Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

James Christian:

No.  The key is the geography.  I see Sodom as representing cities in Syria, 
the Beqa Valley, Galilee and even, closest to home, in the Jezreel Valley.  
Abraham's grandson Jacob travels through Syria, in or near the Beqa Valley, 
through Galilee and past the Jezreel Valley.  Jacob never mentions anything 
about cities and their surrounding lands that have been totally destroyed.  
What chapters 14 and 19 of Genesis are warning, rather, is that  n-e-x-t  
year, that is, in Year 16, the cities in Galilee and the Jezreel Valley may 
either (i) capitulate to a Hittite offer they can't refuse and, to a man, 
swear allegiance to the mighty Hittites (the historical sin of Sodom in 
chapter 19, which has nothing to do whatsoever with sex), or else (ii) the 
mighty Hittites might launch a genocidal attack on the people of Canaan south 
of Lebanon, an attack that could possibly consume even the tent-dwelling 
Hebrews.  It's a warning about what may happen in the near future, not 
primarily a passive recording of what has actually already happened in the 
recent past.  The Patriarchal narratives are, first and foremost, an 
impassioned plea for all of Canaan and Egypt to unite in resolute opposition 
to the dreaded Hittites, who last year, in Year 14, had set many cities near 
Canaan on fire.  (See Amarna Letters EA 174-176 and EA 363 for four cities in 
a Valley of Fields/the Beqa Valley reporting cities being set on fire by the 
Hittites, in conjunction with the Hurrian Etakkama -- Biblical "Arioch".  In 
the Amarna Letters, as in chapter 19 of Genesis, the predominant image of 
destruction is:  fire.)  The first Hebrew's fervent prayers to YHWH not to 
allow the dreaded Hittites to invade Canaan south of Lebanon seemed to have 
been answered, as the Hittites thankfully ended up confining the Hittite 
Empire to Syria, north of Lebanon.  That historical sequence of events, in 
Years 14-16, is what I see as being the historical beginning of Judaism.  The 
key to my radical new theory of the case is to re-examine the geography that 
underlies the Patriarchal narratives.  If analysts were to realize that Sodom 
represents cities in the north, not near the Dead Sea, that would be a fine 
basis for beginning an historical analysis of the Patriarchal narratives.  
Sodom and Gomorrah are in the north, QD$ is in the north, and Hazezon is in 
the north, too.  For that matter, even the Patriarchs' Hebron is farther 
north than analysts realize, being the rural Aijalon Valley (an ideal locale 
for tent-dwellers) in central Canaan, not a mountainous city on the border of 
the Negev far south of Jerusalem (where neither Abraham's vast flock of sheep 
and goats in the summer, nor his small collection of camels in the winter, 
could survive).  In my view, no Patriarch ever sets foot in or near the Negev 
or the Sinai, except in transit in quickly going to and from Egypt.  Lot is 
never anywhere near the Dead Sea.  (The "salt sea" in chapter 14 of Genesis 
is the more important salt sea that borders Canaan -- the Mediterranean Sea.) 
 Finally, note that when Abraham and Lot are on that mountaintop at Bethel in 
chapter 13 of Genesis, they never even mention the view of Jerusalem to the 
south.  The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives had no interest 
in Jerusalem or points south, because the early Hebrews pitched their tents 
north of there.  That shows how very ancient this text is.  In my view, the 
geography is the key.  We will never see the pinpoint historical accuracy of 
the Patriarchal narratives until and unless we get the geography right. 

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois






-----Original Message-----
From: James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sun, Jan 31, 2010 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Sodom's Historical Sin: Etymology and Geography


Jim,
thanks for staying on topic and making your answer short enough to digest. I
et what you're saying but doesn't the context sound to you like the author
s implying that in his day the area in question was still very much in a
tate of destruction?
James Christian

010/1/31 <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
>  James Christian:



 The word used at Genesis 19: 25 is HPK, which means “overturn”.  Sodom and 
omorrah, and possibly Admah and Zeboiim as well, are “overturned”, including 
he fertile fields of the Valley of Fields where they were located.  It’s a 
iery destruction, and the smoke from it can be seen as far south as that same 
ountaintop near Bethel where, years earlier, Lot had made the eastern Jezreel 
alley his choice of location for living the soft life.



 The historical parallel to Sodom and Gomorrah going up in smoke is Qatna, 
hich was burned to the ground by the Hittites in Year 14 and never 
reinhabited.



 The Hebrew word HPK does not say or imply that nothing ever grew again in 
the 
Valley of Fields”.  It simply means “overturn”.



 Jim Stinehart

 Evanston, Illinois

______________________________________________
-hebrew mailing list
-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
ttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew