what is written and not press traditions and "morality" of men into the bible, and they seem to also agree that prostitution is not prohibited. Using the services of a harlot seems to be strongly spoken against (Proverbs 5, et al.), but not overtly prohibited with a "thou shalt not".
Click to expand...
Heavy warning with red lights, but not a crime?
 
Mojo said:
Heavy warning with red lights, but not a crime?
Click to expand...
If we consider "crime" to be something where it has a "thou shalt not", and maybe a blood sacrifice for offenders, or maybe even a stoning, then yeah, that's pretty much how I understand it. I am not entirely clear on how it works doing a thing that is spoken against, like prostitution, but that is (apparently) not directly prohibited. Regardless, it's definitely something one wants to stay clear of.

One major red light, as if there weren't enough already, is that he doesn't necessarily know for sure that she's not lying to him and that she belongs to another man, and thus she cannot sell herself, and her customer is then going to be an adulterer. MAJOR RED LIGHT!

As for the lack of direct prohibition, more evidence comes from the story of Samson in Judges 13 where it was said that Samson "shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb". Then later he went in unto a harlot in ch16. It wasn't until his hair was cut that the LORD departed from him. Those who vow the vow of a Nazarite, are subject to various restrictions enumerated in Numbers 6 including something having to do with not cutting the hair. I can only expect that those restrictions are in addition to keeping all the rest of the law of Moses that a person is obliged to observe all the rest of the time, and that not one jot or tittle is suspended for a Nazarite. So, if the LORD left him for not keeping law of the Nazarite, I can only expect that the LORD would have left him for not keeping any other part of the law that he is expected to keep all the rest of the time. Ergo, partaking of a prostitute is (apparently) not unlawful. Now, let's consider for the moment if it might be unlawful for her but not for him. I doubt that could be the case, because if it were, then he would be enabling an unlawful deed to be done. In 2john1:11 we read "For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.". OK, so how much more a partaker if he is physically participating in the crime?

Edit to add;
Please note well that I am only discussing this with respect to the "Old Testament" and the law of Moses. I have not included anything from "New Testament" such as 1Co 6:15-16, which might impact the discussion.
 
Last edited:
I think we need to take a brief time out here in a thread that has gone a little astray from the OP.

For those visitors to the site, I dont think any of us proponents of polygyny are actually condoning participating in prostitution. I, for one, am not. This is merely a thought exercise trying to reconcile marriage, traditions, and the Law of God, which comes from the mind of God.

Just throwing that out there for any visitors or newcomers to the site.:D
 
Mojo said:
Heavy warning with red lights, but not a crime?
Click to expand...
Unwise, but not illegal. Some actions provide their own punishment in the natural consequences of the act....

Mojo said:
For those visitors to the site, I dont think any of us proponents of polygyny are actually condoning participating in prostitution.
Click to expand...
Point well taken. At the same time, much religious behavior is organized around deciding who to hate and who should be punished (something Jesus had a few things to say about), and much opposition to polygyny from Christians, when they realize they can't find the verse that prohibits it, is something about "God's best" or "ideal", like we're all required to strive to live perfect lives according to their definition of 'perfect'. Jesus also had a few things to say about the traditions of men....

If you are a visitor to this site, be advised that regular core members of Biblical Families are drop-dead-serious about discerning what the bible actually teaches about what we should and shouldn't be doing as men and women trying to have successful biblical families. "Should" is a weird, vague, and ultimately unenforceable term, and there's a lot of room for people to disagree about what "God's best" looks like in individual cases. "Shouldn't" (or "thou shalt not") is direct, specific, and enforceable, so we want to be very careful about what we prohibit and sanction.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!", saith the prophet. We want to 'rightly divide the word of truth', and our sole authority in matters of faith and practice is the bible; hence, Biblical Families, not Baptist Families or Catholic Families or Evangelical Families or whatever. We encourage men and women of good will with faith in the resurrection and lordship of Jesus Christ to share their points of view here and debate (usually vigorously, sometimes heatedly, but always striving to 'speak the truth in love') the correct application of ancient scriptures to our modern lives.

We don't all agree all the time, but we all recognize that each of us is here by choice to join in the ongoing search for scriptural truth, and to explore the differences between what we've been taught in mainstream organized churches and what we can read and understand for ourselves directly from the scriptures. We understand that we are all coming here from different places in our walk with Christ and from different faith traditions, and we assume that there will be minor and major disagreements along the Way, until we either converge on an understanding or tap out and agree to disagree. If you are used to the coziness of meeting regularly with people who pretty much agree (or say they do) with whatever your church holds to be true, then you may be confused or put off by the diversity of views represented here. But if you're ready to jump in the deep end of the pool, then come on in, the water's fine!
 
Good idea. Prolly implement this weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top