Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Jim,

there still remain a number of fundamental problems with your theory.

i) You don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that the author of the
account seems to feel the need to explain that the area was like a 'garden
of YHWH' *before * the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. To most readers the
logical conclusion is that it was a desolate area in the day of the writer

ii) There is no explicit mention of a deal with the Hittites and how Yhwh
considered this to be a sin

iii) Why else would Lot offer his virgin daughters to an angry mob if not to
satisfy their needs?

iv) Do you even realise that saying things like 'pinpoint historical
accuracy' implies that the fiery sulphur rained down from heaven to destroy
the cities and that Lot's wife became a pillar of salt? This would seem to
contradict your view that the Hittites burned the cities. They were unlikely
to have had the technology to make sulphur rain from heaven or to make Lot's
wife turn into a pillar of salt.

James Christian


2010/1/31 <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
> get what you're saying but doesn't the context sound to you like the author
> is implying that in his day the area in question was still very much in a
> state of destruction?
>
> James Christian
>
>
> 2010/1/31 <JimStinehart AT aol.com
> >
>
> >  James Christian:
> >
> >
> >
> > The word used at Genesis 19: 25 is HPK, which means “overturn”.  Sodom and
> Gomorrah, and possibly Admah and Zeboiim as well, are “overturned”, 
> including
> the fertile fields of the Valley of Fields where they were located.  It’s a
> fiery destruction, and the smoke from it can be seen as far south as that 
> same
> mountaintop near Bethel where, years earlier, Lot had made the eastern 
> Jezreel
> Valley his choice of location for living the soft life.
> >
> >
> >
> > The historical parallel to Sodom and Gomorrah going up in smoke is Qatna,
> which 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>