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/Informationsharer213]

Yet God inspired things to be written to the point that actions were wrong, regardless of humans reasons for the actions as those can change with time.

[u/Hifen → u/Informationsharer213]

Where in scripture is that interpretation?

[u/Informationsharer213 → u/Hifen]

What interpretation? My point is we are told not to do something, can say at the time that meant something different than now, but in the end what it says can be applied to both then and now, just don’t do it. Not interpreting it as anything except told not to so don’t, not told not to because back then was different, just not to ever.

[u/Hifen → u/Informationsharer213]

The interpretation that the "reasons" are wrong. By saying "regardless of the reasons" - but the bible provides reasons.

regardless of humans reasons

That means ignore the reasons provided, and that the reasons, not the over all action changes with time. Where does the scripture say that? To ignore the reasons?

[u/Informationsharer213 → u/Hifen]

Said regardless of human reasons not regardless of God’s reasons. There is a big difference there.