Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Hedrick Gary <GaryH AT cjfm.org>]

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