Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1
  • Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:39:19 +0200

As I wrote, I only think that this is what Jim meant. So let's leave Jim out of it. What I wrote was that there is a possibility that Sodom was in or near the northern part of the Dead Sea rather than its southern part. I'm undecided, I thing that the evidence is not clear. On one hand, that fact that Abraham could see Sodom from Hebron points to the northern part of the sea. On the other, "the five cities of the plain" are often used as a southern boundary of Canaan. And Zoar, which was spared, was well known in later times as being at Ghor e-Safi at the southern tip of the sea (now on the Jordanian side). In any case, Sodom and co. were certainly in the region of the Dead Sea, not in northern Canaan.

What you just wrote however, is false reasoning: turning a person into a pillar of salt in any case is a "tweaking" of the laws of nature. There are differences of opinion amount Jewish thinkers (for example Rambam vs. Ramban or Rihal, but going back to the Talmud) as to whether when God does what we see as a "miracle" He is really altering the laws of nature (which, as you pointed out, He created in the first place), or simply working within those laws, in ways that WE find difficult to comprehend. We are NOT going to hold that debate on this list. It does not matter for our purposes. In any case, turning a person into a pillar of salt is something that only God can do, and God does not require that there be mountains of salt in the are in order to do it. So just based on Lot's wife, it could have happened anywhere.


Yigal Levin


----- Original Message ----- From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1


Yes, but WHERE was she turned into a pillar of salt, up in the north
where G-d would have had to suspend the laws of nature which He
created, or by the Dead Sea, which is a region entirely made up of
salt?

WHERE was she most likely to have been turned into a pillar of salt?

I didn't get that he was saying that S'dom was in the northern part
of the Dead Sea - where anyway there are no salt mountains

Shoshanna



I've stopped trying to read Jim's run-on posts carefully, but I think that
what he was saying was that Sodom was in the northern part of the Dead Sea,
which is visible from Hebron, and not where it's usually pointed to in the
southern basin (which is called Sodom in modern Israel), which is more
visible from Arad. IF this is what he was saying, he may be right. In any
case, this has nothing to do with Lot's wife. All the Torah says is that SHE
was turned into a pillar of salt - not that the whole region was made of
salt. A single pillar of salt about 5 or 6 feet high and a foot or two thick
would hardly have lasted the past several thousand years of earthquakes,
flash floods and so on.

Yigal Levin



----- Original Message -----
From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>

For instance, if, as you claim, S'dom was in the North, and not in
the Dead Sea area, where ALL THE MOUNTAINS ARE MADE OF SALT (maybe
you don't know Israel so well, but you can actually break off pieces
of the mountains, and they are pieces composed of crystals of SALT,
and salty to taste), then you would have to call G-d a liar for
reporting that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for
turning around to look at S'dom up in the north - after all, if the
whole story took place in the north, WHERE THERE ARE NO SALT
MOUNTAINS, then that is much more of a geographical impossibility
than that of Avraham being able to see the SMOKE of the destruction
of 4 cities from not a lot of miles west of them, which is not
impossible at all - as I could see the actual waters of the Dead Sea
from Jerusalem.

Layla Tov


Shoshanna


Shoshanna:
If YHWH had told Abraham, in a conversation not reported in the text,
that
nothing had happened between Abimelech and Sarah, then why wouldn'Äôt
Abraham be
ecstatic with joy at Isaac'Äôs birth? Sarah is ecstatic with joy at
Isaac'Äôs
birth, but Abraham says nothing.
'ÄúAnd Abraham was a hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto
him.
And Sarah said: 'God hath made laughter for me; every one that heareth
will
laugh on account of me.'Äô And she said: 'Who would have said unto
Abraham,
that Sarah should give children suck? for I have borne him a son in his
old
age.' And the child grew, and was weaned.'Äù Genesis 21: 5-8
Abraham is not reported to praise YHWH upon Isaac'Äôs birth. Abraham is
not
reported to say one nice word to or about Isaac prior to the binding
incident.
Why?
The author of the Patriarchal narratives has not made a 'Äúmistake'Äù,
nor has
he 'Äúoverlooked'Äù this issue. Rather, the author is forcing us to
consider
that Abraham may have had doubts about what had happened, or not
happened, when
Sarah was in Abimelech'Äôs household.
Perhaps nothing at all happened. But based on what the text says, it does
not appear that YHWH told Abraham that nothing had happened. That is a
key
element in the text.
I agree with you that the text is perfect, as is. But I do not agree that
these stories are simple. The author is laying his real point between
the
lines a little bit.
It may well be that nothing in fact happened between Abimelech and Sarah,
but what I am saying is that Abraham does not appear to know that.
That is the key for making this story work, historically. Abraham must
have
a bona fide doubt, for many years, as to whether Isaac is his blood son
or
his adopted son. It is virtually certain that in fact, Isaac is
Abraham'Äôs
blood son. Though much less certain, nothing at all may have happened
between
Abimelech and Sarah. But the key is that Abraham is not sure what did or
did
not happen between Abimelech and Sarah. That'Äôs all I'Äôm saying.
If Abraham had been certain from the beginning that nothing at all had
happened between Abimelech and Sarah, Abraham would have jumped for
joy at Isaac'Äôs
birth. The text reports, however, that whereas Sarah waxed lyrical at
Isaac'Äô
s birth, Abraham said nothing (other than to confirm Isaac'Äôs
divinely-given
name). Abraham'Äôs silence speaks volumes as to what Abraham knew for
sure
from YHWH, and what Abraham had his doubts about.
In the end, Isaac is Abraham'Äôs blood son. But the way the text tells
the
story, Abraham was not sure about that for many years.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



************************************** See what's new at
http://www.aol.com
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1074 - Release Date:
16/10/2007 14:14



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1074 - Release Date: 16/10/2007 14:14







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page