...Thank you for clarifiying my position on Genesis 18:22, which was confused before because I quoted the supposedly emended text rather than the supposed original. I continue to hold that that the alleged original, with YHWH standing before Abraham, makes good sense in the context, and if the scribes did feel the need to correct it they were being hypersensitive. But then the whole of chapters 18-19 is so full of anthropomorphic language for YHWH that I would expect such hypersensitive scribes to have made much more widespread changes.
The point here is that the two angels departed from the meal under the tree
and it was God that was LEFT STILL STANDING. This is why I think that the
emmended text (IF INDEED IT WAS EMMENDED) is not justified and this was a
case (as Peter Kirk remarked) of hypersensistivity to a theological
possibility that the scribes in question could not assimilate into their
dogma.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.