Chapter XVIII · 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, ^{1. 13. 14}; רוּץ לִקְרַאת, ² (only in Yahwist 24¹⁷ 29¹³ 33⁴); מָצָא חַן, ³; נָא, ^{3. 4}; עַבְדְּךָ (for 1st person), ^{3. 5}; כִּי־עַל־כֵּן, ⁵; לָמָּה זֶּה, ¹³; השקיף, ¹⁶. The latter part (^17‒33) is also Yahwistic (יהוה, ^{20. 22. 26. 33}; [הִנֵּה]־נָא, ^{27. 30 ff.}; 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 Testaments² 27 f.) appears to have proved that the original connexion between 18¹⁵ and 19¹ consists of ^{16. 20‒22a. 33b}; and that ^{17‒19. 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] ^{1. 3. 10. 13. 14. 15. 17‒21. 22b‒33}) and plural (^{2. 4. 5. 8. 9. 16. 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 (Yahwist^Hebron). 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 12^10‒20 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 Egyptians⁵ 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 23^{6. 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 20^{5. 24}, 1 Kings 13²⁰.—5. support your heart] with the food, Judges 19^{5. 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 6^{20 f.} 13¹⁶). The anthropomorphism is evaded by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews i. 197: οἱ δὲ δόξαν αὐτῷ παρέσχον ἐσθιόντων; compare Tobit 12¹⁹), Targum^Jonathan, 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, Targum^{Onkelos-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 b³; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 475 b.—עברתם על LXX ἐξεκλίνατε πρός = סַרְתֶּם אֶל (19^{2 f.}), 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 Archäologie² 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 4^13‒16.—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 4^{16 f.}) 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; Targum^Onkelos ‘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 23^{1. 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 32^{17. 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 f.} 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 f.} have no motive apart from ^17‒19 and ^{23 ff.}, is incomprehensible; the difficulty rather is to assign a reason for the addition of ^{17 ff.}. 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 6^1‒3.—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)] Targum^Onkelos ארי. The particle is ignored by LXX, Vulgate; also by Peshiṭtå, which supplies 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, Targum^Onkelos 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 f.} we have seen that the fate of Sodom still hangs in the balance, while in ^{23 ff.} 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 14^{14 ff.}; 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] Targum^Onkelos הבירגז, mistaking for אַף = ‘anger’: so Peshiṭtå, Targum^Jonathan.—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 44^{7. 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, ^{13. 14. 16. 24. 27}; נא, ^{2. 7. 8. 18. 19. 20}; טרם, ⁴; כי־על־כן, ⁸; לקראת, ¹; פצר, ^{3. 9}; השקיף, ²⁸.—The summary in ²⁹ is from Priestly-Code: compare אלהים, שחת, ערי הככר, (compare 6¹⁷ 9^{11. 15}).—The passage continues 18^{22a. 33b} (Yahwist^Hebron), and forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham’s tent (18^1‒15). 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 19^15‒21.—1a. the two angels] Read ‘the men,’ as 18¹⁶ [19^{5. 8}] ^{10. 12. 16}; see the footnote.—in the gate] the place of rendezvous in Eastern cities for business or social intercourse; Ruth 4^{1 ff. 11}, Job 29⁷ etc.—1b, 2a. 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 Testaments² 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 18^{22 ff.} 20^{13. 23}, Ezekiel 16⁵⁰, Judges 19²².—6‒8. Lot’s readiness to sacrifice the honour of his daughters, though abhorrent to Hebrew morality (compare Judges 19^{25. 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 12^{13 ff.}—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 26^{3 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. Targum^Onkelos שבריריא means both ‘brightness’ and ‘blindness’; and in the Talmud Shabriri is a demon of blindness (Jewish Encyclopædia, iv. 517 a). Peshiṭtå , ‘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, Targum^Jonathan, 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 f.}); 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 LXX^{A, al.}, 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 14^{2. 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 Sacra¹, 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 1^{8 f.}), 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 13^12a. 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 14^{3. 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 18^1‒15 (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 Assyria¹, 507), or of the World-conflagration which is the astronomical counterpart of that conception (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 360 ff.): both forms of the theory are mentioned by Zimmern with reserve (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 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 19^{21. 25. 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 (9^{20 ff.}) 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, ^{32. 34}; with 7³; and צְעִירָה‎, בְּכִירָה, ^{31. 33‒35. 37. 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 36^{20. 22. 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 ^{34. 36}, anticipating the etymology of ³⁷.—33, 35. he knew not, etc.] still minimising Lot’s culpability (compare 38^{16 ff.}).—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 f.}. 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 19^{1 ff.}. Lot is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of 9^{20 ff.} steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so the Lot of 19^{30 ff.} was identified with the entertainer of deity in the heathen myth which probably lies at the basis of 19^{1 ff.}²

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 ^{35. 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 11^{26 f.} (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.).