Wenham, Gordon J. Sodom and Gomorrah. Word Biblical Commentary 2. Dallas, TX:
Word Books, 1979.
The Word Biblical Commentary addressed the two related points of my Old Testament topic: the location of Sodom and the sin of Sodom. As for location, the comment is "Usually it is thought that these cities were situated on the South coast of the Dead Sea, but there is no agreement in the biblical record concerning their exact location." The commentary goes on to describe reports from classical antiquity as to the sites of the cities. There is also recourse to geological phenomena to help pinpoint the location of the cities. Here the interest is in locating ancient volcanic and earthquake activity. As for the sin of Sodom, the Hebrew word "to know" is first considered as meaning "to become acquainted with", but in context of these passages the commentary rejects this interpretation and determines that "to know" must refer to sexual intercourse. Although "inhospitality" is mentioned is passing, this commentary does not consider it to be the central sin of Sodom. The summary comment is "here homosexual gang rape is being proposed, something completely at odds with the norms of all oriental hospitality". The method of interpretation in this commentary appears to be social-scientific, relying on archeology and sociology.
Proff, William H. Genesis. The Anchor Bible. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1998.
The Anchor Bible also addresses the twin points of the location of Sodom and the Sin of Sodom, but with much less comment. This commentary suggests that Sodom and the other four cities of the plain were located south of the Dead Sea but does not speculate further. Discussion of Sodom is spent expounding two themes: that there is a blessing in living on the land and not in cities, and that people who separate from Abraham meet a bad fate. Likewise the sin of Sodom is hinted at as homosexual rape, but most of the commentary concerning the events at Lot's house contrasts the traits of Lot and Abraham. Abraham is shown as recognizing God's presence in the visit of the men while Lot is shown to be tainted by his association with Sodom and therefore is unable to recognize his visitors as angels. The method of interpretation appears to be narrative, closely looking at characters, plot, and themes.
Van Hattem, Willem C. "Once Again: Sodom and Gomorrah." Biblical Archeologist
Spring (1981): 87-92.
The author, Willem C. van Hattem, reviews recent literature that challenges old ideas and produces new information about the missing "Cities of the Plain" that are mentioned in Genesis, Chapters 14 through 19. The location of the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Zoar, Admah, and Zeboiim has intrigued Bible readers for centuries. The Author presents the common view, accepted and supported by W. F. Albright that places the plain in the southern Ghor and the lost cities in the southern basin of the Dead Sea itself and the Abrahamic era somewhere in the period 2200-2000 B.C. He includes dissenting views by J. Penrose Harland and Paul W. Lapp. The author discusses arguments made by several more scholars, then agrees with G. von Rad that "It is quite possible that the tradition contains a distant recollection of an actual catastrophe". The author concludes with the views of T.L. Thompson, who favors the nonhistoricity of the patriarchs and a 14th century origin of the Sodom tradition. He supports a rival position taken by P. J. Wiseman who insists that the contents of Genesis are much older than is generally thought and that new evidence supports this position.
Rue, Victoria. "Putting Flesh on the Bones of God: Enacting Sacred Text." Semeia 74
(1996): 189-197.
The author describes herself as a "lesbian and theologian" and a "re-visioner of biblical hermeneutics". She takes an "advocacy stance of liberation theologies that cannot accord revelatory authority to any oppressive and destructive biblical text or tradition". With this stated, she argues that in the story of Sodom what the townsmen were calling for is not a homosexual act. She discusses at length a work by Gary Comstock (Gay Theology without Apology) who contends that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was the sin of inhospitality, especially inhospitality to strangers. This work further contends that to inflict sexual violence was a common way that heterosexual men humiliated other men, especially in the context of conquest. For these reasons the author believes that homosexuality has nothing at all to do with the wickedness of the Sodomites. The author then defines "clobber passages" as scriptures that misinterpret or reinforce age-old stereotypes against homosexuality, women and others. She spends the remainder of the article suggesting ways that these clobber passages can be made into opportunities for education and expansion, for breaking down false barriers. The author uses an Ideological method for interpretation. She uses contentions by Comstock as evidence of her feminist and homosexual interpretation.
Carden, Michael. "Homophobia and Rape in Sodom and Gibeah: A Response to Ken
Stone." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 84-95.
The author describes himself as a "gay man" and says that "modern biblical scholarship still fails to recognize Genesis 19 as a text of terror for queer people." The author uses an ideological method of interpretation with his guiding interest being homosexuality. The author mixes in some social-scientific method to interpret the society of ancient Israel. The author attempts to "detoxify" Genesis 19, arguing that the sin of Sodom was the sin of inhospitality to strangers. The argument is also made that ancient Israel was like other Mediterranean cultures both modern and ancient. He presents evidence that throughout history male rape has been conducted by heterosexual males as a form of conquest or punishment. He says that in the act of male-on-male rape, masculinity is confirmed because male heterosexuality is defined by being the penetrator. Some of his evidence is based upon contemporary research among homosexuals in Middle Eastern societies. It is the author's contention that "patriarchal compulsory heterosexuality is associated with misogyny, phallocentrism and homosexual panic leading to sexual violence". The author concludes that the sin of Sodom was a sin of inhospitality which is signified by male rape as an act of homophobic violence.
Synthesis of Summarized Works
My Old Testament topic covers Genesis, chapter 14 through chapter 19, specifically the topic of Sodom, focusing on its location and its sin. The selected two commentaries provided limited information on these two points. The Word Biblical Commentary covers these questions with a Social-Scientific method. It spends two paragraphs speculating about the location of Sodom and her sister cities. It also spends a few sentences concluding that the sin of Sodom is homosexual rape. The Anchor Bible barely mentions either the location of Sodom or the sin of Sodom, preferring to maintain a continuous narration of the characters of Abraham and Lot. Neither commentary proved to be a valuable source for information about the city of Sodom.
Willem C. van Hattem spent six pages reviewing literature about the location of the cities of the plain. His article is valuable because it begins by reviewing the first scientific attempt to locate Sodom by W. F. Albright in 1924, then compares and contrasts succeeding archeological investigations. Interwoven throughout the article are hints at a possible location in scripture (i.e. the mountains were near enough for Lot to flee to) and geological hints (i.e. petroleum wells had to be near enough to provide the fire and brimstone). The author also refers to the Ebla archives as possibly referring to the cities of the plain, as well as the Akkadian dynasty as being involved in the military events described in Genesis, Chapter 14. The article infers that the events surrounding the destruction of Sodom may certainly have taken place. The geology and archeology support this possibility. However, locating a precise location for Sodom and a precise date for its destruction will be forever speculation. The two commentaries agree with this conclusion, but spend less ink arriving at it.
As to the sin of Sodom, there appears to be a major re-evaluation and lively debate in progress. The two commentaries indicate that the sin of Sodom was homosexual rape. They do allude to the fact that the townspeople were inhospitable and they do mention that this was contrary to the custom of the ancient Near East. Nevertheless, they conclude that anger of God was kindled by their sexual depravity.
In contrast, the two articles written by homosexuals strive to show that the sin of Sodom was not homosexual rape but inhospitality.
|