Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Yigal Levin:
 
The word YD( is used 43 times in the Patriarchal narratives.  On 39 of 
those occasions, being the vast majority of the cases, the word YD( has no 
sexual connotation whatsoever, and rather means “to have intellectual 
knowledge of
”, that is, “to know” in the normal sense of the word “know”.  For 
example, the two uses of YD( that, very importantly, come immediately before 
Genesis 19: 5 are as follows:
 
(1)   “For I [YHWH] know [YD(] him [Abraham], 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….”  Genesis 18: 19
 
(2)  “I [YHWH] 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 
[YD(].”  Genesis 18: 21
 
YHWH has heard that the people of Sodom have iniquitously sold out to the 
Hittites, and that every person in Sodom has agreed that any resistance to 
the Hittites is futile.  That terrible perfidy, which threatened the future 
of 
all of beloved Canaan, caused “the cry of it”, that is, a terrible voiced 
concern of the people of Canaan that all of Canaan might soon be overrun by 
the dreaded Hittites.  YHWH has heard that every man in Sodom (with the sole 
possible exception of Lot’s immediate family) has agreed to sell out to the 
Hittites, so in that famous, strange bargaining sequence between YHWH and 
Abraham in the second half of chapter 18 of Genesis, YHWH readily agrees that 
YHWH will withhold his righteous anger if there are at least 10 righteous 
men in Sodom.  “Righteous” in that particular context means any men of Sodom 
who have not iniquitously agreed to sell out to the dreaded Hittites.
 
Your theory that the men of Sodom, though having been Abraham’s fine allies 
in chapter 14 of Genesis (to whom Abraham turns over Lot), have now 
unanimously become, to a man, raving male homosexual rapists, is absolutely no
nsensical.  Such a thing has never happened in history, nor has such a 
ridiculous 
notion ever been portrayed in any people’s literature.
 
Genesis 19: 5 makes perfect sense on the foregoing interpretation:
 
“And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which 
came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know [YD(] 
them.
”
 
Every man in Sodom, from the oldest to the youngest, and in particular 
including every single elder in Sodom, demands to know if Lot is harboring 
anti-Hittite agitators in Lot’s house, likely sent to Sodom by Lot’s uncle 
Abraham, who (per chapter 14 of Genesis, in opposing “Tidal”, a ruler with an 
historical kingly Hittite name) was well-known as the most prominent 
anti-Hittite figure in all of Canaan.  
 
No, it is not a friendly request.  Rather, it is an outright demand that 
Lot must immediately present his two guests to the elders and other men of 
Sodom, so that the men of Sodom (including all the elders, who would be the 
wisest, and least impetuous, men in Sodom) can interrogate the guests (and 
perhaps Lot as well) to determine if those two guests are endangering the 
safety 
of Sodom by being anti-Hittite agitators (likely sent by Lot’s anti-Hittite 
uncle, namely Abraham).
 
Why on earth would the most elderly men of Sodom be portrayed in the 
Patriarchal narratives as being raving male homosexual rapists?  Does that 
make 
any sense on any level?  Is there any other passage in the entirety of the 
Patriarchal narratives that shows any concern whatsoever with that bizarre 
topic?  Chapter 19 of Genesis is deadly serious stuff.  All of Canaan in the 
Patriarchal Age worried that the mighty Hittites might suddenly do unto 
Canaan 
what they had just now in fact done unto Syria:  force the entire land to 
become docile Hittite vassals, as part of the newly forming Hittite Empire.
 
It is simply impossible for an entire city to change its sexual orientation 
and become, to a man, raving male homosexual rapists.  No author (or 
authors) would compose such a ridiculous story.  No, this is deadly serious 
stuff. 
 During the Patriarchal Age, the Hittites made several cities near Canaan 
offers the cities could not refuse, pursuant to which the entire city had to 
either, to a man, swear loyalty to the Hittites, or else face utter 
destruction by the Hittites.  For example, in Year 14 Qatna was burned to the 
ground 
by the Hittites and never reinhabited.
 
The scholarly view that chapter 19 of Genesis is a nonsensical, 
non-historical story about an entire city that had become, to a man, savage 
male 
homosexual predators makes no sense on any level.  Why would Abraham ally 
with 
such men in chapter 14 of Genesis, and return Lot to a city of such men?  Why 
would Lot live the good, soft life in such a place for many years, and 
prosper among such men, and marry off his two oldest daughters to men of 
Sodom?  
That scholarly view of chapter 19 of Genesis is totally inconsistent with 
what the Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives portrays.  Although it is 
true that the word YD( can on occasion be a euphemism for having sex with a 
woman, which it is on three occasions in the Patriarchal narratives, context 
determines everything.  YD( is never used in the Patriarchal narratives as a 
euphemism for a man having sex with another man (or with an angel, or with 
an animal, etc.).  Rather, in the context of Genesis 19: 5, YD( has its 
normal meaning:  “to have intellectual knowledge of”.  The people of Sodom, 
to a 
man, were rationally terrified that if Lot was harboring two anti-Hittite 
agitators, then the dreaded Hittites might take terrible revenge on Sodom for 
that, and perhaps burn Sodom to the ground, which indeed had recently been 
the awful historical fate of Qatna north of Canaan.  
 
The future viability of all Canaan rested on whether the people of Canaan 
would righteously and stoutly resist the dreaded Hittites, keeping the 
Hittites from expanding south of Syria, or rather would cravenly, to a man, 
sell 
out to the mighty, ever-expanding Hittites (with that latter course for 
several years being a very realistic and terrifying possibility).  It’s not a 
silly story, and it’s not non-historical.  Rather, chapter 19 of Genesis 
beautifully matches the well-known secular history of the Late Bronze Age, in 
dramatically capturing the terror of the people of Canaan in Years 14-15, as 
they profoundly worried whether their entire way of life would soon be wiped 
out by a devastating Hittite onslaught.
 
It is absolutely impossible that the text of chapter 19 of Genesis would be 
saying that all the elderly men of Sodom had become predatory male 
homosexual rapists.  That is a nonsensical interpretation of this deadly 
serious, 
historical text.
 
And why, pray tell, was Gomorrah destroyed?  Had it also, to a man, become 
a city of raving male homosexual predators?  It wouldn’t be, would it, that 
it was another in a series of cities that historically decided to sell out 
to the seemingly ever-expanding Hittites?
 
Professor Yigal Levin, how can the academic community feel good about  
n-e-v-e-r  having considered an historical interpretation of chapter 19 of 
Genesis?  No scholar has ever noted the important absence in chapter 19 of 
Bera, 
the former anti-Hittite ruler of Sodom with whom Abraham properly allies in 
chapter 14 of Genesis.  No scholar has ever considered the one and only 
transformation that historically could realistically affect an entire 
city-state 
in the Bronze Age -- a unanimous decision, in the face of an ultimatum from 
the imposing Hittite war machine, to change political loyalties, so that 
former opponents of the Hittites suddenly agreed, in desperation and to a 
man, 
to become (and forevermore be) docile Hittite vassals.  We know that, 
historically, that was the terrible choice faced by five rebellious 
princelings 
in Year 14, as historically accurately portrayed at Genesis 14: 1-11.  A 
somewhat similar choice was famously forced upon Aziru [Biblical 
Amrapel/)MR-PL/“
Amorite/)MR Splittest/PL”], who eventually decided to “split off”/PL the “
Amorite”/)MR state of “Amurru”/)MR from the rest of Canaan and sell out 
all of northern coastal Lebanon to the Hittites in Years 14-16.  Why has no 
scholar ever considered an historical interpretation of chapter 19 of 
Genesis? 
 Why do university scholars teach that every single man in Sodom, to a man, 
including in particular all the wise elders of Sodom, is portrayed in the 
text as having become a savage, predatory male homosexual rapist?  That 
interpretation is inconsistent with the actions reported in the text for 
Abraham, 
Bera, Lot, and Lot’s two oldest daughters, and it is utterly nonsensical to 
boot. 
 
I do not understand why university professors so enthusiastically embrace a 
nonsensical theory of chapter 19 of Genesis, based exclusively on sexual 
predation (a theme never touched upon in the rest of the Patriarchal 
narratives), while so resolutely refusing to even  c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r  an 
historical 
interpretation, based on the pervasive theme throughout the Patriarchal 
narratives of the early Hebrews’ historical great fear of the dreaded, 
expansion-minded Hittites.  What gives?
 
Jim Stinehart 
Evanston, Illinois