Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/412



imagination had woven a legend connecting it with the story of Lot. Whether it be identical with the huge cylindrical column, 40 ft. high, on the E side of Ǧebel Usdum, described by Lynch, is, of course, doubtful. The fact that Ǧ. Usdum is on the SW side of the lake, while Zoar was on the SE, 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 Dri. DB, iii. 152.

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 18$16$.—the smoke of the land was afterwards believed to ascend permanently from the site of the guilty cities (Wisd. 10$7$).—The idea may have been suggested by the cloud of vapour which generally hangs over the surface of the Dead Sea (see Di.).

29. (From P: see p. 306.) Gu. conjectures that the v. formed the introduction to a lost genealogy of Lot; and that its original position in P was after 13$12a$. The dependence of P on J is very manifest.—the cities in [one of] which Lot dwelt] as 8$4$, Ju. 12$7$.

The destruction of the Cities of the Plain.—The narrative of ch. 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 inter-*

the expansion of ch. 18 by vv.$22b-33a$.—28. does not occur elsewhere. The variations of [E]GS warrant the emendation (Kit.)—] the same simile in Ex. 19$18$ (also J).—] Ps. 119$[$83} 148$8$† .—29. 'the overthrow,. The usual verbal noun is (Dt. 29{22}, Is. 1$7$ [rd. for ], 13$19$, Jer. 49$18$ 50$40$, Am. 4$11$†, which is never used except in connexion with this particular judgement. The unhebraic form of inf., with the fact that where subj. is expressed it is always (even in Am.)  and not , justify the conclusion that the phraseology was stereotyped in a heathen version of the story (Kraetzschmar, ZATW, xvii. 87 f.). Comp, the use of the vb. 19$21. 25. 29$, Dt. 29$22$, Jer. 20$16$, La. 4$6$.—] [E] is easier, G.
 * 27. —] preg. constr.—27b. must have been interpolated after