Sodom and Gomorrah

THE SEARCH FOR SODOM IS IT BAB EDH-DHRA OR TALL EL-HAMMAM? Jill Toodle biblical Archaeology BIBL471_D01 April 7, 2013 Since the too soon 19th century archaeologists and Christian bible scholars perplex discovered a difference in archaeological and geographical licence that financial backings a Union view of Sodom or a s come to the forehern view of Sodom. The gray target for Sodom is commonly referred to as the Bab edh-Dhra and the zero(pre nary(prenominal)inal)therly target for Sodom is referred to as the lanky el-Hammam. Since archaeologists have not uncovered exact secernate indicating a particular set as the biblical Sodom, the search for Sodom remains a mystery.To accurately analyze these aims and try to operate a conclusion, key facts need to be revealed. The pattern of this paper is to reveal certain facts pertaining to those areas. The specific facts are as follows the attribute each(prenominal) position takes is Sodom, the order for oddment at both l ocalizes and how each point meets the criteria for the biblical billet of Sodom. In addition this paper forget compare and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each position. Two sites have been excavated as executable sites of the biblical Sodom.Which one is it? First the paper result focus on the southern site named Bab edh-Dhra, and then an analysis of the tallish el-Hammam will be done. Bab edh-Dhra is the excavated site along the Valley of Siddom, South of the Dead Sea. Many proponents of this site suggest that this site is descendd precisely on the eastern fault, which provides evidence for its destruction. 1 Furthermore, they indicate that the playscript historically supports this location in coevals 1310, contemporaries 1410 and Genesis 1924. J.Penrose Harland explains that an boilers suit agreement between the southern supporters and northern supporters is that the cities of the Plain are to be found in Ghor, or Valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. However , Harland states, the evidence is rifely in favor of a location at the gray hold on of the Dead Sea, which is exposit as Bab edh-Dhra. 2 To better grasp this preponderant view the archaeological evidence for the destruction of Bab edh-Dhra should be revealed. Dr. Price is a prominent supporter of this site and he reveals that this site was never re in use(p) subsequently the Early tan date of 2300-2000 B.C. 3 This evidence supports the truth that after the destruction of Sodom by the wrath of God that this location was uninhabitable. Furthermore, significant ash layers were discovered, which supports Genesis 19 24-28. Geologist Frederick Clapp surveyed Ghor, the southern end of the Dead Sea and discovered easy amounts of asphalt, petroleum and natural gas. In addition, the smell of sulphur and ash deposits be in Genesis 1410 were present. 4 Since the Bible informs us that Sodom was unmake during the time of the Patriarchs one important disco really needs to be make in regard to the date of the Patriarchs.The site of Bab edh-Dhra provides a date of the chip millenary B. C. Dr. Price confirms this discovery and states, Only a second millennium context will fit the type of inheritance practiced by the Patriarchs. 5 Many bible scholars and archaeologists have spent numerous hours uncovering the site of Bab edh-Dhra. At this point the criteria that causes Bab edh-Dhra to be considered as biblical Sodom is the followings the Bible, the late Hellenic and Roman writers, from geology and topography, from hydrography, and archaeology. 6 Furthermore, Genesis 1310 describes Sodom as a soundly watered land like the land of Egypt. Therefore, the Paleo-botanical studies done on and at the Bab edh-Dhra site reveal that the area has had a rich diversity of crops, merging the criteria for a well-watered land. 7 An other huge discovery that causes Bab edh-Dhra to be recognized as Sodom is the reference in Genesis 191, where Lot is sitting at the city gate. Bab edh-Dh ra actually means gate of the arm. Wood describes this fortification when he describes what the gate and site measure. He states, The city wall, enclosing an area of 9-10 acres, was a massive 7m (23 ft) wide and made of stones and mud bricks. 8 Although the Bab edh-Dhra has not been confirmed as the definite biblical Sodom, there is very strong evidence linking it to the Sodom expound in the infallible Word of God. However, a professor from Albuquerque has followed and found base on the geography and history presented in the Bible a site called marvellous el-Hammam, the northern site in question. Dr. Collins and more other scholars believe that this site is actually the correct site for biblical Sodom. Therefore, throughout the next section of this paper, a detailed analysis to the elevated el-Hammam will be done. pompous el-Hammam s the site locate on the northern circular plain of the southern Jordan Valley. Proponents of this site are, Charles W. Wilson, H. H. Kitchener, Claude R. Conder, Selah Merrill, Henry B Tristram, William M. Thomson, George plantation and Henry S. Osborn. 9 They form their conclusion based on an analysis of the Hebraical text and their understanding of geography. Dr. Collins explains that the place that Lot set out to is clearly between Bethel and Ai. 10 This location provides the evidence for scholars to lean towards the Tall el-Hammam as the biblical Sodom, instead of the southern site, Bab edh-Dhra.Supporting this, a majority of biblical scholars locate Bethel, near Beitin, about 12 miles north of Jerusalem. Therefore, if Sodom is located between Bethel and Ai, the Tall el-Hammam better fits the criteria for being the biblical Sodom. When looking at the archaeological evidence for the destruction of the Tall el-Hammam archaeologist have discovered the site was undo near the end of the nerve center bronzy Age. Dr. Collins explains that they have discovered vast quantities of ash, consisting of 1. 5 to 3 feet thick of h eavy ash associated with the Middle Bronze Age stratum. 11 Some of the debris found is pottery, a a couple of(prenominal) bones, some ash and something an excited digger thought was part of the shooting star some believers speculate God hurled at Sodom to destroy it. 12 In addition, the Tall el-Hammam site reveals that a temperature exceeding 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit destroyed the area this gave evidence of catastrophic damage. 13 Based on the evidence revealed through archaeological jab of the Tall el-Hammam, the supporters of this site date the Patriarchs as 17/16th Century, or Middle Bronze Age.Collins secernates the Bible makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed during the Middle Bronze Age, the time of Abraham and Lot. 14 This dating is certainly the biggest difference between the 2 sites in question. Therefore, it is important to list how the Tall el-Hammam meets the criteria for the biblical Sodom. The specific discoveries of the Tall el-Hammam meet the crite ria are described briefly in this paragraph. First, the bible describes the place where Lot went as being a well-watered land, like the land of Egypt.Tall el-Hammam is located on a disk of well-watered plain 18 miles (30km) in diameter in the Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea This location is scarce where Dr. Collins believes the biblical Sodom exists. The Hebrew word kikkar has special significance to the location of the Tall el-Hammam. This word was used to describe what Lot looked up and saw. Kikkar is a plain, round or oval shaped. Dr. Collins explains that when kikkar is used to describe a geographical construct, it refers to a disk shaped plain in the Southern Jordan Valley. 15 The specific site of the Tall el-Hammam has revealed that it was a well watered and racy land, with large wadis wrapped around the fortification in exactly the described location. Another discovery was that in 3000-2350 B. C. E. the site was protected by tremendous defenses. This indicated a strong government and settlements associated with an agricultural economy. When debating the two locations in affection for the biblical site of Sodom, strengths and weakness of each view exist. Some of the strengths of the Bab edh-Dhra site are the discovery that the location was destroyed in the Early Bronze Age and never occupied again.This seems likely since God destroyed it with such great wrath. Strength of the Bab edh-Dhra is the fact that Lot was closely associated with Moab. 16 Therefore, the southern one-half of the Dead Sea would seem appropriate. In addition the charnel houses discovered in Bab edh-Dhra suggest a catastrophic event that burned many areas and came from to a higher place. 17 As for the weaknesses of in the location of Bab edh-Dhra, one is the fact that the Bible does not indicate specifically a southern site. Also, the lack of an excavated gate composite like the one found at the Tall el-Hammam and the difference in the size of the two sites.Bab edh-Dhra is approximately 12 acres and Tall el-Hammam is carbon acres. 18 When evaluating the weaknesses of the Tall el-Hammam some often mention the dating of the Patriarchs. Some believe that Dr. Collins has lowered the date of Abraham in order to create a match with his excavations. Dr. Collins absolutely denies that. Genesis 14 and 29 support an Early Bronze Age date for the Patriarchs and the Tall el-Hammam contradicts that date. Furthermore, the Tall el-Hammam was reinhabited hundreds of old age after the destruction. This seems unlikely due to the soil being severely contaminated.Some strengths of the Tall el-Hammam site are the amount of ash and frothy magna indicating a temperature above 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, the northern location of Sodom seems more likely, since the Bible suggests that Sodom is between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 131-2). Tall el-Hammam is visible from that area which is ten miles north of Jerusalem. 19 In closing, I would like to suggest that it is just too early to exactly say which site is the correct biblical Sodom. However, the amount of ash strongly points to the Tall el-Hammam.I have reservations because of the date of the Patriarchs given to that site and the fact of it being occupied once again in the Late Bronze Age. This certainly complicates the excavation. Interestingly, very intelligent evangelical biblical archaeologists disagree on which site is in fact the biblical Sodom. I find it very difficult to form an opinion, considering Dr. Price, the author of our textbook The Stones Cry Out concludes the Bab edh-Dhra as the correct site and my professor, Dr. David Graves, is the field supervisor of the Roman remains (Livias? ) at the Tall el-Hammam (Sodom? excavations in Jordan. Due to this reality and the evidence, I am undecided. I have chosen to let the reader form an individual conclusion based on the evidence I have presented in this paper. Hopefully, I have equally analyzed each site and the reader can participate in this exciting journey of biblical discoveries to uncover the biblical Sodom. Bibliography Collins, Steven. Discovering the City of Sodom. Kirkus Reviews 3 (Feb 2013), http//www. kirkusreviews. com Collins, Steven. If You estimate You Knew the Location of Sodom and Gomorrah think Again. Biblical Research Bulletin 7, no. 4 (2007) 1-6. Collins, Steven. North vs. South Why the Southern Location Doesnt Work. Sidebar to Where is Sodom. Biblical Archaeology Society 39, no. 2 (Mar/April 2013) http//www. basarchive. org. ezproxy. liberty. edu2048/bswbBrowse. asp? PubID=BSBA & the great unwashed=39&Issue=2&ArticleID=2&UserID=1037. Collins, Steven. Where Is Sodom? The fact for Tall el-Hammam. Biblical Archaeology Society 39, no. 2 (Mar/April 2013). httpwww. basarchive. org. ezproxy. liberty. edu2048/bswbBrowse. asp?PubID=BSBA &Volume=39&Issue=2&ArticleID=2&UserID=1037. Harland, J. Penrose. Sodom and Gomorrah The location of the Cities of the Plain. The Biblical Archaeologist 5, no. 2 (May 1942) 17-32. Higgins, Andrew. Digging for Sin City, Christians Toil in Jordan Desert prof Collins seeks Sodom with Scriptures as Guide and Volunteers as Muscle. Wall Street Journal, A1 edition (February 2007). http//search. proquest. com/docview/399037586? accountid=12085 Price, Randall. The Stones Cry Out. Oregon Harvest House, 1997. Wood, Bryant G. The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Bible and nigra 12, no. 3 (1999). Search for Sodom and Gomorrah. (August 2009). http//blog. bibleplaces. com/2009/08/ Video-Searchforsodomandgomorrah. html 1 Bryant Wood, The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Bible and Spade 12, no. 3(1999) 0. 2 J. P. Harland, Sodom and GomorrahThe location of the Cities of the Plain,The Biblical Archaeologist 5, no. 2 (May 1942)19. 3 Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out (Oregon Harvest House, 1997), 120. 4 Price, 118-119. 5 Price, 94. 6 Harland, 28. 7 Wood, 0. 8 Wood, 0. 9 Steven Collins, North vs. South Why the Southern Location Doesnt work, Biblical Archaeology Society 39, no. 2 (Mar/April 2013)0. 10 Steven Collins, Where is Sodom? The Case for Tall el-Hammam, Biblical Archaeology Society 39, no. 2 (Mar/April 2013). 11 Collins, Where is Sodom? The Case for Tall el-Hammam, 0. 12Andrew Higgins. Digging for Sin City Christians Toil in Jordan Desert, Prof. Collins seeks Sodom with Scriptures as Guides and Volunteers as Muscle, Wall Street Journal, A1 edition (Feb 2007) 0. 13 Collins, Where is Sodom? The Case for Tall el-Hammam, 0. 14 The Journal for Jane Mahoney, Digging a New Path to mixed-up Cities Albuquerque Archaeologist uses Biblical Clues to Find what He thinks are the Ruins of Sodom an Gomorrah, Albuquerque Journal (June 2006)0. 15 Steven Collins, If You Thought You Knew the Location of Sodom and Gomorrah.. think Again, Biblical Research Bulletin 7, no. 4 (2007) 2. 16Harland, 21. 17 Price, 117. 18 Collins, Where is Sodom? The Case of the Tall el-Hammam, 0. 19 Search for Sodom and Gomorrah, (A ugust 2009), http//bibleplaces. com