Why Joseph did not bonk Mrs Pot

by Inquisitor 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Inquisitor

  You are all talking about Joseph as if he were real or something. And as if we have a true account of what a real man did.

  Exactly, slim. We're working on the assumption that the record is true. Perhaps, like some, you're contented with proving that the Bible, as a literary work, is hopelessly inaccurate. But some of us prefer to analyse the Bible through a more microscopic lens: assuming certain Biblical claims are true and testing the Bible's authority on certain issues. A person who is convinced that the Bible is in error may view this examination as tedious and unnecessary. But I personally believe that such an approach is more effective in de-programming the conservative-fundamentalist mind.

  AlanF ,Thank you for that article. Great reflections there!

  INQ
• 

  Stealth453

  Stealth, with a cheeky remark like that, I would tell you to go sit in the corner. But I can see that you're already there.

  But ya still love little old me...
• 

  slimboyfat

  If the wider discourses within which such a story could be "understood" is what we are trying to apprehend, then perhaps such a disctinction between a fictional account and a real-life story is redundant anyway. If a story does not "ring true" to a readership on some level then it will simply not enjoy wide circulation. And even a totally fictional account can tell us a lot about a society in which such an account was accepted and even revered.

  Slim
• 

  Inquisitor

  Stealth, of course we still love you.

  Slim, could I please have the simple(r) English version of what you've just said.

  INQ
• 

  slimboyfat

  Inquisitor,

  I also think your analysis fails from a purely JW point of view as well because I do not recall the Witnesses claiming the main reason Joseph refused was his respect for another man's property. And the Bible makes the way for their own slant on it. They focus overwhelmingly on the phrase: "So how could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God?"

  They can and do apply that in principle to unmarried couples. Taking the Bible as inspired and accurate, I don't see a flaw in that inference from the text.

  Slim
• 

  slimboyfat

  If a story makes sense to a reader, or group of readers, then it is "true" in some sense.

  On the other hand, an account of a true incident that fails to effectively convey anything of any real meaning to the reader, then it might as well not be "true", since it is meaningless.

  That is why I say that the disctinction between fiction and non-fiction is perhaps not as important as we usually assume it to be.

  Slim
• 

  Inquisitor

  Dear Slim,

  I do not recall the Witnesses claiming the main reason Joseph refused was his respect for another man's property.

  They don't. Thus the inspiration for this thread.

  And the Bible makes the way for their own slant on it. They focus overwhelmingly on the phrase: "So how could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God?"

  Indeed the Bible does. I am not disputing that. I'm merely showing that there is more than one interpretation of Joseph's motive. Taken as true and inspired, the Bible does make way for the conclusion that Jospeh avoided Potiphar's wife out of respect for Potiphar's property rights and not necessarily out of sheer desire to remain chaste as the WTS and other christian groups claim.

  How does the Bible allow for the alternative interpretation? Well, have a look again at the 2 scriptures that I quoted and highlighted in Page 1.

  They can and do apply that in principle to unmarried couples.

  This is where their application becomes a mistake if Joseph was indeed acting ethically and NOT morally. If this tale is not about fornication, then why apply it to single couples at all?

  INQ
• 

  slimboyfat

  But the Witnesses don't claim that the story is about chastity per se. They focus on obedience to God and thereby link it indirectly to chastity since our obedience is to be demonstrated through chastity, just as Joseph's obedience to God was demonstrated by his refusal.

  Everything is about obedience.

  Slim
• 

  Inquisitor

  But the Witnesses don't claim that the story is about chastity per se.

  True, at times the WTS uses this story as an example of God's implicit laws (i.e. Joseph knew not to fornicate before the Mosaic Laws were made). But more frequently, JWs reflect on this account as a shining lesson of sexual abstinence.

  It doesn't concern me that obedience is linked with chastity, we're questioning the relevance of this story as a lesson in chastity.

  INQ
• 

  peacefulpete

  From an online encyclopedia:

  Like his father, Senusret II's reign is considered to be a peaceful one, using more diplomacy with neighbors then warfare. We are told that trade with the Near East was particularly prolific. His cordial relations with the regional leaders in Egypt is attested to at Beni Hassan, for example, and especially in the tomb of Khnumhotep II, who he gave many honors.

  There sem to be no recorded no military campaigns during his rule, though he undoubted protected Egypt's mineral interests and their expanded territory in Nubia.

  

  A Stele of Senusret II in Brown Quartzite

  His efforts seem to have been more directed at expanding cultivation within the Fayoum rather then making war with his neighbors and regional nobles.

  In the Fayoum, his projects turned a considerable area from marshlands into agricultural land. He established a Fayoum irrigation project, including building a dyke and digging canals to connect the Fayoum with a waterway known today as Bahr Yusef.

  He seems to have had a great interest in the Fayoum, and elevated the region in importance. Its growing recognition is attested to by a number of pyramids built before, and after his reign in or near the oasis (though the Fayoum is not a true oasis). It should also be remembered that kings usually built their royal palaces near their mortuary complexes, so it is likely that many of the future kings made their home in the Fayoum.

  Its hardly evidence of the historicity of the Joseph story that the modern Arabs have named the canal after one of their favorite Koran characters.