[b-hebrew] What Does "Sodom" Mean?
JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Tue Nov 25 14:54:12 EST 2008
You wrote: “[N]othing is more politically charged than the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah. …I repeat, [it is] not possible to have a discussion of Sodom and
Gomorrah that is free of political motives and implications. Now. What
specifically are you arguing that sodom means? My guess is that if you think the
word has a meaning, then the meaning argues against a literal interpretation
of the story, and that is precisely what has induced K. Randolph to blow up.”
I have a semi-literal interpretation of the story. In the secular history of
the Late Bronze Age, Qatna, just north of Canaan, was burned to the ground
and never re-inhabited, after being part of a 5-party league that unsuccessfully
opposed 4 attacking rulers, including a grand Hittite king, in the historical
“four rulers against the five” that is referenced at Genesis 14: 9. Sodom
matches all of those historical criteria.
The point the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives is making,
however, is that unless everyone unites now to oppose the dreaded Hittites, who
had just now conquered all of Syria, then Beth Shan, in the heart of Canaan,
might well become the next target on the Hittites’ hit list. “Sodom” in the
Patriarchal narratives primarily represents historical Beth Shan, in the
northwest corner of the Jordan River Valley, which is also the eastern part of the
The name “Sodom” primarily references Beth Shan. SDM is close in sound to
$KM, which in turn recalls $XR, which is the oldest attestation of the name “
Beth Shan” at item #110 on the mid-15th century BCE Thutmosis III list. $KM and
$XR reflect the fact that Beth Shan was the easternmost city in Canaan
proper, and hence was the “city of dawn”. SDM is even closer in sound to &DYM,
meaning “fields”, with the finest “fields” of grain in all of Canaan famously
being located in the wondrous Jezreel Valley.
I see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as being closely based on the
well-documented secular history of the Late Bronze Age. I do not accept the scholarly
view that Sodom and Gomorrah are fictional.
One important reason why the author of the Patriarchal narratives did not
simply use the name “Beth Shan”, but instead used the name “Sodom”, is because
Sodom is doing double duty in Genesis. On the one hand, Sodom represents Beth
Shan, and the very real threat to the heartland of Canaan posed by the newly
resurgent Hittites in the mid-14th century BCE. But Sodom also is modeled on
historical Qatna, which was one of a league of 5 rulers who lost to 4
attacking rulers, and ended up being burnt to the ground and never re-inhabited.
If you’re interested, we could discuss what the true sin of Sodom was. It
has nothing to do with homosexuality, sex, or lack of hospitality. No, it has
everything to do with the early Hebrews’ fear that Canaan might soon be overrun
by the dreaded Hittites. In that sense, Sodom’s unforgivable sin was “
political”. The early Hebrew author was understandably terrified that the cities
of the Jezreel Valley might get “an offer they could not refuse” from the
mighty, conquering Hittites, and that those 5 rich cities might react the way
Amurru and Ugarit historically did, when those two Amorite states iniquitously
sold out northernmost greater Canaan to the dreaded Hittites, in the historical “
iniquity of the Amorites” referenced at Genesis 15: 16.
I do not view any of this as being fictional. It is deadly serious. The
continued existence of the early Hebrews was at stake here. Indeed, one key
component of the religious faith of early Judaism may well be eternal thanks to
YHWH for the semi-miraculous fact that, against the odds, the mighty,
expansionist-minded, seemingly all-powerful Hittites never did invade Canaan.
**************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks,
and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com
More information about the b-hebrew