cheenc03a.pdf

~ .
~ ~-
SODOM AND GOMORRAH
Gnnkel evzn thinks that the scenes between Abraham
and >feichi~mlek ;znd the king of Sodom sound ihr
popular tradition. He also remarks that the old
tradition ~pc~ks either of Sodom and Gomorrsh, or 01
Admah nnd Seboim ;' the combination of the four
seems to him to rcrt on a later furion of the currenl
traditions. Winckler, too, deals with the question of the
name+. I" u. ra we hear oa1y of the two kings 01
Sodom and Gonlorrah (@ and Sam.. amY 15~1; the
verb ir plural). Thir critic, however. thinks that, ns in
1820 and 1Y.4, both Sodom and Gomorrah are regarded
as subject to the same ruler : Inter editors, amplifying
as UJUQI, increased the number of kings. Far be it
from us to deny the acuteness of previous critics, especiaily
Winckler:* it appears to the present writer, however,
that a keener textual criticism is urgently needed to bring
out the reai, as opposed to the imaginary, problems 01
the narrative. The true story seems to have stated that
in the days of Abmm war broke out between Jerahmeel
king of Geshur (disguised as 'Shinar') or Ashhur
(disguised oa 'llrioch') and Ishmael king of SElam (or
Sr'ul%#n?:~). For twelve years the latter had been
Jerni!meers vassal ; after this he rebelied. A year
passed, and then king Jerahmeel came and mode a raid
arnong the Jerahmeelirer of Zarrphath, Kehoboth, and
Kaderh. The king of Selam came out to oppose him ;
but he and his army were put to flight ; the city of
SElirn war plundered, and I.ot wats one of the captiver.
Neivn of this came to Abram the Hebrew, who iivrd at
Kehoboth (mirwriften ' Hebron') and wan in close
oilinnce with the Jerah~neeliter. At once he called
together his Kenite and Jershmeelitc neighbours,'
pursued the spoilers as far as Reihob in Cushnn, and
hrotzght back the captives and the property which the
spoilers had taken. On hia return two kin~s came om
to meet hisn. One was the king of ZIKr..\r. (Haluuh?).
a rpcially sacred ciry, whose king was also priest of
the God of Jerahnreel,' and solemniy blessed Abram-a
blessing which Abrum acknowledged by the payment of
tithes (cp Gen. 28~~).
The other wnr the king of
SBl.im, who offered Abrarn the whole of the recovered
property. Ahram, however, generously refused this.
rivesiing by Yahw*, the God of Jer:ihmeel, that he
would not commit such a sin against Jernhmeel's land.6
or receive anything that belonged to the king of S4Bm.
lest the king should thus be entitled to ray that he (and
no, Yahwe) had enriched Abram. Only the cianr which
accompanied Abmm-~Oien [Aner]. Heles [Eshcol],
and Jeruhmeei [Mamrel-required their just share of
the spoil.
The war wu therefore between two branches cf the erah
meelit. .ace slid Ahcam the Hebrew himeelf half n fez&:
m..lit.,r interposed in the hour of need'for his neighbour. and
rclativr.. Srlim, generally miswriftcn D?D (MT Scdom), but
once ~ 5 (Y , IF MT Sal~m), war nor rituated anywhere near the
Dead Sea. but in Jcrrhmrcl. Whcthcr rhc earlicr tradiiion
really knew anything of r place called 'Gomorrrh,'ir alrerdy
- ~
thinkr the nrrumption of ~~ocinl source for the few details
=hour the campaign r~perfluo$,7 (GENESIS g 8' CUI 1677).
1 Admih and Zeholm, 1lowev.r. take ide pldce of Sodo," and
Gomorral~ only in r rinqle pr%rge (Hor. 118), which ir not free
from the suspicion of corrupmear.
2 no~1,orJ?; ci2za-,1.
s &'ul beiilg piohibly r name belonging to the Negeh.
Cp ScmU'el, Iima' 'el.
' Read in *. 14 [o.ixpa,l &an,. n.3, w1.p-na ~r,pi.
'Three hlindred rnd ei~htcen; in which Hitzig see. Gematria,
and Win~klcr(G(22~) an srrronomicrl numbri, is simply due
ro an editor's mrnipr~lation of orrupf repeated firgmentr of
'If from a thread ro shoc-lrtchct and if I would take
anythinp,'i~im~~~~ihle. a relieves thecdnnructiin by Ymiiiiis
rhc second ~pj. nut the prrallelisric a~irrangement is thus
derfroycd, md the improbability of fhcnllcgcd proverb, 'Not a
thread nor 2 shoe-latchet: remains. Read p~.iY Xnnl-o.
ix~n,,.
Abram'=Ab.rahm=Ab.j~hmeel; see Rex=," and cp
T~X*,,.
4673
SODOM AND GOMORRAH
(d) Gen. 19r,-z5. 'Zoar, on the SE. edgeof the Dead
Sea, covered over now by the alluvium, once lay in a
weii-watered country wirh a tropical climate. The
Israelite tradition is surprised that this little bit of land
has escaped the ruin of Sodom, and explains this treatment
by the inrercersion of Lot who desired Zoar as a
place of refuge. Thus the legend of Zoar is a grological
legend. At the sairle time it contains an
etymological motive; the city is called So'or, kcanre
Lot said in his prayer. "It is only mi?'ar (something
mll)."' So Gunkel (Cm. 192). according to whom
the Zoar episode (including the incident abut Lot's
wife) is a later offshoot of the legend. We accept
Gunkel's analysis (see 8 I, n. 4). but cannot venture to
accept his interpretation of the legend. The stress laid
on ,ysa in u. 20 suggests that the real name of the ciry
war ,?+, and thus agrees with the view that Sodom was
neither N. nor S. of the Dead Se.z, but in Jerahmeei.
.Zoa?' therefore, needs emendation into 'Missur.'?
The Zoar-episode has been retouched ; originally it was.
not a geological, but an etymological myth.
Hut wirr i only the Zoarspisvde that underwent rnanipula.
lion? Textual criticism enabler ur with much proh?ihiIity lo
rnrwer this question. There =re ~erernl reuonr for iuspcsting
rhsr the text of v. 14 is corrupt. (I) The lm in Y. li,,a3
may crilicshnvereninrkcd, doe~not accord wrth rhederrlprlon
in our text of Y. 2+_5 (1) The reference to bitumen-pit5 in 14 xu
(see c) and ro 'fire and brimstone' in Ps. 1,s (% h) .re due to
corruption of the text. Taking our pu.qipe in connection with
Pr.116, we should not irnprobrbly em~nd a thur :-
'And Yahw* causcd if to rain upn Selim =pi upon 'Amamh
land upon1 Rehohoih revep days4 from heaven.
This ir of importance ~ 8th regard to rheprigin=l form ofthe
legend. Note that in m. 15 'thore ciries is equIu.1ent to
,nil i>-+r. h. 'all Jerol1:merl: 'Sodurn, ir not
the only ciry'whlch is caught in the net of its own wicked
derdr. We -not but expect a reference to some orher place
besides Scdom and irr appendape Ganlorrah. That in ihe
nriginal story the implied accu ('bythe city of
,-."h."~~l .-- .,
>
a T ~ C is ,hat .yr I,= .,=.
zach alleged occurrcncc, however, needs to be repurrrely
sidered (rec crii. Bid.).
3 According to Gonkel, the rsining of lhrimrtane from her,,en
is ina1ogour to the A-ryrian custom of rrrewing rr1r on the rite
of a derrroyad city (cp SALT). nut SUIEIY when the rain of
bricnrlone fell, Sodom had not heen denroved. Nor mn the
cvirom referred lo (which ir r~ally a symhol if conrenacio~>, cer
Elek. 43?+, and cp SALT. g 3) he illurrrarive of Yahwxr raini1,g
hrimrrnnn .. ... . .. .
Read omq nwm for nx. nm m~1.
Ewald (Gi'/?as3) quotes this pusage in rupprt of the
theory that Yahvh war oriqinally a rkypd. He compares
Mic.57161 'rr dew from Yahwe.' But it ir the irufolo~ that
8. srrrrling.