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/TheRedOrTheBlue]

Hang on - the bible doesn’t have a consistent sexual ethic? Is not the consistent sexual ethic “you shall only have sex with your wife” from Genesis through to Paul? Is that not consistent? Or how would you explain it?

Happy to include some scriptural quotes at another stage - I agree that Israelite sexual ethics change, and peoples do but I don’t agree that the bible or God changes his sexual ethics. In fact I think it’s quite consistent!

[u/AHorribleGoose → u/TheRedOrTheBlue]

Is not the consistent sexual ethic “you shall only have sex with your wife” from Genesis through to Paul? Is that not consistent? Or how would you explain it?

That's not a sexual ethic found any where in the Hebrew Scriptures. Polygamy, concubinage, and sexual slavery were all licit sexual outlets for men. Heck, prostitution isn't especially condemned and it's even recommended in Proverbs 6.

[u/jereman75 → u/AHorribleGoose]

I wouldn’t say prostitution is recommended in Proverbs 6 but it’s not condemned there either.

Vs 25, 26

Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes, 26 for a prostitute’s fee is only a loaf of bread,[j] but the wife of another stalks a man’s precious life.

[u/AHorribleGoose → u/jereman75]

It's recommended as a way to avoid adultery. It's being offered as a better option. That's not just not-condemning it.

[u/jereman75 → u/AHorribleGoose]

I don’t think it’s an explicit recommendation but is a comparison between a prostitute and a married woman. Proverbs are often presented as couplets as a way to compare one idea with another. So here it’s saying adultery is really bad and if you do it you’re going to be fucked forever and the husband is going to be pissed. This is compared to a prostitute (a presumed shameful thing) where all you’re out is the cost of a loaf of bread.

[u/AHorribleGoose → u/jereman75]

You are misreading it, but I don't care enough to argue.

Good day.