Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/416

 nothing distinctive of any child, but 'son of my (paternal) kinsman' (see 17$14$). Note the formal correspondence with , which (and not simply) is the invariable designation of the people in OT (exc. Ps. 83$8$, and MT of 1 Sa. 11$11$ [G ]). Both etymologies are obviously pointless except as expressing the thought of the mothers, who, as is usual in J, name the children.

Original idea of the legend.—It is very natural to regard this account of the origin of Moab and Ammon as an expression of intense national hatred and contempt towards these two peoples. It has further been surmised (though with little proof) that incestuous marriages, such as are here spoken of, were customary in these lands, and gave an edge to this Hebrew taunt (so Di.). That the story was so understood by later readers is indeed probable; but how precarious it is to extend this feeling to ancient times appears from ch. 38, where the ancestry of the noble tribe of Judah (held in special honour by J) is represented as subject to a similar taint. The truth seems to be that while incest was held in abhorrence by Israel (as by the ancient Arabs; see We. GGN, 1893, 441), it was at one time regarded as justified by extreme necessity, so that deeds like those here related could be told without shame. Starting from this view of the spirit of the narrative, Gu. (190 f.) gives a suggestive interpretation of the legend. It is, he thinks, originally a Moabite legend tracing the common ancestry of Moab and Ammon to Lot, who was probably worshipped at the 'cave' referred to in v.$30$. V.$31$, however, presupposes a universal catastrophe, in which the whole human race had perished, except Lot and his two daughters. In the ordinary course the daughters would have been doomed to barrenness, and mankind would have become extinct; and it is to avert this calamity that the women resolve on the desperate expedient here described. That such an origin should have been a subject of national pride is conceivable, though one may fail to find that feeling reflected in the forced etymologies of $37f.$. If Gu.'s theory is anywhere near the truth, we are here on the track of a Moabite parallel to the story of the Flood, which is probably of greater antiquity than the legend of 19$1ff.$. Lot is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of 9$20ff.$ steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so the Lot of 19$30ff.$ was identified with the entertainer of deity in the heathen myth which probably lies at the basis of 19$1ff.$