Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/407

 Yahwe was one of the three is certainly the view of the later editors (see on 19$1$); but if that had been the original conception, it must have been clearly expressed at this point. (b) In $20f.$ we have seen that the fate of Sodom still hangs in the balance, while in $23ff.$ 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 Jer. 15$1$, Ezk. 14$14ff.$; 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.

23. Wilt thou even sweep away, etc.] The question strikes the keynote of the section,—a protest against the thought of an indiscriminate judgement (cf. Jb. 9$22$).—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 OT, 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: cf. Ro. 3$6$.—27. I have ventured] cf. Jer. 12$1$. expresses the overcoming of a certain inward reluctance (Jos. 7$7$).—dust and ashes] an alliterative combination (Jb. 30$19$ 42$6$, Sir. 40$3$). As a descrip-

out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg, Introd. 352 f.). The worth of the tradition is disputed, the present text being supported by all Vns. as well as by 19$27$; and the sense certainly does not demand the suggested restoration (Tu. Di. against KS. Ba. Gu. al.).—23, 24. ] T$O$, mistaking for = 'anger': so ST$J$.—23 end] G + ($25a$).—24. ] sc. = 'forgive': Nu. 14$19$, Is. 2$9$, Hos. 1$6$ etc.—25. ] lit. 'profanum (sit),' construed with, as 44$7. 17$, oft. The full formula is (1 Sa. 24$7$ 26$11$ etc.).—] V (nequaquam facies judicium hoc) and S (which takes as vocative)