To read a text literal or not

[Harromog]

The Tal el Hammam Excavation
What do you see?

Do you see a young woman or an old lady?
This drawing titled "My wife and my mother-in-law" was published in 1915 by cartoonist W.E. Hill. It was likely adapted from a more detailed German postcard engraving printed in 1880.



 
Some have referred to this design or sketch as the "old hag and the beautiful young lady." It is another way of reminding us to beware of "the fog" that hides the meaning or realities within a completed picture and casts a shadow over ones perspective.
I think that within the epic of Sodom and Gomorrah are many perspectives, which the author of the scriptural narrative was intending the reader to see.
First, is the up front and literal approach, that the God of Israel “Yahweh” wants those that follow him to be obedient. The Torah includes many moral codes of conduct. These codes of conduct are what we would call moral values.  Even before the Torah the patriarch Abraham is depicted as being compassionate to his family, as will as truthful and obedient.  Other nations that lived “indigenous” with the Hebrews did not have such codes of conduct and participated in fertility practices in worshiping their god and goddesses. The fertility gods were deities that would supply water so that the crops would grow and their sheep and goats could eat. During times of famine their cultic practices prescribed that sometimes these gods needed motivation and the worshippers would thus perform sexual ritual acts. I would think that this may have been the author’s intention of Rahab the prostitute. K. Kitchen sees Rahab as a beer tavern girl but in either case this would be a part of the Near Eastern culture of the Middle Bronze Age period. 
So, what is my point? First, that the author wants the reader to know that Yahweh is a fertility God too, and He provided for Abraham because Abraham was obedient.  Number one rule, be an obedient servant to your God of Israel “Yahweh” and you will be kept in the green. You will have a long life and a herd of sheep, green pastures and still waters, like Abraham and Sarah. So, reading the text literally has great value for the unification and preservation of the tribes collectively called Israel.
We will call this literal reading of the text, the beautiful woman in the drawing.
However, I look at the scriptural text with another perspective. First of all what really puzzle me is the use of anachronisms such as, Dan, Bethel and Salem. Now I understand that these could all be scribal updating from the Iron Age period and the Biblical narrative does give us their ancient names but I must at least take into consideration that there is something else that the author is trying to relate to the reader.
We will call this approach to the text the old hag.
Abraham retrieves his nephew Lot from Dan a territory north of the Sea of Galilee and as settled by the tribe of Dan during the period of the Judges (11th century BCE).  Also Dan was the High place (Hebrew bamah) for the first Israelite king of the divided monarchy Jeroboam (922 BCE). Now, Tell Dan was not just a high place but the most northern territory during the time of Jeroboam, the southern boarder was located at Bethel the traditional location where Jacob had a vision of angles ascending , you may have already said to yourself ”possibly another high place” and you would be correct. So, between Dan and Bethel was the territory of Israel and the region between Bethel and Ai which separated the southern kingdom of Israel from the northern kingdom of Judah.
Now after the Assyrian siege of Samaria (Israel’s capital city) many refugees would have ran down to the territory of Judah, bringing with them their traditional Torah that they have been accustomed to for over two hundred years. Which would prescribe taking scarifies and offerings to the nearest high place which for the refugees would have been located at Bethel. This would not be at all acceptable for the priest that served Yahweh whose house (Temple) was on top of Mount Moriah.
I would like to point out that in the Genesis text Abraham brings the booty from the conquest at Dan past Bethel to offer a tenth to a very unique individual “the King of Salem”. I now ask myself a number of questions. First, wasn’t the city a pagan Jebusite city until the time of Dave? Why would Abraham pay a tenth, why not give the king half, who is this king why give or tithe anything? By the way, how would we know about tithing before the laws of Moses?  Why call the city Salem and Abraham pays tithes to the king of the city of Salem?
Now, I would imagine that the priests of Jerusalem would want the Israel refugees to bring their tithe to the Temple in Jerusalem.  The Assyrian siege would place us in the last quarter of the 8th century BCE. Now who was the king over Judah during this time? Hezekiah. We know that according to the events recorded in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and the Book of the prophet Isaiah that this was time of Hezekiah’s reformation. The king needed the tithes to build a water tunnel under the city and to construct very high and wide (broad) walls.
Maybe just maybe the drawing of the beautiful woman and the old hag is coming into focus, but at this time I would emphasize the word maybe.
Now the author of the Genesis text (dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah) would have to draw both the people of Judah and refugees from Israel together with a common and traditional theme. What better than that of the noblest of patriarchs Abraham. Will, if Abraham would pay tithe to the king of Salem then why not the refugees too?
Now I would not write off Abraham as a complete tradition and here comes the old hag (myth), because in my opinion, such a historical figure could not (if I may use those words) be completely made up. The people would look at the text and say “who is this guy Abraham?” 
Secondly, I would have to say that there seems to be a very strong tradition of something really happening in the Dead Sea area. This tradition may have been in tribal lore told (around the camp fire) for many years even before the unification of the proto Israelite tribes (that’s right, I have read a little of Bill Dever). I believe this to be a possible reason for the some what variant locations in the scriptural narratives as will as commentaries of Josephus for the lost cities of the plain, whither north, south, east, and west or in the Dead Sea.
The Beautiful Woman:
To me the text is about the destruction of ancient cities (myth or not) (time of Abraham or not) maybe this is a patriarchal gloss over a very ancient catastrophe that the ancients saw as an act of their gods and in the Hebrew case God because of disobedience or sin. How does one preserve their nation and heritage and beliefs? The Israelite customs and traditions would be persevered by what they taught their children. Where are the ancient Egyptians, who never claimed to have lost one battle? If they never lost a battle and their gods were able to sustain them, then they should still be in their land. The Hebrew (Jews) are still in their land. The beauty of this Genesis text was to teach obedience and to bring centralization of worship to Yahweh in Jerusalem.
The Old Hag:
Is that a Near Eastern text should not always be taken nor read completely literally. I do not think that this is what the author (Moses or not) intended the reader to do. A Harvard professor stated, “Read the text for what the author said and for what he means to say…”
In reading the text literally I would need to believe in a 175 year old Abraham and Lots wife being turned into salt and that Lot’s relationship with his daughters while hiding in a cave developed into the two tribal genealogies of the Moabites and the Ammonites. The Moabite and Ammonite cultures seem to materializing much later during the Iron Age period anyway.
I believe that this text was written during the time of King Hezekiah as a way to centralize the religious reform and to bring the people together under one flag.
Lastly; after reading a number of the articles about the Tal el Hammam excavation and the Biblical text that is being used as a treasure map to find the lost cities, I may suggest that it would be of ones advantage to research the number of other excavations that have been completed, recorded and documented.  I find it amusing that the evidence of Tal Nimrim just north of Tal el Hammam is easily accessed on the web and the archaeologist of that location makes neither claims to have found Sodom nor any lost city of the plain. The documentation rather points to a Middle Bronze city destroyed during the Hyksos period. In the web site of Tal Nimrim the excavator make a statement regarding what he theorizes as a 500 year gap through the Late Bronze Age period. This gap was meant to be a comparison of the stratas at Tal Nimrim (during the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age period) to the similar findings of Kathleen Kenyon’s excavation at Jericho.  Meaning very little or no Late bronze Age activity in the region or on the Tel.
Back to the Old Hag
I would like to understand the reasoning for using Texts that maybe of an Iron Age II composition to find Sodom? I believe part of the Treasure map came from taking a very literal approach in reading the texts from the Book of Deuteronomy to locate the settlement of the Hebrew tribes. I would have to again ask myself a question,  “If Moses went up Mount Nebo to die then who did all this writing?” Was Moses yelling down to Joshua,” I can see the tribe of Dan all the way to the north... And look at the wasteland lets put our tents there.” 
I also have read about a theory for the 500 year gap, which was also use as a marker for locating the city of Sodom at Tal el Hammam. In this theory because of the great destruction of Sodom no body could live there for 500+ years. This theory was realized by the almost complete absence of Late Bronze age pottery at Tal el Hammam. Yet within the same time frame of this 500 years gap theory is the settlement of the thousands of Israelites in that very region (Able ****tim, The Wasteland). So if there were thousand of Hebrews along with their Moabite women visitors in that location during the Late Bronze Age period, then why is there is little to no late Bronze Age pottery found!!??
So, if in the excavation of Tal el Hammam they find Middle Bronze pottery and a destruction layer, Hallelujah! The cry will be…”We have found Sodom and have proven that Abraham and Lot are real people!”  Let’s think about this just a little, if the first five books of the Biblical texts are taken literally, written with the hand of Moses in the Late Bronze Age, then what I find so confusing is proclaiming a 500 year gap and no Late Bronze Pottery in the very territory that the Hebrew’s pitched their tents and Tabernacle with the Ark of the covenant.
 I can not believe that students of Biblical history would not have a severe problem with this theory nor fallow anyone into the field with this theory; it seems and is a double standard. We will confirm Sodom and in doing refute Moses and the wandering in the wilderness and the Exodus out of Egypt. This is truly the work of Biblical genius at its best.  The minimalists will dearly love this one.
I am sorry but I have to laugh, reading the Genesis narrative to find Sodom in my opinion would be equal to reading the Night Before Christmas to find Santa’s work shop in the north pole.
I understand that one would want to go north up to Bethel or Ai and take a right a turn and then walk down past Jericho and across the Jordan river through the Kakkar (round Jordan plain??) to the Iron Age Talls in Jordan just next to the banana plantations. I understand that since the 1870’s a few missionaries have suggested the northern location. However, once again ask yourself why are not the Israeli archaeologists jum

[notalent]

...We will confirm Sodom and in doing refute Moses and the wandering in the wilderness and the Exodus out of Egypt...

One had sensed the Tall el-Hammam discussion beginning to sway the doubters toward a more Northerly understanding, but I think this sobering, multi-leveled analysis succeeds in filling a much needed void.

[reader]

This reads like the book  "Who Wrote the Bible" I have to wonder if Richard Elliott Friedman is behind it? He also authored "The Hidden Face of God"
I was only thinking of directions for the city of Sodom, this makes me want to really study the Bible very differently. Thanks, I can see why scholars study the scriptures from different points. It was an easy read and fun. Very good

[reader]

The fact that I said this was an easy read, fun  and that it maybe  Friedman does not mean that I agree with what the writer is stating at all. However, my opinion is very different, there are a number of reasons why i agree with a northern location. But I do like to read what others are thinking without the childish name calling and fighting, archaeology should give hard facts, artifacts.I have been at the Tal Hammam location, maybe I'll see you there next season. Why just read about it, join in on the dig and we will have a good time together.

[Dr. Steven Collins]

Harromog:
I've had extensive discussions on the issue of the Cities of the Plain with a host of scholars from Europe, Jordan, Israel, and the States (with Finkelstein, Ben-Tor, A. Mazar, Rainey, Schaub, Millard, and Fulco among them). While we all have our differences as to the date of the origin of the Genesis text, virtuall all, without exception, agree that ANE writers don't make up fictitious geography. I believe it was I who said, "The Yahwist's geography should not be suspect whether or not his stories are historical or mythical." To wit, most of these scholars minimaly admit that the northern location is the more likely placement for the Cities of the Plain as envisaged by the Yahwist. OT narrative, including the Hexateuch, is layered over a real-world geography. I believe that it was either Finkelstein or Rainey (I'll have to check the transcript) who stated that I had likely located "literary Sodom," or at least had come to the correct conclusion about its general location in the mind of the Genesis writer: the eastern Kikkar north of the Dead Sea. Whether the Genesis text was compiled in the LB or the Persian Period, the writer(s) were geographically astute, which is more than I can say for many biblicists (something Prof Rainey and I tend to agree on.)
I find it quite instructive that at the fall ASOR meeting in San Diego almost every paper read concerning an excavation went through all kinds of gyrations to suggest biblical identifications, and nobody blinked (and there were hardly any hands for questions at the end). In my paper on Tall el-Hammam excavation I had about 200 slides in my PPT presentation, but only three (about one minute's worth) had to do with a possible ID as Sodom and other biblical locations. But when I got through, about half the hands in the room went up. I only had time to call for one question, so I pointed to Dr. Eric Cline. He then asked the following question: "Dr. Collins, do you push the Sodom identification for Tall el-Hammam primarily for fundraising purposes?" That sent a little tension through the room, and even afterward several people told me they thought the question was a bit hostile. However, Eric and I had already communicated by email quite a bit on the issue, and had already made arrangements to meet later over a drink. In fact, the question was a good one, and I said so. I think Eric knew that that sentiment was kind of the buzz at ASOR, and so he wanted to give me a chance to deal with it out in the open, and I appreciated that as soon as he asked it. Here's my response in a nutshell: We drew a theoretical map based on the Genesis writer's (conscious!) geographical indicators. We then looked at the geography and archaeology of the area in question, including physical exploration and excavation. We then superimposed the theoretical (textual) map over the physical geography with its associated archaeological data in order to determine levels of correspondence, which were, in fact, quite high. On the basis of such correspondence (which is all any biblical site can have in its favor), if Tall el-Hammam happens to qualify as a decent candidate for biblical Sodom, then let's just go with the evidence. And it that helps us raise money for the dig, then so be it." A smattering of smiles and applause followed.
It never ceases to amaze me why every other city, town, and village mentioned in the biblical text can get identified as some archaeological site, and nobody bats an eye. But as soon as we start talking about the Cities of the Plain, everybody gets strangely nervous. But as any good biblical geographer, like Anson Rainey, knows, the geography of Genesis is just as good as the geography of 2 Chronicles!!!
The NST that I've proposed is reasonable. It is, after all, a geographical theory. Period.

SC

[notalent]

It never ceases to amaze me why every other city, town, and village mentioned in the biblical text can get identified as some archaeological site, and nobody bats an eye. But as soon as we start talking about the Cities of the Plain, everybody gets strangely nervous. But as any good biblical geographer, like Anson Rainey, knows, the geography of Genesis is just as good as the geography of 2 Chronicles!!!
The NST that I've proposed is reasonable. It is, after all, a geographical theory. Period.

SC

The resistance does seem strange, especially from laymen who have no published investment in a differing hypothesis.  It's not like there are issues of faith or doctrine involved.  Perhaps my own interest in OC/NC chronology issues has inured me to whatever psychological disturbances accompany the perturbations of established historical understanding.

I was immediately intrigued by this dig because the description of the MB destruction layer reminds one of the massive destructions found at Jericho and Hazor, with all the interesting effects on materials (rock, brick, pottery, etc.) during an intense conflagration.  And the size of the site is reminiscent of the great commercial and administrative city of Hazor.    And though archives have eluded discovery so far in Hazor, the size of such sites, and the pace and extent of excavations must compel us to be patient on that score.  And it's still early innings at Tall el Hammam.

I'm looking forward to every turn of the spade at this interesting site.  Thanks for braving the slings and arrows to bring this to the forum.  It is much appreciated by most people, I think.

Regards,

[DGraves]

A fact, that I don't believe has been mentioned by anyone as yet, is that a bulldozer in modern times went right through the centre of Tall el-Hammam. While this road has caused some damage to the site it has actually become a blessing in disguise. This has allowed us to see the stratigraphy of the site like xray.  So while you are correct that we are early in the dig of this major site this anomaly has speed up the process considerably.  Now certainly we must open new squares and slowly excavate each layer scientifically but we a quite certain what we will find in the way of strata and pottery. This is unusual in a dig and has allowed us to make some calls earlier than normal on a site.  This may explain why some think that we have jumped to conclusions and made what otherwise would be inappropriate guesses. We admit that this is unusual but welcome to Tall el-Hammam. When you are given lemon you make lemonade!
DG

[notalent]

A fact, that I don't believe has been mentioned by anyone as yet, is that a bulldozer in modern times went right through the centre of Tall el-Hammam. While this road has caused some damage to the site it has actually become a blessing in disguise. This has allowed us to see the stratigraphy of the site like xray.  So while you are correct that we are early in the dig of this major site this anomaly has speed up the process considerably.  Now certainly we must open new squares and slowly excavate each layer scientifically but we a quite certain what we will find in the way of strata and pottery. This is unusual in a dig and has allowed us to make some calls earlier than normal on a site.  This may explain why some think that we have jumped to conclusions and made what otherwise would be inappropriate guesses. We admit that this is unusual but welcome to Tall el-Hammam. When you are given lemon you make lemonade!
DG

 

Wow!  Now that's definitely a more fortunate happenstance than the situation at the Jerusalem temple mount, where they must sift through the thoughtlessly back-hoed detritus at a dump-site.

[turanclancath]

http://www.biblicalresearchbulletin.com/uploads/BRB-2007-5-Briggs-Factuality_of_Ai_Narrative.pdf

How to read a text.!

Dr.Briggs 2007 article based on his thesis  gives a good answer.
It works with the Prof .Oller methode developped at Trinity South West see the footnotes. See also the bibligraphy Oller/Collins and Collins/Oller publications.
Delicious article by the way  about Aye .!!! compliments to Dr Briggs.

Exellent explanation about eleph = 100 , so Josuahs army was circa 5/6000 .

Great  revellation for me because the classic eleph =1000 always worried me as Professor ( Deo Volente ) or Dr Briggs  said that an army of 6oo,ooo Israelites is nearly  imposible .( i always was worried about the half million circa).
(A little humour  i hope  :  I imagined how did they circumcise 600.000 warriors in a short time? as Joshua ordered.impossible so glad with the hypothesis of Dr .Briggs )


In this way a avant garde group of 300 who attacked first   the Venetrable Patriarch Abrams army of 360  to rescue Lot becomes in a flash understandable.

turanclancath

[Dr. Steven Collins]

turanclancath:
Oller is a world-class, formidible linguist and logician. Briggs' thesis is an adaptation of Oller, but shows, really, the only reasonable, scientific method for interfacing archaeology with the biblical text. As an MIT and Rensalear (sp?) grad with an impeccable scientific background (also a masters and doctorate in Biblical Studies/Theology), Briggs has brought a rigor to this subject as no one before or since. I think he sees the inevitable realities of the process with great clarity.
The fact of the matter is that, whether anyone likes it or not, a high degree of correspondence between "text and ground" indicates at least something close to a TNR (true narrative representation). Statistically, it can become impossible (at least unscientific) to call such correspondences coincidences. When that happens, some scholars start reaching for the "interpretation" or "mythology" straws, but that cannot save them. Unfortunately, many archaeologists and biblicists are notoriously weak in higher linguistics, and can't process through Oller's or Briggs' with much insight. I admit that Oller is a tough read, as was/is Charles Pearce.

SC

[EZWRITER]

How can one say that we should take the text literal for the location and then make this comment about the age of Abraham??
Quote from Bible places.com
Dating Abraham to the Intermediate Bronze Age (2300-2000 BCE) or even MB I (2000-1800 BCE) is extremely problematic, i.e., there is a systematic lack of cultural specificity and historical synchronisms (see my book, The Search for Sodom and Gomorrah). Abraham belongs to the MB II period, almost without question. The Masoretic biblical "lifespans" drawn from the Genesis numbers are most likely "honorific attributions" and not to be taken literally. But even if you do take them literally, the earliest possible date for Abraham's entrance into Canaan is about 2091, with the destruction of Sodom taking place after that.
Dr.Wood used the Bible text to plot out his geography too, yet he is counted as not being correct, because of the dating of Abraham age. This tell me that one can still use the Bible as a map and the location maybe still very questionable.

[eliyahu hanavi]

How can one say that we should take the text literal for the location and then make this comment about the age of Abraham??
Quote from Bible places.com
Dating Abraham to the Intermediate Bronze Age (2300-2000 BCE) or even MB I (2000-1800 BCE) is extremely problematic, i.e., there is a systematic lack of cultural specificity and historical synchronisms (see my book, The Search for Sodom and Gomorrah). Abraham belongs to the MB II period, almost without question. The Masoretic biblical "lifespans" drawn from the Genesis numbers are most likely "honorific attributions" and not to be taken literally. But even if you do take them literally, the earliest possible date for Abraham's entrance into Canaan is about 2091, with the destruction of Sodom taking place after that.
Dr.Wood used the Bible text to plot out his geography too, yet he is counted as not being correct, because of the dating of Abraham age. This tell me that one can still use the Bible as a map and the location maybe still very questionable.

That is why Dr. Collins added the caveat that even if "you do take them literally, the earliest possible date for Abraham's entrance" is 2091. That date is derived if one counts back from approximately 967 B.C.E. as being the fourth year of Solomon for the beginning date of the construction of the Temple...coupled with the infamous verse in Kings...

967 + 480th year=1446 B.C.E.
1446 + 430=1876 B.C.E.
1876 + 215=2091 B.C.E.

Of course, there is every indication from the text and other sources that the 430 years of sojourn included the 215 from Abraham's entry to Canaan until Jacob's entry into Egypt and that there was a remaining 215 years for the sojourn in Egypt. Hence, many derive a date of 1876 B.C.E. as the entry into Canaan.

Personally, I have a different version worked out wherein the dates are doubled on purpose for spiritual significance which puts my chronology at about 1769 B.C.E. for the entrance into Canaan and 1553 B.C.E. for the Exodus.

In either event, the time period as presented in the Bible for Abraham is Middle Bronze and the cultural synchronisms abound when one comes to that logical end. As chronology plays such an important role and the cities of Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira were already destroyed prior to the Middle Bronze, then at the very least, we can eliminate those cities as candidates. Yes, there is flexibility of location, but the chronology can be used much like DNA as an exclusionary tool. At least that is my take on it. Cheers!

[TOPGUN]

YOU ARE PICKING AND CHOOSING YOUR CHRONOLOGIES .
 You gave a lot of maximal positions for  dating the Patriarchal  period,HOWEVER, 1556BCE FOR THE EXODUS ARE YOU SURE ABOUT YOUR MATH MY FREIND ? BUT I DO ENJOY YOUR EFFERTS. YET YOU FAILED TO REALLY ANSWER HIS QUESTION EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY DOWN TO A MIDDLE BRONZE ABRAHAM AND A 18TH DYNASTY EXODUS.  THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A MIXTURE OF THINKING.
ONE, IF you are going to read THE BIBLICAL TEXT LITERALLY TO THE ADVANTAGE OF LOCATING THE  NORTHERN SITE AT TAL HAMMAM FOR SODOM O.K.
HOWEVER, why do you then switch,  YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN THE BIBLICAL TEXT LITERAL FOR DATING OF ABRAHAM, HOW CAN  YOU JUSTIFY  USING MORE BIBLICAL DATES TO PLOT YOUR THEORIES FOR Judges, Exodus, or SODOM? NOW THAT IS VERY FUNNY. Are these your theories or are you just repeating someone else's? Better be a little more careful. Someone that is good with the Biblical text can work out chronologies to fit their theories.
If you work Abraham down far enough in the Middle Bronze age how will you be able to tell an Egyptian 18th dynasty period destruction from a Sodom conflagration? If you can justify picking and choosing dates,  will you be as careful calling the date of the destruction Tal Hammam or the correct period of Abraham(Rainey is nobodies fool)?It seems to me that you guys and gals that have been at Hammam have tried very hard to work out all the answers. Maybe you are trying to hard. Sometimes the easy answer is the right one. We just do not know for sure! Remember W.W.D.D.
What Would Dever Do
just a little joke
Sorry about the typing but it is late here in Texas. Thanks I am having some fun, keep up the work

[EZWRITER]

quote "It never ceases to amaze me why every other city, town, and village mentioned in the biblical text can get identified as some archaeological site, and nobody bats an eye. But as soon as we start talking about the Cities of the Plain, everybody gets strangely nervous. But as any good biblical geographer, like Anson Rainey, knows, the geography of Genesis is just as good as the geography of 2 Chronicles!!!
The NST that I've proposed is reasonable. It is, after all, a geographical theory. Period. "

SC
 First , many places are still in question, not just Sodom (Hammam). Secondly, the reasons why the location of Sodom is questioned is the lack of external information out side the Biblical text. We have records of many of the city states in Canaan, Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer...but what do we have for Sodom? I am not sure we really know the names of the original cities. Sodom and Gomorrah translated seems to describe the event. Maybe some of Josephus and the witness of the pilgrims during the Byzantine period. Yet, these texts are very much removed from the actual (if it really happened) period.
Rainey puts the patriarchs in the Late Bronze, early Iron I period(13th -12th centuryBCE) note Due 26:5, I fail to see how he will agree with the Tal Hammam as Sodom theory.
A scholar can agree with a location and still disagree with the event or that it ever happened at all. It is like taking a group of Christians to both the garden tomb and the church of the Holy Sepulcher, or the Upper Room. Jesus used the southern valley out side of Jerusalem to create a metaphor for Hell, Gehenna during the Roman period. I would not take a group to this valley and say, "You are now in Hell". It is tradition and when most Christians visit Jerusalem (my city) this is understood or explained to them. The Biblical text is Near Eastern written by a culture very distant from the west. One should at least have some awareness of this before trying or  taking groups of people to Jordan to find the lost cities. An Iron Age epic like Sodom could very will be a gloss over time and place.  Just like the "Upper Room" or Jesus using the south valley as a metaphor for Hell. So an Iron Age text could be, such as the Sodom epic, used as a warning , that G-d judges disobedience.  I really do not think the ancient Hebrews were out looking for the lost cities. Rainey is one of our best scholars but I suggest that he should speak for himself. Maybe he will blog in one day. I know a couple of young students that are currently in his class, I will speak to them and see if they can get his attention for these blogs. I do not expect anyone to take my word, I think everybody needs to do their own home work. Take time to e-mail the scholars and ask them yourselves, most are very gracious to young students. Have a nice day

[Dr. Steven Collins]

Some good questions have been posed.

For the chronological issue, read my relevant articles and posts. There isn't any confusion about the ANE chronology. My recent post on the Tall el-Hammam thread explains this. Abram belongs to the MB (MB I/II in the new chronology; MB II A,B in the old chronology). This can be confusing for people who aren't used to working with the terminology shift. But that's all it is, a terminology shift. But no matter how you slice it, the southern Dead Sea sites were all destroyed centuries before Abram came to Canaan. There is simply no disputing this fact if the biblical chronology be taken seriously (early or late versions).

As for the term "literal" interpretation. Be careful! Actually the term "literal" in hermeneutics refers to "authorial intent." We must try our best to understand the text within its cultural mileu. Historical narratives often use numbers, for example, the finer meaning of which we do not understand. It's pretty obvious that "Bronze Age" numbers in the Bible are quite different in some respects from the later usages, particularly the Hebrew term 'eleph. We just need to understand that we don't understand some of the concepts behind early Hebrew numbers. Our modern approach to numbers may not be the intent of the biblical author. And sometimes we just have to say that we don't know. That's why I use an historical synchronism approach to link up ANE history and the Bible, and not just "absolute" dates drawn from a modern conception of the numbers. For sure, the ancients didn't use absolute dating, but regnal and/or event dating.

Somebody asked (I'll paraphrase), "How can you suggest not being literal with the numbers, while being literal with the geography?" Not a bad question, but it's comparing apples with bananas. First, "literal" refers to authorial intent and share-ability with his readers. Second, numbers are problematic in most ANE literature/records. Third, ANE narrative writers don't invent fictitious geography. With these understood, we can see clearly that biblical geography has a "reality-based" structure to it. And there mare many, many known quantities that often can help us work toward the unknowns. With geography, we always have the actual land to study and compare. With numbers, we simply don't have enough information to decipher them fully. Also, the biblical narratives are very much geographical stories, with the geography playing a central role in the movement of the text. By complarison with geography, numbers play a minor role.

I could spend volumes on this, but this is just a seed for thought.

SC