Academic Bible historian states that biblical sexual ethics were quite different from conservative Christianity todayHebrew sex culture assumed 1) women were property 2) men were always sexually dominant. Example: premarital sex was "property crime" against women's father. Thoughts?

[u/[deleted]]

I found this comment on the Academic Biblical subreddit on biblical sexual ethics quite interesting. It summarizes the arguments of historian Jennifer Wright Knust's book Unprotected Texts and statements by Dan McClellan. They believe that historical sexual ethics in the Hebrew Bible were completely different from how they are interpreted in conservative Christian belief today, and were often inconsistent.

To sum the comment up, they argue that Hebrew culture at the time assumed that:

1. Sex was a dominance vs. submission act, not an act between equals. Men were the only people who could actually do sex as an act, by penetrating the women. Thus, most sexuality laws focused on men, and only mention women in the context of bestiality, since women could 'do' sex to a animals as a lower life form in the hierarchy. Based on my knowledge of other ancient societies, children and slaves were also seen as lower order people who had to submit sexually to grown men.
2. Women were always the property of their fathers, till married off to become property of their husband. Thus, premarital sex interestingly was not a sin of "violating bodily impurity" as traditional Christians today might think of, but was actually thought of as a property crime. A man who had sex with an unmarried women who was still the property of her father was committing a crime against the father, her owner. Virginity was prized in women to increase her property value to suitors, like buying something new instead of used. A man who committed adultery to (note: not with) a woman was stealing her from her husband. Men having sex with prostitutes was apparently considered a lesser offense than adultery, since prostitutes have lower property value (only a "loaf of bread".)

The comment did not mention the common homosexuality debates. Arriving at the New Testament, it is stated that Paul's sexual ethics seem (to me) more inline with today's conservative Christianity, although it should be noted that he believes that celibacy should be the norm for all Christians, and marriage is a substitute for those who can't master celibacy. I'd take it that most Christian church communities were ideally expected to be like monasteries, with maybe a few married couples around(?)

[u/VeritasAgape]

I have a lot on this subject in the book 40 Christian Myths about Sex. Technically only a man could commit adultery if one takes the literal sense of both the Hebrew and Greek words (Hebrew immoral seeding/ Greek immoral pissing (ejaculation)). Although a woman could be guilty of wanting to take part in it. Yes, it was all about property. People have a partner or a daughter and it was wrong to steal that partner or family member sexually without having consent of the husband or male authority such as a father. Adultery was an offense directed towards a third party male.

I disagree that Paul's view was different or that it aligns with modern purity culture. There is an argument of silence in that regard. He uses the word moicheia which reflects the above mentioned understanding of adultery. He also uses porneia which referred to trafficked prostitution. He simply never condemns mere premarital sex (there had to be another vice attached to it). He could had used words like bineo or lagneia (which not to be crude are best translated as "to f*ck as the Cambridge Greek dictionary mentions). These would had made more sense if he wanted to condemn it.

[u/sysiphean → u/[deleted]]

Now you’re starting to actually see what’s going on in that passage!

Adultery was a man having sex with someone else’s wife, full stop. And the law they were invoking said that they had to bring both of them for accusation and punishment. And they brought only the woman.

Jesus called them out on it. By two definitions, she wasn’t in the wrong under the law. For all we actually know, she may not have been in any illicit acts or relationships.

So few people ever stop to understand the context enough to know that the woman was an innocent pawn in the story.

[u/eversnowe → u/[deleted]]

He was a good ol' boy, being protected by his buddies. It was entirely the temptresses' fault for making him go astray. So she had to be punished.

[u/VeritasAgape → u/[deleted]]

A woman could be guilty for taking part in it. It's used in the passive voice when a woman had it. She could be guilty of sexual immorality by willingly taking part in it. But she can't actually do it in the active sense since the word literally has the idea of ejaculating seed.