TheBibleNet: Genesis 18:1-18:33

Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50

SEDRA VA YERA

(Genesis 18:1-22:24)

Note the mix of singulars and plurals in relation to Elohim throughout this passage; note also that it starts with YHVH.

18:1 VA YERA ELAV YHVH BE ELONEY MAMRE VE HU YOSHEV PETACH HA OHEL KE CHOM HA YOM

וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם

KJ (King James translation): And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

BN (BibleNet translation): And YHVH appeared to him by the terebinth oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day.

YHVH once more; connected to the plains of Mamre. Has he moved back from Shur to Mamre; or even to Chevron, which is where we usually find Sarah? Or are we again dealing with multiple tribal legends?

Note this third variant on the ways in which the deity appears to Av-Ram or Av-Raham; in a LAPID, some kind of cleft of light, probably from the stars; in a hallucinogenic vision; in a fairy tale as three human-like angels. Three very different cultures, three very different periods of human development, three very different modes of mythology, all gathered together in the same book.

18:2 VA YISA EYNAV VA YAR VE HINEH SHELOSHAH ANASHIM NITSAVIM ALAV VA YAR VA YARATS LIKRA'TAM MI PETACH HA OHEL VA YISHTACHU ARTSAH

וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיַּרְא וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה

KJ: And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

BN: And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo three men were standing close by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and they prostrated themselves on the earth.

ANASHIM (אנשים): People, or men - why does he presume they are angels? (or is the Ezraic Redactor making that assumption? Or even later translators? The text does not mention angels - Mal'achim - at any point. And if it says that YHVH appeared to him, why are there three Anashim (אנשים) anyway?

Note that the angel at Penu-El (Genesis 32:25) is also described as a man, and not formally as an angel.

YISHTACHU (ישתחו): which surely means that they bowed to him, not the other way around, given that this is in the 3rd person plural; if he had bowed to them it would have read VA YISHTACHAM (וישתחם). Yet every translator since the very beginning has read this as him bowing down! (To which the next verse may provide an answer, because he addresses them in the singular, as though they were somehow three-in-one).

And why would they bow down to him, if they were messengers of YHVH? Unless he was himself the god to their mere angels, or he the chief to their mere men.

And why indeed was there a need to run - or is that not meant literally?

18:3 VA YOMER ADONAI IM NA MATSA'TI CHEN BE EYNEYCHA AL NA TA'AVOR ME AL AVDECHA

וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אַל נָא תַעֲבֹר מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ

KJ: And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

BN: And he said, "My Lord, if now I have found favour in your sight, do not pass by, I pray you, from your servant...

And then it switches back to the singular. He cannot be addressing three men/angels in the singular, so he must be addressing the god, or them him. Or are the three angels the triple-form of the god? In which case would this originally have been the triple-goddess (those daughters of al-Lah again!). Patriarchal cults, as noted previously, have all masculinised the angels, but this is an annunciation by, or to, the fertility goddess - the announcement that she is to mother a son follows immediately, and it is very specifically her mothering and not his fathering that will be announced - so it would logically be female "messengers".

Or perhaps they were male - which thought then immediately associates to the three Magi who came to the birth of Tammuz-Jesus on the straw of the manger – which is how Christianity describes the threshing-floor- at Beit Lechem Ephratah. Which of the angels in the Av-Raham tale was bearing the frankincense, which the gold, which the myrrh?

AL NA TA'AVOR (אל-נא תעבר): in what sense "pass away"? This is the normal English translation; it is the root-word for Ivri/Yehudit (i.e. עבר - Ever), remember. So is it another of the Joyceian puns that are everywhere in this text?

18:4 YUKACH NA ME'AT MAYIM VE RACHATSU RAGLEYCHEM VE HISHA'ANU TACHAT HA EYTS

יֻקַּח נָא מְעַט מַיִם וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם וְהִשָּׁעֲנוּ תַּחַת הָעֵץ

KJ: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

BN: "Please, let me fetch some water, and wash your feet, and then rest yourselves a while under the tree.

Back to the plural. All this is taking place under the oracular tree, one of the terebinths of Mamre, a sacred tree in a sacred grove. Clearly this feast has deeper connotations.

And do angels consume human food and beverages? Literally consume them, rather than taking in the smoke and incense of the sacrifice?

For other occurrences of the same ritual, cf Genesis 19:2, 24:32 and 43:24.

18:5 VE EK'CHA PHAT LECHEM VE SA'ADU LIBCHEM ACHAR TA'AVORU KI AL KEN AVARTEM AL AVDECHEM VA YOMRU KEN TA'ASEH KA ASHER DIBARTA

וְאֶקְחָה פַת לֶחֶם וְסַעֲדוּ לִבְּכֶם אַחַר תַּעֲבֹרוּ כִּי עַל כֵּן עֲבַרְתֶּם עַל עַבְדְּכֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ

KJ: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

BN: "And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and stay for as long as you please; you'll leave when you are ready; I am here to be of service to you." And they said, "Do as you have said."

The Greek concept of xenia, so central to Homer's "Odyssey".

How often, just when we come upon something in which the text looks like pre-Yahwist liturgy, does it then lose any obvious meaning? As though someone has tried to conceal something by omitting or bowdlerising. What does "stay you your heart" mean; in the original Yehudit let alone the English translation (see below)? What do we understand by "passing on" after the previous "passing away"; don't forget that angels "passing over" has a connection with the ancient spring festival of the limping god – i.e. Pesach - who is the corn/bread god. Washing the feet, bringing bread; it could be merely a meal; but that a priest-king should himself perform the libations? It reads like a Mass or Communion or Eucharist service; pre-Yahwist liturgy; but concealed by the Redactor, because the ideology has changed. In exactly the same way did the Celtic Padraig become the Catholic Saint Patrick, and Persian Ishtar found herself being commemorated both as Queen Esther and those little chocolate bunnies of the Easter rituals.

VE SA'ADU (וסעדו) - does not mean "stay you your heart", nor anything remotely like it. A se'udah is a meal, specifically a festive meal, and the libam here attests to its quality: he is going to prepare them a serious banquet, not just a plate of chumus and some stale pita. Though this is probably not happening on Shabat, the phrase nonetheless links to the Shelosh Se'udot, for which a full explanation can be found by clicking the link. The bottom line is that Judaism, back then as now, has always been a matter of fasting or feasting, and when you have guests, divine or otherwise, you send out for fresh bagels and gravelax. Or in this case...

18:6 VA YEMAHER AV-RAHAM HA OHELAH EL SARAH VA YOMER MAHARI SHELOSH SE'IM KEMACH SOLET LUSHI VA ASI UGOT

וַיְמַהֵר אַבְרָהָם הָאֹהֱלָה אֶל שָׂרָה וַיֹּאמֶר מַהֲרִי שְׁלֹשׁ סְאִים קֶמַח סֹלֶת לוּשִׁי וַעֲשִׂי עֻגוֹת

KJ: And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.

BN: Then Av-Raham rushed into Sarah's tent, and said, "Quickly! Get three measures of fine meal ready. Knead it. Make cakes."

The inference is that Av-Ram will himself undertake the cooking. Sarah, on the other hand, is a mere servant, who has to be given orders and told how to carry them out. And this is a great sheikh, whose wealth is massive. Has he no servants, no cook, must he, as in the next verse, go out into the field himself to catch and kill a calf? This is simply implausible. We have been shown that he is one of the richest sheep and cattle-owning sheikhs in the region. But in the next verse...

Why do we always find Sarah in her tent? Is this the tribal Bedou custom? The Ohel Sarah, which is Sarah's tent, is the priestess' oracular booth, but also the bridal canopy. And not only because it equates exactly to the Tent of Asherah.

18:7 VE EL HA BAKAR RATS AV-RAHAM VA YIKACH BEN BAKAR RACH VA TOV VA YITEN EL HA NA'AR VA YEMAHER LA'ASOT OTO

וְאֶל הַבָּקָר רָץ אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח בֶּן בָּקָר רַךְ וָטוֹב וַיִּתֵּן אֶל הַנַּעַר וַיְמַהֵר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ

KJ: And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.

BN: Then Av-Raham ran to the herd, and fetched a calf that was tender and good, and gave it to the one of the young boys; and he hastened to dress it.

HA NA'AR (הנער): does not mean "a servant", but "a young man"; and not "a young man" either, but quite specifically "the young man" - only which young man? If Sarah is baking the bread and Abe is doing the barbecue, the "young man" could perfectly well be Yishma-El.

Note that he offers bread, water and calf, no vegetables; a luxurious feast for a bedou!

18:8 VA YIKACH CHEM'AH VE CHALAV U VEN HA BAKAR ASHER ASAH VA YITEN LIPHNEYHEM VE HU OMED ALEYHEM TACHAT HA EYTS VA YOCHELU

וַיִּקַּח חֶמְאָה וְחָלָב וּבֶן הַבָּקָר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּתֵּן לִפְנֵיהֶם וְהוּא עֹמֵד עֲלֵיהֶם תַּחַת הָעֵץ וַיֹּאכֵלוּ

KJ: And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

BN: And he took curd, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they ate.

He mixes milk and meat! Only technically - if he is using goat's milk on lamb meat, or sheep's milk on beef, then he could argue that he isn't breaking the law; and anyway, that law hasn't been given yet (not even once: it will eventually be given no less than three times: Exodus 23:19 and 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21).

Why does he remain standing under the tree? Presumably it's the sacred tree and this is a sacred rite of nourishing the gods - in which case who are the three? A late masculinisation of the triple goddess? Hertz says it was a Middle Eastern custom that the host doesn't eat with his guests but stands and attends them: what evidence does he have for that piece of convenient avoidance-of-the-issue? Generally when theologians offer uncorroborated folk-tales as explanations, it means they are trying to distract attention from what was really going on. So what is really going on? Or better: what is missing? And the answer to that, I suspect, is an altar.

Again the details of the recipe are given. If this were just folk-loric story-telling, it would say he gave them food; it might even specify the kind of food; but the details of how he cooked it! No, we are in the realm of ritual - look at the details of the Temple services in the prayer books and compare. Scott Woodward provides a full spreadsheet of the Mosaic sacrificial rules - click here.

18:9 VA YOMRU ELAV AYEH SARAH ISHTECHA VA YOMER HINEH VA OHEL

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַיֵּה שָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה בָאֹהֶל

KJ: And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

BN: And they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "Here, in the tent."

Because they haven't really come to see Av-Raham at all, which is why I am convinved that these are the daughters of al-Lah once again. The annunciation would have been directly to Sarah, an oracular pronouncement through the mouth of the priestess or prophetess, probably guided by the writhings of the oracular serpent who is both Tiamat and Nechushtan, in other manifestations.

The tent is the priestess' abode, like the Mishkan in which the Ten Commandments would later be carried. Av-Raham functions as her servant, in the sense of priest; she is the dominant power here. Which of course is why he ran to meet them and set up the meal - doing his priestly duty.

18:10 VA YOMER SHUV ASHUV ELEYCHA KA ET HAYAH VE HINEH VEN LE SARAH ISHTECHA VE SARAH SHOMA'AT PETACH HA OHEL VE HU ACHARAV

וַיֹּאמֶר שׁוֹב אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה וְהִנֵּה בֵן לְשָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ וְשָׂרָה שֹׁמַעַת פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְהוּא אַחֲרָיו

KJ: And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.

BN: And he said, "I will be coming back here when the next festival season comes around; and at that time Sarah, your wife, will have a son." And Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him.

The doorway of the tent, of course, is precisely where we should expect the oracular priestess to sit, but to give this news, not to receive it. But it is also where the surrogate-for-the-god, the May King in mediaeval Europe, will go in to perform the sacred ritual with the surrogate-for-the-goddess, the May Queen in mediaeval Europe - exactly as we will witness Rivkah and Yitschak doing in Genesis 24:67.

VA YOMER: He, they, he, they – the proofreading of this text by the scribes to the Redactor is extremely poor.

VE HU ACHARAV (והוא אחריו): what does this refer to; is he behind her? or it behind him? or him behind it? It would appear to be a simple stage direction, something the text does not often give.

But this verse is a complete non-sequitur. Something has been left out. And anyway, we have already had this information (Cf Genesis 17:15/19), including the boy's name; so this has to be an alternate version; it will be worth comparing the two, one in Mamre, the other in Shur; the one a Yishma-El legend, the other a Yitschak; the one YHVH, the other Elohim.

KA ET HAYAH: The reference to the season repeats what we were told previously, save only that there the word used was MO'ED; and again we must ask ourselves which season; and again we must compare this with other known annunciations, other known divine births, and recognise the similarities with Tammuz, Adonis, Jesus. And if they are male, does that allow us to name one of the angels, the one who appears to be doing the talking, as Gabri-El, who announced the forthcoming birth of Jesus to Mary in Luke 1:26-38, or Jibril it would be, in the Yishma-El version (Surah 51:24-37)?

18:11 VE AV-RAHAM VE SARAH ZEKENIM BA'IM BA YAMIM CHADAL LIHEYOT LE SARAH ORACH KA NASHIM

וְאַבְרָהָם וְשָׂרָה זְקֵנִים בָּאִים בַּיָּמִים חָדַל לִהְיוֹת לְשָׂרָה אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים

KJ: Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

BN: Now Av-Raham and Sarah were elderly, indeed well advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

In fact we have been told that Av-Raham was 99. As to Sarah, her age is not given, only that she has reached the menopause. But, as noted previously, the whole point of stories such as this one, in the ancient world, was to demonstrate the magnificence and supremacy of the fertility goddess, who could make fall pregnant even a barren woman such as Chanah (Hannah), even an old crone like Sarah. But the religion of the Beney Yisra-El had, by Ezra's time, absorbed the fertility elements into its monotheism - perhaps worth going back and wondering if the god who Created in Genesis 1 doesn't have any female characteristics (he does - see the commentary there).

18:12 VA TITS'CHAK SARAH BE KIRBAH LEMOR ACHAREY VELOTI HAYETA LI EDNAH, VE ADONI ZAKEN?

וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה בְּקִרְבָּהּ לֵאמֹר אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי הָיְתָה לִּי עֶדְנָה וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן

KJ: Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

BN: And Sarah laughed inside herself, saying: "After I have grown old, and my lord being old also, now I am going to be given the pleasure of Eden?"

VA TITSCHAK: Note that it is now she who laughs, but BE KIRBAH; in 17:17, when Av-Raham laughed, he did so BE LIBO. LIBO means "heart", and was understood as the locus of thought (thought generally being subjective, despite our attempts to convince ourselves otherwise). BE KIRBAH is more complicated. KARAV is the root, and it means "to approach" or "to draw near", whence KAROV = "near, close", and the KERUVIM, or Cherubim in English, are the heavenly creatures who are "close" to the gods: the Privy Council, as opposed to the MAL'ACHIM, the angels, who go out as messengers. There is no known anatomical use of the root, to suggest any specific part of her body (I say this only because Moslem tradition is very specific in stating - Surah 21:91 and 66:12 - that Allah breathed into Maryam's vagina in order to conceive Isa, Jesus, though some translations render the phrase as "the sleeve of her garment" out of either prurience or modesty), which is why translators tend to render this as laughing "within herself"; but this is not precise. She laughs "close" to herself, which is to say "furtively". We should imagine her stifling the laugh in the palm of her hand - or indeed the sleeve of her garment - rather than something taking place silently inside her. This is very much a chortle.

VA TITSCHAK of course, parallels Av-Raham's response in 7:17, and in Yehudit is the name of the child - English renderings of his name as Isaac lose completely the word-game being played throughout this tale.

EDNAH: Very ironic! Because, after all, what sort of pleasure is she anticipating? Not the child-birth itself presumably, because the Eden story has told us that childbirth is a punishment, and intentionally an agony for women - the "affliction" of Hagar and Rachel that we have already discussed. So: from renewed sexual relations? But - note the word used here is EDNA (עדנה), meaning "pleasure"; it is the root-word for the garden of Eden (עדן), and so "having Ednah" is the equivalent of returning to Eden - the realm of the fertility goddess! The sacrifice has been accepted; fertility is restored to the Mother of All Living. The punishment given at the time of Eden has been repealed!

The barrenness is paralleled in Rivkah (Genesis 25), Rachel (Genesis 29), Shimshon's mother (Judges 13),and Shemu-El's mother Chanah (1 Samuel 1); also the story of Avi-Melech's harem (Genesis 20). With all these women it is fertility that lies at the heart of their stories.

18:13 VA YOMER YHVH EL AV-RAHAM LAMAH ZEH TSACHAKAH SARAH LEMOR HA APH UMNAH ELED VA ANI ZAKANTI

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל אַבְרָהָם לָמָּה זֶּה צָחֲקָה שָׂרָה לֵאמֹר הַאַף אֻמְנָם אֵלֵד וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי

KJ: And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

BN: And YHVH said to Av-Raham, "Why did Sarah laugh, and say, 'Shall I really bear a child, I whom am old?'

Not that she did actually say those words; or if she did, they aren't given in the text except as private thought. And note that the deity made no such complaint when Av-Raham laughed at the same announcement in the previous chapter (17:17).

As to YHVH's question, wouldn't any woman laugh in such circumstances? And wasn't it YHVH who gave the child the name Yitschak, in 17:19; he presumably knew the meaning of the name, and so was either sharing in the comedy of this, or at the very least anticipating it.

Note that the speaker has changed yet again, from the angels to one angel, and now to YHVH himself. directly.

18:14 HA YIPAL'E ME YHVH DAVAR LA MO'ED ASHUV ELEYCHA KA ET HAYAH U LE SARAH VEN

הֲיִפָּלֵא מֵיְהוָה דָּבָר לַמּוֹעֵד אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה וּלְשָׂרָה בֵן

KJ: Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

BN: "Is any thing too hard for YHVH? At the appointed time I will return to you. When the season comes around. And Sarah will have a son.”

HA YIPAL'E MEY YHVH DAVAR LA MO'ED: "Is anything too hard" mirrors the responses to Iyov at the end of that book: "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook" et cetera (Job 41). But this is not what the phrase means here; merely what the standard translations have chosen to transform it into. The orthodox Chabad translation renders it as "Is anything hidden from the Lord?", which is definitely closer. YIPAL'E comes from the root PA'AL, which suggests action of any sort, depending on how the verb is then conjugated; DAVAR is both "a word" and "a thing", and if we go back to the first version of Creation we can witness the process by which naming (DAVAR) leads to action (PA'AL). Essentially YHVH is saying, "If I determine that it will be, then it will be", except that there is a third key word here, used already with Av-Raham, and that is MO'ED, an appointed date, a festival date, a calendar event, an anniversary, something very specific to the fertility cult in this case, so the equivalent of Christmas in a pre-Christian context: there will be a Nativity on the morning of the mid-winter solstice, because that is how it has to be, and I will be there myself to make sure of it. When YHVH introduces himself to Mosheh later on (Exodus 3:14), he will use the same construct: EHEYEH ASHER EHEYEH, I will be whatever I will be.

Presumably this is the rightful place for the phrase that has already appeared, somewhat obliquely, in verse 10. But why would the god wish to be present at the birth of the baby? Like her good fairies at the birth of the princess in Sleeping Beauty, a fertility goddess would wish to be present; but not a masculine god, who usually waits outside till the blood has been cleaned up and the umbilicus neatly removed, and the nurses tell him he can come in now with the flowers.

Cf Jesus' annunciation and birth. If the god is present in the three angels, then the three angels are the ones who will return at the birth – from which, can we ask if the Three Magi were also present at the annunciation to the Virgin Mary?

End of first fragment

18:15 VA TECHACHESH SARAH LEMOR LO TSACHAKTI KI YAR'E'AH VA YOMER LO KI TSACHAKT

וַתְּכַחֵשׁ שָׂרָה לֵאמֹר לֹא צָחַקְתִּי כִּי יָרֵאָה וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא כִּי צָחָקְתְּ

KJ: Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

BN: Then Sarah denied it, saying "I did not laugh", because she was afraid. And he said, "No, but you did laugh."

Story-telling technique, of course, but it leaves open again the question of authorship, and also of context - sometimes we are in deeply reverential liturgy, at others we appear to be around the campfire, sometimes at the panto with the kids. Can we easily imagine the deity, who orthodoxy regards as the author of this text, including in his account a conversation like this one, especially if he still has a copy of his previous chapter to cross-reference? Obviously it is a human story-teller; obviously this chapter and the previous one are by different story-tellers. As to the dialogue itself, this makes a mockery of the previous version.

Logically the fragment ought to end here, since this is where the story-line changes from prophecies and oracles about Sarah to prophecies and oracles about the Cities of the Plain. As we will see, the next episode has been appended, rather than following on naturally.

18:16 VA YAKUMU MI SHAM HA ANASHIM VA YASHKIPHU AL PENEY SEDOM VE AV-RAHAM HOLECH IMAM LE SHALCHAM

וַיָּקֻמוּ מִשָּׁם הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיַּשְׁקִפוּ עַל־פְּנֵי סְדֹם וְאַבְרָהָם הֹלֵךְ עִמָּם לְשַׁלְּחָם

KJ: And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

BN: And the men rose up from there, and looked out toward Sedom; and Av-Raham went with them to show them the way.

IMAM (עמם) not ITAM (עתם) or IMAHEM (עמהם).

A switch again from the god to three men. Could they not find their own way, being angels of the Omniscient? Or maybe, being star-messengers, and travelling by day, they did the need the guidance of the sun-god to light their way.

18:17 VA YHVH AMAR HA MECHASEH ANI ME AV-RAHAM ASHER ANI OSEH

וַיהוָה אָמָר הַמְכַסֶּה אֲנִי מֵאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה

KJ: And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;

BN: And YHVH said, "Shall I hide from Av-Raham what I am about to do?

Again the style is unusual, and further undermines the notion of divine authorship. VA YOMER YHVH (ויאמר יהוה) is the more common form; but the idea is most appealing, of a god thinking aloud in stories. Nothing sacred here; just a good old-fashioned yarn. You could almost imagine Bob Hoskins playing him in the movie version: "Yeah, well, what d'yer reckon, do I give Abe the nod or don't I?"

It would be amusing to translate this as "And YHVH wondered...", but can you get away with the notion of a god wondering?

And then...why would a god wonder this anyway? To which the answer is: guilt. He has just made a covenant with Lot, and then at least two with Av-Ram, to multiply their numbers, and give them the land complete with all its people, and to look after them, to care for them... and now, rather than fulfilling his part of the bargain, he is going to wipe out the entirety of Five Cities. We cannot help but wonder what Av-Ram, or Av-Raham in this case, will think of this? He might well not approve, especially as he has been described as TAMIM - righteous - and remaining so was a part of YHVH's expectation of him in the covenant, and will be confirmed in verse 19... and in this is prefigured Av-Raham's response when he does find out. He is furious.

18:18 VE AV-RAHAM HAYO YIHEYEH LE GOY GADOL VE ATSUM VE NIVRECHU VO KOL GOYEY HA ARETS

וְאַבְרָהָם הָיוֹ יִהְיֶה לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל וְעָצוּם וְנִבְרְכוּ בוֹ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ

KJ: Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

BN: "Seeing that Av-Raham is destined to father a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed in him?"

Av-Raham is so important a figure that YHVH feels compelled to consult him before he acts! Or is that Av-Raham was originally the god who acted? Either way, this verse is very strange. "Yes, well, I suppose I had better tell him, hadn't I. Since he is going to be a very important man in a few years time." Very strange! And as to the word "surely" - surely the god has just covenanted this to him; where does the semi-interrogative, future-uncertain "surely" come in? No, it really is just divine guilt.

HAYO (היו): why the plural; or is it plural?

KOL GOYEY (כל גויי): suggests some kind of loose confederacy of peoples under Av-Raham, or at least his predominance. But it does confirm what was noted in the previous verse, that the promise of the land incorporates all the people, not just his tribe.

18:19 KI YEDA'TIV LEMA'AN ASHER YETSAVEH ET BANAV VE ET BEITO ACHARAV VE SHAMRU DERECH YHVH LA'ASOT TSEDAKAH U MISHPAT LEMA'AN HAVI YHVH AL AV-RAHAM ET ASHER DIBER ALAV

כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט לְמַעַן הָבִיא יְהוָה עַל אַבְרָהָם אֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר עָלָיו

KJ: For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

BN: "For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of YHVH, to be righteous and just; to the end that YHVH may bring upon Av-Raham that which he has spoken of to him."

That key aspect of Av-Raham's commitments in this covenant re-stated, providing a preface to the argument about justice that will dominate the Sedom story, and which will exemplify Av-Raham keeping his commitments in the covenant, even while he is arguing that his god is not keeping his.

There is a strong suspicion here, that this, even before the Akeda, this is the real testing of Av-Raham. YHVH is going to break his part of the bargain, in full consciousness of what he is doing, in order to see how Av-Raham will respond. The only trouble with this thesis is that it doesn't concur with the guilt above: if it is going to be a test, then you don't want to give him warning of it, or it won't work. Or maybe it will - let's try it and see.

18:20 VA YOMER YHVH ZA'AKAT SEDOM VA AMORAH KI RABAH VE CHATA'TAM KI CHAVDAH ME'OD

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי רָבָּה וְחַטָּאתָם כִּי כָבְדָה מְאֹד

KJ: And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

BN: And YHVH said, "Verily the cry of Sedom and Amorah is great, and their sin is truly egregious.

ZA'AKAT SEDOM: some etymological work is needed on this, but "cry" does not seem to be the right translation. If it is, then what were they crying? Tears? Penitence? How can a "cry" connect to a sin that warrants this punishment, unless YHVH is hearing them cry in their joy at their sin, orgasmically like the EDNAH that Sarah was thinking of just a few verses back (v17); or at their Hallelu-Yahs as they praise false gods.

VE CHATA'TAM KI CHAVDAH ME'OD: And still no definition of what their sin was – as in the Yonah tale.

Strabo records a legend that thirteen cities in the vicinity of Masada were destroyed by earthquake, with eruptions of bitumen and sulphur and a sudden tidal wave that washed away the fleeing inhabitants. Diodorus Siculus, 45 BCE, writes of a similar event in what was by then virtually an arid waste. A further such eruption is known to have taken place in 1834. The Dead Sea is itself very ancient. Its maximum depth is 188 fathoms, about 1200 feet. Recent oil excavations have found salt to a depth of 18,000 feet. The southern end may once have been a plain however, with the SIDIM (שדים) as salt marshes from which bitumen could be gleaned. The conflagration then as a volcanic eruption; and we will be asking the same question when Mosheh gets the Beney Yisra-El to Mount Chorev (Horeb).

The notion of the Sedomites as sodomites, whence the modern term, originates from the dog-festival which King Yoshi-Yahu (Josiah) outlawed from Yeru-Shala'im (2 Kings 23). In the temple at Hierapolis in Turkey - whose design was identical to the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im - an annual holocaust and orgy was celebrated, with pederasty between male worshippers and dog-priests dressed in female garments, plus unmarried girls acting as temple prostitutes (ritual priestesses or hierodules). Deuteronomy 22 and 23 note the prohibition of these rites in Yeru-Shala'im (helping us date Deuteronomy to the time of Yoshi-Yahu (Josiah) . But 2 Kings 23:7 notes that special quarters were assigned within the Temple for the dog-priests. The festival was in honour of the goddess Anat, wife of Ba'al, elsewhere known as Anatha the Triple Moon-Goddess, a variation of the same Inanna-Isis-Io, the same daughters of al-Lah, who Madonna (middle-sister) were the original Sarah and later Mary.

Dog in Yehudit is KELEV (כלב). K ALEV (Caleb) was the spy who went with Yehoshu'a into Kena'an and reported positively, for which he became Yehoshua's number 2. After the conquest his tribe, the Kalebites, who were of Edomite origin, were given Chevron as their city, the only non-Jacobite tribe to be rewarded. The link of Edom and Chevron (Sarah's home and burial-place) in the context of all the above cannot be coincidental.

This story of course conflicts with the rainbow covenant.

18:21 ERADAH NA VE ER'EH HA KE TSA'AKATAH HA BA'AH ELAI ASU KALAH VE IM LO EDA'AH

אֵרֲדָה נָּא וְאֶרְאֶה הַכְּצַעֲקָתָהּ הַבָּאָה אֵלַי עָשׂוּ כָּלָה וְאִם לֹא אֵדָעָה

KJ: I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

BN: "I will go down now, and see whether they have really done all the things that wailing and gossiping and rumour have brought to my ears; and if not, I will know."

Which seems to suggest that the cry is complaint and gossip that has reached him in the mountain of the gods or in the heavens, full of malicious rumour and no doubt misquotations in the press, planted there by rivals and competitors or just souls with an axe to grind. Are we entitled to suggest that a god should not be listening to Lashon ha Ra, and certainly should not be acting on it quite so impetuously?

And why, being a god, does he need to go down to check; does he not have angel-spies on the spot? Is he not omniscient?

Again, we can hear the story-teller round the campfire making his folk-tale; a very different style from other parts of the Torah – and it leads us to ask once again how this work can possibly have been written in this form by a god, given in this form to Mosheh at Sinai. Who writes novels about themselves in the 3rd person?

18:22 VA YIPHNU MI SHAM HA ANASHIM VA YELCHU SEDOMAH VE AV-RAHAM ODENU OMED LIPHNEY YHVH

וַיִּפְנוּ מִשָּׁם הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיֵּלְכוּ סְדֹמָה וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי יְהוָה

KJ: And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

BN: And the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Av-Raham went on standing before YHVH.

This constant mixing of the three men and the voice of YHVH - are we visiting the oracle at the shrine? Or something of the sort anyway?

And as to YHVH needing to go down and see for himself; the commentary on the previous verse has already noted that his spies were already there; and here, indeed, they are.

How is he standing before his god if the men have gone; are the men and the god unconnected? Or has the god been added to the Av-Raham part, while the three are the Sarah part. Or, once again, are Av-Raham and Sarah themselves the god and goddess?

But of course, if Av-Raham and Sarah had come to consult the oracle about their chances of a baby, they would indeed have brought the ritual meal described previously. So perhaps they went to Mamre to consult, but the oracle they received was not the one they had expected…

This mixing of two stories in this manner is almost post-modernist!

18:23 VA YIGASH AV-RAHAM VA YOMER HA APH TISPEH TSADIK IM RASH'A

וַיִּגַּשׁ אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה צַדִּיק עִם רָשָׁע

KJ: And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

BN: And Av-Raham drew near, and said, "Do you really intend to sweep away the righteous with the wicked?"

Obviously he must have decided to tell Av-Raham after all, but the actual telling him is missing. The text as given allows us to wonder how Av-Raham knows the god intends destroying anyone, let alone the righteous with the wicked, since the god not only hasn't said a thing about it, but just made the decision three verses ago not to tell him.

But of course, if all this is simply a very primitive way of dealing with natural events such as earthquakes, then Av-Raham's reaction, and especially his question, are exactly what we would expect him . He knew it was coming because he heard the "voice of god" in the rumblings of the earth - and maybe the vision of the angels was the early explosions of burning lava from the sides of the crater, and they read the annunciation in the lava the way we might do in the tea leaves. Again, this needs to be compared with the Mosheh story, both the burning bush in Exodus 3, and the full tale of the visit to Sinai with its pillar of cloud by day and its pillar of fire by night, as well as its aftermath.

And this too the moment when the end of the mythological age is signalled, and the first alarum for the incipit of the metaphysical age is sounded: the deity no longer just fertility and Nature, but about to become abstract concept.

18:24 ULAI YESH CHAMISHIM TSADIYKIM BETOCH HA IR HA APH TISPEH VE LO TISA LA MAKOM LEMA'AN CHAMISHIM HA TSADIYKIM ASHER BE KIRBAH

אוּלַי יֵשׁ חֲמִשִּׁים צַדִּיקִם בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה וְלֹא תִשָּׂא לַמָּקוֹם לְמַעַן חֲמִשִּׁים הַצַּדִּיקִם אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבָּהּ

KJ: Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

BN: "What if there are fifty righteous people in the city; will you really sweep the place away, and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are there?"

The use of the word Aph (אף) here is interesting, meaning "indeed", but the APH is the nose, the part with which the god enjoys the aroma of sacrifice. Is a pun intended? If so, it is a most ironic pun.

CHAMISHIM TSADIYKIM: In the masculine plural, but any compound would be, so the question is left open whether the fifty can or cannot include women.

BE KIRBAH: See the comment on verse 12.

18:25 CHALILAH LECHA ME ASOT KA DAVAR HA ZEH LEHAMIT TSADIYK IM RASH'A VE HAYAH CHA TSADIYK KA RASH'A CHALILAH LACH HA SHOPHET KOL HA ARETS LO YA'ASEH MISHPAT

חָלִלָה לְּךָ מֵעֲשֹׂת כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְהָמִית צַדִּיק עִם רָשָׁע וְהָיָה כַצַדִּיק כָּרָשָׁע חָלִלָה לָּךְ הֲשֹׁפֵט כָּל הָאָרֶץ לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט

KJ: That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

BN: "I cannot believe that you would do such a thing, to slaughter the righteous with the wicked, so it should be as if the righteous were no different from the wicked. That is not what Mankind expects from you. Shall not the Judge of all the Earth role-model Justice?"

You tell him, Av-Raham! Though this is not the kind of argument between a man and his god that one will find in many religions! But if the god is indeed testing him for Justice, as suggested in verse 19, then here he is clearly passing (rather better than the god, who has thus far failed).

CHALILAH: Giving rise to the great expletive "CHAS VE CHALILAH", a term that really needs a much stronger translation than "that be far from you". "God forbid" is the normal English rendition; but that would be far too sardonic here.

DAVAR: See the comment on verse 14.

LACH: This is the normal reading, though the text could as easily be read as LECHA. Why LACH then, which is feminine?

HA SHOPHET KOL HA ARETS LO YA'ASEH MISHPAT: A phrase that really ought to have entered the universal language, and yet somehow it hasn't. Its opposite, attributed to Rabbi Menachem-Mendl of Kocke, though others say he borrowed it from an earlier source, has indeed entered the (Jewish) language, and rightly: EYN DIN VE EYN DAYAN – "there is no judge, and there is no justice".

18:26 VA YOMER YHVH IM EMTS'A VI SEDOM CHAMISHIM TSADIYKIM BETOCH HA IR VE NASA'TI LE CHOL HA MAKOM BA AVURAM

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אִם אֶמְצָא בִסְדֹם חֲמִשִּׁים צַדִּיקִם בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר וְנָשָׂאתִי לְכָל הַמָּקוֹם בַּעֲבוּרָם

KJ: And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

BN: And YHVH said, "If I can find fifty righteous souls within the city of Sedom, then I will spare the entire place for their sake."

The magnanimous deity. To understand this extraordinary episode in full, we need to read it alongside the Book of Yonah, and witness two very different divine, and two very different human responses to the nature of "sin" and the nature of "repentance" and the nature of "justice". Yonah sets a bad example by running away when called upon to act; he then repents and is forgiven, and goes to Nineveh to call on the bad citizens there to repent; this they do on the grand scale, but Yonah then complains when YHVH does what he promised Av-Raham at Sedom, but never carried out, which was to reprieve the entire city:

"And YHVH saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and YHVH repented of the evil, which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not".

This is the response of YHVH after the No'achic Flood, but it is not the response of YHVH at Sedom. The other key difference, of course, is that YHVH takes on the burden of finding the fifty himself, rather than sending Av-Raham in prophetic mode to warn them and to encourage them to repent; the lack of justice in this story is as much about the failure of the deity to give the miscreants an opportunity to redeem themselves as it is about the "crime against humanity" perpetrated by the deity.

Notice that the story now concentrates on Sedom alone of the five cities. What if Av-Raham can find fifty in total across the five cities? Or are the other four doomed beyond redemption, and even Av-Raham knows it?

Voltaire's account of the earthquake at Lisbon, in "Candide", but especially in his poem on the subject, follows a similar philosophical path. A splendid blank-verse translation of the poem can be found here. Any student of this chapter of Genesis, GCSE or higher, should study the Voltaire before writing their essay. The original, in French with Voltaire's preface, can be found here.

18:27 VA YA'AN AV-RAHAM VA YOMAR HINEH NA HO'ALTI LEDABER EL ADONAI VE ANOCHI APHAR VA EPHER

וַיַּעַן אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הִנֵּה נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל אֲדֹנָי וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר

KJ: And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:

BN: Then Av-Raham answered, and said, "Behold now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to my Lord, I who am but dust and ashes."

A kind of Semitic equivalent of "in for a penny, in for a pound".

Nice play on APHAR (עפר) with an Ayin (ע)and Epher (אפר) with an Aleph (א). Nice ironic play on dust and ashes, if it is indeed a volcanic eruption or earthquake.

18:28 ULAI YACHSERUN CHAMISHIM HA TSADIYKIM CHAMISHAH HA TASHCHIT BA CHAMISHAH ET KOL HA IR VA YOMER LO ASHCHIT IM EMTS'A SHAM ARBA'IM VA CHAMISHAH

אוּלַי יַחְסְרוּן חֲמִשִּׁים הַצַּדִּיקִם חֲמִשָּׁה הֲתַשְׁחִית בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אֶת כָּל הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אַשְׁחִית אִם אֶמְצָא שָׁם אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה

KJ: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

BN: "What if there are five short of the fifty righteous? Will you destroy the entire city for lack of five?" And he said: "I will not destroy it, if I find forty-five there ."

At what point does one draw the moral line? The deepest of all the questions the Bible ever gets around to asking. But now we need to read this in parallel with the No'ach tale; there, we are told, YHVH only found one soul who merited saving, and this was not enough to save the world, but it was enough to allow No'ach's family, his wife and sons and their wives, to survive with him, even though they must have been counted amongst the wicked, given that No'ach was the one and only. So different standards are being applied in different contexts, which makes their value as parable, as teaching-myth, much richer, even while it renders it more complicated.

Interesting the way this is phrased. Fifty is now accepted as a benchmark. Av-Raham's question is not, "what if I can only find forty-five?", but, "what if I am short by five?"

18:29 VA YOSEPH OD LEDABER ELAV VA YOMAR ULAI YIMATS'UN SHAM ARBA'IM VAYOMER LO E'ESEH BA AVUR HA ARBA'IM

וַיֹּסֶף עוֹד לְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו וַיֹּאמַר אוּלַי יִמָּצְאוּן שָׁם אַרְבָּעִים וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה בַּעֲבוּר הָאַרְבָּעִים

KJ: And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.

BN: And he spoke to him yet again, and said, "Perhaps there will only be forty found there." And he said, "I will not do it for the sake of the forty."

The tone is almost that of inevitable resignation by YHVH in the face of someone trying to see, albeit tentatively, just how far he can push his luck - but they are definitely bartering; though YHVH knows, especially in the light of verses 17 - 19, that he has nothing himself to barter with. The guilt expressed earlier has already determined the outcome of this. YHVH may even be hoping for a way out of his stupid and impetuous decision.

Yet these are, without doubt, some of the most important ideas in all literature. And now that you've read the Voltaire poem, click here and read the letter Rousseau wrote to Voltaire, after reading the poem.

18:30 VA YOMER AL NA YICHAR LA'DONAI VA ADABERAH ULAI YIMATS'UN SHAM SHELOSHIM VA YOMER LO E'ESEH IM EMTSA SHAM SHELOSHIM

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל נָא יִחַר לַאדֹנָי וַאֲדַבֵּרָה אוּלַי יִמָּצְאוּן שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה אִם אֶמְצָא שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים

KJ: And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

BN: And he said, "Please, my Lord, don't be angry with me, but I must speak. Perhaps only thirty shall be found there." And he said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

Note the use of ADONAI. Yehudit readers and synagogue-leyners have become so used to pronouncing YHVH as ADONAI, that in hearing this read we wouldn't know that it isn't the substitution on this occasion. But in translating it, it confuses even more, perhaps intentionally if we render it "the Lord" rather than "my Lord".

Av-Raham is getting nervous because he knows he's pushing his luck.

18:31 VA YOMER HINEH NA HO'ALTI LEDABER EL ADONAI ULAI YIMATS'UN SHAM ESRIM VA YOMER LO ASHCHIT BA AVUR HA ESRIM

וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל אֲדֹנָי אוּלַי יִמָּצְאוּן שָׁם עֶשְׂרִים וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אַשְׁחִית בַּעֲבוּר הָעֶשְׂרִים

KJ: And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

BN: And he said, "Very well then, I have taken it upon myself to speak to my Lord. What if only twenty can be found there?" And he said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of the twenty."

Adonai again; or it could be read as Adoni - the latter is preferable though most versions go for the former. The sense of a vassal asking his master for a favour.

Note the parallelism of the lines (see v27)

As he barters ever closer to the minimum, we have to ask, at what point does Lot and his family get counted among the righteous? He, after all, does get saved, with his daughters - though maybe this also raises questions about his wife.

18:32 VA YOMER AL NA YACHAR LADONAI VA ADABERAH ACH HA PA'AM ULAI YIMTSA'UN SHAM ASARAH VA YOMER LO ASHCHIT BA AVUR HA ASARAH

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל נָא יִחַר לַאדֹנָי וַאֲדַבְּרָה אַךְ הַפַּעַם אוּלַי יִמָּצְאוּן שָׁם עֲשָׂרָה וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אַשְׁחִית בַּעֲבוּר הָעֲשָׂרָה

KJ: And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

BN: And he said, "Please, my Lord, do not be angry, but I must speak just one more time. Perhaps only ten will be found there." And he said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten."

And now, for another piece of ancillary reading, go directly to chapter 4 of the Book of Yonah. You will remember the part about the whale - we're past that. He got spat out of the whale, went to Ninveh (Nineveh), told the citizens that their god was poised ready to do to them what he had done to Sedom and the Cities of the Plain; but where Av-Raham is trying to get YHVH to repent of his decision to destroy the city, and spare it as it is, however wicked, for the sake of the handful of the righteous, Yonah tries to persuade the citizens to repent their wickedness and turn to righteous, in order to preclude the god - a much better solution, surely? And they do! And he is furious! Because he wanted the city destroyed, the innocent with the wicked. And probably because he doesn't believe the penitent will remain penitent for very long. And now go specifically to Jonah 4:1 and read what happens for yourself. It will add one more dimension to this chapter: the question: why did YHVH not send Av-Raham, or Lot, or even one of those angels, to the Five Cities, and offer them the option of repentance, before deciding to destroy them? And obviously, if this is simply a mythological account of a volcanic eruption, then the moral argument doesn't apply - or does it? See Voltaire and Rousseau again for that.

Meanwhile, back at the tale, why o why did Av-Raham stop here, when his luck was so clearly in. Could he not have pushed YHVH to the very limit: what if five; and what if only one - and what if that one were the Very Last of the Just, the Messiah Himself (can you imagine the story Kafka might have made of that!)? Could Av-Raham not have played on YHVH's sense of the sacred and suggested the magic number 7? Could he not have offered to plant a gourd, and gone and sat under it (you'll have to finish reading the Yonah to understand that allusion)? But Av-Raham does not ask - where a modern writer, a Primo Levi for example, an Elie Wiesel, would undoubtedly have asked. "Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:9; Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 37a. And perhaps the Messiah was indeed there, and died in the slime pits and the fires of destruction, amid the lilacs and the gourds, withering in the dead land. The description of what happened to the Five Cities is, quite literally, the account of a holocaust.

18:33 VA YELECH YHVH KA ASHER KILAH LEDABER EL AV-RAHAM VE AV-RAHAM SHAV LIM'KOMO

וַיֵּלֶךְ יְהוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּלָּה לְדַבֵּר אֶל אַבְרָהָם וְאַבְרָהָם שָׁב לִמְקֹמוֹ

KJ: And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

BN: And YHVH went His way, as soon as he had finished speaking with Av-Raham; and Av-Raham returned to his place.

His place being, presumably, the Olympian, or was it the Valhallian summit of that very volcano.

It is YHVH who leaves first, after talking to Av-Raham, and not the other way round! But where do they both go? Can we assume that it is the angels, the messengers in human form, who have done their spying, and now depart to make ready for the conflagration?

End of fragment 2; end of chapter 18

Surf The Site