Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/408

 tion of human nature, the phrase recurs only Sir. 10$9$ 17$32$.—28. ] lit. '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 (De.); 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 $22a$.

XIX. 1-29.—The Destruction of Sodom and Deliverance of Lot (J and P).

The three men (see on v.$1$) 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 J: cf. , $13. 14. 16. 24. 27$;, $2. 7. 8. 18. 19. 20$; , $4$; , $8$; , $1$; , $3. 9$; , $28$.—The summary in $29$ is from P: cf. , (cf. 6$17$ 9$11. 15$).—The passage continues 18$22a. 33b$ (J$h$), and forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham's tent (18$1-15$). The alternation of sing. and pl. is less confusing than in 18; and Kraetzschmar's theory (see p. 298 f.) does less violence to the structure of the passage. Indeed, Gu. himself admits that the sing. section $17-22$ (with $26$) is an 'intermezzo' from another Yahwistic author (Gu. 181).

1-3. Lot's hospitality.—Comp. Ju. 19$15-21$.—1a. the two angels] Read 'the men,' as 18$16$ [19$5. 8$] $10. 12. 16$; see the footnote.—in the gate] the place of rendezvous in Eastern cities for business or social intercourse; Ru. 4$1ff. 11$, Jb. 29$7$ etc.—1b, 2a. Cf. 18$2$.—] Sirs! See on 18$3$.

mistake the sense.—28. ] The regular use of the ending (G-K. § 47 m) from this point onwards is remarkable (Di.). The form, though etymologically archaic, is by no means a mark of antiquity in OT, and is peculiarly frequent in Deut. style (Dri. on Dt. 1$17$).—32. ] see on 2$23$.

1. ] This word has not been used before, and recurs only in v.$15$ (in [E] also v.$12$, and in G v.$16$). The phrase is, no doubt, a correction for, 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 (We. Comp.$2$ 27 f.).—2. ] so pointed