Genesis 13: 9: Sodom’s Location
100% of university scholars who have opined in writing on the subject say that when Abram and Lot separate in chapter 13 of Genesis, b-o-t-h Lot and Abram go south of Bethel. Yet that universal scholarly assertion is directly contradicted by what Genesis 13: 9 says. Here is the JPS1987 translation of the relevant verses:
1From Egypt, Abram went up into the Negeb, with his wife and all that he possessed, together with Lot. …3 And he proceeded by stages from the Negeb as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been formerly, between Bethel and Hai…. 8 Abram said to Lot [at Bethel],… 9Is not the whole land [of Canaan] before you? Let us separate: if you go north, I will go south; and if you go south, I will go north. …12 Lot settled in the cities of the Plain, pitching his tents near Sodom. …18 And Abram moved his tent, and came to dwell at the terebinthes of Mamre, which are in Hebron…. Genesis 13: 1, 3, 8-9, 12, 18
What that above text says is that if and only if Lot were to go north of Bethel (the opposite direction from the Dead Sea), then Abram would go south of Bethel; and that Abram indeed does go south of Bethel -- to sojourn at the Patriarchs’ Hebron (south of Bethel). The necessary consequence of that is that Lot must have gone n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, when Lot and Abram separate at Bethel in chapter 13 of Genesis, in which case Sodom is not located anywhere near the Dead Sea.
The KJV version of Genesis 13: 9 is a more literal translation:
9 Is not the whole land [of Canaan] before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
In ancient Canaan, when giving directions, it was assumed that the speaker was facing east (toward the rising sun). That is why the Mediterranean Sea is sometimes referred to in the Bible as being the “utmost sea” or the “hindmost sea”. Here is Gordon Wenham’s apt description of what Abram says at Genesis 13: 9: “Abram invites Lot to share the promised land with him, either to ‘take the right’, often used of the south, or ‘the left’, i.e. the northern part of the country.” Wenham, “Genesis 1-15”, p. 297.
And here is Larry Helyer’s considered opinion of this issue, as reported approvingly by R. Christopher Heard at p. 37 of “Dynamics of Diselection”: “The first matter which should be addressed is the precise nature of the choice which Abram offered Lot; in order to understand this, we must remind ourselves of the Hebrew perspective on directions. Hebrew directions are east-oriented; that is, one is assumed to be facing east, qedem or panim. From this perspective one’s right, yamin, is south and one’s left, semol, is north. And behind one, ahor or yam, is the west. With this as background we can now reconstruct Lot’s choice. Abram and Lot were between Bethel and Ai, perhaps at modern Jebel et-Tawil. Abram permits Lot to decide which portion of the ‘whole land’ (kol ha’ares) he desires. For Abram the ‘whole land’ is the land of Canaan (’eres-kena‘an).”
So what Abram says at Genesis 13: 9 is as follows. Lot can choose the northern 2/3 of Canaan (all of Canaan proper/the Promised Land north of Bethel), in which case Abram will sojourn south of Bethel; or Lot can choose the southern 1/3 of Canaan (all of Canaan proper/the Promised Land south of Bethel), in which case Abram will sojourn north of Bethel.
We know that Abram sojourns south of Bethel. So if Abram meant what he said to Lot at Genesis 13: 9, and if neither man double-crossed the other (of which there is no indication in the text, nor would that make sense), then per Genesis 13: 9, and contra the unanimous view of university scholars, Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is located n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, nowhere in the general vicinity of the Dead Sea area, as scholars would have it.
Given what Genesis 13: 9 says, isn’t it surprising, and indeed disturbing, that no university scholar has ever asked in print whether Lot went north of Bethel, when Lot and Abram separated? Why are 100% of university scholars 100% convinced that Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is located in the Dead Sea area, when (i) that view is directly contradicted by Genesis 13: 9, and in addition (ii) that view makes no logical sense whatsoever, since the soft city life that Lot desired was readily available north of Bethel, in the lush Jezreel Valley (part of the greater Jordan River Valley) through which Lot and Abram had recently passed, whereas soft city life was not possible in the Dead Sea area?
Since most university scholars insist that chapters 13, 14 and 19 of Genesis (all of which refer to Sodom) have no historicity, why then are all university scholars so completely unwilling even to a-s-k if there is any possibility that Genesis 13: 9 means what it says? Per Genesis 13: 9, Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is located n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, in the lush Jezreel Valley which was ideal for Lot’s desire to live a soft city life.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Genesis 13: 9: Sodom's Location
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Genesis 13: 9: Sodom's Location
Did Abram nefariously double-cross Lot when they separated at Bethel?
If we take the majority view of today’s mainstream university scholars at face value, here is where Lot and Abram ended up after separating at Bethel. Lot, after leaving Bethel going east, then travels straight south to Gebel Usdum, located on the southwest edge of the Dead Sea. Abram for his part travels straight south of Bethel to the tallest hill/mountain in southern Canaan, near the modern city of Hebron. On the majority scholarly view, Abram thus lives 40 miles north by northwest of Gebel Usdum (where Lot is living).
Lot would have thought that his uncle Abram was honest, and that Abram meant what he said at Genesis 13: 9. So Lot started out living at the southern edge of the Promised Land of Canaan proper in the Dead Sea area, being Lot’s Plan A, as it were. Lot figured that if the Dead Sea area didn’t turn out well for him, then Lot’s Plan B would be to go north by northwest up into the hill country of Judah. Remember, Abram had promised to go north of Bethel if Lot went south of Bethel, so the entire hill country of Judah should be readily available to Lot.
But No! Abram, on this scholarly view, is ensconced near the modern city of Hebron, thus neatly cutting off Lot from moving into the hill country of Judah. Abram has isolated Lot in the Dead Sea area on this scholarly view, with Abram thereby having grabbed 7/8 of Canaan proper, including all the good land of Canaan, for himself. And this nefarious action was taken by Abram after Abram pretended to be gracious at Genesis 13: 9 in supposedly allowing Lot to pick whatever portion of Canaan Lot wanted: either the northern 2/3 of Canaan north of Bethel, or the southern 1/3 of Canaan south of Bethel.
There’s no way that Abram would act so nefariously and double-cross Lot. Not. If Lot had gone south to the Dead Sea area, as 100% of university scholars aver [erroneously] is the case, then Abram for his part would have honored what Abram said at Genesis 13: 9 and gone north of Bethel. Abram would thus do as he expressly promised Lot at Genesis 13: 9: leave all of Canaan proper/the Promised Land south of Bethel, not just the Dead Sea area, provisionally for Lot.
But in fact we all know that Abram went south of Bethel, to the Patriarchs’ Hebron. So per Genesis 13: 9, that means that Lot went n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, to the Jezreel Valley in the greater Jordan River Valley, where the soft city life that Lot desired was readily available.
Before we decide whether chapters 13, 14 and 19 of Genesis are fictional or not (with all mainstream university scholars claiming that such three chapters regarding Sodom have essentially no historicity), we must get the underlying geography right. At Genesis 13: 9 Abram said what he meant, and Genesis 13: 9 means what it says, in which case Lot went n-o-r-t-h of Bethel. The unanimous scholarly view to the contrary cannot stand the light of day. The scholarly view makes no sense textually, logically or historically.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
If we take the majority view of today’s mainstream university scholars at face value, here is where Lot and Abram ended up after separating at Bethel. Lot, after leaving Bethel going east, then travels straight south to Gebel Usdum, located on the southwest edge of the Dead Sea. Abram for his part travels straight south of Bethel to the tallest hill/mountain in southern Canaan, near the modern city of Hebron. On the majority scholarly view, Abram thus lives 40 miles north by northwest of Gebel Usdum (where Lot is living).
Lot would have thought that his uncle Abram was honest, and that Abram meant what he said at Genesis 13: 9. So Lot started out living at the southern edge of the Promised Land of Canaan proper in the Dead Sea area, being Lot’s Plan A, as it were. Lot figured that if the Dead Sea area didn’t turn out well for him, then Lot’s Plan B would be to go north by northwest up into the hill country of Judah. Remember, Abram had promised to go north of Bethel if Lot went south of Bethel, so the entire hill country of Judah should be readily available to Lot.
But No! Abram, on this scholarly view, is ensconced near the modern city of Hebron, thus neatly cutting off Lot from moving into the hill country of Judah. Abram has isolated Lot in the Dead Sea area on this scholarly view, with Abram thereby having grabbed 7/8 of Canaan proper, including all the good land of Canaan, for himself. And this nefarious action was taken by Abram after Abram pretended to be gracious at Genesis 13: 9 in supposedly allowing Lot to pick whatever portion of Canaan Lot wanted: either the northern 2/3 of Canaan north of Bethel, or the southern 1/3 of Canaan south of Bethel.
There’s no way that Abram would act so nefariously and double-cross Lot. Not. If Lot had gone south to the Dead Sea area, as 100% of university scholars aver [erroneously] is the case, then Abram for his part would have honored what Abram said at Genesis 13: 9 and gone north of Bethel. Abram would thus do as he expressly promised Lot at Genesis 13: 9: leave all of Canaan proper/the Promised Land south of Bethel, not just the Dead Sea area, provisionally for Lot.
But in fact we all know that Abram went south of Bethel, to the Patriarchs’ Hebron. So per Genesis 13: 9, that means that Lot went n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, to the Jezreel Valley in the greater Jordan River Valley, where the soft city life that Lot desired was readily available.
Before we decide whether chapters 13, 14 and 19 of Genesis are fictional or not (with all mainstream university scholars claiming that such three chapters regarding Sodom have essentially no historicity), we must get the underlying geography right. At Genesis 13: 9 Abram said what he meant, and Genesis 13: 9 means what it says, in which case Lot went n-o-r-t-h of Bethel. The unanimous scholarly view to the contrary cannot stand the light of day. The scholarly view makes no sense textually, logically or historically.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Genesis 13: 9: Sodom's Location
Did Lot double-cross Abram when they separated at Bethel?
A surprisingly large number of mainstream university scholars take the minority view that when Lot and Abram separated at Bethel, Lot double-crossed Abram. On that view, Lot was supposed to choose north Canaan proper or south Canaan proper, per what Abram clearly said at Genesis 13: 9. But per the statement at Genesis 13: 11 that Lot left Bethel heading east, this minority view asserts that Lot, contra what Abram had told him to do at Genesis 13: 9, then walked all the way out of Canaan proper altogether, across the Jordan River into the southern Transjordan:
“Larry Helyer has argued strongly that Lot’s actual destination does not coincide with the choice Abram presents [at Genesis 13: 9]. …If Abram’s and Lot’s sense of geography matches Helyer’s, then by choosing to move into the Jordan plain [in the southern Transjordan, east of the Dead Sea] Lot adds a third option (‘none of the above’) to Abram’s ‘right (south) or left (north)’. Helyer clearly thinks (and thinks that Abram thinks) Lot should not have introduced this third option. But the effect of this option, according to Helyer’s geography, is to leave Abram without any commitments that restrict his occupation of the entire land of Canaan. …Other readers (including Dillmann:22; Driver:155; Gunkel:175; Skinner:254; Steinmetz: 80, 90) may notice that Lot’s departure removes him from Canaan….” R. Christopher Heard, “Dynamics of Diselection” (2001), pp. 37-38.
But there are at least two reasons why this scholarly minority view makes no sense.
1. Lot would not choose “a pig in a poke”. From a mountaintop near Bethel, little of the southern Transjordan can be seen. Neither Lot, nor Abram, nor (apparently) anyone they knew, had ever been to the southern Transjordan, so Lot could not possibly have seen that the southern Transjordan was lush (which it isn’t, though it has many oases).
Rather, certainly Lot would choose the “sure thing”: the lush Jezreel Valley, through which Lot and Abram had recently passed (per Genesis 12: 5-6). Lot could easily see Mt. Gilboa from a mountaintop near Bethel, which reminded Lot of how lush the Jezreel Valley was. Meanwhile, there was no other lush land to be seen from that mountaintop near Bethel.
At Genesis 13: 9 Abram had clearly given Lot the option of choosing to live north of Bethel, at the lush Jezreel Valley. As a rational person, Lot logically would be sure to choose the “sure thing” and return north to the Jezreel Valley -- the KKR/kikkar of the Jordan, in that the Harod River flows east through the Jezreel Valley and empties into the Jordan River, thus being the main tributary of the Jordan River; thus the Jezreel Valley is an integral part of the greater Jordan River Valley. Since the Jezreel Valley is part and parcel of the greater Jordan River Valley, the most efficient way for Lot to lay claim to the Jezreel Valley was to proceed straight east of Bethel and dip his toe into the Jordan River; at that point Lot turned north and proceeded to the lush Jezreel Valley with its fabulous fields of grain, being the breadbasket of east-central Canaan. Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is the Jezreel Valley -- well north of Bethel (per Genesis 13: 9), and nowhere near the Dead Sea.
[My next post will set forth the second reason why the above minority view of scholars that Lot double-crossed Abram does not make sense.]
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
A surprisingly large number of mainstream university scholars take the minority view that when Lot and Abram separated at Bethel, Lot double-crossed Abram. On that view, Lot was supposed to choose north Canaan proper or south Canaan proper, per what Abram clearly said at Genesis 13: 9. But per the statement at Genesis 13: 11 that Lot left Bethel heading east, this minority view asserts that Lot, contra what Abram had told him to do at Genesis 13: 9, then walked all the way out of Canaan proper altogether, across the Jordan River into the southern Transjordan:
“Larry Helyer has argued strongly that Lot’s actual destination does not coincide with the choice Abram presents [at Genesis 13: 9]. …If Abram’s and Lot’s sense of geography matches Helyer’s, then by choosing to move into the Jordan plain [in the southern Transjordan, east of the Dead Sea] Lot adds a third option (‘none of the above’) to Abram’s ‘right (south) or left (north)’. Helyer clearly thinks (and thinks that Abram thinks) Lot should not have introduced this third option. But the effect of this option, according to Helyer’s geography, is to leave Abram without any commitments that restrict his occupation of the entire land of Canaan. …Other readers (including Dillmann:22; Driver:155; Gunkel:175; Skinner:254; Steinmetz: 80, 90) may notice that Lot’s departure removes him from Canaan….” R. Christopher Heard, “Dynamics of Diselection” (2001), pp. 37-38.
But there are at least two reasons why this scholarly minority view makes no sense.
1. Lot would not choose “a pig in a poke”. From a mountaintop near Bethel, little of the southern Transjordan can be seen. Neither Lot, nor Abram, nor (apparently) anyone they knew, had ever been to the southern Transjordan, so Lot could not possibly have seen that the southern Transjordan was lush (which it isn’t, though it has many oases).
Rather, certainly Lot would choose the “sure thing”: the lush Jezreel Valley, through which Lot and Abram had recently passed (per Genesis 12: 5-6). Lot could easily see Mt. Gilboa from a mountaintop near Bethel, which reminded Lot of how lush the Jezreel Valley was. Meanwhile, there was no other lush land to be seen from that mountaintop near Bethel.
At Genesis 13: 9 Abram had clearly given Lot the option of choosing to live north of Bethel, at the lush Jezreel Valley. As a rational person, Lot logically would be sure to choose the “sure thing” and return north to the Jezreel Valley -- the KKR/kikkar of the Jordan, in that the Harod River flows east through the Jezreel Valley and empties into the Jordan River, thus being the main tributary of the Jordan River; thus the Jezreel Valley is an integral part of the greater Jordan River Valley. Since the Jezreel Valley is part and parcel of the greater Jordan River Valley, the most efficient way for Lot to lay claim to the Jezreel Valley was to proceed straight east of Bethel and dip his toe into the Jordan River; at that point Lot turned north and proceeded to the lush Jezreel Valley with its fabulous fields of grain, being the breadbasket of east-central Canaan. Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is the Jezreel Valley -- well north of Bethel (per Genesis 13: 9), and nowhere near the Dead Sea.
[My next post will set forth the second reason why the above minority view of scholars that Lot double-crossed Abram does not make sense.]
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Genesis 13: 9: Sodom's Location
Here is the second reason why the scholarly minority view that Lot allegedly double-crossed Abram does not make sense.
2. If Lot had, per Genesis 13: 11, left the Promised Land of Canaan altogether, so that Sodom is not even located in Canaan/the Promised Land (which is the unique aspect of this scholarly minority view), then chapter 19 of Genesis, which describes the fiery destruction of Sodom in detail, would be utterly pointless. Who cares what happens to a place that is not even located in Canaan/the Promised Land? And on that theory of the case, why would Abraham wait until the fiery destruction of a place located outside of Canaan/the Promised Land to finally, at long last, leave the Patriarchs’ Hebron in southern Canaan, per Genesis 20: 1?
Note that the minute Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom has been destroyed, and before the dust has even literally settled, Abraham i-m-m-e-d-i-a-t-e-l-y (per Genesis 20: 1) makes a beeline for GRR [which, as noted below, should be viewed as being Gariree/Galilee in northern Canaan]. Abraham doesn’t ask if Lot is alive or dead, doesn’t send anyone to ascertain Lot’s fate, and never again helps Lot, even though (as Abraham could have determined if he had been of a mind to) Lot is alive and is now reduced to living in a cave. Chapter 19 of Genesis and Genesis 20: 1 are senseless unless Lot’s living in Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom has, to that point, prevented Abraham from leaving southern Canaan and laying claim to all of Canaan, as YHWH had promised to Abraham and his descendants.
As noted in my prior post, Heard says: “[T]he effect of this option, according to Helyer’s geography, is to leave Abram without any commitments that restrict his occupation of the entire land of Canaan.” But in fact, a critical element of the Abraham segment of the Patriarchal narratives is that Abraham never leaves the Patriarchs’ Hebron, and never leaves southern Canaan after sojourning at the Patriarchs’ Hebron, until Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is divinely destroyed by fire and brimstone. The reason for that is that Abraham had provisionally granted Canaan north of Bethel to Lot, per Genesis 13: 9; so until and unless YHWH divinely dispenses with any right Lot might otherwise have to claim any part of Canaan, Abraham cannot move out of southern Canaan. The very m-i-n-u-t-e Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom north of Bethel is divinely destroyed, Abraham i-m-m-e-d-i-a-t-e-l-y proceeds (per Genesis 20: 1) to GRR, to the far northwest corner of Canaan in GRR/Gariree/Galilee.
That storyline makes complete sense on all levels, without needing any textual emendation whatsoever, and being totally logical as to the choices Lot and Abraham rationally make, if we could just get the underlying geography right. Lot plays a big role in the Abraham segment of the Patriarchal narratives, because one key issue is whether the firstborn son/senior branch of Terah’s family -- firstborn son Haran (now deceased) and his firstborn (only) son Lot -- should rightfully have priority in claims to Canaan, or rather whether, somewhat shockingly, that firstborn son/senior branch should end up with absolutely nothing, with Terah’s youngest son Abraham receiving a-l-l of Canaan. The Hebrew author wants us to focus on that very issue. (In the Patriarchal narratives, the firstborn son always gets the shaft, and properly so: Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Manasseh.)
That great tension -- as to which branch of Terah’s descendants will come out on top regarding Canaan -- is not resolved until (i) any claim Lot might otherwise have (e.g. pursuant to Genesis 13: 9) to any part of Canaan is divinely quashed, per chapter 19 of Genesis, and (ii) Abraham then promptly perfects his claim to all of Canaan, per Genesis 20: 1, by immediately proceeding to the far northwest corner of GRR/Gariree/Galilee.
(In interpreting Genesis 20: 1, as to GRR being Galilee, see item #80 on the Thutmose III list of places in Canaan. In the cuneiform original of Genesis 20: 1, sWR was indistinguishable from CWR. Though the received alphabetical Hebrew text of Genesis 20: 1 has sWR, what was originally intended there was CWR: “Tyre”/so-ur-ri, an island city-state [with no water wells of its own] in the northwest corner of Upper Galilee, whose ruler, both historically and Biblically, was named “Abimelek”. QD$ at Genesis 20: 1 is not Kadesh-Barnea, but rather is Kedesh-Naphtali in eastern Upper Galilee. The land of NGB is not the Negev Desert at Genesis 20: 1, but rather is a reference there to the land of Adami-the-NGB in eastern Lower Galilee, per item #57 on the TIII list.)
* * *
Chapters 13, 14 and 19 of Genesis (regarding Sodom) make perfect sense, on all levels, if and only if Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is the Jezreel Valley, being the breadbasket (then and now) of east-central Canaan, n-o-r-t-h of Bethel. That’s exactly what Genesis 13: 9 says, and it means what it says. Having provisionally granted Lot the northern 2/3 of Canaan/the Promised Land, Abraham could not leave southern Canaan to claim the rest of Canaan until YHWH had divinely dispensed with Lot. The very minute that Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom, namely the Jezreel Valley in east-central Canaan, is divinely destroyed, Abraham is off like a shot to GRR/Gariree/Galilee to claim the rest of Canaan (that is, the northern 2/3 of Canaan), as had long been divinely promised to Abraham (per Genesis 13: 14-17), but only now (after the destruction of Sodom in chapter 19 of Genesis) was Abraham’s for the taking.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
2. If Lot had, per Genesis 13: 11, left the Promised Land of Canaan altogether, so that Sodom is not even located in Canaan/the Promised Land (which is the unique aspect of this scholarly minority view), then chapter 19 of Genesis, which describes the fiery destruction of Sodom in detail, would be utterly pointless. Who cares what happens to a place that is not even located in Canaan/the Promised Land? And on that theory of the case, why would Abraham wait until the fiery destruction of a place located outside of Canaan/the Promised Land to finally, at long last, leave the Patriarchs’ Hebron in southern Canaan, per Genesis 20: 1?
Note that the minute Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom has been destroyed, and before the dust has even literally settled, Abraham i-m-m-e-d-i-a-t-e-l-y (per Genesis 20: 1) makes a beeline for GRR [which, as noted below, should be viewed as being Gariree/Galilee in northern Canaan]. Abraham doesn’t ask if Lot is alive or dead, doesn’t send anyone to ascertain Lot’s fate, and never again helps Lot, even though (as Abraham could have determined if he had been of a mind to) Lot is alive and is now reduced to living in a cave. Chapter 19 of Genesis and Genesis 20: 1 are senseless unless Lot’s living in Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom has, to that point, prevented Abraham from leaving southern Canaan and laying claim to all of Canaan, as YHWH had promised to Abraham and his descendants.
As noted in my prior post, Heard says: “[T]he effect of this option, according to Helyer’s geography, is to leave Abram without any commitments that restrict his occupation of the entire land of Canaan.” But in fact, a critical element of the Abraham segment of the Patriarchal narratives is that Abraham never leaves the Patriarchs’ Hebron, and never leaves southern Canaan after sojourning at the Patriarchs’ Hebron, until Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is divinely destroyed by fire and brimstone. The reason for that is that Abraham had provisionally granted Canaan north of Bethel to Lot, per Genesis 13: 9; so until and unless YHWH divinely dispenses with any right Lot might otherwise have to claim any part of Canaan, Abraham cannot move out of southern Canaan. The very m-i-n-u-t-e Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom north of Bethel is divinely destroyed, Abraham i-m-m-e-d-i-a-t-e-l-y proceeds (per Genesis 20: 1) to GRR, to the far northwest corner of Canaan in GRR/Gariree/Galilee.
That storyline makes complete sense on all levels, without needing any textual emendation whatsoever, and being totally logical as to the choices Lot and Abraham rationally make, if we could just get the underlying geography right. Lot plays a big role in the Abraham segment of the Patriarchal narratives, because one key issue is whether the firstborn son/senior branch of Terah’s family -- firstborn son Haran (now deceased) and his firstborn (only) son Lot -- should rightfully have priority in claims to Canaan, or rather whether, somewhat shockingly, that firstborn son/senior branch should end up with absolutely nothing, with Terah’s youngest son Abraham receiving a-l-l of Canaan. The Hebrew author wants us to focus on that very issue. (In the Patriarchal narratives, the firstborn son always gets the shaft, and properly so: Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Manasseh.)
That great tension -- as to which branch of Terah’s descendants will come out on top regarding Canaan -- is not resolved until (i) any claim Lot might otherwise have (e.g. pursuant to Genesis 13: 9) to any part of Canaan is divinely quashed, per chapter 19 of Genesis, and (ii) Abraham then promptly perfects his claim to all of Canaan, per Genesis 20: 1, by immediately proceeding to the far northwest corner of GRR/Gariree/Galilee.
(In interpreting Genesis 20: 1, as to GRR being Galilee, see item #80 on the Thutmose III list of places in Canaan. In the cuneiform original of Genesis 20: 1, sWR was indistinguishable from CWR. Though the received alphabetical Hebrew text of Genesis 20: 1 has sWR, what was originally intended there was CWR: “Tyre”/so-ur-ri, an island city-state [with no water wells of its own] in the northwest corner of Upper Galilee, whose ruler, both historically and Biblically, was named “Abimelek”. QD$ at Genesis 20: 1 is not Kadesh-Barnea, but rather is Kedesh-Naphtali in eastern Upper Galilee. The land of NGB is not the Negev Desert at Genesis 20: 1, but rather is a reference there to the land of Adami-the-NGB in eastern Lower Galilee, per item #57 on the TIII list.)
* * *
Chapters 13, 14 and 19 of Genesis (regarding Sodom) make perfect sense, on all levels, if and only if Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom is the Jezreel Valley, being the breadbasket (then and now) of east-central Canaan, n-o-r-t-h of Bethel. That’s exactly what Genesis 13: 9 says, and it means what it says. Having provisionally granted Lot the northern 2/3 of Canaan/the Promised Land, Abraham could not leave southern Canaan to claim the rest of Canaan until YHWH had divinely dispensed with Lot. The very minute that Lot’s adopted homeland of Sodom, namely the Jezreel Valley in east-central Canaan, is divinely destroyed, Abraham is off like a shot to GRR/Gariree/Galilee to claim the rest of Canaan (that is, the northern 2/3 of Canaan), as had long been divinely promised to Abraham (per Genesis 13: 14-17), but only now (after the destruction of Sodom in chapter 19 of Genesis) was Abraham’s for the taking.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Em3ry
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:08 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Genesis 13: 9: Sodom's Location
Abrams journey:
Kesed > Hebron > Bethel (Bethuel) > Egypt (Zebulun) > Bethel > Gerar > Beer-Sheba
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Outline_ ... _geography
Kesed > Hebron > Bethel (Bethuel) > Egypt (Zebulun) > Bethel > Gerar > Beer-Sheba
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Outline_ ... _geography
— Em3ry