The story of Lot’s daughters’ incest with their father in Genesis 19:30–38 has been variously understood as a myth, a trickster tale, and an androcentric phantasy. In this paper, I will use insights gained from trauma theory, as well as from the characters of Emily and Moira in the Hulu adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, to evaluate the daughters’ actions. Studying the characters in the final form of the text, the women undergo traumatic experiences as their father offers their bodies to be raped (Gen. 19:7–8) and they witness the destruction of their home (Gen. 19:24–25). Consequently, they engage in what could be described as a traumatic re-enactment with their father, where the roles of the perpetrator and the victim are reversed, and the continuation of the patriarchal line is simultaneously guaranteed. Read in conjunction with the fates of Emily and Moira, the daughters’ experience could be summarized in Emily’s observation, “Look at what they’ve turned us into.” In the lives of all the women, the experience of cumulative and direct trauma influenced their decision making as well as the choices they had available. This leaves the audience in a moment of uncertainty, where evaluating the women’s actions becomes a complex, even an impossible prospect.

In Genesis 19.30-38, Lot’s daughters commit incest with their father to save his seed. Earlier in Genesis 19.6-8, Lot offered his daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom to save the honour of his male guests. Reading these stories together, in the latter, we observe an inverted world where victims become perpetrators and vice versa. If read through trauma theory, the inversion could imply that the daughters’ rape of Lot was motivated by revenge; however, traumatic re-enactment, where the daughters repeat their earlier trauma but also invert it, could also suit the textual evidence. Verses 30–38 could be read as an attempt to master previous trauma through repetition, where the recurring descriptions of design and act of rape are central to the interpretation of the narrative. This reading does not lessen the horror of the passage but rather adds to our understanding of trauma in Genesis 19.30–38.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract