1) My initial reactions to the story are quite strong – I was appalled at nearly everyone’s behavior in the story. The two men who bring in the angels are at first good, offering to clothe and feed the angels, but then place their daughters’ virginities below the protection of strangers. The two men should not have allowed anyone to be raped or taken advantage of, neither the men nor their own daughters. The men at the door should not have been brazen enough to ask for sex from complete strangers, as if it was their right to take them (Toensing, 2005).
2) While it is certainly true that values were most certainly different back then, I believe it is possible to apply personal rights to the ancient world. Whether or not morality shifts does not make it right for someone to abuse another; in this instance, the reader has no real choice but to apply their own morality to the situation, leaving it necessary for me to be appalled at the invasion of personal rights, whether or not the men or the daughters realized they had them.
3) “The goals of the permeable individual are characteristically and repeatedly subordinated to those of the linear group" (Di Vito, p. 234) – this means that the linear group (Sodom as a community) must sublimate any personal rights or desires of the person. In the case of the men and their daughters, the familial relationship is quite confusing. In one respect, the men are very protective of their daughters, as they have kept them virgins until now. However, as soon as two angels are threatened, the men are all too happy to give their daughters away to this group of men who, arguably, could have taken their virginities at any time before hand – the blame could then be passed on to them for their sin (Kutz, 2005). In these instances, the men’s responsibility seems to fall to the satiation of their neighbors before protection of their family. While it could be argued that they are simply trying to protect the angels, one could also argue that they do not need protection. At the same time, this rule makes it seem as though the neighbors feel they have the right to defile the angels.
4) According to Di Vito, there are several different points to compare modern and Old Testament views of personal identity; the modern ideas of the dignity of a person through self-efficacy, having personal boundaries, “inner depths” to one’s being, and our need for freedom and autonomy compared to Old Testament values, including social responsibility, role in the community, transparency, and interconnectivity. (p. 221). In this Lot narrative, these particular ideas are represented through the men’s notion that they must serve the greater community by giving their neighbors someone to have sex with; it cannot be the angels, so it might as well be their daughters. Considering my notes about the story in part 1, these men are merely following the calling of their community, which in those days was the more important priority to have.
5) In light of these developments, I am slightly more understanding of the reasons why the events of the Lot narrative happened, though I can in no way condone or excuse it. My ultimate feelings are still the same; what the men offered to do was disgusting and inexcusable, and the actions of the neighbors (their entitlement to sex with someone) were repugnant. However, given the way in which these societies worked back then, it was clear that the Old Testament ideas of community and a “family” of persons was taking precedence at that point (Sternberg, 1992).
References
Di Vito, Robert. “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity,” The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999) 217-238.
Kutz, Ilan., "Revisiting the Lot of the First Incestuous Family: The Biblical Origins of Shifting
the Blame on to Female Family Members", British Medical Journal 331:7531 (2005) 1507-1508.
Holy Bible . Today's New International Version. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007.
Sternberg, Meir, "Biblical Poetics and Sexual Politics: From Reading to Counterreading",
Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992) 463-488.
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.
