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 6¹⁷ 911. 15).—The passage continues 1822a. 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 [195. 8] 10. 12. 16; see the footnote.—in the gate] the place of rendezvous in Eastern cities for business or social intercourse; Ruth 41 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 1822 ff. 2013. 23, Ezekiel 16⁵⁰, Judges 19²².—6–8. Lot’s readiness to sacrifice the honour of his daughters, though abhorrent to Hebrew morality (compare Judges 1925. 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 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 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 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 LXXA, 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 142. 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 18 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.
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 143. 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 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.
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 1921. 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 (920 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 3620. 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 3816 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 191 ff.. Lot is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of 920 ff. steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so the Lot of 1930 ff. was identified with the entertainer of deity in the heathen myth which probably lies at the basis of 191 ff.²
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 1126 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.).
The chapter deals with an incident closely similar to that recorded in 1210–20. It is indeed impossible to doubt that the two are variants of the same tradition; a view which is confirmed rather than shaken by Strack’s enumeration of petty differences. A close comparison (see page 364 f. below) appears to show that the passage before us is written from a more advanced ethical standpoint than that represented by chapter 12: note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the incident (4. 6. 16), and to minimise the extent of Abraham’s departure from strict veracity.
Source.—The narrative is the first continuous excerpt from Elohist; and contains several stylistic and other peculiarities of that document: especially [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, 3. 6. 11. 13. 17 (¹⁸ יהוה is a gloss); אָמָה (Yahwist שִׁפְחָה), ¹⁷; לֵבָב (Yahwist לב), ⁵; see also the notes on נִקָּיוֹן, ⁵; אָמַר אָל־, 2. 13; נָתַן לְ, ⁶; אָמְנָה, ¹² (compare Dillmann 279; Holzinger 159; Gunkel 193).—The appearing of God in a dream is characteristic of Elohist; and the conception of Abraham as a prophet (⁷) is at least foreign to the original Yahwist (but see on 15¹). Another circumstance proving the use of a source distinct from YahwistHebron or Priestly-Code is that Sarah is here conceived as a young woman capable of inspiring passion in the king (contrast 18¹² 17¹⁷). Lastly, it is to be observed that chapter 20 is the beginning of a section (20–22) mainly Elohistic, representing a cycle of tradition belonging to the Negeb and, in particular, to Beersheba.
1, 2. Introductory notice.—The method of the narrator, Gunkel points out, is to let the story unfold itself in the colloquies which follow, verses 1 f. containing just enough to make these intelligible.—1. the land of the Negeb] see on 12⁹.—between Ḳādēsh (14⁷) and Shûr (16⁷) would be in the extreme South of the Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words וַיָּגָר בִּגְרָר (note the paronomasia) are not a nearer specification of the previous clause, but introduce a new fact,—a further stage of the patriarch’s wanderings. There is therefore no reason to suppose that Gĕrār lay as far South as Ḳadesh (v.i.).—2. The bareness of the narration is remarkable, and was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting in lucidity (v.i.).—Abimelech, king of Gĕrār] אֲבִימֶלֶךְ = ‘Milk is [my] father,’ is a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the name of the god Milk (see Baethgen Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 37 ff.). It occurs as the name of the governor of Tyre (Abi-milki) in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (149–156). There is no trace here of the anachronism which makes him a Philistine prince (chapter 26); Gerar is an independent Canaanite kingdom.—took Sarah] sc. as wife; the same ellipsis as 19¹⁴.
1. וַיִּסַּע] see 11².—אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב] אֶרֶץ הַנּ׳ only 24⁶², Joshua 15¹⁹, Judges 1¹⁵ (Yahwist), Numbers 13²⁹ (Elohist?).—גְּרָר] (10¹⁹ 261. 6. 17 [נַחַל גְּרָר], 20. 26, 2 Chronicles 1412 f.†) LXX Γεραρα, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); commonly identified, on the authority of Onomastica Sacra, 24028 ff. (ἀπέχουσα Ἐλευθεροπόλεως σημείοις κε πρὸς νότον), with the modern Umm Ǧerār (‘place of water-pots’), 6 miles South-south-east of Gaza (so Rowlands, Holy City, i. 464; Robinson [who did not find the name], Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 43 f. [compare i. 189], Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). This suits 26¹ (according to which it was in Philistine territory), 10¹⁹ and 2 Chronicles 14¹³; but hardly 2617 ff., and it is certainly inconsistent with the notice בֵּין קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין שׁוּר. There happens to be a Wādī Ǧerūr, approximately 13 miles South-west of Ḳadesh, which exactly agrees with this description; and so Trumbull (Kadesh-Barnea 62 f., 255) and others have decided that this must be the biblical Gerar, while others think there may have been two places of the name (Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns on 2617. 21 f.: so far as the present reference is concerned, we have seen that the argument rests on a misconception; and it is not even necessary to assume (with Kautzsch-Socin) that 1a is a redactional clause, or (with Holzinger, Gunkel) that part of Elohist’s narrative has been suppressed between 1a and 1b. It is true that מִשָּׁם has no antecedent in Elohist, and it is, of course, conceivable that it was written by RedactorElohist to connect the following with a previous section of Elohist (Gunkel), or by RedactorJehovist to mark the transition from Hebron (18¹) to the Negeb. A redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert the notice ‘between Ḳadesh and Shur’ unless he had meant it as a definition of the site of Gerar.—2. אָמַר אֶל־] = ‘said regarding’ is rare: 2 Kings 19³², Jeremiah 22¹⁸ 27¹⁹; compare א׳ לְ, verse ¹³, Judges 9⁵⁴, Psalms 3³ 71¹⁰.—After Athnach, LXX inserts ἐφοβήθη γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Γυνή μού ἐστιν, μή ποτε ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως δι’ αὐτήν (from 267b).
3–7. Abimelech’s dream.—This mode of revelation is peculiar to Elohist (2112. 14 221 ff. 28¹² 3111. 24 37⁵ 46², Numbers 12⁶ 229. 20), and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the theophanies of Yahwist. It must be remembered, however, that according to primitive ideas the ‘coming’ of God (so 31²⁴, Numbers 22²⁰) would be as real an event in a dream as in waking experience.—4a. had not drawn near her] Not an explanation of Abimelech’s good conscience (which depended solely on the purity of his motives), but of Yahwe’s words in 6b. Why he had not come near her, we gather fully from ¹⁷.—4b, 5. Abimelech protests his innocence.—innocent folk]—‘such as I am’ (v.i.).—5. בְּתָם־לְבָבִי] ‘unsuspectingly’; compare 2 Samuel 15¹¹, 1 Kings 22³⁴; in the wider sense of moral integrity the phrase occurs 1 Kings 9⁴, Psalms 78⁷² 101².—6. have kept thee back from sinning (i.e. inexpiably) against me] The sin is not mere infringement of the rights of a privileged person (Dillmann), but the moral offence of violating the marriage bond.—suffered thee not] by sickness (verse ¹⁷).—7. The situation is altered by this disclosure of the facts to Abimelech: if he now retains Sarah, he will be on every ground deserving of punishment.—he is a prophet] in a secondary sense, as a ‘man of God,’ whose person and property are inviolable: compare Psalms 105¹⁵.—On intercession as a function of the prophet, Deuteronomy 9²⁰, 1 Samuel 7⁵ 1219. 23, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ etc.; but compare Job 42⁸.—that thou mayest live] or ‘recover.’
The section (3–7) exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic of the conception of sin in antique religion. Sin is not wholly an affair of the conscience and inward motive, but an external fact—a violation of the objective moral order, which works out its consequences with the indifference of a law of nature to the mental condition of the transgressor (compare the matricide of Orestes, etc.; and see Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte², 108 f.). At the same time God Himself recognises the relative validity of Abimelech’s plea of ignorance (⁶). It is the first faint protest of the moral sense against the hereditary mechanical notion of guilt. But it is a long way from Abimelech’s faltering protestation of innocence to Job’s unflinching assertion of the right of the individual conscience against the decree of an unjust fate.
3. על] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch על אנדת: compare 21¹¹, Exodus 18⁸, Numbers 12¹ 13²⁴ (Elohist), Genesis 21²⁵ 26³² (Yahwist), Joshua 14⁶ (Redactor), Judges 6⁷.—בעלת בעל] a married woman, Deuteronomy 22²².—4. To גּוֹי in the indefinite sense of ‘people’ (Leute) we may compare Psalms 43¹, Daniel 11²³; but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the whole nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Strack). Eerdmans (Die Komposition der Genesis, 41) offers the incredible suggestion that גוי here has its late Jewish sense of an individual ‘heathen.’ Geiger, Graetz, al. regard the word as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. LXX has ἔθνος ἀγνοοῦν καὶ δίκαιον.—5. נִקָּיוֹן] only here in Hexateuch; Elohist is addicted to rare expressions. For נ׳ כַּפַּי, compare Psalms 26⁶ 73¹³.—6. מֵחֲטוֹּ] for מֵחֲטֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 qq.—נָתַן לְ׳] = ‘permit,’ 31⁷, Numbers 20²¹ 21²³ 22¹³ (Elohist), Exodus 12²³ (Yahwist), 3¹⁹ (Redactor), Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Joshua 10¹⁹ (Deuteronomic): see Oxford Hexateuch, i. 192.
8–13. Abimelech and Abraham.—9. a great sin] i.e., a state of things which, though unwittingly brought about, involves heavy judgement from God (see on 3–7 above).—deeds that are not done] are not sanctioned by the conventional code of morals: compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹² etc.—To this rebuke Abraham (as in 1218 f.) has no reply, and Abimelech proceeds in—10 to inquire into his motive for so acting.—מָה רָאִיתָ ‘What possessed thee?’ (v.i.).—11–13. Abraham’s self-exculpation, which is at the same time the writer’s apology for his conduct, consists of three excuses: (1) he was actuated by fear for his life; (2) he had not been guilty of direct falsehood, but only of mental reservation; (3) the deceit was not practised for the first time on Abimelech, but was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps implied) had worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had any foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented by the narrator ad hoc (Gunkel), we cannot now determine.—11. There is no piety (יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים) in this place] Religion was the only sanction of international morality, the gêr having no civil rights; compare 42¹⁸: see Bertholet, Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden, 15. Compare 12¹².—12. Besides, she really is my sister] Marriage with a half-sister on the father’s side was frequent among the Semites (Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 191 f.), and was allowed in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 13¹³), though prohibited by later legislation (Deuteronomy 27²², Leviticus 189. 11 20¹⁷).—13. When God caused me to stray] The expression is peculiar, as if God had driven him forth an aimless wanderer (Dillmann). It proves that in Elohist, as in Yahwist and Priestly-Code, Abraham was an immigrant in Canaan.
8. האנשים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate prefix כל.—9. מה עשית לנו] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) = מה עשתי לך, rashly adopted by Ball, Holzinger, Kittel—חטאתי] LXX ἡμάρτομεν.—10. מָה רָאִיתָ LXX τί ἐνιδών; so Vulgate, Ball conjecture יָרֵאתָ; Gunkel רָעִיתָ. The translation given above is taken from Bacher, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples from New Hebrew of the idiom (literally ‘What hast thou experienced?’).—11. כִּי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch כי יראתי כי.—רַק] = ‘[I should act otherwise] only,’ etc.: a purely asseverative force (Brown-Driver-Briggs) seems to me insufficiently established by Deuteronomy 4⁶, 1 Kings 21²⁵, 2 Chronicles 28¹⁰, Psalms 32⁶.—12. אָמְנָה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch [?ה]אמנם, as 18¹³, Numbers 22³⁷; but compare Joshua 7²⁰. These are all the occurrences in Hexateuch.—13. הִתְעוּ] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch התעה. The construct of אֱלֹהִים (plural eminent) with plural predicate is exceptional, though not uncommon (31⁵³ 35⁷, Joshua 24¹⁹), and does not appear to be regulated in our present text by any principle. A tendency to substitute singular for plural is shown by 1 Chronicles 17²¹ compared with 2 Samuel 7²³; and it is probable that the change has taken place in many cases where we have no means of tracing it: see Strack² 77; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 i. A kindred and equally inexplicable anomaly is the sporadic use of the article with this word (so verses 6. 17). Both phenomena are probably survivals from a polytheistic form of the legend.—אבי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + ומארץ מילדתי (as 12¹).—כל־המקום] determined by following relative clause; so Exodus 20²⁴, Deuteronomy 11²⁴.
14–18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.—14. The present to Abraham in 12¹⁶ was of the nature of mōhar or purchase-price of a wife; here it is a compensation for injury unwittingly inflicted. The restoration of Sarah is, of course, common to both accounts.—15. The invitation to dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable but peremptory dismissal of 1219 f..—16. see, I give ... to thy brother] For injury done to a woman compensation was due to her relatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or betrothed (Exodus 2215 f., Deuteronomy 2223 ff.): Abimelech, with a touch of sarcasm, puts Sarah in the former category.—1000 (shekels) of silver] not the money value of the gifts in verse ¹⁴ (Strack), but a special present as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.—a covering of the eyes] seemingly a forensic expression for the prestation by which an offence ceases to be seen, i.e., is condoned. The figure is applied in various ways in Old Testament; compare Job 9²⁴, Genesis 32²¹, Exodus 23⁸, 1 Samuel 12³.—The clause וְאֶת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת is obscure, and the text hardly correct (v.i.). The general sense is that Sarah’s honour is completely rehabilitated.—17. God healed Abimelech] The first explicit intimation (see 4. 6) that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily malady, whose nature is indicated by the last word וַיֵּלֵֽדוּ.—18. A superfluous and inadequate explanation of ¹⁷, universally recognised as a gloss; note also יהוה.—עָצַר] see on 16².
14. צֹאן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX prefix אלף כסף (from ¹⁶) wrongly.—ועבדים ושפחת] probably a gloss from 12¹⁶, this being the only instance of שִׁפְחָה in an Elohist context.—16. הִנֵּה הוּא—אִתָּךְ] LXX ταῦτα ἔσται σοι εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ προσώπου σου καὶ πάσαις ταῖς μετὰ σοῦ; Vulgate hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et quocunque perrexeris]; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word). The difficulties of the verse commence here. The suggestion that הוּא refers to Abraham (Abraham Ibn Ezra) may be dismissed, and also the fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to spend the money in the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be mistaken for an unmarried woman (24⁶⁵)! The first question is, Whose eyes are to be covered?—Sarah’s own (לָךְ), or those of the people about her (לְכֹל וגו׳), or both (וּלְכֹל [with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX])? Dillmann adopts the second view, taking לָךְ as dative complement. To this Delitzsch forcibly replies that dative complement before dative of reference is unnatural: hence he takes the first view (לָךְ, dative of reference, and לְכֹל = bezugs aller); i.e., “Her credit with her household, which had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored, and the malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be checked, when they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had been atoned for” (Ball). A better sense would be obtained if לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר could be taken as neuter: ‘all that has befallen thee’ (Tuch, Holzinger, al.). That is perhaps impossible with the present text; hence Gunkel’s emendation אָתָךְ (perfect √ אָתָה with accusative: Job 3²⁵) is not unattractive.—וְאָת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת] Untranslatable. LXX καὶ πάντα ἀλήθευσον; Vulgate quocunque perrexeris: mementoque te deprehensam; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‘about all wherewith thou hast reproached me’); TargumOnkelos ועל כל מא דאמרת איתוכחת. The change to וְנֹכַחַתּ (2nd singular perfect) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in וְאֶת־כֹּל, which cannot be continuation of אִתָּךְ (Tuch al.), or of לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם, but must with Massoretic Text accents be taken with ונ׳. The rendering ‘and before all men thou shalt be righted’ (Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver) is the best that can be made of the text. The easiest emendation is that of Gunkel: וְאַתְּ כֻּלּוֹ נֹכָֽחַת = ‘and thou in all this (affair) art justified,’ though the sense given to כלו has no clear example in the Old Testament. The more drastic remedies of Ball do not commend themselves.—18. יהוה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אלהים.