Todd Bolen, Author at BiblePlaces.com

Biblical Problems with Locating Sodom at Tall el-Hammam

(Guest post by Bill Schlegel at The Master’s College, Israel Bible Extension)

As Todd has noted previously, there are archaeological and chronological problems with identifying Tall el-Hammam with Sodom. Here are some scriptural/textual considerations. A main reason that a northern location is sought for Sodom is the belief that Gen. 13:10-12 places Sodom in the region of the “Plain (kikkar) of the Jordan” that is, north of the Dead Sea (Gen 13:10). However, I don’t think Gen. 13:10-12 restricts Sodom to the Kikkar of the Jordan. Yes, Lot chose the Kikkar of the Jordan and travelled east from the Hill Country. However, Genesis 13:11-12 implies passage of time during which Lot moved around. That Lot “pitched his tent as far as Sodom” suggests a geographical separation from the “Kikkar of the Jordan.” Also, the word kikkar does not exclusively refer only to the area of the Rift Valley just north of the Dead Sea. “Kikkar of the Jordan” can refer to the area as far north as Sukkoth (1 Kings 7:46). The word kikkar may be used to refer to other parts of the Rift Valley in general, especially when not accompanied by the appellation “of the Jordan” (Gen. 19:17, 28; 2 Sam. 18:23). In other words, Sodom could be in the kikkar, without being in the Kikkar of the Jordan.

In favor of a southern location, Scripture associates Sodom geographically with the “Valley of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea” an area distinct from the Kikkar of the Jordan (Gen. 14:3, 8, 10). The meaning of Siddim, “lime, whitewash” (LXX “salty”) and the pits in the region suggest a more southern location for Sodom. Also, locating Sodom and Gomorrah in the south fits better the post-destruction environment described by the prophets (Deut. 29:23, Isa. 13:19-20, Jer. 49:18, 50:40; Zeph. 2:9) and a later battle between Judah and Edom at the site of Zair (from the same Hebrew word as Zoar to which Lot fled, 2 Kings 8:21).

I believe we will always have problems trying to locate Sodom and Gomorrah. Besides significant geological/geographical changes to the region associated with the divine destruction (Gen. 13:10), the divine destruction probably didn’t leave much (any?) of the cities to be found. The Hebrew for these cities’ destruction is unique (a combination of shachet “destroy” and hafach, “turn upside down”). It is unlikely that any of these tells/ruins in the Rift (north or south) are Sodom or Gomorrah. More likely is that these ruins represent peripheral cities, perhaps one was Zoar, which were spared the divine judgment.

Tall el-Hamman is an interesting dig. There’s no question that this is the region where Israel camped before striking across the Jordan. Tall el-Hamman may be Abel-Shittim (Num. 33:49). But this could be a problem for the excavators—identifying the Iron Age remains at Tall el-Hamman with another Israelite town goes against identifying Tall el-Hamman with Sodom, because it is unlikely that what once was Sodom became the Israelites’ Abel-Shittim.

Plains of Moab and Tall el-Hammam from the west

Tagged Analysis, Dead Sea

Q&A: Where is the Hinnom Valley in Jeremiah?

While I’m traveling these weeks, I thought I might begin a new series of questions and answers. Over the last few months, I’ve written replies to inquiries from various friends and I will post one every few days.

Question: I have been working in Jeremiah and in 7:31 there is a reference the Valley of Ben Hinnom. Holladay suggests in his commentary (Jeremiah 1, 268) that the best identification of this valley is the Tyropoean Valley. The relevant paragraph is below. What do you think? –C.S.

The name of the valley is variously given as The Valley of Hinnom, The Valley of Ben- [= the Son of] Hinnom, or The Valley of Bene- [= the Sons of] Hinnom. Most authorities, following Gustaf Dalman, identify the valley with wādi ar-rabābi, the “Western Valley” which runs north-south, west of the Old City of Jerusalem, and then cuts east, meeting the Valley of Kidron. But other identifications have been proposed: Hugo Gressmann suggests wādi an-nār, the valley south of the junction between the Western Valley and the Valley of Kidron (and one notes that the Arabic name means “Valley of Hell”); and recently A. Douglas Tushingham has argued persuasively for the Tyropoean Valley, that is, the “Central Valley” running south from the southwest corner of the temple mount. Given the areas of occupation of Jerusalem in preexilic times, the Tyropoean Valley seems the best candidate.

The valleys of Jerusalem from the southwest

Answer: I don’t think I’ve run across this before, which by itself means that since this proposal was made in 1971 probably no one has accepted it (except apparently one commentator). Without reading Tushingham, but looking at Jeremiah 7:31, I can tell you that Tushingham’s motivation likely comes from his association with Kathleen Kenyon who believed, in 1971, in the “minimalist” view of Jerusalem—that the city never included the Western Hill before the Hasmonean period. So the Central Valley would fit the scenario described in Jeremiah 7 in that view.

But since we now know that the Central Valley was enclosed within the walls during the time of Jeremiah (and no one questions that anymore), the theory never gained any traction. Holladay published his commentary in 1986. By that time, there was unanimous agreement against the minimalist view. If Holladay had carried out research with more recent sources, he would have avoided this error.

Tagged Analysis, Jerusalem

Interpretation in Archaeology

William Dever:

There are few “facts” in archaeology. There are artifacts which can become “data,” but only when they are properly excavated in context, interpreted in relation to a pertinent question, and published (i.e., “given”) in full. The notion that the archaeologist is an “objective” scientist, who approaches a site with a mind that is a tabula rasa, is incredibly naïve—and dangerous. We see in the dirt only what we are sensitized to see; and unfortunately, we unwittingly destroy the rest of the evidence in getting it.

Source: William G. Dever, “Archaeology, Syro-Palestinian and Biblical,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1: 362-63.

Excavations of Megiddo under Yigael Yadin, April 1967 Source: Views That Have Vanished

Tagged Excavations

Another Christmas, Another Brawl in Bethlehem

The Greek Orthodox and Armenian priests are at it again. From Haaretz:

The annual cleaning of one of Christianity’s holiest churches deteriorated into a brawl between rival clergy Wednesday, as dozens of monks feuding over sacred space at the Church of the Nativity battled each other with brooms until police intervened.
The ancient church, built over the traditional site of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, is shared by three Christian denominations: Roman Catholics, Armenians and Greek Orthodox.
Wednesday’s fight erupted between Greek and Armenian clergy, with both sides accusing each other of encroaching on parts of the church to which they lay claim.
The monks were tidying up the church ahead of Orthodox Christmas celebrations in early January, following celebrations by Western Christians on Dec. 25. The fight erupted between monks along the border of their respective areas. Some shouted and hurled brooms.

The full story is here. A video of the scene is posted online here.

HT: ShalomIL

Tagged Holidays, Judah

Biblical Problems with Locating Sodom at Tall el-Hammam

Q&A: Where is the Hinnom Valley in Jeremiah?

Interpretation in Archaeology

More Top Stories of 2011

Top Stories of 2011

Another Christmas, Another Brawl in Bethlehem