nothing distinctive of any child, but 'son of my (paternal)
kinsman' (see 1714). Note the formal correspondence with
(
Hebrew characters), which (and not (Hebrew characters) simply) is the invariable designation
of the people in OT (exc. Ps. 838, and MT of 1 Sa. 1111
[G (Hebrew characters)]). Both etymologies are obviously pointless except
as expressing the thought of the mothers, who, as is usual
in J, name the children.
Original idea of the legend.—It is very natural to regard this account
of the origin of Moab and Ammon as an expression of intense national
hatred and contempt towards these two peoples. It has further been
surmised (though with little proof)[1] that incestuous marriages, such as
are here spoken of, were customary in these lands, and gave an edge
to this Hebrew taunt (so Di.). That the story was so understood by
later readers is indeed probable; but how precarious it is to extend
this feeling to ancient times appears from ch. 38, where the ancestry
of the noble tribe of Judah (held in special honour by J) is represented
as subject to a similar taint. The truth seems to be that while incest
was held in abhorrence by Israel (as by the ancient Arabs; see We.
GGN, 1893, 441), it was at one time regarded as justified by extreme
necessity, so that deeds like those here related could be told without
shame. Starting from this view of the spirit of the narrative, Gu.
(190 f.) gives a suggestive interpretation of the legend. It is, he thinks,
originally a Moabite legend tracing the common ancestry of Moab and
Ammon to Lot, who was probably worshipped at the 'cave' referred
to in v.30. V.31, however, presupposes a universal catastrophe, in which
the whole human race had perished, except Lot and his two daughters.
In the ordinary course the daughters would have been doomed to
barrenness, and mankind would have become extinct; and it is to avert
this calamity that the women resolve on the desperate expedient here
described. That such an origin should have been a subject of national
pride is conceivable, though one may fail to find that feeling reflected
in the forced etymologies of 37f.. If Gu.'s theory is anywhere near the
truth, we are here on the track of a Moabite parallel to the story of the
Flood, which is probably of greater antiquity than the legend of 191ff..
Lot is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of
920ff. steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so the Lot of
1930ff. was identified with the entertainer of deity in the heathen myth
which probably lies at the basis of 191ff.[2]
- ↑ Cf. the similar conjecture with regard to Reuben (p. 515 below). It is difficult to know what to make of Palmer's curious observation that in that region a wife is commonly spoken of as bint (daughter): Desert of the Exodus, ii. 478; see Dri. 205.
- ↑ The connexion with the Deluge-legend was anticipated by Jast. in the art. already cited, ZA, xiii. 197 f.—It is a flood of water which destroys the inhospitable people in the parallel from Ovid cited above (p. 312).
