An initial reading of the
Lot Narrative in Genesis 19:1-11 gives an impression that Lot was visited by
messengers of God one night, and that the depraved populace of Sodom tried to
‘have their way’ with them. Lot seconded
the messengers safely away in his house from the homosexually-inclined men of
the town, and tried to offer two of his virgin daughters to them instead, but
the townsmen refused and then tried to assault Lot
himself. Lot
was rescued by the two messengers who pulled him into the house away from the
depraved mob, and then the messengers blinded everyone in the mob through the
power of God[1].
The
concept of personal rights can be applied to the ancient world, but not in the
connotation or context that it is used in the present western world. The ancient Israelite came from a socially
different structure than that which is common-place for westerners today. The ancient system of patriarchy that was
used in Israel
saw that all families were under the control and jurisdiction of the oldest
male in the linage[2]. This is vastly different to the current
western method of thinking that each person is their own, and capable and
responsible of making their own choices and decisions. According to Di Vito, the rights of the
family members were dictated to them by the patriarch of that family, and that
sometimes the women would be sold as concubines and the children as labourers[3]. Given this standpoint, it is reasonable to
assume that while a person was able to make decisions themselves, they were
only able to do so within the confines of a predicated standard of identity
within the socio-familial group. Thus, a
person was defined by their placement within a familial group and was granted
the individual rights according to that station.
Taking
Di Vito’s statement “…the goals of the permeable individual are
characteristically and repeatedly subordinated to those of the lineal group…”[4],
it is evident in the Lot narrative that the
aforementioned patriarchal societal structure was in place. Lot had
taken in the two travelling messengers unto his own house, which from reading
the narrative should have provided some protection from the native Sodomites,
according to custom[5]. However, even though Lot observed all the
traditional hospitality responsibilities of the host and head-of-house that
were required of him[6],
the Sodomites refused to recognise Lot’s
station as head of his house. This could
be due to Lot originally being an outsider to Sodom and the locals never fully accepting
him in, as is discussed by Toensing[7],
regardless of how prominent his station was.
Di
Vito’s characterisation of the Old Testament and modern concepts of personal
identity are noteworthy in analysing the Lot Narrative[8]. The depraved mob of Sodomites clearly display
the lack of personal respect and boundaries in the way that they actively and
openly seek the two messengers that Lot had
taken into his home[9]. When reading this narrative, it is easy to
place the modern western concepts of individualism and self identity onto the
personages involved in the reading, however doing so may change the intent of
the author, as the author did not have this view of individual self. Indeed, the Old Testament view of
individualism was centred on the family unit, rather than the family
member. Using this understanding and
view, the initial reaction to the reading of the Lot Narrative can be altered
to accept Lot was acting according to the
dictates of his social environment.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Di Vito, R.A., 'Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of
Personal Identity', Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 61 (1999) 217-238
Holy
Bible, The. King James Version. (1989).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Salt
Lake City, UT.
Toensing, Holly J., ‘Women of Sodom and Gomorrah: Collateral Damage in the War against Homosexuality?’,
Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 21:2 (2005) 61-74
No comments:
Post a Comment