>>1882
It's interesting as an exercise, but all it really tells you is that polygyny was the norm for the nomadic warrior tribes whose writings were stitched together by the Deuteronomists into the Old Testament we know today. As they settled down and became agrarian post-Testament, polygyny might have dried up a bit. Roman monogamy also had a big influence on New Testament apostles.
Most religious opinions today would be that the New Testament forbids polygyny, though most of that comes from the letters written as part of the early church's founding. Jesus himself didn't have a lot to say on it either way.
Anyway, the Old Testament: Moses, Jacob, David and Solomon were documented as having many wives and even more concubines, but that's not so convincing. The desert law parts of the Old Testament (famous for the "don't wear mixed fabrics" and "no eating crustaceans" laws) explicitly cover situations that were pretty clearly the result of what we'd call a common law precedent. It's always referred to in passing, indicating it was a common situation:
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 (as part of covering distribution of inheritance)
>If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
Deuteronomy 17:17 (as part of the conditions and restrictions placed upon a king to ensure he does not become a despot and/or escape from the control of the priesthood)
>He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
Exodus 21:10 (as part of covering the conditions for selling one's daughter to another man)
>If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
>Deuteronomy 25:5-9 (covering a widow's guarantee/restrictions that a man's brothers will continue providing for her along with certain dis-incentives to fratricide)
>If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
>However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line."
>That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.