The interpretation timeline

Gen 39:10

How this passage has been read — the sources, oldest to newest.

From the early Church Fathers to now.

2 Patristic · 2 Jewish

Gen 39:10 · Douay-Rheims
“With such words as these day by day, both the woman was importunate with the young man, and he refused the adultery.”
Patristic before A.D. 750
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“For us to learn the surpassing virtue of the good man and the fact that not once or twice but many times he endured this pressure and resisted the invitation by ceaselessly counseling her, Scripture says, "Although she kept inviting him day after day, he did not yield to her." When she observed him performing his duties in the house, she fell upon the young man like a wild animal grinding its teeth and grabbed his clothing to lay hold of him. Let us not pass this passage idly by. Instead, let us consider how much pressure the good man endured. I mean, in my view at any rate, it was not so remarkable that the three children survived unharmed in the middle of the Babylonian furnace and sustained no harm from the fire as it was remarkable and unprecedented that this remarkable young man had his clothes torn from him by this frenzied and intemperate woman without yielding to her. Instead, Joseph left the clothes in her hands and fled the scene in that condition. You see, just as those three children on account of their virtue enjoyed grace from on high and were seen to prove superior to the fire, so this man too, after making whatever effort he could and giving evidence of his struggle for continence with great intensity, enjoyed abundant help from on high. He all at once prevailed, thanks to such cooperation from God's right hand, and slipped from the clutches of that lustful woman. Then one could see this remarkable man emerging, divested of his clothes but garbed in the vesture of chastity, as though escaping unharmed from some fiery furnace, not only not scorched by the flames but even more conspicuous and resplendent.”
Source
542
A.D.
Caesarius of Arles Patristic
c. A.D. 470–542
“The young man is desired by his mistress but is not provoked to lust. He is asked and runs away. She who commanded in other matters, in this one thing coaxes and pleads. She loved him, or was it rather herself? I think that it was neither him nor herself. If she loved him, why did she want to ruin him? If she loved herself, why did she want to perish? Behold, I have proved that she did not love: she burned with the poison of lust but did not shine with the flame of charity. He, however, knew how to see what she did not know. Joseph was more beautiful within than without, fairer in the light of his heart than in the beauty of his body. Where the eye of that woman could not penetrate, there he enjoyed his own beauty. Therefore, as he beheld the interior beauty of chastity in the mirror of his conscience, when would he allow it to be stained or violated by the temptation of that woman? For this reason what he saw you too can see if you will—namely, the interior and spiritual beauty of chastity—provided that you have eyes for it. I will tell you something by way of an example. You love it in your wife; therefore do not hate in the wife of another what you love in your own. What do you love in your own wife? Chastity, of course. You hate it in another's wife, when you are willing to destroy chastity by intimacy with her. What you love in your own wife you want to kill in the wife of another. How can you have a prayer of devotion, O murderer of chastity? Therefore preserve in the wife of another what you want to protect in your own, for in your wife you love her chastity rather than her body.”
Source
563 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Scholastic c. 1100 – 1500
1105
A.D.
Rashi Jewish
1040–1105
“לשכב אצלה TO LIE BY HER — even without sinning (Genesis Rabbah 87:6). להיות עמה TO BE WITH HER, in the world to come (Gehinnom) (Genesis Rabbah 87:6).”
165 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
1270
A.D.
Ramban Jewish
1194–1270
“TO LIE ‘ETZLA’ (BY HER). The meaning of this expression is as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted it: “even to lie near her, each in their garment, or to be with her for general conversation.” This interpretation is correct since we do not find the word etzla (near her) in Scripture in connection with sexual intercourse, only the word ima (with her) or othah (with her), as for example: Lie ‘imi’ (with me); And if any man lie ‘othah’ (with her); And the women ravished (‘tishachavnah’)., the plural form of othah is implicit.”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.