(a) there's some pretty bad examples in the bible of behaviour we should try to avoid (remembering as I do. a well-regarded leader who cut through my obsessiveness on stuff like this: which may reflect on me more than the story)
(b) God likes people all the time, even when they behave badly
(yes, it gives me a warm feeling)
(c) do people ever need redemption, reform, correction, forgiveness etc.
(okay, I admit it: that's preachy)
Could be. The simplest explanation is that it's there to denigrate the Moabites and Ammonites. To LC's point, the lineage of David and Jesus has its unsavory moments, but it's allowed a full development. From an Ancient perspective, the Moabites and Ammonites are here summed up as the result of over-sexed woman fucking their drunk father. Perhaps it's to be instructive about a family's spiritual health, but that's a reach for me.
“over sexed women” jars a bit. The passage says that the daughters wanted children, which for some reason they did not feel that they could obtain any other way. In the ancient world for a woman not to have children would and leave her at economic risk. Even more so for these women in that situation.
The aspect I find troubling is the narrative on Lots part in this. The implication is that he was so drunk that he did not recognise his daughters while having sex with them. That leaves the difficulty in that if he was so incapacitated, then he would be unable to ‘perform’ as it were.
They were stuck in a cave. Who on earth did he think the women were.
Though they don't feature often in my conversations, the singulars are definitely 'succubus' and 'incubus'. I've seen them both written down before now. Thank you though, @Gee D for posing the question, as until you did, it had never occurred to me to consider why they aren't 'succuba' and 'incubus', which would have made the plural of 'succubus' 'succubae'.
I think the thing about succubi is that they aren't really women at all, they're just demons who take the form of a woman to ensnare men. (I got interested in them when a friend married an apparently delightful young woman who left him as soon as it was convenient for her and then tried to extort money from him - we called her the Succubus.)
It was (and maybe still is) used as an explanation for "night emissions" in some parts of the Jewish world. She was often called Lillith after Adam's mythical first wife)
It was funny when I was in junior high (12-14) to see how my Sunday School teachers try to explain what was happening in these stories. One teacher, though, was quite explicit. "It is talking about sex, people." I can remember as if it had happened yesterday rather than 55+ years ago.
Comments
(a) there's some pretty bad examples in the bible of behaviour we should try to avoid (remembering as I do. a well-regarded leader who cut through my obsessiveness on stuff like this: which may reflect on me more than the story)
(b) God likes people all the time, even when they behave badly
(yes, it gives me a warm feeling)
(c) do people ever need redemption, reform, correction, forgiveness etc.
(okay, I admit it: that's preachy)
You may have learned that. I never taught it.
“over sexed women” jars a bit. The passage says that the daughters wanted children, which for some reason they did not feel that they could obtain any other way. In the ancient world for a woman not to have children would and leave her at economic risk. Even more so for these women in that situation.
The aspect I find troubling is the narrative on Lots part in this. The implication is that he was so drunk that he did not recognise his daughters while having sex with them. That leaves the difficulty in that if he was so incapacitated, then he would be unable to ‘perform’ as it were.
They were stuck in a cave. Who on earth did he think the women were.
A case of who tells the story, puts the spin.
I can't recall ever seeing this in the singular, or indeed the feminine.
Are there succubi in those cultures?
Sounds like a question for Susie Dent.