Talk:Rape in the Hebrew Bible

POV
This article unequivocally paints the Hebrew Bible as misogynistic. Perhaps we could make it a tad more balanced? There are, after all, many Christian/Jewish feminists who do not see the Hebrew Bible as demeaning to women. Sure, there are a couple of sentences in this article which do not support the idea that the Hebrew Bible is pro-rape, but they are too few and far between.
 * I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Using the material that I found under the category of "Rape in the Hebrew Bible" in the library catalogue, this is what I found. "A couple of sentences" is a massive understatement. Also, it's not like these are my thoughts or anything. It's what I could find. If you have any other books, I highly recommend that you add some information. Some other users have done so as well using books that I missed somehow. Misogyny is not really the main topic here—it's the Bible's treatment of rape. Here are some whole paragraphs that argue against a negative viewpoint of the various parts:

, care to comment? :) Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "Regarding the story of Dinah in Genesis, Sandra E. Rapoport…"
 * 2) "Apologetics Press argues that…"
 * 3) "In a piece for TheBlaze, a variety of religious scholars condemn"
 * 4) This is a bit more of a mixed opinion, but "Yamada opines that Deuteronomy 22:23-24…"
 * 5) "Yamada believes that the language…"
 * 6) "Regarding the rape of Tamar in 2 Samuel…"
 * 7) "Similarly, Yamada argues that the narrator aligns…"

Dear Johanna, With all do respect, let's not pretend that you created this article for any reason other than making the Bible look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4501:C8FF:6DE2:6F03:534D:5784 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not make assertions about the motivations of editors in creating articles. That is considered a personal attack. Now, with regard to subject matter, with almost all the passages discussed, there would, I think, be a general consensus among scholars that the narrator does not necessarily approve of the action. The only "problem" passage in that regard is Deuteronomy 22, but as the article says, not all scholars agree that "rape" is an appropriate term for what is described. Nevertheless, that is probably the section that needs the most work, and we can do a whole lot better than just contributors to TheBlaze. StAnselm (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of Deuteronomy on the web, I can only find some Apologetics Press stuff (this). I wouldn't be sure what books to look for as I might just end up with more works that are critical of Deuteronomy. If you want to incorporate stuff from books yourself or recommend some for me, this should be able to be fixed up. If you think there are any other neutrality issues, let me know. To that IP address who's probably the initial starter of the thread: that is far from the truth, as it is a widely discussed area in biblical criticism that WP had nothing on. If you would like to suggest some specific passages where you think neutrality is an issue, go ahead, but please do not make personal attacks. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And to be honest, I'm not sure why you're having trouble. I looked at "rape" and "Deuteronomy 22" in Google Books, and got loads of hits. Commentaries are usually going to be the best source. E.g., Richard D. Nelson, in the Old Testament Library commentary on Deuteronomy, p. 273: "the question of rape has nothing essential to do with the crucial point of the offense, which is the diminution of the father's financial stake in his daughter". StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really mean trouble regarding finding sources--I mean ones that will defend the Bible. That one is still quite critical, at least the part you quoted. What do you think about the neutrality tag? Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you're active on the page, so could you possibly respond to some of the comments on this thread? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm that the section on Deuteronomy 22 needs to be more balanced, however I think that the "Major Prophets" section of this page could especially use some quotes from works defending the Bible. That section also needs a sentence or two about the difference between approving of rape and using a rape metaphor. Also, what on earth does have to do with rape?
 * I balanced those two sections out--tell me how that looks. I would put a sentence on that if it were in a source somewhere so it wouldn't be OR or POV the other way. Oops, that's a mistake--it's actually . Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits; however, I see no reference to rape in, and there is only a relatively short passage in the "Major Prophets" section that defends the Bible.
 * As you can see in the article, some scholars believe that the translation of one Hebrew word (pōt) as "scalp" or "forehead" is better translated as "genitals". Also, looking at in the KJV, it says "secret parts". I balanced that section out, let me know what you think.  Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could give me an update on your thoughts on the neutrality of the article now. :) Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The beginning of the "Analysis, interpretation and criticism" section desperately needs balancing.
 * I removed that part, as it was just a vestigial paragraph from my original version of the article, when it was divided into critical and non-critical sections. Johanna (talk to me!) 16:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Genesis 19 section features this sentence "The traditional interpretation of the destruction of the city of Sodom is that of an attempted homosexual gang rape." I fail to see how depicts anything other than an attempted homosexual gang rape. Also, the article spends too little time describing the aforementioned passage, which is definitely about attempted rape, and much more time describing the episode of Lot and his daughters, which is rape only in Esther Fuchs' imagination and not in the text of Genesis itself.

Problems
Finding a bizarre line about the "scientifically documented beaver of a rapist", I changed it to "scientifically documented behavior of a rapist" as an obvious Freudian slip. However, when I checked the source, I found no such line in the book cited (Scholz, Susanne (2000)). I checked the author's other cited publication, but it also does not appear. A Google search revealed several texts in which the line appears, with this seeming to be the direct source (though the phrase appears to come from a digest of questions about Genesis, found here and elsewhere). The words are quoted, and a footnote number is given, but there are no footnotes present in the online version. More worryingly, the text surrounding this quotation seems to have been copied word for word from the web-source. So we appear to have problem of plagiarism, supplemented by the possibly intentional mis-attribution of a quotation which could not easily be sourced. This is the only part of the text I have checked. I think it may require a more detailed going over. At the moment I have time only to tag it. Paul B (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Firstly, the book cited was Scholz, Susanne (2010). I checked again, and my quote is definitely in the book. Secondly, the "direct source" that you mentioned is actually just a PDF of the first chapter of the 2010 work. So this is not a mis-attribution of a quotation. For the quotation within a quotation, the reason that the footnote visible in the online version is not at the end of the chapter is that Scholz put all her footnotes at the end of the book. I added a source for the quotation within a quotation. I hope that fixes your concern. You can check the rest of the article and see, but other than typos/embarrassing autocorrects, there shouldn't be any plagiarism problems that can't be explained. Thank you! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 13:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I haven't responded straightaway. I read yor comment and I intended to check the details, but I've been to busy. I was probably too busy to start with - adding the tag without properly checking the sources (though I sincerely, if hurriedly, tried). I didn't quite 'get' that the quote was within a quote, so I'm sorry about he implied aspersions about your intellectual honesty. I still have a few problems with the article, which is thst it essentially sets feminists against fudamentalists. So I think it need more from historical scholars. Anyway, thst's just me trying to salvage some feeble claim to authority in expressing my comments. Paul B (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine! Thanks for even looking at it. :) If you could elaborate on your point, that would be great! I would be happy to incorporate some information from historical scholars if you could provide some titles of works, and I see what you're saying about the feminism vs. fundamentalism thing, although I do have quote of the feminist authors in their more supportive sections in the "religious responses to criticism" section. BenLinus  1214 talk 01:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hebrew orthography
As for the wrong niqqud signs, any Hebrew dictionary will do. עִנָה and עָנָה are completely different words, but both are words. This is why you can find both in biblehub.com. This wiki dictionary article has both words: https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%94 you can also use morfix, an English Hebrew online dictionary, that again makes the distinction. https://www.morfix.co.il/%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%94 as for the niqqud of the other words, I suggest you type them into morfix without niqqud and see the niqqud and meanings it spits out, morfix is a great tool. Yotsuba-Nyaa (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting, it's good that you bring this up. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying yet, let alone whether I agree, but I'm willing to learn. Strong's Hebrew: 6031. עָנָה (anah) can mean 'to rape', amongst other things, but never 'to answer, to respond'. Strong's Hebrew: 6030. עָנָה (anah) does mean 'to answer, to respond'. I see the difference in the two words you have given: the first has a dot (a 'hiriq'?) rather than a line and a dot (a 'kamatz'?) However, the Hebrew characters presented on Biblehub are exactly the same, even though they have separate entries, namely no. #6030 and no. #6031. Moreover, the Hebrew Wiktionary entry you sent me also mentions both 'to rape/torture' (עִנָּה with a hiriq) and 'to answer/respond' (עָנָה with a kamatz) as possible Biblical Hebrew meanings, even though it lists them in separate sections. So, these verbs do have a common root? And the niqqud gives them a different meaning? In that case, Biblehub seems to be wrong about no. #6031, because if it refers to 'to rape/torture' etc. then it should be with hiriq rather than kamatz. Is that correct? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The Hebrew Wiktionary entry lists in the same entry simply because they have the same characters and most Hebrew speakers don't bother to use niqqud, unless they are linguists, teachers (children who are just beginning to read are taught with niquud), or like to specify what they mean when the context is ambiguous. If you would take a close Wiktionary entry, the word עִנָּה (rape/torture) has a dot in the נ (Nun letter), it's called a dagesh, and there are several other word pairs in Hebrew where a dagesh in a consonant makes a completely different word. Biblehub does seem to be wrong, and in the article it should be עִנָּה (inah). Other words in that section have the same mistake of using a Kamatzָ instead of Hiriq ִ and the Transliteration needs to be corrected too. I am willing to do that if you would allow me, and I can cite Morfix (which is good for the English readers reading the article) as a source. Yotsuba-Nyaa (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The dagesh is also the reason the two words don't have a common root Yotsuba-Nyaa (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmm okay, I think you're right. As long as the Biblical Hebrew characters in the Leningrad Codex (apparently taken by Biblehub as their standard of the Masoretic Text) are accurately displayed and transliterated, I think it's a good idea to use Morfix to correct any errors (made by Strong) in the glossary. If there is any difference in the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew which may lead to a different transliteration (especially of vowels), then the Biblical Hebrew should be followed. That is to say, if עִנָּה (to rape/torture) was pronounced as inah in ancient times, as you claim, that's what the glossary should say; but if it was originally anah and has shifted to inah in Modern Hebrew, we should keep it anah. I do realise that this may lead to disputes, as it is sometimes not clear which vowels ancient Hebrew words had ("YHWH" being a notorious example of ongoing controversy, though most scholars have now settled on Yahweh rather than Jehovah or other alternatives). To avoid any misunderstandings, it's also best to limit ourselves to the infinite verbs and nominative nouns, as scholars do. Good luck, and thank you for taking the time to explain it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome! I'm happy to contribute to Wikipedia when I can, as for whether the pronunciation has shifted in modern Hebrew, to my best of knowledge, we can't know for sure, but I happen to know an expert in the field and I will ask him (and of course find a citable source, to avoid OR). I will fix the niqqud in a few days, as I need to ask the man and also quite busy. Yotsuba-Nyaa (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Quality of sources
I have added a "refimprove" tag to the article. At the moment, the sourcing is rather poor. Having opinion pieces from HuffPost and Alternet when there has been so much serious scholarship published on the subject is a very bad sign. StAnselm (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. :) Can you find a guideline that supports this? Just because there are better sources around does not mean that other reliable sources are unusable. Also, I would recommend taking a look at WP:NEWSORG. There, there is a discussion of what can be done with opinion pieces—it basically says that they can be used for claims made by that particular person. Even if you look at the Passages in the Bible section, I've been careful to tread lightly with everybody in saying that they have been interpreted as discussing rape. Let me know if that answers your concern. BenLinus  1214 talk 12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But why should we be interested in what Wil Gafney (for example) thinks? Is this a significant criticism? Has the criticism been reported in secondary sources? In the section you linked to, it says The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. It's that last item, the "significant viewpoint", that's relevant here. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, for Wil Gafney, I think that it is "a significant viewpoint" from the opinion of a "specialist and recognized expert"—after all, she is Associate Professor of the Hebrew Bible at Texas Christian University's Brite Divinity School. Valerie Tarico is a noted secular activist. Looking into it more, I actually agree with you that the Reinhart article is not from a significant viewpoint, so I replaced references to that. Also, besides the internet stuff, do you have any sourcing concerns? BenLinus  1214 talk 20:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not so much what's in the article as what is missing. Joy Schroeder, Dinah's Lament: The Biblical Legacy of Sexual Violence in Christian Interpretation comes to mind. But I think the changes you made justify the removal of the tag. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you say that Tarico is a noted secular activist, but there is no WP article about her - would she be notable enough for her own article? StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the tag and keeping your cool through all this! :) She probably would be notable for her own article, actually. Hm…I must have missed that book. If you have it, you're welcome to incorporate it into the article. BenLinus  1214 talk 23:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Lot's daughters?
Should a discussion of Lot's daughters be included here? Some scholars use the word "rape" in relation to the incident of Genesis 19:30-36. See Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman, p. 209, "presenting his daughters as the initiators and perpetrators of incestuous 'rape'". However, I note this isn't mentioned in the article on Lot (biblical person) - no, indeed, is there an article here on Lot's daughters. StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting to note. I think there was some mention of Lot's daughters in some of my sources—I'll have to take that into account. I find it very odd that Lot's daughters don't have an article—I'll have to decide about creating one on that as well. Thanks for the input! You're also welcome to add if you want! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 02:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I plan to create the article when I get a free moment. StAnselm (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! I might come back to expanding this or creating similar articles in the future, but I'm sort of swamped with the GA Cup right now. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 02:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sodom
There is nothing in the Bible to state that the angels were male. That's later interpretation. --KimYunmi (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that at no point anywhere in the Hebrew bible is there ever any indication that female angels exist - even Zechariah 5:9 doesn't specifically call the women in it angels. The only times gender is ascribed to angels in any way, they are male. Therefore the two angels in Sodom had to be male. My impression is that the author of this passage was clarifying this for those who are unfamiliar with the 'angels are male' paradigm of biblical text, since that factor could explain part of why Lot's daughters were refused as replacements. This is supported by how the entire story of Sodom is primarily preoccupied with condemning anyone who would engage in "sodomy" as an inherently immoral and sexually deviant person - which the modern evangelists treats as the bible's blanket condemnation of male homosexuals, since the only acceptable form of sex, biblically, is penis-in-vagina.


 * In fact it could easily be argued that the idea that female angels even existing is a later interpretation by artists and fiction writers working with angelic characters. It would also be later interpretation of the various denominations to claim that angels are basically genderless, when there were distinctly masculine Hebrew names used for some of them. Biblical text may not explicitly state that all angels are male, but it is thoroughly implied. CleverTitania (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A note on Jeremiah 3:2
Dear colleagues,

I noticed that the verb שָׁגַל (šāgal, shagel) is used 4 times in the Hebrew Bible, namely Deuteronomy 28:30, Isaiah 13:16, Jeremiah 3:2, Zechariah 14:2. As stated, the verb could mean '(vulgar) to ravish, to rape, to violate, (euphemistic translation) to lie with'. I'm convinced that 'to rape' is the best translation for Deut 28:30, Isa 13:16 and Zech 14:2, but Jer 3:2 poses a special problem. Superficially, the context of Jer 3:2 (which I take to be Jeremiah chapter 1 to 3) seems to fit the pattern of a prophetic passage in which a personified capital city (in this case Jerusalem, representing the Kingdom of Judah) is threatened with rape, but on closer examination, the verse Jer 3:2 doesn't fit in, for 3 reasons:
 * 1) The passage depicts Jerusalem as an unfaithful wife who has started to worship gods other than Yahweh, an act of 'marital' infidelity that is equated with both 'prostitution' and 'adultery' (these two are often mixed up, the Bible often seems to regard these two as the same sin or interchangeable sins), and although the verb is passive, Jerusalem seems to have engaged in this sex consensually. Even if Yahweh / the author does not approve of it, and regards this behaviour as sinful, and defiling the land, and making Jerusalem unworthy of being accepted back by her 'husband', that doesn't mean Jerusalem herself didn't want it. Especially verse 2:25 has Jerusalem saying: 'I love foreign gods, and I must go after them.' indicating that she engaged in this worship of other gods / 'idolatry' / 'prostitution' / 'adultery' voluntarily.
 * 2) Unlike the other passages, there is no indication that this שָׁגַל šāgal happened as a punishment from Yahweh against Jerusalem, for which he used foreign soldiers as his instrument of punishment (as is the common pattern). Jerusalem acted on her own accord, and seems to have enjoyed it, regardless of what Yahweh or the author may think of it.
 * 3) Unlike the other passages, this one is in the past tense, it is something that has already happened and it is not something that Yahweh threatens to make happen in the future. Now, Jer 3:3 can be used as a counter-argument: Yahweh says that he has withheld rain from falling in spring as a punishment for Jerusalem's infidelity, so apparently Jerusalem has already been punished for her behaviour in at least one way in the past. Does that also apply to the שָׁגַל šāgal of 3:2? I don't think so, because again, it is not described as a punishment designed by Yahweh and carried out by humans acting on his orders, or something to that effect. More specifically, the וַיִּמָּנְע֣וּ way-yim-mā-nə-‘ū 'Therefore have been withheld' in 3:3 seems to have been Yahweh's reaction to the שָׁגַל šāgal that happened in 3:2, indicating action -> reaction, sin -> punishment. If the שָׁגַל šāgal of 3:2 was a punishment, it wouldn't make sense to punish the punishment in 3:3. (One more possibility is that Yahweh doesn't actually control the rain, and that the fact that Jerusalem has defiled the land with her wicked behaviour has caused the rains not to fall. In that case it's not necessarily a punishment, but still a consequence of a sin. However, in other passages like Zechariah 14, Yahweh is said to control the rains, and to withhold rain if he is not properly worshipped; if the author of Jeremiah 3 thought similarly, we can assume the rains are withheld by Yahweh as a punishment for the שָׁגַל šāgal of 3:2).

Importantly, I was also unable to find any Bible translations nor good scholarly sources which interpret Jer 3:2's שָׁגַל šāgal as 'to rape'. I think something like 'Is there any place where you have not been ravished?' (NIV) or 'Is there any place where you have not allowed yourself to be sexually defiled / deviant?' is a good approximation of the original Hebrew. Jerusalem allowed it to happen with her consent, and seems to have enjoyed it, but Yahweh / the author essentially thinks she's a dirty slut who has made herself unclean, immoral, promiscuous, but doesn't seem to think she was raped.

Other than that, Jeremiah 1–3 seems to fit the whole established pattern, except that 'rape' is not one of the threatened punishments. There is also some metaphorical confusion as to what kind of woman Judah/Jerusalem is in relation to Yahweh: a wife? A daughter? The sister of his (other) ex-wife / daughter Israel/Samaria? The other prophets either portray the capital city as the wife or the (virgin) daughter of Yahweh; but in Jeremiah, Judah/Jerusalem and Israel/Samaria seem to be both simultaneously, as well as each other's 'sisters', with Yahweh having 'divorced' Israel/Samaria already in 3:8 (probably a poetic reference to the Assyrian conquest of Samaria in 722 BCE). These are my findings:


 * Bible chapter: Jeremiah 1-3
 * Woman, relation to Yahweh:
 * Wife 2:2, (3:7-10), 3:14
 * Daughter 3:4
 * Sister of Israel, an(other) ex-wife (3:6-10, 3:20) / daughter (3:19) of Yahweh
 * City addressed: Jerusalem 1:15 2:2 3:17
 * State personified: Kingdom of Judah 1:15 2:28 3:18
 * Alleged sins:
 * Abandonment of Yahweh 2:31-33
 * Rebellion against Yahweh 2:29 3:13
 * Worshipping other gods 1:16 2:5 2:8 2:11 2:26-28 3:21-25
 * Worshipping other gods equated with prostitution 2:20-25 3:13
 * Adultery/prostitution 3:1 3:6-10 (Israel/Samaria 3:6-10)
 * שָׁגַל šāgal with many lovers in many places 3:1-2 (an alleged sin in the past rather than a threatened punishment in the future)
 * Punishments:
 * No rains 3:3 (already carried out, past tense)
 * Invasion 1:14-15
 * Being forsaken by other gods 2:27-28 2:36-37
 * Victim-blaming 2:17 2:19
 * Punisher: Yahweh + foreign soldiers 1:14-15 3:3

So, it becomes clear that it almost fits the pattern we see in the other prophets, but as there appears to be no rape in Jeremiah 3:2, it cannot be included in our list. Scholars also do find the pattern in Jeremiah 13, but not in Jeremiah 3. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

New International Version as standard for quotations
Dear colleagues,

I'm going to introduce the New International Version (NIV) as the standard English translation for quotations in this article, and will refer to Biblehub for references. There are too many arbitrarily chosen editions in this article, resulting in an inconsistent treatment of the source texts and thus the topic. Especially the King James Version (KJV) is, scholarly speaking, an unreliable, often incomprehensible and thus unhelpful edition for this article's purposes. The NIV is arguably the most widely accepted modern critical English translation, and strikes a very good balance between accurate translation and understandable formulation. Some editions such as the NRSV are arguably even more reliable from a scholarly point of view, but not as widely accepted (and not, for example, available on Biblehub). Whenever it seems necessary or helpful, I will quote other translations along with or even instead of the NIV (e.g. in the case of Dinah). In particular, the KJV does retain its importance in the history of English-language interpretation and commentary of the Bible, although it is no longer the standard in modern Anglophone society. I will also write '[Yahweh]' instead of 'the Lord' for consistency's sake and because this is standard practice amongst scholars. I will uphold American spelling as used in NIV quotations, but my own texts follow British English. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Genesis 39
The description of the account given of Joseph with Potiphar's wife fails as "rape" in three areas. 1) The author(s) of Genesis never mention intercourse actually taking place. Potiphar's wife propositions Joseph repeatedly, but she never, consensually or otherwise, has physical relations with Joseph. 2) The ancient Levant had no concept of rape against men, and the concept some editors of this page hold of rape against men did not arise in a vacuum. The definition of rape, held by those who insist on maintaining a section in article on Genesis 39 with its original wording, which includes adult, male victims, arose very recently, in only certain parts of the world. The layers of coincidence and serendipity of chronology and location which had to coalesce for someone to even conceive of Genesis 39 depicting rape or sexual harassment is astounding. Even if the authors of the sources cited in the article believe with all their hearts that Joseph could lawyer up in some rich, Western nation and file a harassment suit against Potiphar's wife, this does not mean that the author(s) of Genesis would have held remotely the same view, or seen the actions of Potiphar's wife in remotely the same light. It is chronological snobbery to impose very modern, very Western, very bourgeois definitions of rape (or, for that matter, sexual harassment) on ancient texts. 3) The terms used for rape in the Tanakh are never used as transitive verbs to describe sexual acts with a grown man as the subject. Any postulated instance of rape (or sexual harassment) against men in the Tanakh necessarily requires eisegesis. Exodvs (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)