Sodom and Gomorrah

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (painting by John Martin ), 1852
The Destruction of Sodom (12th Century Sicilian Mosaic)

Sodom ( Hebrew סדום) and Gomorrah (Hebrewעמורה; Other spellings: Gomorrah , English Gomorrah ) are two cities named in the Bible that form the center of a story . The meaning of the names is not certain, nor is the exact location of the cities.

Biblical narration

The cities are the subject of a story in the Tanakh ( Gen 18 + 19  EU ), according to which they were buried by God under a rain of fire and sulfur because they had succumbed to sin .

God himself visits Abraham in the form of three angels in male form to inform him that he intends to destroy the cities of Sodom (where Abraham's nephew Lot is) and Gomorrah, if the sinful behavior of their inhabitants is actually as bad as it is to him Ears had come. Abraham asks God if he really wants to destroy the guilty and the innocent without distinction. God finally assures him that he will spare Sodom if only ten decent people could be found in it ( Gen 18.16 ff.  EU ). This number is significant in Judaism: only when ten men come together for worship (מנין Minjan ), there is accordingly a Jewish community , and a full worship can be celebrated.

To see whether the cry of lamentation over Sodom was true, God sent two angels to meet Abraham's nephew Lot , a godly living man. Lot hospitably welcomes the two angels who are considered strange men by the inhabitants of Sodom ( Gen 19.6  EU ). The residents demand that Lot hand over his guests to them because they want to have sexual intercourse with them forcibly (for the formulation see under interpretations ). Instead, Lot offers the Sodomites his virgin daughters to protect his guests and holy hospitality .

After not ten righteous people were found in the city and it is therefore doomed, the angels want to save him and his family from doom and send them out of the city. Sodom and Gomorrah are then destroyed by God by raining sulfur and fire on them. When Lot's wife - contrary to a ban imposed by the angels - looks back on the city, she solidifies into a pillar of salt ( Gen 19  EU ). Lot and his daughters can get to safety and are subsequently protected by God.

When Lot saw smoke rising from the city of Sodom the next morning, he fled to the mountains in accordance with the divine command and lived there in a cave. His daughters then say that there is no man in the country who can give them offspring, they make their father drunk on two consecutive evenings, sleep with him and become pregnant.

Interpretations

The way to Sodom (Gen 18: 16-33)

On the way to Sodom, Abraham accompanies the men (Gen 18:16) who have visited him (Gen 18: 1-15). In this path scene (Gen 18: 16-33) there is a conversation between Adonai and Abraham, the main theological theme of which is whether Adonai would punish the righteous together with the wicked or whether he would spare the city because of a minority of the righteous ( Gen 18:23). If Adonai destroys the righteous and the wicked, then there would be no difference between the righteous and the wicked - a problem that also interests the wisdom literature (such as Job and Kohelet). The righteousness of the judge of all the world would immediately be at stake (Gen 18:25).

Due to the tensions in the following street scene (Gen 18: 16–33), it is assumed that it probably originated from more than one author:

  • Verse 17 is in tension with v. 21: In v. 17 it seems to be certain what Adonai intends to do (probably the destruction of the city), in v. 21 he is not yet sure and would like to see first.
    • Westermann argues against it: The decision to annihilate is certain from the beginning (v. 17), the checking whether it behaves in accordance with the accusations (v. 21) is the first part of his judicial intervention.
  • Verse 19 is in tension with the otherwise unconditional promises: Verse 19 links the promise about the posterity, who are to become a great and strong people, to the condition that they keep and do Adonai's ways. Other promises of Abraham are unconditional (e.g. Gen 12: 2-3). The conditional form of the promise is also found in Gen 22.15-18 and 26.5.
  • V. 23 is in tension with v. 14: In v. 14 the theologically central question for Gen 18-19 is posed, whether something can be impossible for Adonai. The theoretical discussion about God's righteousness contributes little or nothing to this question, but deals with a very specific topic.
    • This has led exegetes to date the whole scene or at least parts of it later than the story of Mamre (Gen 18: 1–16a) and the destruction of Sodom in Gen 19 (e.g. Westermann, for whom the Mamre episode Jahwistic and also Gen 19 is an older model, which was available to the post-exilic author of Gen 18,16b-33).

The Sodom Episode (Gen 19)

First of all, it is noticeable that Lot's reaction (Gen 19) to the visit of the two angels is very similar to the reaction of Abraham to the visit of the three men (Gen 18).

Gen 18 Gen 19
Abraham sits (ישֵׁב) at the entrance of his tent (v. 1) Lot sits (ישֵׁב) in the entrance area to Sodom (v. 1)
He looks (וַיַּרְא) and runs towards them (לִקְרָאתָם) (v. 2) He looks (וַיַּרְא) and runs towards them (לִקְרָאתָם) (v. 1)
He bows to the earth (וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה) (V.2) He bows to the earth (וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה) (V.1)
His self-designation towards the visitors is "your servant" (עַבְדְּכֶם) (V.3) His self-designation towards the visitors is "your servant" (עַבְדְּכֶם) (V.2)
He offers them to wash their feet (וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם) (v. 4) He offers them to wash their feet (וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם) (v. 2)

Lot's behavior in vv. 1–3 is contrasted with the behavior of the residents of Sodom in vv. 4–11. Lot's hospitality is as exemplary as that of Abraham. The residents, on the other hand, want to “recognize” the visitors (וְנֵדְעָה) (v. 5), which probably has sexual connotations. This knowledge is in contrast to the knowledge (אֵדָעָה) that Adonai undertakes when visiting Sodom (18:21). In addition, the sexually intended knowledge of Sarah (אֵדָעָה 18,12) is approved by God, but not that of the inhabitants of Sodom. While Lot in v. 3 urges the visitors in the positive sense (וַיִּפְצַר־בָּם מְאֹד) to accept his hospitality, the residents in v. 9 press hard on Lot in the negative sense (וַיִּפְצְרוּ בָאִישׁ בְּלוֹט מְאֹד). The whole city is involved, as emphasized both in advance (18.21 “all of them”) and in the scene itself (19.4 “from young to old”).

In vv. 12–13 the destruction of Sodom is announced, which Lot's sons-in-law do not want to believe (v. 14). Nevertheless the announcement is fulfilled (vv. 15-28). The key elements of the Sodom episode again have structural similarities to the Mamre episode (Gen 18: 1–15):

Gen 18 Gen 19
divine visit and human hospitality (vv. 1-8) divine visit and human hospitality (vv. 1–3) or the absence of the same (vv. 4–11)
divine announcement (of a future son to Sarah) (vv. 9-10) divine announcement (of the destruction of the city) (vv. 12-13)
human doubt about the divine announcement (expressed by Sarah's laughter וַתִּצְחַק, vv. 11-15) human doubts about the divine announcement (expressed by the fact that Lot's sons-in-law regard the announcement as a joke כִמְצַחֵק, v. 14).
the fulfillment of the announcement, which is not included in the scene, but is made up in Gen 21 the fulfillment of the announcement (vv. 15-28)

So the Sodom episode can also be understood as an answer to the question raised in the Mamre episode in v. 14: Should God be too difficult or impossible for something? The answer to the Sodom episode is then: no; if God can destroy the cities, then He will also make the miraculous birth possible. Gen 18–19 has a parallel in Jer 32, which also deals with the question of whether something is too difficult for God (Jer 32:27). The continuation is that the destruction of Jerusalem is certain (vv. 28-29; 36) because the city deserves punishment (vv. 30-35), but Adonai will restore it (vv. 37-42). The logic in Jer 32 (va v. 42) is thus similar to that in Gen 18-19: God's ability to realize punishment in the past also guarantees his ability to realize promise in the future. This logic finds a further similarity in Zech. 8: 14-15.

Impact history

Both in the Tanakh and in the Talmud , but also in the Gospels according to Matthew ( Mt 10.14 f.  EU ) and Luke ( Lk 17.29  EU ), Sodom is above all a symbol of xenophobia and the breach of hospitality, according to Ez 16.49  EU also for arrogance and greed. In Jude's letter ( Jud 7  EU ) and in the later Christian tradition, the city is associated with the sin of lust and finally with the "vice against nature" ( sodomy ).

The extent to which the Sodomites' offense against the men was actually sexual in nature varies even between the German translations of Gen 19.5  EU . The standard translation speaks of “going around”, whereas the Luther Bible 1984 speaks of “making over them” (the Luther Bible 2017 translates as “to be present”). Older translations (Revidierte Elberfelder 1983, Luther 1912) translate more literally with "recognize", a term that is also used in Biblical Hebrew for (marital) sexual intercourse (for example Gen 4.1  EU ). Against the background of the early and well-attested interpretation as a breach of ancient hospitality, the act can be seen in the context of the humiliation of strangers.

Biblical evidence

Sodom (painting by Peter Paul Rubens )

The name Sodom is found 39 times in the Hebrew Bible, exclusively in Genesis (21), Genesis 5 (2) and the books of the prophets (16).

The same scriptures mention the name Gomorrah 19 times. Gomorrah is usually mentioned in connection with Sodom (rarely alone). Apparently was the negative image that conveys the Bible from both cities, more than Sodom Gomorrah with connotations .

Sodom and Gomorrah in the Koran

In the Qur'an , Sodom is only indirectly mentioned as the “people of Lot ” ( Sura 7.79–85, Sura 11.78–85, Surah 15.50–75, Surah 21.71–76, Surah 26.161–176 Surah 27 .55-59, Sura 29.26-36, Sura 37.134-139, Sura 38.14, Sura 50.14, Sura 66.10). The event is referred to primarily in the context of turning away from God, disregarding his rules and his messengers; but also in the context of disregarded hospitality. With the story of the prophet Lot and the alleged homosexual acts of his people, the prohibition of homosexuality in Islam is justified.

Archaeological hypotheses

Some theologians consider an archaeological location of the destroyed cities to be impossible. However, various hypotheses have been made about the location of the cities and the cause of their destruction.

The geologist Graham Harris assumes the existence of a historical sodom. In his opinion there was a major city on the shores of the Dead Sea about 5000 years ago that could have been destroyed by an earthquake and subsequent landslide . This is supported by the following discoveries:

  • An ancient name for the Dead Sea is ama schel Sodom  - "Sea of ​​Sodom", and in Arabic the sea is still called Bahr Lut  - "Sea of ​​the Lot".
  • The shores of the Dead Sea become fragile very quickly in quakes and begin to slide into the sea.
  • Methane deposits below the surface of the earth in the area cause open fires on many fractured surfaces during quakes, which could be viewed as God's firestorm. In addition, earthquakes have often led to fires as a result of the destruction of fireplaces in the settlements.
  • Modern research shows a liquefaction of the soil , according to which the places could have been swallowed by the Dead Sea after the earthquake.
  • In the 1980s, skeletons were found in Numeira ( Jordan ) with bones crushed.
Nineveh Sky Disc
Tall el-Hammam region, Jordan

According to another controversial hypothesis of the two space engineers Alan Bond and Mark Hempsell , the cities could have been destroyed by a meteorite that was still largely bursting in the air , the Köfels impact in the Ötztal Alps (see Köfelsit ), similar to the alleged meteorite at Tunguska -Event . The subsequent material of the ejection entered the higher atmospheric layers and is said to have fallen around the Mediterranean region, including the Sahara region, and led to extensive destruction. After deciphering the Nineveh Sky Disc , a Sumerian astronomical clay disc that describes the trajectory of a bright, fast-flying object, Bond and Hempsell identified an asteroid impact on June 29, 3123 BC. In the Alps assumed to be the cause. According to their research, the cuneiform writing is a copy of the notes of a Sumerian astronomer who recorded his observations shortly before sunrise.

The research team led by Steven Collins from Trinity Southwest University, a Bible school in Albuquerque, suspects that the city of Tall el-Hammam in Jordan that they excavated could be Sodom. The hypothesis that the destruction of the Bronze Age city could be caused by a meteorite impact - called the 3.7KYrBP Kikkar Event - was supported in 2018 by the discovery of a ceramic shard that was melted into glass on one side. This glazing can be caused by briefly high temperatures of 8,000 to 12,000 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, the hypothesis is supported by the finding that the area both in the Bible and in other sources as agriculturally fertile before 1,700 BC. BC, but was not inhabited again in the following 700 years. However, the identification of Tall el-Hammam with Sodom is rejected by other researchers due to geographical and chronological inconsistencies.

Reception in business, literature and music

Film adaptations

See also

literature

Web links

Commons : Sodom and Gomorrah  - album with pictures, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Moses: Gen 19: 31-36. In: The Bible in the standard translation. University of Innsbruck, accessed on October 1, 2016 (approx. 1000 BC to approx. 440 BC at the latest).
  2. ↑ a b c d e f g Stuart A. Irvine: 'Is anything too hard for Yahweh?' Fulfillment of Promise and Threat in Genesis 18-19 * . In: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament . tape 42.3 , 2018, p. 285-302 .
  3. ↑ Claus Westermann: Genesis 12-36 . 1981, p. 353 .
  4. ↑ Claus Westermann: Genesis 12-36 . 1981, p. 351 .
  5. ↑ Claus Westermann: Genesis 12-36 . 1981, p. 334 + 353 .
  6. ↑ Ernst Axel Knauf:  Sodom and Gomorrah. In: Michaela Bauks, Klaus Koenen, Stefan Alkier (Eds.): The Scientific Biblical Lexicon on the Internet (WiBiLex), Stuttgart 2006 ff.
  7. ↑ Siegfried Zimmer : The gay question - The Bible, Christians and the homosexual. In: worthaus.org 5.1.1 (accessed July 1, 2015).
  8. ↑ Sodom and Gomorrah . ( bibelwissenschaft.de [accessed on May 12, 2017]).
  9. ↑ http://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/article/view/id/5940
  10. ↑ Angelika Franz: Early Astronomy: Did an Asteroid Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? In: Der Spiegel . April 9, 2008, accessed April 25, 2014 .
  11. ↑ Found: 'The clay tablet that tells how an asteroid destroyed Sodom 5,000 years ago'. In: Daily Mail . March 31, 2008, accessed November 3, 2017 .
  12. ↑ Stefan Deiters: Sodom, Gomorrah and the old cuneiform script. astronews.com April 10, 2008
  13. ↑ Stefan Kröpelin et al .: Climate-Driven Ecosystem Succession in the Sahara: The Past 6000 Years. In: Science, Volume 320, No. 5877, 2008, pp. 765-768, DOI: 10.1126 / science.1154913
  14. ^ Alan Bond, Mark Hempsell: A Sumerian Observation of the Köfel's Impact Event. 2008; ISBN 978-1-904623-64-9 .
  15. ↑ Biblical city discovered? Researchers claim to have found Sodom. October 14, 2015, accessed November 25, 2015 .
  16. ↑ Katherine Hignett: Biblical City of Sodom was blasted to smithereens by a massive asteroid explosion . In: Newsweek . November 22, 2018 ( newsweek.com ).
  17. ↑ Eric Mack: New science suggests biblical city of Sodom was smote by an exploding meteor . In: Forbes . December 4, 2018 ( forbes.com ).
  18. ↑ "We have found the biblical Sodom". Retrieved August 11, 2020 .
  19. ^ Todd Bolen: Arguments Against Locating Sodom at Tall el-Hammam. biblicalarchaeology.org, February 27, 2013, accessed August 23, 2020.
  20. ↑ Sodom , The Encyclopædia Britannica