In The Jewish Annotated New Testament (New Revised Standard Version), first edition, in the essay Sexual Mores we read the following (emphasis added, words in brackets my own):
Sexual behavior attracted legal attention in antiquity. The Emperor Augustus’s attempt to regulate adultery mandated that an unfaithful wife be divorced, but it did not punish husbands who had sexual relations with unmarried women (Lex Julia 123). Jewish law of the time defined adultery in terms of the wife’s infidelity but not the husband’s (as long as his sexual partner was unmarried [Ant. 3.12.1 (274)]), since polygyny (a man marrying several women) was allowed. The husband’s authority over the wife’s body was presumed by Roman law, but not the wife’s authority over the husband’s body, the position advanced by Paul. Rabbinic law accorded women some authority over her husband’s body, namely, the right to sexual relations (m. Ketub. 5.6). The late first-century historian Plutarch advocated an ethic similar to Paul’s (Mor. 144b), as did the first century Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (frag. 9.5, 7). …
… There is evidence for polygyny among Second Temple period Jews, yet the practice is condemned by the Essenes and Roman law (Josephus, Ant. 12.4.6 [186– 89]; 17.1.2 [14]; J.W. 1.24.2 [477], m. Yebam. 4.11; CD 4.20– 21; 11Q19 57.17–18; third century Cod. Just. 5.5.2, and Digest 48.5.12.12).
Celibacy was cultivated by some Essenes (Josephus, J.W. 2.8.2 [119]) and, according to Philo, the Therapeutae, a Jewish enclave in Egypt (Cont. Life 68). Jesus praises those who “make themselves eunuchs”for the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19.12) [Note that the Jesus Seminar disputes this saying as a clearly authentic saying of Jesus and may have been influenced by Pauline tradition], and the book of Revelation identifies the first who are saved in the final judgment as male virgins (Rev 14.4). In light of his expectation of the Christ’s imminent return, Paul was more concerned about changes in marital status than marital status per se.
Nonetheless, Paul’s teachings inspired a second-century movement of Christian celibacy (Acts of Paul and Thecla 3.5), and virginity was esteemed as a Christian virtue (Tertullian, Exh. cast.). The practice did not survive among Jews, perhaps in part because it was so emphasized by the early church. Christians began mandating celibacy for priests in the fourth century (Council of Elvira, canon 33). While the tradition of clerical celibacy continued in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Church permitted clergy to remain married if they were already married at the time of their ordination (Council of Trullo, canon 13). After the Protestant Reformation, nearly all protestant churches abolished compulsory celibacy for clergy, though some sectarian movements (the Shakers) reintroduced it, and there were revivals of monastic orders in non-Roman Catholic churches (Anglicans).
This provides further evidence for what I have been arguing in this blog series, which is that Restored (LDS) Christianity can be thought of as a return to the original Hebrew theology that emphasized the goodness of the sensual body and sexual desire and reproduction, and did not contain the same body shaming aspects of later Augustinian traditions. Since "polygyny (a man marrying several women) was allowed" and there is "evidence for polygyny among Second Temple period Jews" (i.e. plural marriage was practiced by some Jews in Jesus' day) then plural marriage cannot be said to be inherently "sinful" as a practice. When this is combined with the clear history of a body-denying monastic mentality lasting all the way to the Shakers advocating celibacy in the 1800s (which D&C 49: 15-16 condemns), then Joseph Smith's reintroduction of plural marriage can justifiably be interpreted as a righteous restoration of original Hebrew theology and attitudes among Jews in Jesus' day, before mistaken apocalyptic expectations led to a despising of the body.
Jesus himself did not directly condemn plural marriage which was not forbidden by the Jewish Law that Jesus advocated. So if it was practiced by Jews in Jesus' day, one cannot affirm with certainty that Jesus himself rejected plural marriage outright. One can argue that Jesus might have preferred monogamy, but it's not certain.
So my theory, that Joseph Smith was inspired to reintroduce plural marriage temporarily -- in order to change the consciousness of early Mormons away from the monastic mentality of Augustine and the Shakers and toward affirming the body -- has some indirect support from Jewish scholars as contained in this short essay.
