The prophets and Sodom : The prophetic use of the Sodom and Gomorrah theme

T he prophets and Sodom ; T he p rophe tic use o f the Sodom and G om orrah theme The use m ade of the Sodom and G om orrah them e by the pre-exilic prophets is investigated first in the book of Osiah, where most o f the ‘Sodom passages’ occur, a fter which o ther eighth-century prophets as well (as la te r p re-exilic p rophe ts) a re inco rpo ra ted into the investigation. Finally, the complex of prophetic motifs is re la ted to the Sodom story in G enesis 18-19. It is a rgued th a t the narra tive is a unit, dating from the seventh century BCE, about a crisis in social values and abou t pun ishm ent which does not jeopard ise G od’s righteousness towards individuals. F ar from being at variance w ith the p rophe tic perspective, its tru st is tho rough ly com p a tib le w ith the way in w hich the prophets used the Sodom them e during the eighth and in subsequent centuries. It is frequently rem arked in com m entaries on G enesis 18-19, w here the story of Sodom and G om orrah is found, that the Sodom m otif occurs often in the Hebrew Bible. This is quite true. Reference is made to Sodom in Genesis 10:19; 13:10, 12, 13, and in G enesis 14, as well as twice in the Book of D euteronom y (D t 29:22; 32:32) and once in the Book of Lamentations (Lm 4:6). But the Sodom m otif occurs most of all in the prophetic literature (Is 1:9, 10; 3:9; 13:19; J r 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Ezk 16:44-58; Hs 11:8; Am 4:11; Zph 2:9). It is also found, moreover, in many other Jewish texts (the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Jose­ phus), as well as in early C hristian writings like the New T estam ent and several Fathers. W hat is surprising, however, is that such an obviously im portant motif has ISSN 0259 9422 = HTS 47/1 (1991) The prophets and Sodom not as yet if my observation is correct been subjected to a thorough scrutiny. As I tried to do in a pap er on the Sodom trad ition in R abbinic lite ra tu re , delivered earlier to the Semitics Congress at the University of South Africa (L oader 1990: 231-245), I would now like to contribute ano ther building block to the eventual filling of the gap. W hat we do find in commentaries on Genesis (e g that of Von Rad) and on the prophets (like that of W ildberger on Isaiah), is the claim that the prophetic use of the Sodom m otif is substantially d ifferen t from that of the story o f Sodom and G om orrah in Genesis 18-19. This is most clearly put forward by Hans W ildberger in his commentary on Isaiah 1:4-9. Therefore he provides us with an excellent starting point for the developm ent of my argument. We shall therefore begin by examining the use of the Sodom motif in the Book of Isaiah; then we shall compare the result with what we find in other eighth century and later pre-exilic prophets; finally, we shall relate our findings to Genesis 18-19. 1. SODOM AND G O M O R RA H IN T H E BOOK O F ISAIAH The Sodom them e, as we may refer to the Sodom and G om orrah tradition, occurs several times in the Book of Isaiah. A part from Genesis, Isaiah ranks as the book containing the most passages in which the Sodom them e is found. * Isaiah 1:9. V erses 9 and 10 contain two separa te references to Sodom and G om orrah belonging to two separate passages in the chapter (w 4-9, 10-17). The ‘arch-structure’ found by W atts in Isaiah 1:2-23 is not convincing since the ‘p ara lle l thoughts’ in the supposedly corresponding sections (vv 2 //2 1 -2 3 ; 3 //18 -20 ; 4-5//15b-17; 6-7b//10-15a; ‘keystone’: w 7c-9) are too vague. As W ildberger poin ts out, the division of sections betw een verses 9 and 10 is marked by the introductory appeal in verse 10 (the imperative lyDVJ). This is not w eakened by the fact tha t Sodom and G om orrah are m entioned in both verse 9 and verse 10, because that is the reason why the two sections have been placed alongside each other. A fter the exclamation of woe in verse 4 the sins and subsequent hardship of the Judeans are introduced. They have forsaken Yahweh (v 4) and have been smitten as a consequence (v 6). Part of this misfortune consists of the land and its cities having been made desolate (nDDU)) and burnt with fire (ItíK mDnto, v 7). T here is only one exception: Jerusalem ( | T ’ !i Dll) has been left over ( m m 3, V 8) like a booth in a vineyard or in a field of cucumbers. The imagery is clear: Only Jerusalem stands, while the rest of the land has been ravaged.

not as yet -if my observation is correct -been subjected to a thorough scrutiny.As I tried to do in a p a p e r on th e Sodom tra d itio n in R ab b in ic lite ra tu re , delivered earlier to the Sem itics Congress at the U niversity of South A frica (L o ad er 1990: 231-245), I w ould now like to co n trib u te a n o th er building block to the eventual filling of the gap.
W hat we do find in com m entaries on Genesis (e g that of V on R ad) and on the prophets (like that of W ildberger on Isaiah), is the claim th at the prophetic use of the Sodom m o tif is substantially d ifferen t from th a t o f th e story o f Sodom and G om orrah in G enesis 18-19.This is most clearly put forward by H ans W ildberger in his com m entary on Isaiah 1:4-9.T herefore he provides us with an excellent starting point for the developm ent o f my argum ent.We shall therefore begin by examining the use of the Sodom m otif in the Book of Isaiah; then we shall com pare the result with w hat we find in oth er eighth century and late r pre-exilic prophets; finally, we shall relate our findings to Genesis 18-19.

SO D O M A N D G O M O R R A H IN T H E B O O K O F ISAIAH
T he Sodom them e, as we may refer to the Sodom and G om o rrah tradition, occurs several tim es in th e B ook of Isaiah.A part from G enesis, Isaiah ranks as the book containing the most passages in which the Sodom them e is found.
* Isaiah 1:9.V erses 9 and 10 co n tain two se p a ra te referen ces to Sodom and G om orrah belonging to two sep a ra te passages in the c h ap te r ( w 4-9, 10-17).
T he 'arch-structure' found by W atts in Isaiah 1:2-23 is not convincing since the 'p a ra lle l th o u g h ts' in th e supp o sed ly co rresp o n d in g sectio n s (vv 2 //2 1 -2 3 ; 3 //1 8 -2 0 ; 4 -5 //1 5 b -1 7 ; 6 -7 b //1 0 -1 5 a; 'keystone': w 7c-9) are too vague.As W ild b erg er p o in ts out, th e division o f sectio n s b etw een v erses 9 and 10 is m arked by the introductory appeal in verse 10 (the im perative lyDVJ).This is not w eakened by th e fact th a t Sodom and G o m o rrah a re m en tio n ed in both verse 9 and verse 10, because th at is the reason why the two sections have been placed alongside each other.
A fter the exclam ation of woe in verse 4 the sins and subsequent hardship of the Judeans are introduced.They have forsaken Yahweh (v 4) and have been sm itten as a consequence (v 6).P art of this m isfortune consists o f the land and its cities having been m ade desolate (nDDU)) and burnt with fire (ItíK m D nto, v G om orrah, that is, they would have been completely wiped out (not 'alm ost', as contended by W atts, whose reading o f DVOD with this m eaning and after the verse divider does n o t rem edy a supposed 'awkward sense', but creates one; they are 'alm ost' wiped ou t as it is (cf V an U chelen 1981:158, who also reads DyUD in the apodosis, but as an intensifying conjunction).W atts thinks that 'the com parison to Sodom and G om orrah does not quite fit', which should probably be attributed to his faulty reading of DVBD and his division of verse 9. W ildberger also finds the com parison surprising because Sodom and G om orrah were not destroyed by m ilitary m eans.However, this need n o t surprise us because the tertium com parationis is again, as in the case o f D euteronom y 29:22, the final state of Sodom and G om orrah, not the way in which they were destroyed.The prophets and Sodom and to dram atise the total destruction to which Jeru salem had com e n ear (Is 1:9) and to which Babylon was approaching (Is 13:19).m eans political destruction.This is not the case, for, as we have seen, the condition o f the land, its barren n ess and the unsuitability for hum an in h ab itatio n is always m eant (cf R udolph).T h e natural in terp retatio n o f nDDiin as an earthquake is not only com patible with G enesis 19, w here ID il occurs several tim es (w 21, 25 ,2 9 ) and w here the context can be interpreted as referring to an earthquake (which W olff d e nies w ithout argum ent; cf W ildberger on Is 1:4-9), b u t it is also com p atib le with Am os 1:1 w here we h ear of an earth q u ak e which followed A mos's activity; the two earth q u a k e s n eed n ot b e th e sam e (e a rth tre m o rs a re n o t ra re in th e country -Rudolph).

SO D
Again Sodom and G om orrah are the symbols of destruction, and as such stand a t the pinnacle o f a list o f catastrophes.If Israel rem ained u n rep en tan t even after such a castigation, it cannot be im agined w hat will bring them to repentance.

SO D O M
In Zephaniah 2:9 we have a prophecy against M oab and A m m on, em bedded in an o racle stretching from verse 8 to th e end of verse 11, w hich in tu rn is p a rt of a context o f oracles against different nations.In the parallelism M oab is likened to Sodom and A m m on to G om orrah, which m eans both becom e like the sister cities of the D ead Sea plain (cf Is 1:10, w here the two are also split in the parallelism but one in function).They will becom e desolate because o f th eir haughtiness against Israel (v 10).T he rem ark probably refers to an event such as described in 2 Kings 24:2, will be available (v 11).Plant and fish life will flourish and the whole region will be 'h eale d ' o r resto red ( w 7, 9).T his is clearly p a rt o f the sam e p a tte rn of ideas as those that we have been considering.T he D ead Sea vicinity, which is desolate and salty, is to becom e the paradise that it was (cf G n 13:10).The Sodom region is to be restored together with her sister Jerusalem as is said several times in Ezekiel 16, and now the worst of the sisters is to becom e the fountainhead of the o th er's restoration.
M oreover, all of this is also supported by E zekiel's description of the boundaries of  is in keeping with these conditions.Ezekiel's social m otif is essentially the sam e as that of the Sodom story.For, as Brownlee argues, the sexual violence of the Sodom ites is also a form o f social violence or oppression.
In conclusion we can say that Sodom still features as the symbol of wickedness and destruction in spite of Ezekiel's restoration ideas because it is still the yardstick -if anyone is worse than Sodom, then he or she is the worst.But also: If Sodom can be restored to glory, then anyone can.

T H E R EL A TIO N SH IP B ETW EEN G EN ESIS 18-19 A N D T H E PR O P H E T S
If we a re to decide w hether the p rophets rep resen t a 'Sodom trad itio n ' d ifferent from w hat we find in the story of Sodom and G om orrah in G enesis 18-19, we shall have to pay attention to the composition, meaning and date of this narrative.

•
The organisation o f the narrative can be presented as follows: A The symmetry of the narrative can be seen in various aspects of its structure.A n even m ore im portant observation is that the whole unit has a concentric structure.W orking from the cen tre outw ards, we find a Section th a t cor responds to Section B, and, on the outer sides, a Section A i th at corresponds to T h e re is, fu rth er, no reaso n to say th a t the crisis could not have been evoked in even ea rlier tim es by peo p le observing discrepancies in the system (which did in fact happen at an early stage in Egypt and M esopotam ia; cf Scharbert).The sam e kind of aw areness of G o d 's deeds in history ( 'G eschichtshandeln') is also found in the M esa Inscription from the ninth century B CE, w here th e deity is visualised as involving him self in the history of a city/nation (cf Albright 1955:320).In addition there is evidence of D euteronom ic awareness of exactly the problem which interests us here, viz the lot of innocen t p eo p le am ong a mass th a t is going to be killed.T he fate of w omen, children and anim als is handled with m ore sympathy than that of men (D t 20:13-14).B ehind this law lie very old traditions of the so-called Yahweh wars.This m akes it possible that we have before us proto-D euteronom ic ideas from the N orthern Kingdom of about the eighth century BCE.By this I do not m ean that the Sodom story itself is D euteronom ic, which would have required the presence of a prophet to warn the wicked beforehand, but that the agonising over Y ahw eh's justice to the innocent in the event o f mass destruction may be re la te d to D eu tero n o m ic thought.A t least it show s th a t th e p ro b lem was thought about and theologised about before the exile.So Schmidt and W esterm ann are not right in claiming that the problem of Yahw eh's justice in its connexion with his acts in history only com e to the fore since the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.This event certainly had all the ingre dients to cause the enigm a of how G o d 's justice can be squared with the belief that he controlled the fate of nations, but so did the fall of Sam aria and even the fate of com m unities in e a rlie r Isra e lite history.If Y ahweh could bring the Assyrians to Sam aria, if C hem osh could bring the M oabites against N ebo (cf Albright 1955:320), and if the D euteronom ic law of wars could reflect on the lot of m inority groups in cities, then the whole concept o f Y ahw eh's 'G eschichtsh a n d e ln ' and its re la tio n sh ip to th e p ro b lem o f o u r passage is th oroughly thinkable in the pre-exilic period.
M oreover, the classic prophets o f the eighth and seventh centuries obvious ly work with the presupposition that Yahweh controls the history o f nations and th at he does so according to the principle o f deed and consequence.But the other side of the coin is that he is also supposed to control the lot of individuals whose deeds do not w arrant death o r captivity.How is this to be explained?Why did these good people also undergo the effects o f G od 's wrath?
The question is answ ered in various texts from this period.In Ezekiel 18 we find a classic exposition o f the co rrelatio n o f deed and consequence with reference to the idea of individual responsibility.Collective guilt and collective m erit are explicitly rejected.TTie sam e is found in Ezekiel 14:12-20.But it is an escape directly into th e problem of justice and therefore of theodicy: W hat if in d iv id u a ls a re in n o c e n t a n d in fa c t a re n o t sav ed ?F ro m a co lle ctiv e perspective the problem does not arise, but from an individualist perspective it grows into a conflict in which nothing less than the concept o f G od and a moral world order is at stake.This question is answ ered by w hat we have in G enesis 18:17-33.H ere we find the problem itself on two levels and therefore an answer on two levels.The F or the reasons given above I cannot concur with W esterm ann (and many others) in assigning an exilic date to the passage (cf also Schmid 1976:151-152).
A last argum ent for this dating o f the whole Sodom story is provided by the anti-urban m otif in the narrative.The sinfulness of life in the city is contrasted w ith the ru stic v irtu e o f hospitality d ep icted in th e opening passage o f the narrative.A braham and his environm ent stand over against the m en of Sodom and th e ir environm ent, while Lot, show ing as he does resp ect for th e rustic ideals, is presented as a tragic illustration that the nom ad or at least rustic way of life is not respected in the city.This points to a pre-exilic tim e for the story as a whole.The latest evidence that could be interpreted as anti-urban is found in Jerem ia h 's exam ple of th e R echabites (J r 35).Since the com poser of the com plete story is the one who created the careful contrast betw een the rustic A braham and the urban Sodomites, as well as the figure of Lot as the tragic link betw een the two, he will have to be dated in the pre-exilic period.If we allow sufficient tim e during the m onarchy for the developm ent of this kind of social conflict and the resulting m oral conflict, th e m ost likely perio d w ould be the eighth/seventh century (cf above).This conclusion supports the direction taken by Schmid (1976) in his objec tions to the early d ating o f J, w hose w ork, according to a wide consensus of opinion, is also found in the Sodom story.My analysis, if accepted, would add an o th er argum ent to those developed th roughout his book (cf the concluding exam ples; Schm id 1976:154-166), although I w ould not p re fe r a d ate for the Sodom story quite as late as the early sixth century BCE even if this still quali fies as pre-exilic (cf above on Ezekiel's dependence on the Sodom story).

•
O ur last concern, that of the meaning o f the narrative, has been presenting itself in the course of th ese argum ents.As we have ju st seen, th e Sodom story is abo ut a conflict of social values.O u r narrative depicts an anti-social deed of o ppression against helpless w an d erers (we may even call them D'' T 3).T he sexual m otif is not used for its own sake, but as the m anifestation of anti-social behaviour and the decay of traditional social values.
T he story is also ab o u t th e pun ish m en t o f this w ickedness.T h e Sodom story is organised as a narrative text, and the function o f this text is to argue that G od punishes wickedness, but th at he also respects individual innocence in the m idst of mass guilt, so th at it is even possible that the guilty may be saved for the sake o f the innocent.If this does not happen, then the innocent are saved individually (like Lot and his daughters).Mass as well as individual guilt (like that of the wicked cities on the one hand and that of L ot's wife on th e o ther) is punished, but not at the price of justice.So G od is vindicated in th e face of doubt about his righteousness when he intervenes in hum an affairs.
T hese observations lead to a clear conclusion-.T h ere is no fundam ental diffe rence betw een the Sodom them e in the story o f Genesis and in the preaching of the pre-exilic prophets.
■ T he social aspect of the sin of Sodom is as prom inent in the story as in the prophets.T herefore no justification can be found for regarding the story as occupied with sex as opposed to the prophets who are then seen as the only exponents of the social aspect of the tradition.
7).T h ere is only one exception: Je ru sa lem ( | T ' !i Dll) has b e e n le ft over ( m m 3, V 8) like a booth in a vineyard or in a field of cucumbers.T he imagery is clear: O nly Jeru salem stands, while the rest o f th e land has b e e n ravaged.H T S *7/1 (1991) K aiser is correct that we know nothing of a destruction of Jeru salem in 701 BCE, but this does not argue against dating the passage som ew hat a fter this time, because the devastation of the country and the bare survival of Jerusalem after the campaign by Sennacherib in 701 BCE (cf O ppenheim 1955:287-288) fit the picture p ainted in o u r passage adm irably.V erse 9 connects the Isaianic idea of the 'rem nant' with the tradition of Sodom and G om orrah.H ad Yahweh not left a re m n a n t of his p eo p le, they w ould have b ecom e like Sodom and

W
hether we regard the verse as the rejection of a prophetic indictm ent in verses 2-8 (V an U ch e le n 1981:161-163) or as a re fe re n c e to th e b a re survival of Je ru sa le m in a d ev a sta te d land, th e fu n ctio n o f the Sodom and G o m o rrah tradition rem ains the same.T he opening verse of th e second passage in questio n (Is 1:10-17) speaks of Sodom and G om orrah in parallelism .H ere the m oot point is w hether sacrifice is rejected in principle, which is not our im m ediate concern in this study (cf the discussion by K aiser).W hat does concern us is th at the leaders as well as the com m on people are addressed.'L eaders of Sodom' and 'people of G om orrah' a re u sed in synonym ous p a ra lle lism so th a t th e two cities b eco m e o n e in function (cf Zeph 2:9, where Sodom and G om orrah are also split in parallelism b u t o n e in fu n c tio n ).T h e p assag e sev erely re p rim a n d s th e w hole cultic comm unity for accom panying their external piety with injustice.T herefore we are justified in saying that their wickedness in general is scathed by calling them by the nam es of the classic examples o f iniquity.W e are not justified, however, in follow ing W ild berg er's p u re guessw ork a b o u t the existence of a trad itio n according to w hich th e people o f Sodom and G o m o rrah w ere active in pious cultic practices but inactive in social justice.Because o f the cult criticism and its rem iniscences o f Amos (Am 3:14; 4:4-5; 5:21-27) we can d ate this prophecy in Isaiah 3:9 contains a gloss D1D3 which m akes the verse awkwardly long and m etrically im probable (cf D uhm , W ildberger, K aiser).F o r this reaso n it is probably late exilic.It reflects the tradition o f Sodom's injustice in judgem ent, for it is added to a pronouncem ent about just this form of injustice in Jerusalem (DiT' JD m u n , 'favouritism ').TTiis is found in la te r Jew ish traditions.It is possible that we here have the first instance o f this specific form of w ickedness.associated with Sodom.In Isaiah 13:19 (and w 20-22) we find a passage which is particularly germ ane to th e thesis o f H illers (1964:53, 75-76) th a t th e m entioning o f Sodom and G om orrah in prophetic references to sudden destruction should be explained in term s of a traditional curse.Babylon is th reatened with destruction like th at of Sodom and G om orrah.W atts has made out a convincing case that this, though surprising in the eighth century, can be d ated in the tim e o f A haz (1985:188, 200).'A t this tim e Babylon was the prim e symbol of successful revolt against Assyrian sovereignty.'As Assyria was still Y ahw eh's rod, rebellion like th at of Babylon 'by any o f the sm all nations would be futile and, w orse, it would be reb ellio n against G o d '.B ecause o f h e r revolt ag ain st th e ro d of G od, and therefore her bad example to Israel, Babylon is solemnly cursed to undergo the fate of the classic types of G o d 's w rath.T he fact th at D T lb x and not m iT ' is used here, is attributed by K raetschm ar (1897:87-88) to the fact th at the phrase mny nxi ono D K D ''nÍ7X n^ann was a fixed form ula (cf below on Am 4:11).A covenant tradition in Isaiah?W ildberger (1972:30) m akes a rem ark in his dis cussion of Isaiah 1:4-9 which deserves our attention.H e ascribes the knowledge of the pre-exilic prop h ets (Isaiah, Amos, Z ephanaiah, Jerem iah , Ezekiel, and the northerner H osea) about Sodom and G om orrah to the fact th at these cities w ere also known in the covenant tradition ( 'B undestradition') with which these prophets w ere fam iliar.This is certainly a possibility m ade attractive by Weinfeld's idea of the relationship betw een the Sodom and G om orrah them e and the covenant tradition.W einfeld (1972:111) refers to some o f the prophetic Sodom and G om orrah texts (cf below) and contends that they 'occur in connection with breach of treaty'.T herefore he finds it legitim ate to assume 'that the overthrow of Sodom and G om orrah was conceived as the classic punishm ent o f breach of covenant with the Deity'.In the 'treaty texts' the m otif o f cities being m ade a N T S 47/1 (1991) different from o r irreconcilable with the narrative in G enesis 19.T he function of th e use of th e tra d itio n in th e b o o k is tw ofold: T o show th a t th e sins of Ju d a h /Isra e l are as bad as those o f the classic exam ples o f vice (Is 1:10; 3:9), Even the climax of the visitations by Yahweh, the dem olition by a n^SHD, failed to bring them to repentance.T h erefo re they are to p repare to be confronted directly with him (v 12).T he 'Sodom and G om orrah form ula' ( m n v ITXT DID HX D'>nVx n3D ntl3) contains the only reference to D''n!7X in A mos who regularly uses the nam e m iT ' (cf Is 13:19; J r 50:40, w here the w ord D T l^K also occurs).T his is th e clearest in d icatio n o f th e in d ep en d e n ce o f th e expression as an estab lish ed fo rm u la (cf alread y K raetsch m ar 1897:87-88).W olff ta k e s ilDDnO to re fe r to th e political d em ise o f the N o rth ern K ingdom in 721 BCE, claim ing th a t the form ula always

A
Hosea 11:8 is the only text in the O ld T estam ent w here A dm ah and Z eboim occur to g e th e r w ithout Sodom an d G o m o rrah .T h e verse is p a rt of a passage th a t is usually regarded as a unity (H s 11:1-11; cf W olff and R udolph, b u t on th e oth er hand R obinson w ho thinks th a t the c h ap te r consists of four units).T h e passage begins with E phraim 's blindness to Y ahw eh's love (w 1-4), the faithlessness o f the people and its consequence (w 5-7), Yahweh's change o f mind and its consequence ( w 8-11).T here are several problem s with the text of the passage (cf the extensive notes given by W olff and R udolph), but none o f these affect o u r in terp re ta tio n of verse 8 directly.T he verse is structured in a precise parallelism .By m eans o f a rhetorical question (cf G n 39:9; 44:34; Jr 9:6; Ps 137:4 for T>K which is not the same as the cry of lam ent; so R udolph, rejecting R obinson's view) Yahweh says th at he can n eith er su rre n d e r E p h ra im /Isra e l n o r m ake them like A dm ah and Z eboim .E lsew here these two towns only occur in G enesis 10:19; 14:2, 8 and D euteronom y 29:22 and, b ecau se of th e ir exclusive a sso ciatio n w ith Sodom and G o m o rra h , obviously represent that tradition.They are again symbols o f devastation, b u t not of wickedness.T he sin of E phraim in this context is idolatry (v 2), although the social dim ension is not absent elsew here in the book (cf H s 7:1; 12:9).But, as in Ezekiel 16, an o th er dim ension is added which m akes the use of the Sodom and G om orrah traditio n very interesting.A ccording to th e im plication o f th e rhetorical question Y ahw eh ought to destroy E phraim as com pletely as he had destroyed A dm ah and Z eboim .T his is indeed w hat Israel is th re a te n e d w ith in H o sea 9:6; 10:7, 8, 14, w here the idea of destruction and a w asteland is present.But now Yahweh cannot bring him self to do to E phraim w hat he had done to A dm ah and Z eboim .T his is developed fu rth er by th e highly suggestive use of ^DH.This ro o t is used in D eu teronom y 29, w here th e two cities a re m en tio n ed by nam e, and also in G enesis 19:21, 25, 29.This is scarcely coincidence.W hat H osea is saying, is th a t Y ahweh takes the nDBHB upon him self; instead of overturning E phraim , his own h e a rt is overturned.It is obvious th at Y ahweh intends not to destroy, b u t to save.In this regard the use of the Sodom and G om orrah tradition (o r the A dm ah and Z eboim tradition) is com parable to the use m ade of it in Ezekiel 16.Although no m ention is m ade of the restoration of the ancient cities (cf Ezk 16:53), the fundam ental ten d en cy of the two passages is the same: Salvation instead o f destruction.T he n39nJlJ in G o d 's h e a rt can only m e a n th a t G o d suffers fo r th e salv atio n of Israe l.G od undergoes the sam e fate as Sodom .This, in a special way, underscores R udolph's re m ark at the end of his discussion of the next verse: 'H ier ist E vangelium im A lten T estam ent.'The prophets and Sodom Why are A dm ah and Z eboim m entioned and not Sodom and G om orrah?We have the sam e m otif and the sam e function w hether the form er pair or the latter is used, and the four are clearly associated in three other passages (G n 10:19; 14:2, 8; D t 29:22).Why then only here no word about Sodom and G o m o rrah ?The most obvious answ er is th a t given by G unkel, Z im m erli and W esterm ann (1981:229): H osea knew and used a variant form of the tradition in which A dm ah and Zeboim had the sam e function as Sodom and G om orrah.B ut w here would the 'northern tr a d itio n ' com e from if n o t fro m th e so u th ?T h e D ead S ea reg io n su its th e topographical req u irem en ts excellently, but such a w asteland is no t found in the N orthern Kingdom.Moreover, a single passage from a northern prophet rem ains a p re c a rio u s b asis fo r a h y p o th esis a lre a d y b u rd e n e d by se v e ral q u e stio n a b le assumptions.For these reasons it seems b etter to accept one Sodom and G om orrah tradition in which A dm ah and Zeboim (and Z o ar) also featured.Various selections could be m ade from the cities m entioned in the tradition.In fact we do not only have two -which one would have expected if there w ere two 'S o ndertraditionen'but five such combinations of place names: Sodom Sodom and G om orrah Sodom, G om orrah, Admah and Zeboim A dm ah and Zeboim Sodom, G om orrah, Admah, Z eboim and Z oar T he evidence is pointing increasingly tow ards one basic tra d itio n m anifesting in several functions.
w here we h e a r ab o u t raids by th ese two nations against Ju d ah w hich to o k place ab o u t 602 B C E (H o rst).This fits in well with the period of Z ep h an iah 's activity.T he prophecy against M oab and A m m on uses Sodom and G om orrah as symbols of d ev astatio n in the sam e vein as th e oracle ag ain st B abylon in Isaiah 13:19-22.However, no allusion is m ade to the last passage o f the Sodom story, w here Moab and A m m on are prom inent(G n 19:30-38).Although an argumentum e silentio is not conclusive proof, we may look upon this as a sign of the existence o f Sodom and G om orrah traditions th at w ere not dependent on the story of G enesis 18-19.Two o th e r p o in ters in this d ire ctio n a re th e use o f D'' n^X in stead o f m rT* and the occurrence of G om orrah in all but two references to Sodom (the exceptions are Is 3:9 and Lm 4:6; cf also H s 11:8).T o g eth er with these, our text in Z ep h an iah 2:9 suggests th at a trad itio n about the cities of Sodom and G om orrah existed in which no m ention was m ade o f Israel's two eastern neighbours and in w hich 'the gods' featured.This traditio n was the source on which the G enesis story as well as the prophets and other users of the them e drew.Turning to the Book of Jerem iah, we find th ree references to Sodom and G o m orrah and one allusion to the cities (Jr 20:16).T he first referen ce is, Jeremiah 23:14.It is p a rt of a passage usually d e m arc ated as verses 13-15 (cf R udolph, Carroll, H olladay) which consists of a comparison betw een the prophets o f Sam aria (v 13) and the prophets o f Jerusalem (v 14), as well as an announcem ent o f judge m ent (v 15).T he comparison is to the detrim ent of the prophets of Jerusalem .The Sam arian prophets did 'an unsavoury thing' (C arroll's translation of n^S Il), but the Jeru salem p ro p h ets com m itted h o rrib le things ( m n v v ) ) .W hereas th e form er group caused Israel to apostatise after Baal, the la tter group com m itted adultery and lies and strengthened the position of the evildoers.T heir offence is moral, and m oral offence is w orse than cultic offence -a typical Jerem ianic idea.This is why the prophets of Jerusalem are likened to the people of Sodom and the inhabitants of the city (who follow the guidance o f th eir p rophets) to the peo p le o f G o m o rrah .T he parallelism of the cities and the m atching parallelism betw een a leading group in Jerusalem and the general populace is also found in Isaiah 1:10.A dultery and general wickedness accord well with the picture o f the evil city in G enesis 19.H ere the function of the Sodom and G om orrah tradition is to typify the wickedness of the prophets and inhabitants o f Jerusalem .Two closely related passages are to be found in Jeremiah 49:18 and 50:40.In both cases we have p ro p h ecies ag ain st o th e r n ations, E dom in th e first and B abylon in the second.Jerem ia h 49:12-22 consists mostly o f la te r expansions as suggested by the 'gen erality o f re fe re n c e w hich p erm its th em to b e used in te r changeably' (C arroll).P art of this is verse 18 w here Sodom and G om orrah appear in th e fam iliar expression m n v i DID this tim e follow ed by ÍT' 'and her neighbours' (i e A dm ah and Z eboim , cf G n 10:19; G n 14; D t 29:22).The second m ain function of the Sodom and G om orrah them e is thus again in evidence: are the classic exam ples o f to tal destruction.T he sam e is th e case in Je re m ia h 50:40, w here th e n eighbouring cities are m en tio n ed again, b u t w here D"*nVx is used instead of miT* (another difference is that the nota accusativi is used here, but not in J r 49:18).As in the previous chapter and in Isaiah 13:19, the deso la tio n is co m p le te an d vividly d escrib e d by th e u se o f a n im al im ag es (a lb e it som ew hat differen tly in J r 49:19, b u t cf J r 49:19-21 and 50:44-46).T h e fa te of Babylon is described with such close similarity to Isaiah 13:19 th at R udolph thinks it has b een draw n from th e e a rlie r passage and th a t Je re m ia h 49:18 sh ares in the dependence.It is possible that he is right in both instances (cf C arroll on the date of J r 50: the grandiloquence and the insignificance of the actual changeover of power betw een th e B abylonians and th e P ersians po in t to a d ate a fter 539 B C E ).T he context in Jerem iah 50 contains an o th er interesting parallel to the Sodom and G o m orrah them e: In verse 38 a drought is announced over the w aters of Babylon.The w ell w atered land will b ecom e a w asteland.This is an estab lish ed m o tif in the Sodom and G om orrah them e (cf G n 13).E zekiel 16:44-58 is p erh ap s, w ith th e p ossible ex cep tio n o f H o se a 11:8 (cf above), the most noteworthy o f the prophetic references to Sodom.T he passage is usually dem arcated as I have done (cf Fohrer, Z im m erli), and even if it is taken to b e p a rt o f a larg er u n it a cae su ra is o fte n in d icated a fte r v erse 58 (cf W evers, Brownlee 1986:242).Jerusalem first features as the daughter o f h er m other and the siste r o f h e r sisters ( w 44-46; cf also E zk 23, w here tw o cities a re sisters with nam es); then follows an extended com parison to h e r sisters, of which Sodom is by far th e m ost prom inent (w 47-50, 51); next com e an injunction (v 52), the restora tion o f the th ree sisters (w 53-55), and finally a conclusion a b o u t the disgrace of Jerusalem (w 56-58).T he focus o f o u r a tte n tio n is, o f course, draw n to th e co m p ariso n b etw een Jerusalem and Sodom.G om orrah is not m entioned at all, but Sodom 's neighbours are included by the addition of iT'm 331, 'and h er daughters', an ancient expression to indicate lesser neighbouring towns (Jdg 1:27; cf Z im m erli).S am aria also has such dependent towns, as does Jerusalem (v 48).Sodom is the sm aller sister, since the politically m ore prom inent Sam aria has to be the 'big' sister.H owever, in this passage Sodom has a m o re p ro m in en t ro le th a n S am aria (cf w 48-50/51).T he sisters can be expected to be wicked because th eir m o th er was a b ad wife to her husband and a b ad m o th e r to h e r children.Sodom 's sin was th a t it com bined a luxurious life with insolence and social oppression (w 49-50).T hen comes the most offensive thing that could be said of Jerusalem : H er wickedness is worse than that of S am aria w ho has b e e n destroyed becau se o f h e r sins and, h o rro r o f horrors, she even surpasses th e w ickedness o f Sodom , the exam ple p a r excellence o f depravity and total destruction (v 50).So both the aspects of the Sodom symbolism are found here -Sodom as the type of wickedness and as the arch-exam ple o f the destructive w rath of G od.This is succinctly form ulated by N eher (1979:484) when he says that Sodom is 'I'incarnation m êm e de la m ort m orale et physique'.Accordingly Jerusa lem can expect to undergo the sam e treatm ent as her sisters.However, th e second su rp rise o f th e passage is found a t this ju n c tu re .T h e p u n ish m en t o f to ta l d e struction is not w orked out; Jerusalem will have to b ear h er sham e as h er sisters had to do earlier (w 52, 54, 57,58), but she is not threatened with total dem olition.This is u n ex p ected and m ust have a good reaso n .A ll th re e o f th e sisters a re to be restored to their form er glory.Jerusalem indirectly interceded for her sisters by her sham eful w ickedness.For, if Y ahweh wishes to resto re Jeru salem , then he must also re s to re Sodom an d S am a ria since th e ir w ickedness w as less th a n th a t of Jerusalem .Ezekiel thus appears as the vindicator of Sodom, and as such occupies a unique position in alm ost the whole Sodom and G om orrah tradition.T h e second aspect in su p p o rt o f the im p o rtan ce o f S odom 's re sto ra tio n for Ezekiel is to be found in the description of the tem ple river and the boundaries of the land (E zk 47; shortly referred to by N eher 1979:490).H ere we en cou nter the m otifs o f the paradise-like land ( w 1-12) and th e b o rd erlin e of th e so u th eastern corner of the land (w 18,19; cf p 49). Ezekiel pictured the river springing from the a lta r as lifegiving, com ing as it does from th e p re sen ce o f G o d and th e re fo re resem bling the river of P aradise (G n 2:10; cf F o h rer 1955:245).It flows eastw ard and down the Jo rd an valley in a southerly direction to reach th e D ead Sea which will be 'healed' (v 8) with the exception o f a few holes from which a supply o f salt the new, healed land.W hereas G enesis 10:19 excludes the Sodom and G om orrah region from the land, Ezekiel includes this region.T he eastern boundary reaches right down to the D ead Sea (E zk 47:18); then the line proceeds fu rth er south and west to the M editerranean (v 19), so the traditional Sodom and G o m o rrah a re a is clearly in co rp o rated .T h e id ea o f re sto ra tio n itse lf m eans th a t a new situ atio n arises; consequently the incorporation of the Sodom area as p art of the new dispen sation m akes sense if it was excluded from the land under the old dispensation.E zekiel's highly original view of Sodom under the them e of 'Paradise lost' and 'Paradise regained' does not m ean that he stood in a different line of tradition.Onthe contrary, we have seen that he received the traditional motifs that we have been studying earlier on and that he gave them an original interpretation.T his is also a p p aren t in Ezekiel 16:50, w here G enesis 18:20 is in terp re ted (Y ahw eh sees the wickedness, iTXT in both cases, before he does something about it; cf Brownlee).It is also evident from the dependence of E zekiel's restoration m otif on the dialogue betw een A b rah am and Yahweh (w hile th e la tte r is ab o u t th e q u estio n w h eth er Sodom can be saved because o f the innocence of some people, the form er is about the restoration of Sodom because o f the guilt of others E-E X n j C PR O PH E TS Let us briefly sum marise the prophetic Sodom motifs: * From the eighth to the sixth centuries the Sodom and G om orrah m otif constant ly functions as the symbol o f wickedness and as the symbol o f total destruction, som etimes in one text (Ezk 16).• T he sin o f Sodom and G o m o rrah is o ften seen by the pre-exilic pro p h ets as social in n atu re (Isaiah, Jerem ia h , E zekiel), or th e p unishm ent is associated with such wickedness (Amos; the same perspective can be seen in Lm 4).Once (Jr 23:14) it is seen as sexual sin, while the idolatry spoken of by H osea in association with the Admah and Zeboim m otif also has such overtones.Those who are com pared to Sodom and G om orrah or whose destruction is com pared to th at o f th e cities o f the plain can be Je ru sa le m /Ju d a h or E p h ra im / Israel, but the sam e can be said of other nations or cities (Babylon in Is 13:19; Jr 50:40; Edom in Jr 49:18; M oab and Ammon in Z ph 2:9), and som etim es a speci fic group of leaders are seen as 'Sodomites' (Is 1:10; Jr 23:14).The social m otif is always associated with Judah/Israel.If the referen ce to Sodom in Isaiah 3:9 is a gloss, th e social function of the Sodom m otif has been developed in late exilic tim es to include favouritism in the adm inistering of justice, which would be a prelude to later Jewish use o f the them e.Twice the Sodom them e is used to achieve a positive end, viz in H o se a 11, w here G od him self undergoes the lot of A dm ah and Z eb o im /S o d o m , and in Ezekiel 16 where Sodom and the other cities are restored to happiness by G od .

First
we may note th at the narrative has a central section (C ) in which a crescendo is developed.In this p a rt the destruction story p ro p er is set out in th ree scenes.H e re we find a progression from th e arrival o f the m essengers and th eir confrontation with the m en o f Sodom (w 1-11) to the rescue of Lot and his family ( w 12-22) and then to the actual destruction o f the city ( w 23-26).T he progressive line in Section C is heightened by the m utually opposing elem ents of haste and retard atio n in its centre; Having several times heard the injunction to flee for their lives (w 12, 15), which has a tone of serious urgency, and having repeated it himself to his sons-in-law (v 14), Lot still hesitates (v 16).This creates tension, which is developed further by the urgent way in which the m essengers physically com pel L o t's fam ily to leave, and by the com m and to hurry w ithout even looking back ( w 16-17).T he sam e forces of urgency and delay are employed in the ensuing conversation betw een Lot and G od: O n the one hand Lot finds tim e to request an alternative refuge and on the o th er G od rushes him (^^n ) and makes the destruction dependent on the speed with which Lot can get away (w 18-21).
circle, arranged as it is around the central section (C), serves to involve A braham in the Sodom story.First, A braham discusses the impending doom w ith G od in a p relu d e to the destru ctio n (Section B = 18:17-33), and, subsequent to the event itself, he looks at the afterm ath of what has happened).E ncircled by 'p re lu d e ' and 'a fte rm a th ', the Sodom sto ry is in te g ra te d in to th e A b ra h a m story.W ith o u t h av in g n o tic e d th e concentric structure, G unkel (1910;xl) nevertheless observed a link betw een w hat I call Section B and Section B i. A ccording to him the story-teller's keen insight in psychological processes m ade him link Genesis 18: 20-21 (B) to 19:27-28 (B l) -in the second passage A braham satisfies his need to find out what the significance of the reference to Sodom's guilt in the first passage was.The outer circle is m arked by an antecedent in which three men visit A bra ham and talk about his offspring (Section A = 18:1-16), and a postscript about A braham 's relatives and their offspring (Section A^ = 19:30-38).T his carefully plan n ed p a tte rn is consistent with the careful overarching com position o f th e G e n e sis /P e n ta te u c h stories.T h e d ifferen t sections are neatly sewn to g eth er at the seam s.As the Prim eval H istory (G n 1-11) is in terlo ck ed w ith the P a tria rc h al H istory (G n 12-50) by m eans of introducing A braham in G enesis 11, and as the Patriarchal History in turn is dovetailed into the Exodus Story (Ex 1-15) by the overlapping features of the figure o f Jacob and th e locality of Egypt, so the sections of the Sodom story are also welded together: T he visit to A braham by the th ree m en (Section A ) prep ares for the discussion about Sodom betw een A braham and one of them (Section B), w here as the o th er two, who leave for Sodom, can be identified with the m essengers who arrive in Sodom (Section C) (cf G n 18:16, 17, 22; 19:1).M oreover, the dialogue in Section B about the im pending destruction naturally leads to the account of the destruction itself in Section C w hereas A braham 's observing the devastation (Section B i) naturally follows it.Finally, th e episode about L ot's daughters and their offspring (Section A i) is a direct result of the catastrophe.W hatever we may decid e a b o u t th e d a te o f th e a u th o r o f this story and w hatever we may conclude about the earlier form(s) of the tradition(s) found in our narrative, we may on the grounds of our analysis concur with V an Seters's obvious reg ard fo r th e 'highly lite ra te ' ab ilitie s o f th e a u th o r (V an S eters 1975:210), and w ith th e a d m ira tio n o f c o m m e n ta to rs fro m D illm an n and G unkel to V on R ad and W esterm ann for the artistry evident in the narrative.As far as the date o f the narrative is concerned, it should be placed betw een the late eighth century and the time of Ezekiel who is, as we have seen, dependent on the story.I shall now argue for a date in the seventh century.Since, as I have argued, the narrative is a unity, alb eit a unity containing much older traditional m aterial, it would have to be dated after 587 B C E if the fam ous conversation betw een A braham and G od (G n 18:17-33) is to be dated after the exile.This frequently found dating o f the passage can be countered w ith v ario u s arg u m e n ts in a d d itio n to th e term inus ad quern p ro v id e d by Ezekiel: W here is the quest for the preservation of G od's righteousness to be placed in term s of the history of traditions?W esterm ann is quick to claim th at it has its place in the complex o f post-exilic proverbs about the fate o f the righteous and th e w icked.Now it is tru e th a t the and the VWT featu re in many sayings of Proverbs 10-22.Even if we grant that these are late (cf Schmid 1966: 155-169, w ho calls the tendency to categorise people an 'A nthropologisierung d er W eisheit'), W esterm ann's m ain point rem ains th a t the fate o f the wicked must be negative and that of the righteous must be positive.N ot much is gained by this insight, for the principle of correlation o f deed and consequence is much older than th e exilic period.T he whole religion of Israel only m akes sense on this prem ise.As C renshaw (1970:384) puts it: '...priest, p rophet and wise man labored under the assumption of a correlation betw een good conduct and earth ly rew ard.'So the recognition of the nexus betw een deed and consequence in the sapiential tradition o f Israel in itself helps us very little.T he fact th at the nexus occurs right through Israel's religion and right through her history does show, however, th at the foundations for the crisis were laid early in the history of Israel and not only in the post-exilic wisdom m ovem ent.This is a n o th er argum ent in favour of retaining the individualistic perspective on the problem (cf above).T he sapiential application o f the nexus of deed and consequence involves everyday eth ics as th e resp o n sib ility o f th e individual (cf Schm idt 1976:147-148; G ese 1962:1576).It is q u ite p ossible th a t th e crisis itself, th e d o u b t a b o u t G o d 's ju stice evident in Genesis 18:23-25, could have been precipitated by the fall of Sam aria in 722 BCE.Everything th at can be said in favour o f the fall of Jeru salem in 587 BCE as the event that caused the problem of G od's justice in relation to his acts in history, can also be said in favour of the fall of Sam aria as such an event.T herefore it is not necessary to follow W esterm ann and Schmidt in assigning a post-exilic date to the passage.It seem s quite possible to think in term s of the eighth century.F or instance.Psalm 78 was obviously w ritten after the fall o f Sam aria and refers both to th at event and to Jerusalem which is still intact (cf Ps 78:67-69).It theologises a b o u t Y ahw eh's reje c tio n o f th e N o rth e rn K ingdom from a S o uthern K ingdom perspective.
one could be called the collective level.It is repeatedly stated that a community can be saved on account o f (TIDVn) a small group of righteous people.A little g o o d n ess o utw eighs m uch w ick ed n ess.T his is th e ex act o p p o site o f th e em phatic denial of Ezekiel (cf E z 14:14), and conversely related to Q o h elet's pessimistic notion that a little of the negative force in life outweighs much o f the positive force (Ecc 10:1-2).The o th er level in our passage could be called the individual level.A braham is m ade to discontinue his diminuendo o f num bers at ten to show that no righteous group is to be found in Sodom.But the story goes on to show that the good Lot him self is saved.H is wife perishes on th eir way out, which is her own fault and not th at of the wicked comm unity.All o f this goes to show th at o u r author -for th at is what the creato r o f the conversation betw een A braham and Yahweh is -believed th a t individual retrib u tio n does occur.

■
Sodom (and G o m o rrah ) is the symbol o f wickedness as well as o f punish m e n t fo r th e p ro p h e ts, w h ere th e focus m ay b e o n e ith e r o r o n b o th symbolic values, and also in the narrative o f Genesis.■ T he eighth century prophets cannot be dependent on the G enesis narrative since they a re o ld er th an the story in th at form .Only E zekiel is clearly dependent on the story.■ Both the prophets and the author of the narrative, who was a contem porary o f the seventh century p ro p h e ts and possibly also o f Isaiah, drew on a comm on stock of earlier traditional m aterial in which the barren w asteland of the D ead Sea plain was explained in term s o f the motifs of wickedness and punishm ent.We can no longer reconstruct th e form of this tradition, but we can note with surprise that the social m otif in the Sodom them e was respected in th e later Jewish tradition, w hereas the F athers of the C hurch seem to have sacrificed it in favour o f -if I may be allow ed th e pun -a hom osexual reading of the story, apparently unaw are of the corrective to such a reading latent in the prophetic use of the them e.
wasteland as punishm ent for their breach of treaties is constantly found.T h ere fore W einfeld is correct in comparing the w asteland of the Sodom story to what we find in 'treaty texts' like D euteronom y 29:22 and in o th er treaty-type texts ).This in turn supports my date for the Sodom story, which must be earlier than Ezekiel.T herefore Z im m erli's question (also asked by others; cf Schlosser 1973:19) about the description o f So dom 's sins in verse 49 can also be answered.The gluttony, complacency and social irre sp o n sib ility sh o uld no t be ascrib ed to a v a ria n t tra d itio n as o p p o sed to a 'm ainline' tradition about the sexual sins depicted in G enesis 19.Ezekiel's view is not even much of an adaptation, which arose from social conditions in Israel, o f the wickedness m otif found in G enesis 18-19, although the so cial/o cu j of the prophecy