Whoops, I thought I typed "reasonably", but apparently not.
all you guys,are you A Joseph? Day after day she beg you to lie with her.
Apo, your reading of my no-spellcheck, foreign-accented posts is rubbing off on your spelling. Thank you for getting so deeply involved.
The WT assumes that Joseph was not shagging the other servants. There was never a law against a single man having sex with slaves. The account specificalls says that Joseph told Potiphars wife "my master has not witheld ANYTHING from me EXCEPT you" that tells me that he was having sex with whoever else, remember there was not then, nor under the future mosaic law anything prohibiting a married or unmarried man from shagging an unmarried woman. I see no reason to believe Joseph abstained from sexual pleasures. There is certainly nothing in the story indicating he did. Male virginity was not prized in that time or location. He simply did not want to get involved with his bosses wife, probably for several reasons.
We assume that Potiphar wife lied. But reading the account, Joseph
was the overseer of the house, in fact Potiphar had no idea
what was going on in his own household. In vs 6, he left all
he had in Joseph's hand, and he did not know what he had
except for the bread which he ate.
Maybe Joseph got big headed, Potiphar an officer of Pharaoh no
doubt a busy man, apparently spending little time at home.
Maybe she was testing Joseph, because the statement in vs 14,
"see he has brought into us a Hebrew to mock us."
One other point, Joseph was the overseerer,Vs 11 "went into
the house to do his work, and none of the men of the house was
inside". Where were the women slaves?
Maybe Joseph master had a problem, only men slaves.
Ok, maybe I'm way out there with my thinking, but I learn it from
the best, (WT).
BU2B very interesting angle, your post, so when did the idea of Porneia come in?
was not the dicovery of " --Folly in Israel--, The discovery of the evidence of pre-marital sex, it's punishment part of the law? and
if Joseph had an inkling of the moral code of the coming Moses Law, would that not have been possibly reflected in all his conduct, off the ladies bed or others?
My point was wt should not imply HE was tempted, it was the lady in heat.
How many guys have told this to their wives, but dear she
pulled down my trousers and raped me, after they got caught.
She was all over me, I didn't do anything....
It's hard for me to engage with this account on a serious level and speculate on the details when it's part of the mythical "patriarchal" portion of Jewish history.
We're expected to believe that after being thrown into prison, Joseph, a Jew, was promoted to 2nd most important man in Egypt. His family of about 70 eventually joined him as VIPs in Egypt, and 200-400 years later, they were now a nation of millions of slaves.
The accounts remain mythical up through Moses leading Israel to the Promised Land (though there's probably a germ of truth preserved here, about a tribe or former vassals of Egypt moving into the area from the direction of Egypt).
So when viewed as part of the series of stories about righteous Hebrews who were personal friends with God, and who had amazing success stories intended to fill latter-day Jews with pride, it's a fine tale. But why analyze the details of his interaction with Potiphar's wife? It's like being at the Kingdom Hall while people make up stories to explain minor details in the photos in the WT article.
Apognophos::"why analyze the details", that's the fun part, Breaking down those stories.
Its all in the Mosaic law. If a married man had sex with an unmarried woman, the worst that would happen if caught would be that he would have to marry her too. Today if a married man has sex with a unmarried woman it is viewed as adultery. This was not the case in the bible, and is not scriptural. I believe that the sexual laws of the OT were more about property rights than what christians today view as morality. The ONLY way a man could commit adultery was if he had sex with a married woman because he would be infrignging on another mans valuable property. If you had sex with a virgin and got caught, you would have to pay the father because again, you infringed on his property. Adultery only worked one way in the OT, if a married woman went outside the arrangement. A man could have sex with as many wives, concubines, and slaves as he could afford. Marriage was viewed much differently then than now, and even today what marriage is varies from place to place. To add another wrinkle into the conversation, if a man had sex with an engaged free woman, they were both punished with death, however if a man had sex with a engaged slave, he would merely have to make a sacrifice,because she was not free. Again if sexual morals were the issue what difference would it make if you were free of slave?
The idea of porneia was not introduced until the NT. Even Jesus did not mention a wife being able to divorce her husband, only a husband his wife. Keep in mind I do not agree with this thinking, I am just seeing the bible for what it is, not what people want it to be. Even the NT does NOT prohibit taking more than one wife. Polygamy is now considered adulterous by JWs and most Bible believers, however that is NOT what the bible teaches. Being husband of one wife was listed as a SPECIAL requirement for appointed men. If this was a requirement for all, it would not need repeating that it is a special requirement. It would be like today the qualifications to be a Elder being that you cannot smoke or gamble. Since no one can, it would be redundant to list it again.
It is distasteful to modern sensibilities, but in the Bible, a man was not held to the same moral standard as a woman the way they are today in the western world. Many try to gloss this over but no one really knows what the word "porneia" really meant. The WT has went from gay sex and bestiality not being porneia, to now where everything is included down to lap dances. They change the definition to say what they want it to say. This is the problem with trying to superimpose bronze age morality on Victorian puritanical morality, or in other cases modern morality.
BU2B, the "--evidence of virginity--" requirement in DEUTR. 22 not preclude allowing utrammeled consentual sex between singles?, all the added details notwithstanding?