_The Theophany at Hebron:
Abraham’s Intercession for Sodom_
(Yahwist).
Under the terebinths of Mamre, Abraham hospitably entertains three
mysterious visitors (¹⁻⁸), and is rewarded by the promise of a son to
be born to Sarah in her old age (⁹⁻¹⁵). The three ‘men,’ whose true
nature had been disclosed by their supernatural knowledge of Sarah’s
thoughts, then turn towards Sodom, accompanied by Abraham (¹⁶), who,
on learning Yahwe’s purpose to destroy that city (¹⁷⁻²¹), intercedes
eloquently on its behalf (²²⁻³³).
The first half of the chapter (¹⁻¹⁶) shows at its best the
picturesque, lucid, and flexible narrative style of Yahwist, and
contains many expressions characteristic of that document: יהוה,
¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴; רוּץ לִקְרַאת, ² (only in Yahwist 24¹⁷ 29¹³ 33⁴); מָצָא חַן, ³;
נָא, ³ᐧ ⁴; עַבְדְּךָ (for 1st person), ³ᐧ ⁵; כִּי־עַל־כֵּן, ⁵; לָמָּה זֶּה, ¹³; השקיף,
¹⁶. The latter part (¹⁷⁻³³) is also Yahwistic (יהוה, ²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ
³³; [הִנֵּה]־נָא, ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; חָלִלָה, ²⁵; הַפַּעַם, ³²), but contains two
expansions of later date than the primary narrative. Wellhausen
(_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments_² 27 f.) appears to have proved that the
original connexion between 18¹⁵ and 19¹ consists of ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᵃᐧ
³³ᵇ; and that ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ are editorial insertions reflecting
theological ideas proper to a more advanced stage of thought
(see below). A more comprehensive analysis is attempted
by Kraetzschmar in _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xvii. 81 ff., prompted by the perplexing
alternation of the singular ([יהוה] ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁷⁻²¹ᐧ
²²ᵇ⁻³³) and plural (²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²²ᵃ)¹ in the dialogue
between Abraham and his guests. The theory will repay a closer
examination than can be given to it here; but I agree with
Gunkel in thinking that the texture of ¹⁻¹⁶ is too homogeneous
to admit of decomposition, and that some other explanation of
the phenomenon in question must be sought than the assumption
of an interweaving of a singular and a plural recension of the
legend (see on verse ¹ and page 303 below).² With Gunkel also,
we may regard the chapter as the immediate sequel to 13¹⁸ in the
legendary cycle which fixes the residence of Abraham at Hebron
(Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ). The conception of Abraham’s character is
closely akin to what we meet throughout that section of Yahwist,
and differs appreciably from the representation of him in
12¹⁰⁻²⁰ and 16.
¹ It is important, however, to observe that in _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ (if we except the introductory
¹ᵃ) the singular does not appear till ¹⁰, but after that
regularly up to ¹⁵.
² The same solution had occurred to Ball (_The Sacred Books of
the Old Testament_, 1896), but was rightly set aside by him
as unproved.
=1‒8. The entertainment of the three wayfarers.=――The description
“presents a perfect picture of the manner in which a modern Bedawee
sheikh receives travellers arriving at his encampment. He immediately
orders his wife or women to make bread, slaughters a sheep or other
animal, and dresses it in haste; and, bringing milk and any other
provisions that he may have at hand, with the bread and the meat that
he has dressed, sets them before his guests: if they are persons of
high rank he also stands by them while they eat” (Lane, _An Account
of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ i. 364: from
Driver).――=1.= _Yahwe appeared, etc._] This introductory clause
simply means that the incident about to be related has the value of a
theophany. In what way the narrator conceived that Yahwe was present
in the three men――whether He was one of the three, or whether all
three were Yahwe in self-manifestation (Delitzsch)――we can hardly tell.
The common view that the visitors were Yahwe accompanied by two of His
angels does not meet the difficulties of the exegesis; and it is more
probable that to the original Yahwist the ‘men’ were emissaries and
representatives of Yahwe, who was not visibly present (see page 304
f.).――כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם] at the hottest (and drowsiest) time of the day (2 Samuel
4⁵).――=2.= _and behold_] The mysteriously sudden advent of the
strangers marks them as superhuman beings (Joshua 5¹³), though this
makes no impression on Abraham at the time. The interest of the
story turns largely on his ignorance of the real character of his
guests.――=3.= The Massoretic pointing אֲדֹנָי implies that Abraham
recognised Yahwe as one of the three (Tuch, Delitzsch, al.); but
this we have just seen to be a mistake. The correct form is either
אֲדֹנִי (as 23⁶ᐧ ¹¹, etc.: so Dillmann, Driver), or (better, as 19²) אֲדֹנַי:
_Sirs!_――restoring (with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_)
the plural throughout the verse.――The whole of Abraham’s speech
is a fine example of the profuse, deferential, self-depreciatory
courtesy characteristic of Eastern manners.――=4.= _wash your feet_]
Compare 19² 24³² 43²⁴, Judges 19²¹, 2 Samuel 11⁸, Luke 7⁴⁴, 1 Timothy
5¹⁰.――_recline yourselves_] not at meat (Gunkel), but during the
preparation of the meal. Even in the time of Amos (6⁴) reclining at
table seems to have been a new-fangled and luxurious habit introduced
from abroad: contrast the ancient custom 27¹⁹, Judges 19⁶, 1 Samuel
20⁵ᐧ ²⁴, 1 Kings 13²⁰.――=5.= _support your heart_] with the food,
Judges 19⁵ᐧ ⁸, 1 Kings 13⁷, Psalms 104¹⁵; compare bread the ‘staff’ of
life, Leviticus 26²⁶, Isaiah 3¹.――_seeing that, etc._] Hospitality is,
so to speak, the logical corollary of passing Abraham’s tent.――=6‒8.=
The preparation of a genuine Bedouin repast, consisting of hastily
baked _cakes_ of bread, _flesh_, and _milk_ in two forms. On the items,
_v.i._――=8.= _and they ate_] So 19³――the only cases in Old Testament
where the Deity is represented as eating (contrast Judges 6²⁰ ᶠᐧ 13¹⁶).
The anthropomorphism is evaded by Josephus (_Antiquities of the Jews_
i. 197: οἱ δὲ δόξαν αὐτῷ παρέσχον ἐσθιόντων; compare Tobit 12¹⁹),
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al.
* * * * *
=1.= יהוה] LXX ὁ θεός.――In אליו the suffix may refer back directly
to 13¹⁸ (see on the verse).――באלני ממרא] LXX πρὸς τῇ δρυῒ τῇ Μαμβρῇ;
see on 13¹⁸.――=3.= Read with _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ בעיניכם, תעברו, עבדכם.――=5.= אחר תעברו (_The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is
the better reading, to which LXX adds εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῶν (compare
19²).――כי־על־כן is not to be resolved into כִּי and עַל־כֵּן, _denn eben
desshalb_ (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴, 308 a; Delitzsch, al.); but is
a compound conjunction = _quandoquidem_, ‘inasmuch as’ (Tuch,
Dillmann, Driver), as usage clearly shows; compare 19⁸ 33¹⁰
38²⁶ Numbers 10³¹ 14⁴³ (all Yahwist), Judges 6²², 2 Samuel
18²⁰, Jeremiah 29²⁸ 38⁴†; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 158 _b_³;
Brown-Driver-Briggs, 475 b.――עברתם על LXX ἐξεκλίνατε πρός = סַרְתֶּם אֶל
(19² ᶠᐧ), which is too rashly accepted by Ball.――וַיֹּאמְרוּ] LXX has
the singular wrongly.――=6.= _Three seahs_ would be (according
to Kennedy’s computation, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv.
912) approximately equal to 4½ pecks.――קמח סלת] LXX σεμιδάλεως,
[Vulgate _similæ_] which might stand either for קמח (1 Samuel
1²⁴) or סלת (as in every other instance). The latter (the finer
variety) is here probably a gloss on קמח.――עגות] (LXX ἐγκρυφίας,
Vulgate _subcinericios panes_) are thin round cakes baked on hot
stones or in the ashes (Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_²
64).――=8.= חמאה is the Arabic _laban_, milk slightly soured by
fermentation, which is greatly esteemed by the nomads of Syria
and Arabia as a refreshing and nourishing beverage (see
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3089 f.).
* * * * *
=9‒15. The promise of a son to Sarah.=――The subject is introduced
with consummate skill. In the course of the conversation which
naturally follows the meal, an apparently casual question leads to
an announcement which shows superhuman knowledge of the great blank
in Abraham’s life, and conveys a first intimation of the real nature
of the visitors. See Gunkel’s fine exposition, 172 f.; and contrast
the far less delicate handling of an identical situation in 2 Kings
4¹³⁻¹⁶.――=9.= The question shows that Sarah had not been introduced
to the strangers, in accordance probably with Hebrew custom
(Gunkel).――=10.= _I will return_] The definite transition to the
singular takes place here (see on verse ³). In the original legend
the plural was no doubt kept up to the end; but the monotheistic
habit of thought was too strong for Hebrew writers, when they came
to words which could be properly ascribed only to Yahwe.――On כָּעֵת חַיָּה,
_v.i._――_Sarah was listening_] with true feminine curiosity; compare
27⁵. The last two words should probably be rendered: _she being
behind it_ (the tent or the door); compare the footnote.――=11.=
A circumstantial sentence explaining Sarah’s incredulity (verse
¹²).――_after the manner of women_ (compare 31³⁵)] “quo genere
loquendi verecunde menses notat qui mulieribus fluunt” (Calvin);
LXX τὰ γυναίκια; Vulgate _muliebria_.――=12.= _Sarah laughed_ (וַתִּצְחַק)
_within herself_] obviously a proleptic explanation of the name יִצְחָק
(see on 17¹⁷), although the sequel in this document has not been
preserved.――_waxed old_] literally ‘worn away,’ a strong word used,
_e.g._, of worn out garments (Deuteronomy 8⁴ 29⁴ etc.).――עֶדְנָה (only
here), ‘sensuous enjoyment’ (_Liebeswonne_).――=13.= This leads to a
still more remarkable proof of divine insight: the speaker knows that
Sarah has laughed, though he has neither seen nor heard her (בְּקִרְבָּהּ,
verse ¹²). The insertion of Yahwe here was probably caused by the
occurrence of the name in the next verse.――=14.= _Is anything too
strange for Yahwe?_] As the narrative stands, the sentence does not
imply identity between the speaker and Yahwe, but rather a distinction
analogous to that frequently drawn between Yahwe and the angel
of Yahwe (see on 16⁷).――=15.= _Sarah denied it_] startled by the
unexpected exposure of her secret thoughts into fear of the mysterious
guests.
From the religious-historical point of view, the passage just
considered, with its sequel in chapter 19, is one of the most
obscure in Genesis. According to Gunkel (174 ff.), whose genial
exposition has thrown a flood of light on the deeper aspects
of the problem, the narrative is based on a widely diffused
Oriental myth, which had been localised in Hebron in the
pre-Yahwistic period, and was afterwards incorporated in the
Abrahamic tradition. On this view, the three strangers were
originally three deities, disguised as men, engaged in the
function described in the lines of Homer (_Odyssey_ xvii.
485 ff.):
Καί τε θεοὶ ξείνοισιν ἐοικότες ἀλλοδαποῖσιν,
παντοῖοι τελέθοντες, ἐπιστρωφῶσι πόληας,
ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίην ἐφορῶντες.¹
Dr. Rendel Harris goes a step further, and identifies the gods
with the Dioscuri or Kabiri, finding in the prominence given to
hospitality, and the renewal of sexual functions, characteristic
features of a Dioscuric visitation (_Cult of the Heavenly Twins_,
37 ff.). Of the numerous parallels that are adduced, by far
the most striking is the account of the birth of Orion in Ovid,
_Fasti_, v. 495 ff.: Hyrieus, an aged peasant of Tanagra, is
visited by Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes, and shows hospitality
to them; after the repast the gods invite him to name a wish;
and he, being widowed and childless, asks for a son. ‘Pudor
est ulteriora loqui’; but at the end of ten months Orion is
miraculously born. The resemblance to Genesis 18 is manifest;
and since direct borrowing of the Bœotian legend from Jewish
sources is improbable, there is a presumption that we have to
do with variations of the same tale. The theory is rendered
all the more plausible by the fact that a precisely similar
origin is suggested by the leading motives of chapter 19 (see
below).――Assuming that some such pagan original is the basis
of the narrative before us, we find a clue to that confusion
between the singular and plural which has been already referred
to as a perplexing feature of the chapter. It is most natural
to suppose that the threefold manifestation is a remnant of the
original polytheism, the heathen deities being reduced to the
rank of Yahwe’s envoys. The introduction of Yahwe Himself as one
of them would thus be a later modification, due to progressive
Hebraïzing of the conception, but never consistently carried
through. An opposite view is taken by Fripp (_Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 23 ff.), who restores
the singular throughout, and by Kraetzschmar, who, as we have
seen, distinguishes between a singular and a plural recension,
but regards the former as the older. The substitution of angels
for Yahwe might seem a later refinement on the anthropomorphic
representation of a bodily appearance of Yahwe; but the
resolution of the _one_ Yahwe into _three_ angels would be
unaccountable, especially in Yahwist, who appears never to speak
of angels in the plural (see on 19¹). See Gunkel 171, and Cheyne
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4667 f.
¹ The belief appears to be very ancient. Dr. Frazer cites
several primitive rites in which strangers are treated as
deities――not always to their advantage (_Golden Bough_, ii.
225, 232, 234 f., and especially 237; _Adonis Attis Osiris_,
21 ff.).
* * * * *
=9.= ויאמרו] LXX ויאמר (wrongly).――אֹליֹוֹ] The superlinear points
(compare 16⁵) are thought to indicate a reading לו.――=10.= כָּעֵת חַיָּה]
This peculiar phrase (recurring only verse ¹⁴, 2 Kings 4¹⁶ ᶠᐧ)
is now almost invariably rendered ‘at the (this) time, when it
revives,’ _i.e._, next year, or spring (so Rashi, Abraham Ibn
Ezra; compare Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ
Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 470; Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴, 202
a; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 312 a; Ewald _Ausführliches Lehrbuch der
hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes_ § 337 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 118 _u_; König _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen
Sprache_ § 387 e); but the sense is extremely forced. It
is surprising that no one seems to suspect a reference to
the period of pregnancy. In New Hebrew חַיָּה means a woman in
child-birth (so perhaps חָיָה in Exodus 1¹⁹ [Holzinger _ad v._]);
and here we might point כְּעֵת חַיָּה or כּ׳ חָיָה, rendering ‘according to
the time of a pregnant woman,’ or 9 months hence. לַמּועֵד in verse
¹⁴ is no obstacle, for מוֹעֵד is simply the time determined by the
previous promise, and there is no need to add הַזֶּה (LXX after
17²¹). 2 Kings 4¹⁶ (לַמּ׳ הַזֶּה) does present a difficulty; but that
late passage is modelled on this, and the original phrase may
have been already misunderstood, as it is by all versions:
_e.g._ LXX κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘at
a time when you are living’; Peshiṭtå ‘at this time, she being
alive’; Vulgate _tempore isto, vita comite_. Ball also points
as construct, but thinks חַיָּה an old name for spring.――והנה] LXX,
Peshiṭtå read וְהָיָה.――והוא אחריו] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ והיא א׳; so LXX οὖσα ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ. Massoretic Text
is perhaps a neglect of the _Qĕrê perpet_ (וְהִוא).――=11.= באים בימים]
compare 24¹, Joshua 13¹ 23¹ᐧ ², 1 Kings 1¹.――ארח כנשים] Ball,
Kittel more smoothly, כְּאֹרַח נָשִׁים.――=12.= אַֽחֲרֵי――עֶדְנָה] LXX Οὔπω μέν μοι
γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ νῦν presupposes an impossible text בִּלְתִּי הָֽיְתָה לִי עֲדָנָה.
The change is perhaps alluded to in _Mechilta_ on Exodus 12⁴⁰
(see page 14 above; Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der
Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des
Judenthums_ 439, 442).――אַֽחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי] Aquila μετὰ τὸ κατατριβῆναί
με; Symmachus (less accurately) μετὰ τὸ παλαιωθῆναί με.――=14.=
היפלא מן] Jeremiah 32¹⁷ᐧ ²⁷, Deuteronomy 17⁸ 30¹¹.
* * * * *
=16‒22a. The judgement of Sodom revealed.=
The soliloquy of Yahwe in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ breaks the connexion between
¹⁶ and ²⁰, and is to all appearance a later addition (see
page 298). (a) The insertion assumes that Yahwe is one of the
three strangers; but this is hardly the intention of the main
narrative, which continues to speak of ‘the men’ in the plural
(²²ᵃ). (b) In ¹⁷ Yahwe has resolved on the destruction of Sodom,
whereas in ²⁰ ᶠᐧ He proposes to abide by the result of a personal
investigation. (c) Both thought and language in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ show signs
of Deuteronomic influence (see Holzinger and Gunkel). Dillmann’s
assertion (265), that ²⁰ ᶠᐧ have no motive apart from ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ and
²³ ᶠᶠᐧ, is incomprehensible; the difficulty rather is to assign
a reason for the addition of ¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. The idea seems to be that
Abraham (as a prophet: compare Amos 3⁷) must be initiated into
the divine purpose, that he may instruct his descendants in the
ways of Yahwe.
=16.= _and looked out in view of Sodom_ (compare 19²⁸)] The Dead Sea
not being visible from Hebron, we must understand that a part of the
journey has been accomplished. Tradition fixed the spot at a village
over 3 miles East of Hebron, called by Jerome _Caphar Barucha_, now
known as _Beni Na‛im_, but formerly _Kefr Barîk_, from which the
Sea is seen through gaps in the mountains (see Robinson, _Biblical
Researches in Palestine_, i. 490 f.; Buhl, _Geographie des alten
Palaestina_, 158 f.).――=17.= _But Yahwe had said_] _sc._ ‘to Himself’;
the construction marking the introduction of a circumstance.――=18.=
_Seeing Abraham, etc._] Yahwe reflects, as it were, on the religious
importance of the individual beside Him.――_and all nations, etc._] See
the notes on 12³. בּוֹ possibly refers not to Abraham but to גּוֹי; compare
22¹⁸ (Wellhausen).――=19.= Compare Deuteronomy 6¹⁻³.――_For I have
known_ (_i.e._ ‘entered into personal relations with’: as Amos 3²,
Hosea 13⁵) _him in order that, etc._] There is a certain incongruity
between the two parts of the verse: here the establishment of the true
religion is the purpose of Abraham’s election; in ¹⁹ᵇ the end of the
religion is the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham.――=20.=
Resuming verse ¹⁶. An earlier form of the story no doubt read וַיֹּאמְרוּ
instead of וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה].――On the peculiar construction, _v.i._――=21.=
Restoring the plural as before, the verse reads as a disjunctive
question: _We will go down that we may see whether ... or not: we
would know._
* * * * *
=16.= סְדֹם] LXX + καὶ Γομόρρας.――=17.= After אַבְרָהָם LXX, Peshiṭtå
read עַבְדִּי.――=19.= ידעתיו] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate omit the suffix, while LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå treat what follows as an object clause (_quod_, etc.),
through a misunderstanding of the sense of ידע.――=20.= זעקת] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ צעקת as verse ²¹.――כִּי
(_bis_)] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ארי. The particle is ignored by LXX,
Vulgate; also by Peshiṭtå, which supplies (‡ Syriac phrase)
and omits כִּי רַבָּה. If the text be retained the כִּי is either
_corroborative_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 148 _d_, 159 _ee_), or
_causal_ (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 473 b); but neither construction
is natural. Moreover, the parallelism of clauses is itself
objectionable; for whether the ‘sin’ actually corresponds to
the ‘cry’ is the very point to be investigated (verse ²¹).
This material difficulty is not removed by the addition of
שָׁמַעְתִּי (Olshausen) or בָּאָה אֵלַי (Kittel). Its removal is the sole
recommendation of Wellhausen’s proposal to omit וְ before
חַטָּאתָם and render, ‘There is a rumour about Sodom and Gomorrah
that their sin is great, that it is very grievous.’――=21.=
Read with LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הַכְּצַֽעֲקָתָם.――On הַבָּֽאָה for הַבָּאָֽה, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 _k_.――כָּלָה is difficult: compare Exodus
11¹, another doubtful passive. Wellhausen here suggests כֻּלָּהּ,
Olshausen כֻּלָּם.
* * * * *
=22b‒33. Abraham’s intercession.=
The secondary character of ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ (see page 298) appears from
the following considerations: (a) In ²²ᵃ ‘the men’ (_i.e._ all
three) have moved away to Sodom; in ²²ᵇ Yahwe remains behind
with Abraham. That Yahwe was one of the three is certainly the
view of the later editors (see on 19¹); but if that had been the
original conception, it must have been clearly expressed at this
point. (b) In ²⁰ ᶠᐧ we have seen that the fate of Sodom still
hangs in the balance, while in ²³ ᶠᶠᐧ its destruction is assumed
as already decreed. (c) The whole tenor of the passage stamps it
as the product of a more reflective age than that in which the
ancient legends originated. It is inconceivable that the early
Yahwist should have entirely overlooked the case of Lot, and
substituted a discussion of abstract principles of the divine
government. Gunkel points out that the most obvious solution of
the actual problem raised by the presence of Lot in Sodom would
have been a promise of deliverance for the few godly people in
the city; that consequently the line of thought pursued does
not arise naturally from the story itself, but must have been
suggested by the theological tendencies of the age in which the
section was composed. The precise point of view here represented
appears most clearly in such passages as Jeremiah 15¹, Ezekiel
14¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ; and in general it was not till near the Exile that
the allied problems of individual responsibility and vicarious
righteousness began to press heavily on the religious conscience
in Israel.
* * * * *
=22b= contains one of the 18 תִּקֻּנֵי סֹפְרִים (corrections of the
scribes). The original reading ויהוה עדנו עמד לפני אב׳ is said to
have been changed out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg,
_Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew
Bible_ 352 f.). The worth of the tradition is disputed, the
present text being supported by all versions as well as by
19²⁷; and the sense certainly does not demand the suggested
restoration (Tuch, Dillmann, against Kautzsch-Socin, Ball,
Gunkel, al.).
* * * * *
=23.= _Wilt thou even sweep away, etc._] The question strikes
the keynote of the section,――a protest against the thought of an
indiscriminate judgement (compare Job 9²²).――=24.= _Suppose there
should be fifty, etc._] A small number in a city, but yet sufficient
to produce misgiving if they should perish unjustly.――_and not forgive
the place_] In Old Testament, righteousness and clemency are closely
allied: there is more injustice in the death of a few innocent persons
than in the sparing of a guilty multitude. The problem is, to what
limits is the application of this principle subject?――=25.= _Shall
not the Judge, etc._] Unrighteousness in the Supreme Ruler of the
world would make piety impossible: compare Romans 3⁶.――=27.= _I have
ventured_] compare Jeremiah 12¹. הוֹאִיל expresses the overcoming of
a certain inward reluctance (Joshua 7⁷).――_dust and ashes_] an
alliterative combination (Job 30¹⁹ 42⁶, Sirach 40³). As a description
of human nature, the phrase recurs only Sirach 10⁹ 17³².――=28.= בַּחֲמִשָּׁה]
literally ‘on account of the 5’; a somewhat paradoxical form of
expression.――=30‒32=. Emboldened by success, Abraham now ventures on
a reduction by 10 instead of 5 (Delitzsch); this is continued till the
limit of human charity is reached, and Abraham ceases to plead.――=33.=
_went_] not to Sodom, but simply ‘departed.’――=33b= would be equally
appropriate after ³³ᵃ or ²²ᵃ.
* * * * *
=23, 24.= האף] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הבירגז, mistaking for אַף = ‘anger’: so
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.――=23= end] LXX + καὶ ἔσται ὁ δίκαιος
ὡς ὁ ἀσεβής (²⁵ᵃ).――=24.= תשא] _sc._ עָוֹן = ‘forgive’: Numbers
14¹⁹, Isaiah 2⁹, Hosea 1⁶ etc.――=25.= חָלִלָה] literally ‘_profanum_
(_sit_),’ construed with מִן, as 44⁷ᐧ ¹⁷, often. The full
formula is ח׳ ל׳ מיהוה (1 Samuel 24⁷ 26¹¹ etc.).――לא יעשה משפט] Vulgate
(_nequaquam facies judicium hoc_) and Peshiṭtå (which takes השׁפט
as vocative) mistake the sense.――=28.= יחסרון] The regular use of
the ending וּן (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 _m_) from this point onwards
is remarkable (Dillmann). The form, though _etymologically_
archaic, is by no means a mark of antiquity in Old Testament,
and is peculiarly frequent in Deuteronomic style (Driver on
Deuteronomy 1¹⁷).――=32.= הפעם] see on 2²³.
* * * * *
XIX. 1‒29.
_The Destruction of Sodom and Deliverance of Lot_
(Yahwist and Priestly-Code).
The three men (see on verse ¹) who have just left Abraham reach
Sodom in the evening, are received as guests by Lot (¹⁻³), but are
threatened with outrage by the Sodomites (⁴⁻¹¹). Thus convinced of
the depravity of the inhabitants, they secure the safety of Lot’s
household (¹²⁻²²), after which the city is destroyed by fire and
brimstone (²³⁻²⁸).
Thus far Yahwist: compare יהוה, ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁷; נא, ²ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ
²⁰; טרם, ⁴; כי־על־כן, ⁸; לקראת, ¹; פצר, ³ᐧ ⁹; השקיף, ²⁸.――The summary
in ²⁹ is from Priestly-Code: compare אלהים, שחת, ערי הככר, (compare
6¹⁷ 9¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵).――The passage continues 18²²ᵃᐧ ³³ᵇ (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ),
and forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham’s
tent (18¹⁻¹⁵). The alternation of singular and plural is less
confusing than in 18; and Kraetzschmar’s theory (see page 298
f.) does less violence to the structure of the passage. Indeed,
Gunkel himself admits that the singular section ¹⁷⁻²² (with ²⁶)
is an ‘intermezzo’ from another Yahwistic author (Gunkel 181).
=1‒3. Lot’s hospitality.=――Compare Judges 19¹⁵⁻²¹.――=1a.= _the
two angels_] Read ‘the men,’ as 18¹⁶ [19⁵ᐧ ⁸] ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶; see the
footnote.――_in the gate_] the place of rendezvous in Eastern
cities for business or social intercourse; Ruth 4¹ ᶠᶠᐧ ¹¹, Job 29⁷
etc.――Compare 18².――אֲדֹנַי] _Sirs!_ See on 18³. Delitzsch’s inference that
Lot’s spiritual vision was less clear than Abraham’s may be edifying,
but is hardly sound.――=2b.= The refusal of the invitation may be
merely a piece of Oriental politeness, or it may contain a hint of the
purpose of the visit (18²¹). In an ordinary city it would be no great
hardship to spend the night in the street: Lot knows only too well
what it would mean in Sodom.
* * * * *
=1.= שני המלאכים] This word has not been used before, and recurs
only in verse ¹⁵ (in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
also verse ¹², and in LXX verse ¹⁶). The phrase is, no doubt,
a correction for הָֽאֲנָשִׁים, caused by the introduction of ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ,
and the consequent identification of Yahwe with one of the
original three, and the other two with His angels (Wellhausen
_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 27 f.).――=2=. הִנֶּה נָּא] so pointed only here:
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 20 __d_, 100 _o_.――=3.= פצר] Only again 19⁹
33¹¹ (Yahwist), Judges 19⁷, 2 Kings 2¹⁷ 5¹⁶.
* * * * *
=4‒11. The assault of the Sodomites.=――=4.= _They had not yet retired
to rest when, etc._] That _all_ the men of the city were involved in
the attack is affirmed with emphasis (מִקָּצֶה: _v.i._): an instance of the
‘shamelessness’ of Sodom (Isaiah 3⁹).――=5.= The unnatural vice which
derives its name from the incident was viewed in Israel as the lowest
depth of moral corruption: compare Leviticus 18²² ᶠᶠᐧ 20¹³ᐧ ²³, Ezekiel
16⁵⁰, Judges 19²².――=6‒8.= Lot’s readiness to sacrifice the honour
of his daughters, though abhorrent to Hebrew morality (compare Judges
19²⁵ᐧ ³⁰), shows him as a courageous champion of the obligations of
hospitality in a situation of extreme embarrassment, and is recorded
to his credit. Compare 12¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ――=8.= _inasmuch as they have come
under the shadow_ (_i.e._ ‘protection’) _of my roof-tree_] קֹרָה, ‘beam’
(like μέλαθρα), for ‘house.’――=9=. Lot is reminded of his solitary
(הָֽאֶחָד, _der Eine da_) and defenceless position as a _gêr_ (see on
12¹⁰).――=11.= The divine beings smite the rabble with demonic
blindness (סַנְוֵרִים: _v.i._).
* * * * *
=4.= אנשי סדם] probably a gloss (Olshausen).――מקצה] (LXX ἅμα)
an abbreviation of מן־הקצה ועד־הקצה (Genesis 47²¹, Exodus 26²⁸,
Deuteronomy 13⁸ etc.) = ‘exhaustively’: so Isaiah 56¹¹, Jeremiah
51³¹, Ezekiel 25⁹.――=6.= הפתחה] omitted by LXX, Vulgate.――=8.=
האל] = הָאֵלֶּה (only again 19²⁵ 26³ ᶠ, Leviticus 18²⁷, Deuteronomy
4⁴² 7²² 19¹¹, 1 Chronicles 20⁸) is an orthographic variant
(not in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_), meant
originally to be pronounced הָאֵלָּ. See Driver on Deuteronomy
4⁴².――כי־על־כן] as 18⁵.――=9.= הלאה [_The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ גשה]גֶּשׁ־] LXX ἀπόστα ἐκεῖ: ‘stand back there’; compare
גְּשָׁה־לִּי, Isaiah 49²⁰.――וישפט שפוט] Consecutive imperfect expressing
‘paradoxical consequence’ (Delitzsch); compare 32³¹ 40²³,
Job 2³: see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _l_, _m_. The infinitive
absolute _after_ its verb properly denotes continuance of the
action; here its position seems due to the consecutive ו, and
its force as if it had stood first (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113
_r_, _p_)――=11.= סַנְוֵרִים] (2 Kings 6¹⁸†) is related to ordinary
blindness (עִוָּרוֹן, Deuteronomy 28²⁸, Zechariah 12⁴†), somewhat
as תַּרְדֵּמָה (2²¹) is to ordinary sleep. If from √ נור (‘shine’),
it is either a common oriental euphemism (König ii. page 404),
or dazzling from excess of light (Acts 9³): compare Hoffmann,
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, ii. 68¹.
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ שבריריא means both ‘brightness’ and ‘blindness’;
and in the Talmud _Shabriri_ is a demon of blindness
(_Jewish Encyclopædia_, iv. 517 a). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word),
‘hallucinations.’
* * * * *
=12‒16. The deliverance of Lot.=――=12=. On the construction,
_v.i._――=13.= _Yahwe has sent us_] _i.e._ the ‘three’ are agents of
Yahwe, who is therefore _not_ present in person.――=14.= Lot warns
his (prospective) _sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters_: so
Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 202, Vulgate, Tuch, Dillmann,
Driver, al. Others (LXX, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch,
al.) take לֹקְחֵי as referring to the past, which is possible (compare
27⁴⁶).――_as one that jested_] see on 21⁹.――=15.= _as the dawn
appeared_] The judgement must be accomplished by sunrise (²³ ᶠᐧ);
hence the urgency of the summons.――_the angels_] ‘the men,’ as verse
¹.――הנִּמְצָאֹת] _who are at hand_ (1 Samuel 21⁴).――=16.= _he hesitated_]
reluctant, and only half-convinced.――_through Yahwe’s compassion on
him_].――_left him without the city_] rather suggests, as Gunkel (186)
holds, that there he is in safety.
* * * * *
=12.= עד מי־לך וגו׳] The stiff construction has led to various
operations on the text. LXX, Vulgate seem to have read חֲתָנִים וּבָנִים
וּבָנֹת; Peshiṭtå has חֲתָנֶיךָ. Dillmann suggests that the letters ובנ
have been accidentally thrust into the word חתנ־יך; Holzinger
and Gunkel omit ו in ובניך (so _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_) and commence a new sentence there; Ball, Kittel
delete חתן ו. The text may be retained if we take the first
clause as indirect question: ‘Whomsoever thou hast here as a
son-in-law, and thy sons ... bring forth,’ etc.――At end add הַזָּה
with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX.――=15.=
כמו] “rare and poetic” (Dillmann). Here used as conjunction
(= כאשר).――הנמצאת] LXX ἃς ἔχεις καὶ ἔξελθε; Vulgate _quas
habes_.――=16.= חמלת] future infinitive construct.――=16b= is
omitted by LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ, but is found in many cursives.
* * * * *
=17‒22. The sparing of Zoar.=――=17.= _the mountain_] the elevated
Moabite plateau, which rises steeply to heights of 2500‒3000
feet. from the East side of the Sea.――_look not behind thee_] Such
prohibitions are frequent in legends and incantations; compare the
story of Orpheus and Eurydice (Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ x. 51; Virgil
_Georgics_ iv. 491); compare also Virgil _Eclogues_ viii. 102; Ovid
_Fasti_, v. 439.――=20.= _is near enough to flee to_].――מִצְעָר] _a trifle_:
repeated with a view to the etymology of ²²ᵇ.
The city of Ẓō‛ar (LXX Σηγωρ) was well known, not only in
Old Testament times (13¹⁰ 14²ᐧ ⁸, Deuteronomy 34³, Isaiah 15⁵,
Jeremiah 48³⁴), but also in the time of the Crusades, and
to the Arabic geographers, who call the Dead Sea the Sea of
_Zuġar_. That this mediæval Zoar was at the South end of the
lake is undisputed; and there is no good reason to question its
identity with the biblical city (see Josephus _War of the Jews_,
iv. 482; _Onomastica Sacra_¹, 261³⁷). Since Wetzstein, it is
usually located at _Ghōr eṣ-Ṣāfiyeh_, about 5 miles South-east
from the present shore of the Sea (compare Dillmann 273; Buhl,
_Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 271; Smith, _Historical
Geography of the Holy Land_, 505 ff.; and especially Driver
_A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 985b ff.). The situation of
the city naturally gave birth to the secondary legend that it
had been saved from the fate of the adjacent cities on account
of the intercession of Lot; while the name in Hebrew readily
suggested the etymology of ²²ᵇ.
* * * * *
=17.= ויאמר] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå have plural, which is
supported by the previous הוציאם and the following אלהם, though
the singular is maintained in the rest of the section.――תביט]
for תַּבַּֽט; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 _p_.――המלט] five times repeated
in the six verses is thought by Ball to be a play on the name
לוֹט.――=20.= ותחי נפשי] LXX + ἕνεκεν σοῦ, a slavish imitation of
12¹³.――=21.= נשאתי פניך] ‘have accepted thee’ (literally ‘lifted
up thy face’: opposite השיב פנים)――here in a good sense (as 32²¹,
2 Kings 3¹⁴, Malachi 1⁸ ᶠᐧ), more frequent in the bad sense of
partiality in judgement (Leviticus 19¹⁵, Deuteronomy 10¹⁷,
Malachi 2⁹, Job 13¹⁰ etc.).
* * * * *
=23‒28. The catastrophe.=――Brevity in the description of physical
phenomena is in accord with the spirit of the Hebrew legend, whose
main interest is the dramatic presentation of human character and
action.――=23, 24.= The clause _when Lot entered Zoar_, presupposes
¹⁷⁻²², and, if the latter be from a separate source, must be
deleted as an interpolation (Gunkel). The connexion is improved
by the excision: just as the sun rose the catastrophe took place
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 164 _b_).――_sulphur and fire_ (Ezekiel 38²²,
Psalms 11⁶)] a feature suggested by permanent physical phenomena of
the region (see below).――_Yahwe rained ... from Yahwe_] A distinction
between Yahwe as present in the angels and Yahwe as seated in heaven
(Dillmann) is improbable. We must either suppose that the original
subject was ‘the men’ (so Gunkel: compare verse ¹³), or that מֵאֵת יהוה
is a doublet to מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם: the latter phrase, however, is generally
considered to be a gloss (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel,
Kittel).――=25.= וַֽיַּהֲפֹךְ] see on ²⁹.――=26.= Lot’s wife transgresses the
prohibition of ¹⁷, and is turned into a _pillar of salt_.
The literal interpretation of this notice, though still
maintained by Strack, is clearly inadmissible. The pillar is
mentioned as still existing in Wisdom of Solomon 10⁷, Josephus
_Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 203; the reference obviously being
to some curious resemblance to a female figure, round which the
popular imagination had woven a legend connecting it with the
story of Lot. Whether it be identical with the huge cylindrical
column, 40 feet high, on the East side of _Ǧebel Usdum_,
described by Lynch, is, of course, doubtful.¹ The fact that
Ǧebel Usdum is on the South-west side of the lake, while Zoar
was on the South-east, would not preclude the identification:
it would simply mean that the whole region was haunted by the
legend of Lot. But the disintegration of the rock-salt of which
that remarkable ridge is mainly composed, proceeds so rapidly,
and produces so many fantastic projections and pinnacles,
that the tradition may be supposed to have attached itself to
different objects at different periods. See Driver _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, iii. 152.
¹ I cannot find the proof of Gunkel’s assertion that _this_
pillar is now called ‘the daughter of Lot.’
* * * * *
=23.= יצא] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ יצאה;
compare 15¹⁷.――=25.= האל (verse ⁸)] LXX + אֲשֶׁר יָשֶׂב בָּהֵן לוֹט, as verse
²⁹.――=26.= The verse stands out of its proper position (note
the ו consecutive, and the suffixes), and belongs to ¹⁷⁻²² rather
than to the main narrative (Gunkel).
* * * * *
=27, 28.= Abraham’s morning visit to the spot where he had parted from
his heavenly guests forms an impressive close to the narrative.――_and
he looked, etc._] an effective contrast to 18¹⁶.――_the smoke of the
land_ was afterwards believed to ascend permanently from the site of
the guilty cities (Wisdom 10⁷).――The idea may have been suggested by
the cloud of vapour which generally hangs over the surface of the Dead
Sea (see Dillmann).
* * * * *
=27=. וישכם――אל־] pregnant construct.――=27b.= must have been
interpolated after the expansion of chapter 18 by verses
²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ.――=28.= ארץ הככר does not occur elsewhere. The variations
of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå
warrant the emendation כָּל־הַכִּכָּר (Kittel)――כקיטר הככשן] the same simile
in Exodus 19¹⁸ (also Yahwist).――קִיטֹר] Psalms 119⁸³ 148⁸†.
* * * * *
=29.= (From Priestly-Code: see page 306.) Gunkel conjectures that the
verse formed the introduction to a lost genealogy of Lot; and that its
original position in Priestly-Code was after 13¹²ᵃ. The dependence of
Priestly-Code on Yahwist is very manifest.――_the cities in [one of]
which Lot dwelt_] as 8⁴, Judges 12⁷.
_The destruction of the Cities of the Plain._――The narrative
of chapter 19 appears at first sight to be based on vague
recollection of an actual occurrence,――the destruction of a
group of cities situated in what is now the Dead Sea, under
circumstances which suggested a direct interposition of divine
power. It seems unreasonable to suppose that a legend so
firmly rooted in Hebrew tradition, so full of local colour, and
preserving so tenaciously the names of the ruined cities, should
be destitute of historic foundation; and to doubt whether any
such cities as Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed in the Dead Sea
basin appears an unduly sceptical exercise of critical judgement.
It has been shown, moreover, that a catastrophe corresponding
in its main features to the biblical description is an extremely
probable result of volcanic and other forces, acting under the
peculiar geological conditions which obtain in the Dead Sea
depression. According to Sir J. W. Dawson, it might have been
caused by an explosion of bitumen or petroleum, like those
which so frequently prove destructive in Canada and the United
States (see _The Expositor_ 1886, i. page 74; _Modern Science in
Bible Lands_, 486 ff.). A similar theory has been worked out in
elaborate and picturesque detail by Blanckenhorn in _Zeitschrift
des deutschen Palästina-Vereins_, xix. 1‒64, xxi. 65‒83 (see
Driver page 202 f.).¹ These theories are very plausible, and
must be allowed their full weight in determining the question of
historicity. At the same time it requires to be pointed out that
they do not prove the incident to be historical; and several
considerations show that a complete explanation of the legend
cannot be reached on the lines of physical science. (a) It is
impossible to dissociate the legend altogether from the current
Old Testament representation (13¹⁰ 14³ᐧ ¹⁰) that prior to this
event the Dead Sea did not exist,――an idea which geology proves
to be absolutely erroneous. It is true that the narrative does
not state that the cities were submerged by the waters of the
Dead Sea; and it is possible to suppose that they were situated
either south of the present margin of the lake, or in its
shallow southern bay (which might possibly have been formed
within historic times). The fact, however, remains, that the
Israelites had a mistaken notion of the origin of the Dead Sea;
and this fact throws some suspicion on the whole legend of the
‘cities of the Plain.’ (b) It is remarkable that the legend
contains no mention of the Dead Sea, either as the cause of
the catastrophe, or as originating contemporaneously with it
(Gunkel). So important an omission suggests the possibility
that the Sodom-legend may have arisen in a locality answering
still more closely to the volcanic features of the description
(such as the ‘dismal _Ḥarras_ of Arabia’ [Meyer]), and been
transferred to the region of the Dead Sea valley. (c) The
stereotyped term מַהְפֵּכָה (see on verse ²⁹), which seems to have
been imported with the legend, points clearly to an earthquake
as the main cause of the overthrow; and there is no mention of
an earthquake in any Hebrew version of the story (see Cheyne
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4668 f.)――another indication that it
has been transplanted from its native environment. (d) The most
important consideration is that the narrative seems to belong
to a widely diffused class of popular tales, many interesting
examples of which have been published by Cheyne in _The New
World_, 1892, 239 ff. It is indeed obvious that no physical
explanation of the cataclysm furnishes any clue to the
significance of the angels’ visit to Lot; but a study of
the folklore parallels shows that the connexion between that
incident and the destruction of Sodom is not accidental, but
rests on some mythological motive whose origin is not as yet
explained. Thus in the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid,
_Metamorphoses_ viii. 625 ff.), an aged Phrygian couple give
shelter in their humble dwelling to Zeus and Hermes in human
guise, when every other door is closed against them. As a
reward for their hospitality they are directed to flee to the
mountain, and there, looking back, they see the whole district
inundated by a flood, except their own wretched hut, which has
been transformed into a temple, etc. The resemblance here is so
great that Cheyne (_l.c._ 240) pronounces the tale a secondary
version of Genesis 19; but other parallels, hardly less striking,
present the same combination of kindness to divine beings
rewarded by escape from a destructive visitation in which
a whole neighbourhood perishes for its impious neglect of
the duties of hospitality.――On these grounds some writers
consider the narrative before us to be a Hebrew adaptation of a
widespread legend, its special features being suggested by the
weird scenery of the Dead Sea region,――its barren desolation,
the cloud of vapour hanging over it, its salt rocks with their
grotesque formations, its beds of sulphur and asphalt, with
perhaps occasional conflagrations bursting out amongst them (see
Gunkel 188 f.). Dr. Rendel Harris (_Heavenly Twins_, 39 ff.)
takes it to be a form of the Dioscuric myth, and thus a natural
sequel to 18¹⁻¹⁵ (see page 302 above). Assyriologists have found
in it a peculiar modification of the Deluge-legend (Jastrow
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiii. 291, 297; _The Religion
of Babylonia and Assyria_¹, 507), or of the World-conflagration
which is the astronomical counterpart of that conception (_Das
Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 360 ff.): both
forms of the theory are mentioned by Zimmern with reserve (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 559 f.).――Whatever
truth there may be in these speculations, the religious value
of the biblical narrative is not affected. Like the Deluge-story,
it retains the power to touch the conscience of the world as
a terrible example of divine vengeance on heinous wickedness
and unnatural lust; and in this ethical purpose we have another
testimony to the unique grandeur of the idea of God in ancient
Israel.
¹ Physical explanations of the catastrophe were also current
in ancient times. Strabo (XVI. ii. 44) says that it took
place ὑπὸ σεισμῶν καὶ ἀναφυσημάτων πυρὸς καὶ θερμῶν ὑδάτων
ἀσφαλτωδῶν τε καὶ θειωδῶν, in consequence of which the lake
burst its bounds, the rocks took fire, and so on. Compare
Josephus _War of the Jews_, iv. 484 f., _Antiquities of the
Jews_ i. 203; Tacitus, _Histories_ v. 7.
* * * * *
=29.= ההפכה ‘the overthrow,’ ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The usual verbal
noun is מהפכה (Deuteronomy 29²², Isaiah 1⁷ [read סְדֹם for זָרִים],
13¹⁹, Jeremiah 49¹⁸ 50⁴⁰, Amos 4¹¹†), which is never used except
in connexion with this particular judgement. The unhebraic form
of infinitive, with the fact that where subject is expressed it
is always (even in Amos) אלהים and not יהוה, justify the conclusion
that the phraseology was stereotyped in a heathen version of
the story (Kraetzschmar, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xvii. 87 f.). Compare the use of the verb
19²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁹, Deuteronomy 29²², Jeremiah 20¹⁶, Lamentations
4⁶.――בהפך] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בהפכו is
easier. LXX בה׳ יהוה.
* * * * *
=XIX. 30‒38.――_Lot and his Daughters_ (Yahwist).=
This account of the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites is a pendant
to the destruction of Sodom, just as the story of Noah’s drunkenness
(9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ) is an appendix to the Deluge narrative. Although it has
points of contact with ¹⁻²⁸, it is really an independent myth, as to
the origin and motives of which see the concluding Note (page 314).
_Source._――Though the criteria of authorship are slight, there
is no reason to doubt that the section belongs to Yahwist: note
the two daughters, and the mention of Zoar in ³⁰; and compare
חִיָּה זֶרַע, ³²ᐧ ³⁴; with 7³; and צְעִירָה, בְּכִירָה, ³¹ᐧ ³³⁻³⁵ᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ³⁸, with 29²⁶.
=30a= is a transition clause, connecting what follows with ¹⁻²⁸,
especially with ¹⁷⁻²².――_in the mountain_] of Moab; compare verse
¹⁷.――_he was afraid to dwell in Zoar_] lest it should be consumed,
though the motive involves a slight discrepancy with ²¹.――=30b.=
_in the cave_] probably a particular cave which was named after Lot
(compare 1 Kings 19⁹). It is pointed out that לוֹטָן, a possible variant
of לוֹט, is named as a _Ḥōrite_ (Troglodyte?) in 36²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁹. The habit
is said to have persisted till modern times in that region (Dillmann,
Driver, after Buckingham, _Travels in Syria_ [1825]).――=31.= _there
is no man in the earth_] ‘We are the survivors of a universal
catastrophe.’ So Gunkel, following Pietschmann, _Geschichte der
Phönizier_, 115; Jastrow, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiii.
298 (see below). The usual explanations: ‘no man in the vicinity’
(Dillmann al.), or ‘all men will shrink from us’ (Driver), hardly do
justice to the language.――כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל־הָאָרֶץ] So in the Jewish marriage formula
ואנא אעל לותך כאורח כל ארעא (Delitzsch).――=32.= The intoxication of Lot shows
that the revolting nature of the proposal was felt by the Hebrew
conscience. “When the existence of the race is at stake, the woman
is more eager and unscrupulous than the man” (Gunkel 192).――מֵאָבִינוּ]
repeated in ³⁴ᐧ ³⁶, anticipating the etymology of ³⁷.――=33, 35.=
_he knew not, etc._] still minimising Lot’s culpability (compare
38¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=37.= מוֹאָב] as if = מֵאָב, ‘_from a_ (my?) _father_’
(_v.i._).――=38.= בֶּן־עַמִּי] not ‘son of my people,’ which would be nothing
distinctive of any child, but ‘son of my (paternal) kinsman’ (see
17¹⁴). Note the formal correspondence with בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, which (and not עַמּוֹן
simply) is the invariable designation of the people in Old Testament
(except Psalms 83⁸, and Massoretic Text of 1 Samuel 11¹¹ [LXX בְּנֵי ע׳]).
Both etymologies are obviously pointless except as expressing the
thought of the mothers, who, as is usual in Yahwist, name the children.
_Original idea of the legend._――It is very natural to regard
this account of the origin of Moab and Ammon as an expression of
intense national hatred and contempt towards these two peoples.
It has further been surmised (though with little proof)¹ that
incestuous marriages, such as are here spoken of, were customary
in these lands, and gave an edge to this Hebrew taunt (so
Dillmann). That the story was so understood by later readers is
indeed probable; but how precarious it is to extend this feeling
to ancient times appears from chapter 38, where the ancestry of
the noble tribe of Judah (held in special honour by Yahwist) is
represented as subject to a similar taint. The truth seems to
be that while incest was held in abhorrence by Israel (as by the
ancient Arabs; see Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 441), it
was at one time regarded as justified by extreme necessity, so
that deeds like those here related could be told without shame.
Starting from this view of the spirit of the narrative, Gunkel
(190 f.) gives a suggestive interpretation of the legend. It
is, he thinks, originally a Moabite legend tracing the common
ancestry of Moab and Ammon to Lot, who was probably worshipped
at the ‘cave’ referred to in verse ³⁰. Verse ³¹, however,
presupposes a universal catastrophe, in which the whole human
race had perished, except Lot and his two daughters. In the
ordinary course the daughters would have been doomed to
barrenness, and mankind would have become extinct; and it is
to avert this calamity that the women resolve on the desperate
expedient here described. That such an origin should have been a
subject of national pride is conceivable, though one may fail to
find that feeling reflected in the forced etymologies of ³⁷ ᶠᐧ.
If Gunkel’s theory is anywhere near the truth, we are here on
the track of a Moabite parallel to the story of the Flood, which
is probably of greater antiquity than the legend of 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Lot
is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of
9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so
the Lot of 19³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ was identified with the entertainer of deity
in the heathen myth which probably lies at the basis of 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ²
¹ Compare the similar conjecture with regard to Reuben (page
515 below). It is difficult to know what to make of Palmer’s
curious observation that in that region a wife is commonly
spoken of as _bint_ (daughter): _Desert of the Exodus_, ii.
478; see Driver 205.
² The connexion with the Deluge-legend was anticipated by
Jastrow in the article already cited, _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, xiii. 197 f.――It is a flood of water which
destroys the inhospitable people in the parallel from Ovid
cited above (page 312).
* * * * *
=30.= end] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Vulgate + עִמּוֹ.――=31.= בוא על׳] in this sense only Deuteronomy
25⁵.――=32.= לכה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
לכי.――=33.= ותשקין] (so ³⁵ᐧ ³⁶); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 _l_.――בלילה הוא]
(_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ההוא). On omission
of article with demonstrative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126
_y_; compare 30¹⁶ 32²³ 38²¹, 1 Samuel 19¹⁰.――את־אביה] LXX + τὴν
νύκτα ἐκείνην.――וּבְקוּׄמָהּ] ‘Appungunt desuper, quasi incredibile’!
(Jeremias). In reality the point probably marks a superfluous
letter (compare verse ³⁵).――=34.= אבי] LXX אָבִינוּ.――=37=. מוֹאָב] LXX +
λέγουσα, Ἐκ τοῦ πατρός μου (מֵאָבִ[י]). For the equivalence of מוֹ and
מֵ, compare Numbers 11²⁶ ᶠᐧ (מֵידָד = _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ מודד, LXX Μωδαδ), Jeremiah 48²¹ (מֵיפַעַת, Qrê perpetuum =
מופעת, Kittel), etc.: see _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xvi. 322 f. The real etymology is, of course,
uncertain. Hommel ingeniously and plausibly explains the name
as a contraction of אִמּוֹאָב, ‘his mother is the father,’ after
the analogy of a few Assyrian proper names (_Verhand. d. XIII.
Orient.-Kong._ 261). The view of Knobel and Delitzsch that מוֹ is
Aramaic מוי (= מֵי), ‘water,’ and that the word meant ‘water (_i.e._
_semen_) of a father,’ hardly deserves consideration.――=38.=
בן־עמי] LXX Ἀμμάν, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ γένους μου, missing the significance
of the בֵּן (_v.s._).
* * * * *