Current excavations at The Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project

[archaeologist]

Archaeologist," what in the world are you talking about? If you get beyond a scientific approach in this kind of discussion, then you quickly launch off into a twilight-zonian neverland of unverifiable gobbledygook (help me Prof. Wittgenstein!). So let's stick to the facts. Here are some to consider (and not forget):

for some reason i can't open your reply to dr. wood and there were some points i wanted to discuss with you concerning your assumptions (not facts) that you apply to your work.

but since i can't open the files i will disregard what you say in the quote for i wil not be limited by your 'rules'.  i do not post gobbly-gook so don't insult me before we even get started.

i will question your application of the Biblical passage but without your reply to dr. wood i am not able to post some points i want to highlight.

i will challenge you here as the dead sea wasn't in existence 15,000 years ago.

so i will see what i can do to solve my acrobat problem and then read some of your papers.

in the mean time i am sure Brianroy will cover the areas i want to address.

[archaeologist]

 i do not like your stance--we have five cities near each other thus we are right.  in reading the text of Genesis there is no mention of how close together these cities are nor is there any indication of distance in chapters 13 or 14.  all you have are assumptions and that just isn't scientific fact.

do you have a map you can post which shows your claim and compares it with the southern claim?

[Dr. Steven Collins]

Brianroy:

What I'm currently getting back in this exchange is part of the very reason why most scholars avoid these kinds of email interactions in public forums. I simply cannot waste my time dealing with all the nebulous cacophony of disjointed ideas and rhetoric that have absolutely no scientific value in the discussion of Sodom's location. There is nothing that you can throw at me that I have not analyzed already in detail. And please don't quote the Bible to me on the point, as I have already done an extremely detailed analysis of every word of it relevant to this discussion. You obviously have not read my papers on the subject. I suggest that you go to BiblicalResearchBulletin.com and educate yourself on what I've already said. Then come back with something, if possible, in answer to the two specific questions I've already posed. You're all over the universe on this topic, and virtually nothing you have said or have brought up has much of anything to do with advancing the discussion.

If there are others out there with rational comments or questions, I welcome them. However, I simply don't have time to interact with people who refuse to educate themselves on the issue enough to enter into a meaningful discussion. Please come up to speed (read my material!), then give a cogent response.

SC

[Brianroy]

One essential that I wish to bring up in the Sodom epic, even though it is not geographical in itself, is Lot's wife turning into salt...or should we say, being covered with hot salt.

This high salt content is clearly in the Dead Sea, or immediately bordering it. I suspect older strata of Tall el-Hammon doesn't have the high concentration of salt as well as sulfur, as previously related.   

 I do not think that the saline content travelled 9 miles north of the Dead Sea, and I have to wonder where that pillar of salt is "north" of the Dead Sea, since this was widely traversed by Bedouins, etc., for thousands of years. 

 Perhaps one might argue  Lot's wife was consumed as a meat preservative (etc.) by the Bedouins?  I would suggest her salt would be inedible, as well as not readily soluble, since Josephus and others appear to state that her salt pillar still stood some 2,000 years after the event...it probably may exist in some form still today. 

Then we have the other 5 cities of the plain. Tall al-Hamman is slightly elevated, and is basically a hill, is it not?  Or if it is not a hill, what are the topographical dimensions of the plain which it rests upon?  Because this "plain - country" must be distinctive from that of Jericho, and the city of Adam, and so forth, if all the Jordan basin is one plain up to such and such a point (it seems to me).

The term "plain" appears to be more distinctive than referring to the Jordan  river basin itself.   The hebrew word of focus in Genesis 13:10,11,12  speaks of a "circuit"..."kakar" which some associate with the Jordan Valley while pointing to its word association with a whirling action.   We see "kakar"again:

 in Deut. 34:3 - "the plain of the valley of Jericho"
 in 2 Sa.18:23 - "Ahimaaz ran the way of the circuit and passed by the Cu*hite."
in  I Kings 7:46 - "in the plain of the Jordan"
in 2 Chron. 4:17 - "In the plain of the Jordan, the king cast them in the clay ground between Succoth and Zeredathah."
in Neh. 3:22 - "And after him, repaired the priests, the men of the plain."
in Neh. 12:28 - "And gathered themselves the sons of the singers, both out of the plain-country around Jerusalem and from the villages of Netophathi." 

So, in part, it appears Dr. Collins is justified in focusing on the Jordan River plain...which is extant in the regions "north" of the Dead Sea.  However, the Biblical use suggests that we might also associate it with areas beyond the Bethabara region, and Jericho.

The meaning of KaKaR (to dance or whirl) may have once meant a repository for the waters, if it is indeed associated with KaRaR, as some suggest.  If associated with KaRaH, that dance or whirling action descends to a lower location, such as the Dead Sea area.

Kikar in the Akkadian (from what I gather) is equated with the word used for "talent", a heavy weight of measuring prosperity that drives a scale "down".  This in turn is linked to a prison, and a form of separation from the rest of the world through the corresponding Hebrew word Kele.

So again, we move away from the Jordan Valley KaKaR extant, and move down into the Dead sea basin.  But the word associations I have used with KaKaR may be a little subjective...even though the possibility for such an interpretation appears to be there.

However, the preponderance appears to support the Dead Sea area more strongly than the area of a still  existing plain north of it, it seems to me.  But I can see why, at the first, Dr. Collins took KaKaR for the Jericho / Jordan Valley region based on Deuteronomy and I Kings.

[Dr. Steven Collins]

Please save yourself some time and energy by reading all my articles on the subject at BiblicalResearchBulletin.com. I will not respond again until I see a well-reasoned response of some kind to the two questions I have previously posed.

SC

[Brianroy]

Dr. Collins writes:

"the nebulous cacophony of disjointed ideas and rhetoric that have absolutely no scientific value in the discussion of Sodom's location."

Dr. Collins,
Perhaps disjointed in their presentation, yes.  But you will still have to do a chemical analysis on the soil to -- in part -- prove your contention, since you accept the Biblicalaccounts of sulfur, slime, and salt.

 A chemical analysis which you have not put at the forefront, which I would expect should have been as part of the offering of scientific proof.

 You will also have to answer why this area was inhabited by the tribes of Israel when it was supposed to be cursed, and answer why Jericho was not considered a city of the same plain (etc.), if it is of the Jordan Valley KaKaR.

I may be eccentric in the fact that I am sometimes willing to think out a process on-line, and over a period of time, and allow you to see that process at work.  If you are offended in this, I apologize.

But the point of doing that is, that there are holes in what you deem as a "perfect" conclusion.

You appear to want me to stick to the Bible, and not bring in Josephus, etc., but that the opinions of archaeologists and scientists are okay or even a better witness than Josephus' (opinions, perhaps?)  or transmission of history on this topic.   I have simply given Josephus the weight that his contextual statements deserve.

You have simply ignored or refused to believe Josephus Antiquities 1.9, etc., which I quoted and referred to earlier:

"...when they were come over against Sodom, they pitched their camp at the vale called the Slime Pits, for at that time there were pits in that place; but now, upon the destruction of the city of Sodom, that vale became the Lake Asphaltites, as it is called."

and the lake Asphaltides is none other than the lake of the Dead Sea.

 In effect, this is part of the historical witness you have discarded because it clearly conflicts with your conclusion,and even disqualifies it, it seems to me.  I have offered two credible alternatives and biblically important alternatives to the site, so that there is no disgrace.  More than one site has been misidentified in archaeology.  It happens.  

You say we ought to use "related data from geology, botany, physical and cultural anthropology, etc".  

What about being the very area of Tall el-Hamman needing to be so  unihabitable (if it is sodom) during the time the Exodus entrance to Canaan against Jericho, but instead, this being the very same tract of land that was also being so plush and fertile, a good place for cattles and well-watered in contrariness to the same time period Genesis' testimony of Sodom, and both Numbers 32 and Genesis 13 being contemporaneous writings with one another?  

Are you now saying Moses contradicted himself?  I think not. Was it Hilkiah that potentially altered the text?  I think not.  

Where are the slime pits and the evidences of another Lake Asphaltides in the vicinity?  

You will have to also identify the slime pits or Lake Asphaltides location, BEFORE you can conclusively say it is Sodom.

 And you will also have to illustrate  the invasion route from the  northern armies that subjugated the 5 plain city-states and their kings (as it were) as part of your proofs to your thesis.  In effect, you will also have to give those same approximate boundaries that would have opposed Jericho's territory, and explain why Jericho isn't mentioned under one of these 5 kings, etc., as well (it seems to me).

Sorry if this is abrasive or blunt.  It is not meant to be in any way disrespectful.   Thank you for your time in your previous replies.

In Christ Jesus,
Brianroy

[Brianroy]

[

As invited by Dr. Collins, he  writes:

KEY BIBLICAL INDICATORS OF DESTRUCTION

The following biblical data points are drawn from passages that deal specifically with the destruction of the Cities of the Plain. While a little imagination is often helpful in reconstructing pictures of past events, we must be careful not to get too carried away or unduly influenced by
the many “Hollywood” and “television documentary” treatments of the event.

 With this in mind, the key biblical indicators are as follows (all passages are from Genesis): “swept away” (19:15, 17).

The divine messenger informs Lot and his family that Sodom was
about to be annihilated and that they must escape the city lest they “be swept away when the city is punished...Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!” The Hebrew term for “swept away” is sph, which almost invariably means “dramatic change or removal.”2

While sph does not necessarily imply that whatever is “swept away” will cease to exist entirely without any visible residue, it does generally indicate, relative to the scope of the target of sph, that a comprehensive,
categorical removal or destruction of the target is in view.3

From this language, we can safely say that Sodom was about to become the object of some divine sph, the results of which would leave
the city somewhere between a pile of rubble and non-existence.   


1 See S. Collins, “The Geography of the Cities of the Plain,” Biblical Research Bulletin II.1 (2002).
2 P.J.J.S. Els, “6200 ___,” NIDOTTE vol. 3 277-278.
3 Ibid.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



“Yahweh rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah...out of the heavens” (19:24).

There are two terms used here in a doublet, “sulfur and fire,” a fact that is unclear in some  translations. First of all, the consecutive construction does not at all imply that “fire” can or  should be taken as a modifier of “sulfur.” Indeed, the two could be considered distinct, although I have no reason to press the issue other than to point out that the pairing of the two terms does not necessarily, or even normally, mean “burning sulfur.” The word translated “sulfur” is goprit.4

4 J.A. Naude, “1730 _____,” NIDOTTE vol. 1 889.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Used seven times in the Old Testament, goprit is itself often understood as “burning sulfur,”  although that idea is mostly inferred from context rather than the basic meaning of the word.
And  because the nominative of goprit “denotes an inflammable material of which lightning was held  to consist (Ezekiel 38:22),”5 we cannot attribute a specific chemical meaning to the term, at least
not in any modern, scientific sense.

Thus, while goprit can refer to the naturally-occurring element, sulfur, its range of meaning is by no means confined thereto, especially when it
proceeds from a heavenward direction. I also suspect that the application of the term to chemical sulfur, which is yellow in its solid, crystalline state, is a secondary semantic referent, the primary referent being the yellow glow of fire, lightning, or even the sun.6 The word for “fire” is ‘esh.7

Simply put, ‘esh can refer to “fire” of all kinds and descriptions, from sparks to cooking fires, from lightning to sunlight.  The implication of this particular language for our understanding of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain is to clarify what the text actually says and what it does not say. It says that  whatever came from a heavenward direction to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah was a fiery phenomenon emitting (yellowish) light and possibly a thunderous noise.

It does not say that the  fire consisted of burning sulfur or that the burning material (gas? particles?) was sulfurous at all  (although it certainly could have been). But whatever the exact nature of the fiery event, the
results were catastrophic for the targeted locale.


“rained down...out of the heavens” (19:24).
The fiery judgment came from a skyward direction. That is very clear from this passage. A Hebrew or Semitic cognate analysis would add
nothing to what is plainly communicated by the translation. The implication is that the burning mass originated from above the surface of the Kikkar (plain). However, I suppose one could not rule out the idea that (gaseous?) material erupted high into the air from within the crust of the
earth itself (through a fault or fissure?), somehow ignited, and then descended back to the surface, incinerating the Cities of the Plain. Such scenarios have been suggested.8


“he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities, and also the vegetation in the land” (19:25; see also 19:29).

Much has been made of the term
“overthrew.”9 The Hebrew word, hpk, has a range of meanings, including “turn, overturn,


5 Ibid.

6 As I have discussed in Collins “Geography,” that which is more immediate and obvious usually serves as the primary referent
of a word, whereas the same term can be applied to a secondary referent because it “looks like, acts like, seems like” the primary
referent. In this case, the yellow glow of a fire (or lightning, or the sun) is likely the more intimate, immediate, and original
meaning (primary referent) of the etymological root of Heb. goprit (Akk. kupritu), which at a later point in time was applied to
the naturally-occurring chemical element, sulfur, because it was yellow and had a pungent smell not unlike odors given off by
various burning materials. Such phenomenological applications of root words to secondary referents are very common in all
languages. In language usage over time, it is not uncommon for the primary referent to be lost, and the word adapted as a symbol
for the secondary referent. Only decades ago, in English, “cut a record” referred to the process of making an audio recording by
literally cutting grooves in a plastic disk (primary referent). When you “cut a record” today, you make the audio recording
(secondary referent) digitally on a computer and produce it on a compact disk, a process we then refer to as “cutting a CD.” Even
today, many people have no idea that “cutting” a music album had anything to do with literally cutting grooves into plastic! To
them it is simply a common idiom.

7 J.A. Naude, “836 _   ,” NIDOTTE vol. 1 532-537.

8 See Neev and Emery, Destruction of Sodom.

9 For example, in recent discussions with my good friend and colleague, Dr. L. Ritmeyer, he made the point that the Hebrew
term hpk could indicate that the Cities of the Plain may have been built on the edge of plateaus overlooking the Jordan Valley and
that, as part of the destruction scenario, earthquake activity may have caused the cities to be “overturned” as their earthen
platforms crumbled into the valley below, the city-rubble being subsequently covered by a thick layer of dirt and rock. Frankly, I
have no problem with such a scenario being allowed by the language of the biblical text, as long as we do not insist that this is what it does say. In the case of the Cities of the Plain, the word hpk simply means “destroy,” but, admittedly, to a calamitous degree.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

destroy, change.”10 With reference to what happened to the Cities of the Plain, the meaning of the related Akkadian term, abaku,11 meaning “to overturn” or “turn upside down,” is often literalized to suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah were “overturned” as the result of a geological event of some kind which buried them under a layer of earth. While I would not categorically reject such an interpretation on lexical grounds, it would be just about the only such usage among dozens in the Old Testament. In such a context, the actual meaning is probably more like Akkadian abiktu, which denotes “defeat”12 or “decisive defeat, massacre, carnage.”13 At any rate, the “overthrow” was not just of a city or two, but of “the entire plain” upon which the cities were located ....




“the entire plain (19:25).

As I have established elsewhere,__ the Kikkar is in view here. If the
“entire Kikkar” was destroyed, then not only was that portion lying east of the Jordan River affected, but also that area of the Kikkar west of the river, namely Jericho and its environs.

Although the western Kikkar was not the primary target of destruction, it is reasonable to assume  that it may have suffered serious collateral damage.
“all those living in the cities (19:25). The fiery catastrophe killed all the inhabitants of the Cities of the Plain. But is it possible that people living outside the city walls could have survived? I doubt it, since even the vegetation of the region was burned up. The animals
probably would not have survived either.


“the vegetation in the land” (19:25).

The Hebrew word translated “vegetation,” tsemakh, is
interesting because it does not specifically refer to “plant life,” but to a “growth, shoot, [or] bud.”15 (For example, it is not the word siakh, used earlier in Genesis for “seed-bearing plant,” “green plant,” and “plant of the field.”16) So it is possible that the destruction of the vegetation
(tsemakh) of the Kikkar consisted of the burning and/or scorching of new annual growth, or of new sprouts, shoots, and buds,17 but not necessarily a complete extermination of the regional flora. This holds important implications for the ability of at least nomadic and semi-nomadic
peoples to re-inhabit the area in the post-conflagration era.




Beyond the clear language of the translation, there is not much to be gained by examining the Hebrew text at this point. It is clear that Abraham, from some vantage point (probably) east of the Hebron vicinity, was able to see a huge, dense column of smoke rising

10 R.B. Chisholm, “2200 __,” NIDOTTE vol. 1 1048-1050.
11 Ibid. See also Black, George, and Postgate, eds., Dictionary of Akkadian 1.
12 Ibid. 2.
13 Chisholm, “__” 1048-1050.
14 Collins, “Geography.”
15 M.G. Abegg, Jr., “7541 __,” NIDOTTE vol. 3 815-817.
16 R.A. Taylor, “8489 ___,” NIDOTTE vol. 3 1236.
17 The fire and/or heat could have caused the tender new growth to wither and die back, or it is possible that the local vegetation
was burned back to the main branches or to the roots. It is also possible that the overall devastation could have had pockets with
varying degrees of damage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

from the area of destruction, which could have been as large as 400 square kilometers.18 Smoke from such a calamity would have been visible at distances much greater than Hebron.


“dense smoke...like smoke from a furnace” (19:28).

 If there are any qualitative or quantitative indicators about the resultant smoke from the Kikkar conflagration, I cannot detect them. The
idea of “dense” smoke is read into the Hebrew term (qtr) by some translators, but is not actually a feature of it. The Akkadian qataru carries the meaning “to smoke...blacken with smoke...be blackened, darkened,” “rise, billow,” and “make an incense offering,”19 but, like the equivalent Hebrew word, has nothing to say about the density, color (other than its sooty, darkened nature), or other noteworthy features of the smoke.20 That it was “like smoke from a furnace (Heb.
kibshan21)” may indicate the familiar columnar pattern of smoke that rose from ancient pottery kilns or smelting furnaces,22 but very little else, if anything, can be determined from etymological or semantic analysis.



A SUMMARY OF DESTRUCTION INDICATORS FROM THE BIBLICAL TEXT

Indicators rising from the biblical text provide some valuable information about the nature and scope of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain. In summary, here are the apparent facts derived from the language of destruction in the Genesis record of Sodom and Gomorrah:

1. Regardless of its point of origin, the fiery matrix that rained down upon the Cities of the Plain descended as if from the heavens, i.e., from the atmosphere above the plain (Kikkar).

2. When the burning (gaseous? sulfurous?) mass struck the surface of the plain, it caused the region’s cities and vegetation to burst into flames.

3. The thunderous fire-storm was so concentrated that the inhabitants of the entire area were unable to escape death either by burning or asphyxiation from breathing smoke and/or super-heated air.

4. In the aftermath, a great column of smoke, probably as much as fifteen to twenty kilometers in diameter, rose from the burning, scorched land and was easily visible from locations such as Hebron, which was fifty kilometers or more away.

5. The Cities of the Plain were catastrophically destroyed, “swept away,” i.e., left in utter ruin, if not entirely removed from the visible realm of existence, and the entire Kikkar region suffered an ecological disaster that may have required centuries of recovery before it could once again support permanent urban populations.


18 It seems from the biblical text that the entire plain (kikkar) region around Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim comprised
the target area, not just the cities themselves. However, if the cities were the primary targets of the fiery force(s) that overcame
them, it is not unreasonable to think that the surrounding area for some distance could have been burned or scorched secondarily
by the intense heat issuing from the central conflagration.
19 Black, George, and Postgate, eds., Dictionary of Akkadian 286. See also R.E. Averbeck, “7787 ___,” NIDOTTE vol. 3 913-
916.
20 Ibid.
21 I. Cornelius, “3901 ____,” NIDOTTE vol. 2 596-597.
22 B.G. Wood, The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); E.C. Lapp, “Metals,”
OEANE vol. 4 1-20.

[Brianroy]

As invited by Dr. Collins, he writes:


CLARIFYING WHAT THE BIBLICAL RECORD DOES AND DOES NOT SAY ABOUT
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN

Up to this point I have discussed the apparent facts about the destruction of the Cities of the  Plain, noting the allowable parameters of interpretation for key elements in the biblical narrative.

All in all, the Bible is quite clear about what did and did not happen to those infamous cities. Yet while the biblical record has always been available for scholars and laymen alike to examine first-hand, it seems that, in spite of the text itself, the human imagination cannot help but create
images of the events that do not necessarily conform to the only written record we have about the demise of those cities.


Of course, this kind of thing is done with other biblical stories as well. For example, in the stories about Jesus’ carrying his cross to the place of execution, it is commonly depicted that when he stumbled beneath the weight of the cross—from exhaustion or weakness from torture—
Simon the Cyrene was pressed into service to carry the cross for him. This event has been portrayed over and over again in films and Passion Week reenactments until the picture of Jesus falling to the ground under the cross has been permanently etched on the minds of millions of
people.

 Yet none of the biblical gospels ever hints that Jesus stumbled or fell beneath the weight of the cross. It is not even suggested. Simon was indeed forced to carry Jesus’ cross, but for other reasons, probably to satisfy Roman legal protocol.

In a similar fashion, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has elements in our  telling of it that may or may not be supported by the biblical account. Just to set the record  straight, I want to deal with these unnecessary ideas about the destruction of the Cities of the
Plain and, in the process, reiterate the biblical parameters of the story that I have already discussed.


First, the biblical narrative does say that the plain upon which the four (not five) Cities of the Plain were located was the circular, flat region of the southern Jordan Valley immediately north of the Dead Sea (which is about 25 kilometers in diameter and clearly visible on any good
map__).

The Bible does not say Sodom and Gomorrah were located anywhere near the southern end of the Dead Sea.

Second, the Bible does say the cities were destroyed by a powerful conflagration that, at least in the air space over the impact area, descended upon them from above. The biblical record does not say all evidence of their existence was wiped from the face of the earth so that the same locale would never be inhabited again.


Third, the biblical text does say the pervasive fire was so comprehensive over the target area that no human beings in the region could have survived the blast. The Bible does not say the fire was so hot that it entirely consumed bodies, buildings, and personal belongings.

Fourth, the Bible does say the new growth (such as sprouts, shoots, and buds) of the vegetation in the region was burned. The biblical account does not say the entire floral assemblage of the area was obliterated so that it could not at least recover somewhat through the course of time.24


23 See my discussion in Collins, “Geography.”
24 Indeed, if the lands and cities of a people are “a wasteland forever,” that does not mean that new and different peoples cannot
come afterward and live in the same, once-destroyed land.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Fifth, the biblical story does say that all the inhabitants of the Cities of the Plain were killed.

The Bible does not say the area became permanently uninhabitable.25 From the biblical story, we can conclude that the region of the Kikkar and the Cities of the Plain which prospered upon it were violently destroyed in an instant of time by an awesome, fiery display of God’s wrath.


Some would argue against the point I am making here by citing the five biblical passages which, on the surface, seem to suggest that the plain (kikkar) destroyed by the wrath of God became a locale where virtually nothing would grow and was eliminated for all time as a place of
habitation.


1. The first passage is Deuteronomy 29:23: “The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which Yahweh overthrew in fierce anger.” All this text says is that God’s judgment against a disobedient Israel will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day it was destroyed.


2. The second passage is Isaiah 13:19-20: “Babylon...will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations...” The simile here necessarily applies only to the overthrow of Babylon.


3. The third passage is Jeremiah 49:18: “As Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown...so no one will live there; no man will dwell in [Edom].” The comparison is to what Sodom and Gomorrah were like at the time they were destroyed, not to the condition of the land in the long term.


4. The fourth passage is Jeremiah 50:40: “As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah...so no one will live there; no man will dwell in [Babylon].” Again, the same simile is here applied to Babylon, still as a symbol of destruction, not necessarily in every aspect.


The final passage is Zephaniah 2:9: “...Moab will become like Sodom, the Ammonites like Gomorrah—a place of weeds and salt pits, a wasteland forever.”
When dealing with similes, metaphors, and other figures of speech, one must be very careful to ascertain their character, which is often hyperbolic. In this passage it states that the lands of Moab and Ammon will become “a wasteland forever,” yet in the very next sentence it states that “the survivors of my nation will inherit their land.” But if the land is “a wasteland forever,” how can it be reoccupied and lived in by God’s people,
Israel?

The literary reality is that when the symbolic analogy of the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah is used to depict the wrath of God against other nations, the meaning is clearly confined to fact of destruction and does not extend to the manner of destruction or to the duration of the resultant damage.


From this we can reasonably argue that the event also constituted an ecological disaster of significant proportions. As a result, the region may have been practically uninhabitable for a considerable period of time, possibly hundreds of years, at least in terms of a concentrated urban

25 In fact, the kikkar is one and the same as the Plains of Moab upon which Moses, Joshua, and the Israelites camped for a
considerable period of time (probably about two years; Deuteronomy 2:14) before they crossed over to the Jericho side of the
Jordan River (Numbers 22:1; 26:3, 63; 31:12; 33:48-50; 35:1; 36:13; Deuteronomy 34:1; Joshua 13:31).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

population.26 It is quite allowable, on the basis of the biblical evidence, that the Kikkar area may have recovered eventually to the point where it could once again sustain a substantial population.

26 Throughout the millennia, nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples have lived in and around the region of the Dead Sea with
considerable success, primarily because their herds were able to take advantage of the seasonal grasses and plants that carpet the
area during and after the brief rainy season. The same is true presently. Much of the Kikkar today is still well watered and farmed
for a variety of crops.

[Brianroy]

Dr. Collins writes: The biblical record does not say all evidence of their existence was wiped from the face of the earth so that the same locale would never be inhabited again.”

Reply:
Isaiah 1:9 implies total annihilation: 
“Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.”


Deuteronomy  29:23 translates the destruction of Sodom as in the present tense, and on-going:  “the whole land thereof IS brimstone, and salt, and burning, that IT IS NOT sown, NOR beareth, NOR any grass groweth therein, LIKE the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:”


Jeremiah 49:18 implies total annihilation:
“As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour cities thereof, saith the LORD, no man shall abide there, neither shall a son of man dwell in it.”  and implies, no man shall dwell in it ever again.


Jeremiah 50:40  implies total annihilation:
“As G-D overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour cities thereof, saith the LORD; so shall no man abide there, neither shall any son of man dwell therein.” (again, "ever again" is implied by the text)


Jesus testifies that Sodom ceased existence, and implies having ceased existence in the Day it was judged:

 “But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”  (Luke 17:29)  -- with --  “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” (Matthew 11:23)

2 Peter 2:6  testifies that it ceased in existence: 
“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;”

Jude 7   testifies that Sodom ceased to exist:  “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”


The plain text readings support the permanent annihilation of Sodom, and these plain text interpretations are clearly supported by Jesus, Peter, and Jude in the NT.

     The error in the argument by Dr. Collins becomes clearly apparent  when Dr. Collins is unable to distinguish "esh" /"fire" because of immersion into the philosophical potential of its usages, rather than the plain text application. 

       He also struggles with Zephaniah 2:9, saying "dealing with similes, metaphors, and other figures of speech, one must be very careful to ascertain their character, which is often hyperbolic"...but sometimes a text implies what it implies, unless clarified by another text...as Sodom's destruction clearly is...even without Josephus. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dr . Collins writes:” The Bible does not say Sodom and Gomorrah were located anywhere near the southern end of the Dead Sea.”

Reply:

Genesis 10:19 expresses the boundary of Sodom as being southerly:

 “And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon [in the north], as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza [the westerly south coast and border on the mediteranean Sea]; as thou goest, unto Sodom, [implying a south and easterly border area toward or in the south Dead Sea region] and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.”

 It is my personal opinion, that to delve into this more deeply will offend Dr. Collins, because the thesis can be picked apart when called absolute, rather than upon the preponderance of the data.  And even the preponderance of the data, appears to dismiss the location he has chosen, as Sodom.

Even Jewish Targums and the Babylonian Talmud, as well as Patristics,  to my knowledge, have NEVER EVEN HINTED of a "still existing" Sodom that could be inhabited at any time by any body in their day. I think that one point alone, deserves consideration and thought before proceeding, should we dare do so. 

Thanks for your time. Peace.

[DGraves]

Let me join in on this discussion.  First I have worked on Tall El-Hammam for three seasons as a square supervisor.  I know both Dr. Collins and Dr. Wood (over 30 yrs) very well. I respect both men greatly. I was present in San Diego at the Near East Archaeological Society in Nov when Dr. Collins presented his paper as did Scott Stripling and myself (Brianroy quoted it earlier in his defense of the southern location which was arguing for just the opposite). Dr. Wood was also present but did not respond to the presentation (being the gentleman that he is). I have read all of their articles and discussed it with them both and published several articles of my own over the years (The Scroll, Multimedia CD). I have been researching the location of Sodom for over 30 years. I have visited the area including Tall el-Hammam, both sides of the Dead Sea area, Bab edh-Dhra, Jericho, and Ein Gedi. I argued for the southern location for years and I'm in print arguing for it but have changed my mind after examining the evidence put forth by not only Dr. Collins but from my own personal investigation and evidence unearthed at Tall el-Hammam. Presently Hammam offers the best candidate for Sodom. 

Considering Josephus and other Byzantine pilgrims Dr. Collins is correct, they must be used cautiously as they are so far removed from the events that they are simply relaying local tradition and are not reliable. 

However, if you do want to quote them then you need to consider the testimony of Egeria, the Spanish Pilgrim who said she saw Sodom from the top of Mt Nebo and you cannot see the bottom of the Dead Sea from Mt. Nebo (been there in Jan 08). Egeria also mentions, “On the left side [of Livias] we saw all the lands of the Sodomites” (M. L. McClure, and C. L. Feltoe, eds. and trans. Egeria, The Pilgrimage of Etheria (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919),, p. 23). Also, she distinguished Sodom from the Dead Sea. The Byzantine tradition indicates that the land of the Sodomites is on the North end of the Dead Sea.

A century after Jerome, the Christian pilgrim Antoninus Placentinus (sixth century) describes the vicinity of Livias and ties it to the same site as both Sodom  and Abel Shi-ttim (I have to use a hyphen as they star it out as a bad word!!) . He writes:
Nearby is a city called Livias, where the two and one half-tribes of Israel remained before crossing the Jordan, [Abel Shi-ttim] and in that place are natural springs which are called the Baths of Moses [Tall el-Hammam]. There is there a spring of very sweet water which they drink for a cathartic, and it heals many diseases, not far from the Salt Sea, and into which also the Jordan enters below Sodom and Gomorrah…. Translation of “Ibi in proximo est civitas quae vocantur Liviada, ubi remanserunt duo semis tribus Israhel, antequam Iordanem transirent, in quo loco sunt termae ex se laventes, quae vocantur Moysi, ibi etiam et leprosi mundantur. Est ibi fons, aqua dulcissima, quae pro catarticum bibitur et sanat multos languores, non longe a mare salinarum, in qua etiam et Iordanis ingreditur subtus Sodoma et Gomura,… In qua mare mense Iulio et Augusto et medio Septembrio tota die iacent leprosy; ad vesperum lavant in illas termas Moysi et aliquotiens, quem vult dues, mundatur” (Antoninus Placentinus, Itinerarium 10 [ed. Paulus Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana Saeculia IIII-VIII, CSEL 39; Leipzig, 1898], pp. 165–66).

Again they think that the Dead Sea is south of Sodom not the other way around. An incidentally she is describing Livias (Tall el-Hammam).

That Tall el-Hammam is Abel-Shi-ttim is well accepted by Scholars (Also, see the article on Numbers 25:1 in the Zondervan Archaeological Study Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), p. 233).

Also, Dr. Collins is not the only archaeologist in history to argue for the Northern location.  Prior to Dr. Albright (who couldn't find it so put it under the Dead Sea with no archaeological evidence to support this theory) a number of early archaeologist on the basis of the Biblical text argued for the Northern location of Sodom.

William M. Thomson, The Land and the Book: Lebanon, Damascus, and Beyond Jordan (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1885), pp. 668–70.

Merrill argues that Tall Iktanu is Zoar placing the “Cities of the Plain” in the northern plain of the valley of Jericho. Selah Merrill, “Modern Researches in Palestine,” Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 9 (1877): 116-20. The same reasoning as Dr. Collins is using led Merrill to look for Zoar in the North.

I could list others but have made my point.

It is not unreasonable to look in the North which is the area visible from where Abraham and Lot were located (between Bethel and Ai). The ancient biblical text is the closet primary source document we have that talks about the geography of the region.  The pottery and the destruction layer at Tall el-Hammam also confirm it (I have dug through piles of ash my self on the site from the MB period). Many other biblical sites have been called with allot less material evident than what we have at Tall el-Hammam. So what is the big problem.  Short of a sherd saying welcome to Sodom I don't know what more could be discovered to make the case. And not many sites have those but they are accepted without question by most scholars. We are not looking for the holy grail here!!  Its an ancient site like every other archaeologist is working on and they believe it is something!! All indications are this one is Sodom.

I cannot understand the resistance to clear evidence and logic. After 30 years of study of this subject I believe that Dr. Collins has the best candidate for ancient Sodom. Nothing else is in the right place, at the right time, with the right stuff.

Give it time and the recent finds will be published and documented to provide all the scientific evidence necessary to make the case. Over the years I've discovered that people need to do their homework when talking about archaeology and particularly Sodom!! And if you've never been to Hammam or even the Dead Sea well you miss allot in not having been there.

To the destruction of Sodom there is clearly a 500 year gap in all the sites around Hammam and including Hammam.  So for 500 years no one is living there.  The Biblical text does not state that the location will not be inhabited again in later times.  Also, Jesus is in Perea near Hammam when he talks about Sodom, Interesting. He certainly knew where it was.

PS this site is also Roman Livias!! Article forthcoming.

[archaeologist]

Dr. Graves--

isee your point but for most o fus we would like to see the evidence firsthand and read other people besides dr. collins.  in reading, briefly, his rebuttal to dr. woods i saw some assumptions i would like to clear up before i do much else (until i solve my adobe problem that will take a while).

i did ask for a map comparing the two sites which would more than helpful and since you all have decades of work on the site, that should be easy to produce.

i am interesed in reading dr. collins publications but it can't be done overnight and some research is needed to get a better and more fuller picture of the issue.

with that said, my position is quite clear, i do  not like the limitations that science only be used as science (any field) is merely a tool handicapped by incomplete data.

it is dangerous to limit any discussion to such an area because of those limitations though this does not mean comments are open to the wing-nut or blind fanatical fringe as there are more non-science factors that come into play which influence decisions and locations.

if it is possible i would love to have an annotated  post hitting the highlights of dr. collins evidence, position, arguments and theories.

i need to read the argument's of those who support a southern theory as well so i can discuss intelligently on the matter.

[DGraves]

I agree with you that science is certainly not the saviour and nor is it infallible but most of the time all we get is what Dr. Collins calls "gobley gook" from those dealing with this issue.  There is scientific evidence and textual evidence that can assist in making a decision.  Dr. Wood's article is published along with Dr. Collins in the Bible and Spade magazine. I've also set out some of the argument on my blog Deus Artefacta Search my achieves as I have given a response to Dr. Woods article.

I have the utmost respect for Dr. Wood who has tried to re-defend the southern location of Bab eh-drah but the arguments are the same as he used 30 years ago in the Bible and Spade magazine. I used the same arguments in a paper for my undergraduate archaeology class over 30 years ago to argue that it was Sodom.  It was the best we had at the time and a reasonable location given what we knew.  However, it was destroyed too early in the EB and was not fortified which is required by the description of text. The fact that Abraham and Lot are between Bethel and Ai is a difficult Biblical marker to get around. The round circular plain is clearly the northern disk above the Dead Sea. As I mentioned Selah Merrill, “Modern Researches in Palestine,” Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 9 (1877): 116-20 uses the same arguments to triangulate the map to look for the cities of the Plain in the Northern district of the Jordan Valley.

For a Map you can use Google Earth which has the Kefrein Dam clearly visible for miles. L shaped Blue lake just east of Mt. Nebo.  Tall el-Hammam is just at the base of the Dam. 31.50'26.98" degrees N by 35.40'29.58" degrees E. It looks like a long oval with wide circle out front (EB area).  We say it looks like the star ship enterprise! It is a huge site over a mile long and 150 feet high. Nothing compares in the area. Even if it is not Sodom it was destroyed along with the Cities of the Plain and not occupied for 500 years. Something happened here!!

There will be a map in the upcoming article I've submitted to BAR for publication.

I'd suggest that you work on getting your Adobe Acrobat Reader fixed as you do need to read their articles. There is just too much material to post here. 20 Salient points might be a good place to start.

And apart from the Sodom question Hammam is a fascinating site that has been inhabited from Neolithic to Byzantine short of the 500 years when no one is living in prime real estate.  I ask why? The same is true at Tall Kefrein where the Greek archaeologists are working and have found the same phenomenon (missing 500 years no LB) and they are not arguing for anything related to the Bible.  In fact no one is living in the Kikkar during the LB era. However, they can't explain it.  Well biblical Sodom would certainly provide a great answer. And this does not require Jericho to be affected as it is on the western side far enough away to be isolated from the destruction.

Also, the Jordanian Department of Antiquities (DOA) are now co-partners in the Dig as of this year.  They see this site as very significant. We have had around 100 workers and many scholars work at the site the last two seasons and so Dr. Collins is not alone in his belief but has certainly been in the forefront and taken allot of heat for it. I hope you can read the materials.

I hope this helps.

[archaeologist]

but most of the time all we get is what Dr. Collins calls "gobley gook" from those dealing with this issue

i understand this and have to deal with it a lot myself but that is part of dealing with archaeology and theology.

Dr. Wood's article is published along with Dr. Collins in the Bible and Spade magazine.

keep in mind that when you reference something i do not live in an english speaking country and research materials are not always easy to find.  i know of dr. wood and have several of his lectures which i enjoy.  i agree with him to a large extent on his jericho position and reworking of kenyon's materials.

here is a series of maps i was able to find online and would you be kind enough to tell me which 2 best represent the southern and northern theories:

http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/sodom.htm

i am interested in the maps not the commentary at this time.

I'd suggest that you work on getting your Adobe Acrobat Reader fixed as you do need to read their articles. There is just too much material to post here. 20 Salient points might be a good place to start

i tired deleting the software and re-installing it but a message says the link had a problem which could not be fixed.  i was able to access some other articles but wanted to go through that particular one as i was interested in what both drs. collins and wood had to say.

i am not trying to be onery here, but thorough and i am not going to side with one over the other till i have time to examine what has been discovered.  i am sure dr. collins has good points but it will take me time to go through eveything before i can comment.

[Brianroy]

DGraves writes: " if you do want to quote them then you need to consider the testimony of Egeria, the Spanish Pilgrim who said she saw Sodom from the top of Mt Nebo and you cannot see the bottom of the Dead Sea from Mt. Nebo."


DGRaves,

Egeria / Aetheria, made her pilgrimmage something like 381–384 A.D., 300 plus years after Josephus.

 After the conflagrations, persecutions, schisms, etc., I find it difficult to accept these late (and I mean very late) traditions based on contemporaneous locals (to them) over what the NT and the NT era appears to state.

 Why is she more reliable than someone closer to the textual source traditions, that same someone who not only preceded her by 300 years, but who had the last free access to the actual Jewish historical records the size of a library?  Why would you even consider such a "removed" alleged eyewitness who could easily be conned?  Consider also the violence and chaos of the region historically in the 380s A.D. period in which she wrote.

The same goes for any pilgrim who visits thereafter, such as "the Christian pilgrim Antoninus Placentinus (sixth century)", as you say.  

If we apply the rules of evidence, Josephus would prove the more reliable and trust-worthy, and the Aetheria and Placentinus would never be allowed to testify (as it were).  That is the literary historical value of Josephus over these other two.  That over-equalizing of all testimonies, or making later and less informed testimony of greater weight,  is another flaw which I have found in another area of research, that of the dating of the New Testament.  

You cannot apply equal weight to all testimony...especially those not within 3 and 4 generations from an original source, or those without having had direct access to the original source material.  

By equating Aetheria and Placentinus testimony with Josephus, we fall into the fallacies of the manipulations which created a tourist site Jesus' tomb as north of Jerusalem, when he was crucified in the Kidron near the Hinom juncture according to both Biblical prophecy and the historical witness, and base our greatest hope on Byzantines 300 years removed -- rather than on those closest to the source.

 Another example is how archaeology ignore's Justin's measurements from Jerusalem to Bethlehem -- when by the above 4th and 6th century examples, it should have bulldozed on Justin's like word -- and yet, never digs the fields on the hills north -northeast of the city at the distance Justin Martyr gave.  This I have pointed out in another thread.  Instead, we look at a tourist city built further away because of a Byzantine and later era perception?  

Further, you have never addressed a point of focus...the size of Josephus' Dead Sea versus the modern shrunken Dead sea.   As  I have stated, I believe the Sodom site to be about another 15-20 miles south of the current Dead Sea, based on Josephus...and oil and natural gas deposits besides.  I am quite confident that these areas have not been thoroughly explored...and hopefully will not be off limits via the Israeli military.

Finally, the issue of soil chemical analysis in the strata you defend as being Sodom will also need to be presented.  I believe you will find the neccessary elements of sulfur (brimstone) and salt lacking in the strata that is presented as being contemporaneous to the Sodomic destruction.

Thanks for your time.

[DGraves]

I appreciate your open mind and willingness to read the material.  That is all we ask.  I also agree with Dr. Wood on his position on Jericho and Dr. Kenyon's mishandling of the pottery. Most of what he writes is sound and reasonable but this last effort to save Bab ed-drah just seems so weak and uncharacteristic.  I know two other experienced archaeologist who also dig with Dr. Wood at Maqater (possible AI) who have also argued for the Northern location. We think he will eventually come around.

Had a look at the maps from your link and none of these represent the Northern view. If you look directly across from Jericho you can see Hammam (just where it is on the Madaba Map I argue in Bible and Spade magazine Vol 20, No.2 Spring 2007). There are several tall's in this northern Valley which have the characteristics of 500 years absent. Tall Bleibel, Tall Mustah, Tall Kefrein, Tall Nimrin and a few others. There is a very good map on page 73 of the Bible and Spade 20.3 identifying the various sites on the eatern Kikkar. In the LB period the occupied sites are all up on the mountain ridge and nothing is down on the plain.

Dr Wood states that using a satellite image the disk is not round but oval. Of course Abraham and Lot were not using Satellite and when you stand there on the edge of the Kikkar it looks like a round disk. And just because Zoar is in the south on the Madaba map (again Byzantine tradition) does not mean it was there.  Also, Bab ed-drah and Numeria (there southern Gomorrah) are now dated to different periods by Rast and Swab who dug there.

I'll see if I can post the map on my blog for you.
Blessings,