[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hoom. Hummm. Hruummm. Ascertaining the way stories are meant is a long and difficult process, as anyone who followed the infamous Canonicity may recall(That was I think before your time) and one not immune to the ravages of time. In fact, it can be argued that often 'intention' is more a creation of the time of the reader/perceiver than of the author. Nor is intention the only criterion one may use in discussing or analyzing narrative; it is often valuable to consider the context of narrative, something that, in a text as old and as gathered from multiple sources as Genesis, may not always provide one clear intention. After all, the story of Lot's incest is missing from the Quran, where Lot is regarded as a Prophet.

Hoom, hoom, this is about interpretation and the discussion will stray too far... well even further than it did now... if we continued that. But simply put, my point was aimed the way that I would not consider using it the way you use it "fair". All the stories, and with the biblical ones it can be seen very well, as they are very old, can be interpretated in different ways and new meanings and interpretations fitting the context of the current time may be applied to them in every century. That's normal, and of course even good. We do that even with Tolkien, sometimes asking for things which the Prof would simply not have thought about. But there are some things which simply are not following the original intention of the story in any way. Such things happen, for example many times lots of biblical texts have been misused, one example for all, Revelation 2,9 - the words about "synagogue of Satan" had been (and even is till today by some!) used as a basis of antisemitism, while it's obvious from the verse itself that the people about whom the verse speaks "say they are Jews, and are not, but the synagogue of Satan". So it's not that "they are Jews, i.e. synagogue of Satan", but they present themselves as Jews, but are not (meaning probably that they are Jews but do things a proper Jew shouldn't do). But it's simply that some people used it the way they wanted to. And that's a common thing everywhere. So because of this, one important thing is to take care and consider where the original story aims. For one, it's definitely not that the tale of Lot would support incest. That's clear enough, because of the motives of the daughters. *sigh* I didn't want to start about it. That'd be really for long. I will just point out the few things: all the "foremothers" (Sarah, Rachel...) had problems with giving birth, this way it was also underlined that it depended on God whether his chosen people will continue to exist. Yet both of Lot's daughters immediately become pregnant - isn't it curious? And their motives for the incest? "Our father is old, and there's not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth." So instead they decided to make their father drunk and have children from him. Lot, probably, although he was drunk, also isn't without guilt, but that'd be for really too long and far more speculative. In any case, the daughters' stance is obvious fear, maybe even the sight of hopeless situation face to face to the end of the lineage. They choose this very odd way to make the lineage continue, their own short-sighted solution for their cornered situation; and indeed, they immediately give birth to two sons, how great! But who becomes of such sons? Ammon and Moab. No chosen people, not even any special descendants of pure bloodline (cf. my previous post), but some "losers", or how to say that. So as if this was saying: dear daughters, this was not a good way you chose to solve your situation. (So you see, it does concern incest itself rather from just rational, calculated reasons.)

And while this was prohibited by the angels who warned Lot, my comment was to point out the value system of the story. One may not even look upon destruction without incurring wrath, but one may engage in incest without being punished--or rather, having only the descendents punished, as Amon and Moab were to become the traditional enemies of the Isrealites. Readers may ask why or how that system exists-- why is it that a mere look or glance is circumscribed but a sexual act that had been prohibited is not punished. Of course Genesis is all about men's refusal to accept limitation, therebye putting in greater contrast the great climax of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's demand. But one can also ask why no Ram appeared in a bush to save Jephthah's daughter. It is all well and good to say that offerring one's child, one's most prized possession, is a sign of faithfulness and virtue, but one can also ask how the offerring is distributed and what it means for a child to be a mere possession of a father.

In any case, indeed, the readers may ask and they ask rightfully - but the only thing I want to point out is that the original readers, the ones to whom the story was narrated as to the first listeners, did NOT ask, because they considered some things as clear and they also saw some things clearer than us because of their circumstances. It's always easier to understand a contemporary book than a book even from let's say two hundred years ago, if only for example because you no longer know what "heap" was or something like that (I don't know if I gave a good example, in Czech it would be an old and not-used word). I believe the message of the text is always actualised, can be always actualised, should be always actualised, but there's just that some stories don't count with some things. In every tale, there's always the "core" and the "colorite". For example, I haven't seen anybody bother with the fact that Bilbo Baggins was seemingly a not-working exploiter of the society. If you for example ask, why the story punishes Lot's wife for disobedience, but doesn't punish the incest in also such a clear way, like that for example the cave would collapse on Lot and his daughters, I reply, because the point of the story lies elsewhere (aside from what I said before, that the incest actually IS punished). The same for example with Jephtah's daughter - the story will lose its point if some ram appeared to save her; the drasticness (is that a word?) of the story is what hits the reader hard and makes him see that making an unbreakable vow without thinking about the consequences is not a good thing to do (lo, Fëanor!). Someone spoke about lesson in the title of this thread, so this is exactly the case: a man who wishes to make an oath may actually stop, because he remembers the story (or in M-E terms, he could remember Fëanor or the Dead of Dunharrow). Or - oh, wonderful, I manage to stay on-topic! - a Fourth-Age King who starts to do some things the Númenoreans did can remember what happened to Númenor, and so rather stop and reconsider.

Here it is! I think I managed to formulate my response to the original question of the thread.

Actually, the passage in Genesis 11.1-9 uses only the word 'men' or 'children of men' or 'they' (I'm using the King James Bible and the Oxford New Engish Bible; I don't have the Jerusalem Bible at hand to compare translations.) And the context of Genesis 11 names only males: Genesis 10 lists the generations of male children of Noah and Genesis 11:10-23 lists the generations of Shem, again, all male children. The only named children are first born sons. It is a cultural assumption to say that the word 'men' includes women and it can quite often be demonstrated (not just in the Bible but in many literary texts over the centuries) that women are really not represented in this word because they don't contribute to the significance of the context, in this case, the context being heredity. As Morthoron pointed out, Aragorn comes from an unbroken line of male heirs. (As the Supreme Court of Canada once decided, "persons" does not include women.)

Yes, I checked the Hebrew text and it says "sons of Adam" (or "sons of Man" which is the same thing, the same word), which is rather poetic expression and indeed, one could argue whether "sons" does not include even females here. But in any case, it says "sons". The facts that in the name lists there are just males named is of no value here, because simply, in the patriarchal society there was really no reason to include women there. As you say, it played no role in the context of heredity, but this has nothing to do with this text, mind you. Here there's nothing about heredity, we speak about some unidentified masses of people - "all the whole earth", actually. These are the words by which the text starts. And that would definitely include women. Patriarchal society or not, all the nations are included, and that includes women. If nothing else, then it's clear enough that it's not like that men would be speaking different languages but women would still have the same language, so they must have been included in the event too. And all the logic speaks for it, as I said before.
(In any case, what would be the point of asking this I am not sure.)