Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/413

 position 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 Exp. 1886, i. p. 74; Modern Science in Bible Lands, 486 ff.). A similar theory has been worked out in elaborate and picturesque detail by Blanckenhorn in ZDPV, xix. 1-64, xxi. 65-83 (see Dri. p. 202 f.). 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 OT representation (13$10$ 14$3. 10$) 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 (Gu.). 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 (see on v.$29$), 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 Che. EB, 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,,