Acrobat PDF - Kubatana

So he lived in a cave with his two daughters. And the firstborn
said to the younger; “Our father is old and there is not man on
earth to come in to us…Come let us make our father drink wine
and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve our offspring
through our father. So they made their father drunk with wine that
night. And the first one went in…the younger rose and lay with him
and he did not know when she lay with him; and when she rose.
Thus both daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The
first born bore a son and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of
the Moabites to this day. The younger one also bore a son and
named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this
day (19:30-38).
Like in the story of Abraham, two women are sexually involved with
one man, Lot, and they both bear sons. In this story, it is the
women also who are concerned with descendants, but Lot remains
silent. They plot, just like Sarah, and bring forth two sons. Lot,
like Abraham, seems to be a victim of two women. He does not
know anything—he is sent to sleep with strong drink and raped by
two daughters. As Bailey correctly notes, a remarkable thing
happens here: Lot is so drunk that he does not know or remember
anything, but lo and behold, “he does perform!” (p.129). Both
daughters get pregnant, and like in the case of Abraham, they give
birth to sons. Unlike the Story of Abraham, they are not his wives,
they are his daughters.
42
Like the story of Abraham and Noah, the sons are the fathers of
nations/ethnic groups—Moabites and Ammonites. But what is the
difference? What does the story do? Which ideology does it propound?
As Bailey convincingly argues, they “label within the consciousness
of the reader the view of these nations as nothing more
than incestuous bastards,” (p.131). Bailey goes on to show how
this narrated origin of Moabites and Ammonites is used in the
biblical books to exclude, humiliate and to sanction their annihilation
(2 Sam.8:2; 2 Sam 12:26-31, Judges 11, 2 Sam 10 & 12).
Bailey’s argument is that they propound an ideology that makes
the marginalisation and discrimination of Amorites by Israelites
acceptable to the reader.