Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Sodom's Historical Sin

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hedrick Gary <GaryH AT cjfm.org>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Sodom's Historical Sin
  • Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:50:34 -0600

וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל־לֹוט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ
אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה הֹוצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָֽם׃

We have discussed many times here on B-Hebrew the (at times) considerably
subjective aspects of translating biblical Hebrew into another language. In
instances where a Hebrew term has more than one possible meaning, and there
are many such instances, the translation is determined primarily by context.
That is, not by etymology, not by percentages (i.e., figuring out its meaning
in a majority of biblical occurrences), not by theological (or other)
preconceptions, but by the context in which it is used in the passage in
question.

In this instance, we are being asked to consider the possibility that the men
of Sodom were concerned that Lot's visitors might be anti-Hittitie operatives
sent to disrupt their own plans to sell out to the approaching Hittites--and
that the mob's intentions, therefore, were not sexual in nature. This would
mean that virtually every commentary on the Hebrew Bible in modern times has
been incorrect. But while that fact in and of itself makes the alternate
interpretation highly improbable, it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

The logic for this alternative interpretation (as it has been presented to
us) is based on:

1. The endless repetition of phrases like "raving male homosexual rapists";
2. The fact that the historical setting may coincide with the expansion of
the Hittite empire, and therefore the Hittites were about to overrun Canaan;
3. The fact that in the Tanakh, the Hebrew term YD( means "to know" in a
rational, intellectual sense more often than it means "to know" sexually
(like it does in Genesis, where Adam impregnates Eve by "knowing" her); and
4. The logical absurdity of thinking that every male inhabitant of Sodom had
somehow become (you guessed it) a "raving male homosexual rapist."

Let's think about each of these points:

1. If anything, the repetition of emotionally-charged words weakens the
argument rather than strengthening it. In rhetorical terms, we might say this
is ad hominem argumentation.
2. This is an argument from silence, the weakest of all arguments. Nowhere
does the Hebrew text say that the inhabitants of Sodom were fearful of an
impending Hittite invasion. Not only is it not stated, it's not even implied
anywhere. It's based on purely circumstantial evidence, which even in modern
jurisprudence isn't usually sufficient to stand as proof of something.
Furthermore, many historians would say the expansionist phase of the Hittite
empire didn't occur until long after the time of Abraham and Lot.
3. Translation isn't a game of percentages ("the most oft-occurring
translation wins!"). If it was, we'd have to figure out another
interpretation for Genesis 4:1.
4. This is the classic fallacy of the false dilemma. That is, "If you don't
accept my interpretation, you're saying the whole town had overnight become a
bunch of 'raving male homosexuals.'" No one is saying that the men of Sodom
were homosexuals in the strictest sense of that term. For one thing, if they
were homosexual, Lot would not have tried to dissuade them by offering his
daughters (homosexuals, by definition, are not attracted to women). More
likely, this was a town whose inhabitants had become so depraved in their
sexuality, they didn't care how (or upon whom) they vented their sexual
energy. They were bisexual, in other words. Maybe a better term would be
pansexual; that is, just sexually depraved in every possible way. This is
what got YHWH's attention. He knows how destructive sexual aberration can be
in a society.

Again, not only in theological interpretation, but also in translation,
context is everything. The very fact that Lot offers the mob a sexual
distraction (his two daughters) argues persuasively that the mob's intentions
were sexual in nature. A mob whose concerns were purely political would not
likely be distracted (at least not for long) by a sexual offer.

I think we all know what thesis pressure is. If someone comes to believe that
most traditional interpretations and translations of the Hebrew Bible are
wrong, then that person ultimately develops a tendency to put the pieces
together in ways that conform to that model. I can't help thinking that
that's the case here.

Gary Hedrick
San Antonio, Texas USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page