Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

inhospitality to guests.you can find thousands of other similar tales around the world. one in every nearby culture, for sure. in fact, there's even another (less famous) identicaly story elsewhere in the bible.anywho. sodom appears to have possibly been based on a real place. but of course the story and the archeaology don't line up. (for one, the best candidate for a "real sodom" was destroyed with its neighbor in a war)This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-25-2005 00:33 AM

what brian said is exactly right. today, yes. several thousand years ago, no. it's well documented that nearly every ancient society care about hospitality as a whole. even if this were an isolated case, you would not have a point due to multiple references provided above.however, it's not an isolated case. there are literally thousands of ancient myths where two gods (or angels) disguise themselves as men, and visit a town or city that doesn't accept them and is generally mean. but one resident takes them in, feeds them, protects them, etc. he is rewarded, and the rest of the city punished. it's an archetypal myth. very, very common.so yes, it's quite clear the hospitality was a big issue, on the societal level. people just didn't think in terms of personal morality, and i think the bible will show this. it's not until jesus shows up that we're even introduced to the idea of a personal god.

you sound suprised.

precisely. although, i was speaking strictly of exactly IDENTICAL myths, but it's more example of how the theme was very important.

exactly. it's grossly incorrect to read the story of sodom out of that context.

there's a great big old set of books at your local university library by a guy named stith thompson called "the motif-index of folk-literature." the real title is much longer, but you can find it by that. go there, and look up hospitality myths in that book. it's a collection of basically all the myths, folk-tales, and legends up until about the invention of the internet chain-mail urban legend.thousands may have been an exageration, but i would be suprised if you found any less than several hundred such hospitality myths. and various other types of hospitality myths.i would look it up myself and post the list, but unfortunately it's really tricky to find online and it's about 5 am right now. however, others already did post the most famous such story.

not sure it was much of a hyperbole, actually. like you said, look up a culture, they probably have one. it's almost as pervasive as flood mythology. but i gave him a reference. lets see if he goes and looks up the good old stith thompson and comes back with a good count for me.

i think i might do it if i'm bored between classes on monday. i'd almost be willing to bet you that 90 bucks that there's at least 200 accounts, probably a lot more.

there were several specific examples talked about above.you make the mistake of thinking in modern individualized terms. yes, heroes were expected to demonstrate certain qualities. but that does not mean that other people were not.clearly the levites were:

quote:

---

Lev 19:33-34

​

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. [But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.

---

that verse above is clearly directed at the entire society, and how egypt treated them.it's not an unsupported claim. you're welcome to go look up hospitality myths in stith thompson's book. i'll leave it up to you to tell me exactly how unsupported this claim is. how many entries are there? notice always that the virtuous characters are NEVER heroes of any sort. lot is an average family man. so is the guy in greek legend.

yes, well, the authors of genesis are racists. what do you want? they have a tendancy to make fun of societies as a whole, often by making fun of just the eponymous parent of that society. although destruction of the society as a whol is rare in hospitality myths, it's NOT rare in other kinds of myths (like flood myths) and certainly not out of place in genesis. that's nice and all, but they also predate genesis. lot is not a person i would call a hero. maybe abraham if i stretch the definition a little. but not lot. but we're not speaking about the outcomes and results of the expectations. we're talking about the expectations themselves. they do support the idea that hospitality was a commonly expected virtue. and sodom was not wiped out due to one person's failings. the story says quite the opposite. it was wiped out in spite of one person's success.

are you reading this thread at all? here's one from rrhain: http://EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 -->EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

quote:

---

That's the story of Baucis and Philemon. Zeus and Apollo (though sometimes it's Zeus and Hermes) visit Phrygia and are treated poorly except for this one couple who take them in and share their meager provisions. Strangely, they stretch to feed them all, the food is excellent, the wine never stops flowing, and the couple eventually realize just who it is they are dining with.
Frightened, they beg mercy and the gods laugh saying that they were the only ones who were good to them. They can have anything they wish. Their only wish is that when they die, they die together. So the two gods establish a temple for them to be the priest and priestess of and, when they grew old and their time came, they were turned into trees: He an oak and she a linden tree, their branches intertwined forever.

---

the only difference, as he points out, is that the entire society is not punished. i'm not arguing that genocide is a common theme in the stories. it's not. but genocide does seem to be a common theme in the bible.you're starting to sound like a fundi. just because i haven't the time to go to library and crack the big old stith-thompson doesn't mean there isn't any story like sodom. but it's spring break, and i have to catch up on a big project on campus, so maybe i will.

any of these translations work better for you? they all seem to be saying the same thing.Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Biblei am not an apologist for paul. he really is a bastard.

yes, and i reiterate, it DOES make sense in light of the rest of the book of genesis. a good portion of genesis is political propaganda. the characters in often eponymous ancestors of people surrounding the hebrews. so writing things like ishmael's origins is in effect calling every arab a bastard child.in fact, here's a good example of this practice, from genesis 19. remember the passage where lot's daughters have sex with him?

quote:

---

Gen 19:37-38

​

And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same [is] the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same [is] the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

---

the first is just outright namecalling. but the second is actually a racial joke. it's making a play on the name of traditional progenitor of the ammonites. it's a pun. genesis is full of them. in hebrew, his name sounds like "ben ammi" or "son of my father." cue the incest joke, oh look there it is a few verses back.tell me, do you honestly think genesis is NOT condemning two whole groups of people in this verse?there are also other instances of entire peoples being destroyed. the flood is a rather good example. in that light, this is not totally out of place in the region, either, considering the flood story was borrowed from another culture.and as i said before, and will again, reading this story with an idividualist mindset is anachronistic. you could argue that joseph is a hero. or jacob. or abraham. they all outwit people. but lot doesn't seem the hero type, does he? you have to remember these are separate sources, written by different people at different times.and as well, if you'd read the story, it makes it painfully clear that lot is the only virtuous man in the city. it's not that the whole group is being punished as a collective for one man's inhospitality. exactly. i recommended the book, stith-thompson's "motif-index of folk literature." but he doesn't really make a lot of statements. it is, afterall, an index. not an essay. it lists stories, and how to find them.

so how is the punishment of an entire city a foriegn concept? why is it out of place? when, and which religion? the bible is a collection of literature from multiple judaic and judaic-influenced sects, and contains writings that might span as much as 2000 years.how do you know the lot story derived from a heroic culture? you don't, at all, especially considering the FACT that many stories in genesis come from other cultures, but have a judaic spin. and in this case, the judaic spin might the destruction of the whole city, since condemning whole groups of people is not exactly uncommon in the torah. do tell then, what is it about? homosexuality?as rrhain posted,

quote:

---

Ezekiel 16:49: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

---

ezekiel seems to think hospitality was an issue. and the leviticus commandment is phrased exactly like the events in genesis 19: a stranger in the land. possibly. look up the book and tell me. have you looked up the book yet? you might be suprised.

don't trust bible dictionaries. EVER. they are all religiously biased. i mean, read it closely. does it really mean "a citizen of sodom?" no, i doubt it.you're right in one regard though. paul did not make up the word. it actually has a rather specific meaning. and it's not temple prostitute, either. that would be pornoi.but the word in every other context seems to indicate some act of force or wrong above passive moral standards.

quote:

---

Now, if the placing of arsenokoites in the TLG texts in between the sexual sins and social sins is not an accident, we would know that arsenokoites somehow related to sexual injustice. This is interpretation is compatible with all the lists quoted. For example, the placement of arsenokoites just before slave trader is particularly appropriate, since homosexual slaves were normative in classical societies. The interpretation of arsenokoitai in terms of homosexual subjugation and/or exploitation, rather than referring to all homosexual behaviour, seems appropriate from these contexts.

​

This translation for arsenokoites fits well within two other TLG texts, both of which are early uses of the word. The first is from the Apology of Aristides, chapters 9 and 13. It relates the myth of Zeus, and his relationship with the mortal boy Ganymede. In the story, we are told that the myth is evidence that Greek gods act with moixeia (adultery) and arsenokoites. Similarly, in Hippolytus' Refutatio chapter 5, we are told the story of the evil angel Naas, and how he committed adultery with Adam in the Garden, which is how arsenokoites came into the world. Hippolytus then compares this story with that of Zeus and Ganymede [Petersen, 284]. In both of these stories an aggressor forcibly takes advantage of a weaker individual.

---

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.htmlso it's connotation is something close to statutory rape. if i had to make a GUESS as to it's meaning from context, i would put my money on the typical ancient greek nambla-style relationships, and NOT standard homosexuality between two consenting and adult males.(just for clarification, i do not argue this point out of religious belief. i don't like paul or his advice either way.)