Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, and What Lot Did There
On this thread, let’s look at chapter 13 of Genesis to see where the Bible places Lot’s adopted hometown city of Sodom. If we follow what the text says as to Sodom’s geographical location, we will then be rewarded by being able to document Sodom’s historical destruction. And beyond that, this thread will be the first time in over 3,000 years in which we can take a peek at what Lot was actually doing in Sodom. The key is first to figure out Sodom’s geographical location, based on what the Biblical t-e-x-t s-a-y-s , and then from there go on to figure out the applicable historical time period.
Here is what chapter 13 of Genesis says [KJV] as to where Lot goes when he separates from his uncle Abram: “8 And Abram said unto Lot,…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. 10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain [KKR/kikkar] of Jordan, that it was well watered every where….11 Then Lot chose him all the plain [KKR/kikkar] of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other. 12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain [KKR/kikkar], and pitched his tent toward Sodom.”
Note this key line, as to what Lot saw: “10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain [KKR/kikkar] of Jordan….” And consider now in conjunction therewith what Abram saw: “14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: 15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.”
Accordingly, Genesis 13: 10, 14-15 mandate that Lot and Abram are at the top of the mountain south of Shechem [Genesis 12: 6] that affords a panoramic view of Canaan. The context thus requires that Abram’s “Bethel” is not Joshua’s “Bethel”, because Joshua’s “Bethel” [modern Bethel] has no view. Rather, Abram’s “Bethel” is 5 miles northeast of Joshua’s “Bethel”, being at Baal Hazor/Ramat Hazor/Mount Hazor/Jebel el-‘Asur, as properly recognized by the Genesis Apocryphon:
“In column XXI of the Genesis Apocryphon,…Abraham was told to climb to Ramat Hazor in order to see the country. Ramat Hazor can be identified as Jebel el-‘Asur, five miles north of [Joshua’s] Beth-El, which is the highest spot in the Judean Hills – 3,302 feet above sea level. The author knew that from [Joshua’s] Beth-El there is no view, while from Mount Hazor you can see a large portion of the land of Israel. ….In 2 Sam 13: 23 the place is called Baal Hazor.” E. Eshel, in “The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays” (1997), p. 4.
Now consider the Eastern Jezreel Valley: (i) from the top of Baal Hazor, it can be seen [as discussed below]; (ii) it is well-watered (by the Harod River), having fine fields of grain and being the breadbasket of east-central Canaan; (iii) it is part of the “Jordan” (since the Harod River flows through it and empties into the Jordan River); and (iv) as the wealthiest part of Canaan, it had many fine cities and was greatly attractive to Lot, who wanted to give up his tent and live the soft city life. By contrast, the overwhelming majority view of mainstream university scholars, believe it or not, puts a “not” in front of all four of those textual requirements for where Sodom is located. Scholars see Sodom as being located south or southwest of the Dead Sea, meaning that: (i) Sodom could n-o-t be seen by Lot from that mountaintop; (ii) Sodom was n-o-t well-watered, being located in a desolate, desert-like part of Canaan that had no usable water resources; (iii) Sodom is n-o-t part of the “Jordan”, since in Biblical usage “Jordan” always refers to the Jordan River Valley or Greater Jordan River Valley n-o-r-t-h of the Dead Sea; and (iv) Sodom was n-o-t the wealthiest part of Canaan, rather being the poorest part of Canaan, it did n-o-t have any fine cities, and it could n-o-t have been attractive at all to Lot, who wanted to give up his tent and live the soft city life. Needless to say, scholars do not have the foggiest idea where the Bible portrays Sodom as being geographically located, as scholars willy-nilly simply add the word “not” in front of every requirement in chapter 13 of Genesis for Sodom’s location.
Now let’s ask what one can see if one looks directly north from the top of Baal Hazor. Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal are just to the west, and as such obstruct the view of the western Jezreel Valley (west of Jezreel, being the part of the Jezreel Valley in which the Kishon River flows west to the Mediterranean Sea). But there is no obstruction to seeing the Eastern Jezreel Valley (the Harod Valley and the Beth Shean Valley), through which the Harod River flows east into the Jordan River.
One can see Mt. Gilboa in the Eastern Jezreel Valley (east of Shunem) from Baal Hazor, and just to the west, the Hill of Morieh. Shunem is a rich agricultural city that is located at the western foot of the Hill of Morieh. One may even be able to see the city of Shunem itself, together with its fine fields of grain, situated on the far north bank of the Jezreel Valley.
Once we figure out the historical time period for chapter 13 of Genesis, we will find that Lot’s adopted hometown city of Biblical “Sodom” is historical Shunem. Shunem is
located directly north of Baal Hazor. http://ticbc.org/HLSAT/HolyLand25.htm
Note that Lot and Abram having just passed by that way in coming to Abram’s Bethel from Syria, seeing Mt. Gilboa and the Hill of Morieh in the distance from Baal Hazor/Mount Hazor/Ramat Hazor/Abram’s “Bethel” would recall the well-watered Eastern Jezreel Valley in general, and Shunem in particular.
The Eastern Jezreel Valley is “well-watered” because the Harod River flows through it, and this place is the breadbasket of east-central Canaan. The Eastern Jezreel Valley is part of the Greater Jordan River Valley and hence is part of “Jordan”, because the Harod River flows through it and empties into the Jordan River. Finally, the Eastern Jezreel Valley is the wealthiest part of Canaan. It had such good agricultural land that pharaoh Akhenaten himself maintained Egyptian royal estate lands at Shunem (Amarna Letter EA 365). It had many fine cities and as such was greatly attractive to Lot, who indeed wanted to give up his tent and live the soft city life.
Thus if we look at what the t-e-x-t s-a-y-s in chapter 13 of Genesis, it’s clear that Lot’s adopted hometown city of Sodom was located in the Eastern Jezreel Valley, not in the very poorest part of Canaan (as scholars would have it): the desolate area south or southwest of the Dead Sea, which was not part of the “Jordan”, and which could not be seen from a mountaintop anywhere in the general vicinity of Bethel.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did There
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
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
Jim:
I read far enough to see that you have no respect for archaeology and history. The archaeological spade has uncovered the five bronze age cities in an area which in the bronze age was a well watered. They were situated in the southern Jordan valley, which geologists reckon includes the Dead Sea. They include two layers of destruction, one about 16 years before the final destruction. Four of the cities were burned, the fifth and smallest abandoned. The burning that destroyed the cities extended outside the city walls into the grave yards as well, presumably also into the fields that fed the cities.
The layer of destruction years before the final destruction equates to the four kings against five.
We’ve already covered this issue before. That you bring it up again shows that you have no respect for us either.
Karl W. Randolph.
I read far enough to see that you have no respect for archaeology and history. The archaeological spade has uncovered the five bronze age cities in an area which in the bronze age was a well watered. They were situated in the southern Jordan valley, which geologists reckon includes the Dead Sea. They include two layers of destruction, one about 16 years before the final destruction. Four of the cities were burned, the fifth and smallest abandoned. The burning that destroyed the cities extended outside the city walls into the grave yards as well, presumably also into the fields that fed the cities.
The layer of destruction years before the final destruction equates to the four kings against five.
We’ve already covered this issue before. That you bring it up again shows that you have no respect for us either.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
Karl:
You wrote: “The archaeological spade has uncovered the five bronze age cities in an area which in the bronze age was a well watered. They were situated in the southern Jordan valley, which geologists reckon includes the Dead Sea.”
1. What do you mean by the phrase “the southern Jordan valley”? Do you mean by that phrase an area that, subsequent to chapter 19 of Genesis and to the present day, has allegedly been lying underneath the Dead Sea? If so, would that be the northern half of the Dead Sea, or the shallow southern half of the Dead Sea?
I know of no serious historian or archaeologist who accepts any such view.
2. No area near the Dead Sea has ever been “well-watered”, if by that phrase is meant having water resources that allow fine fields of grain to flourish. There are oases east of the Dead Sea, but Lot’s Sodom has never been placed there.
Never in historical times has any place near the Dead Sea been a breadbasket for its region. Rather, it’s the Eastern Jezreel Valley that is “well-watered” and that has always been the breadbasket for east-central Canaan. That is the locale of Lot’s adopted hometown city of Sodom.
3. The “new news” I will be setting forth on this thread (which we have not gone over before) consists of the following two items: (i) proof of the historical destruction of Sodom by fire; and (ii) evidence that helps us figure out what Lot historically was doing in Sodom.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “The archaeological spade has uncovered the five bronze age cities in an area which in the bronze age was a well watered. They were situated in the southern Jordan valley, which geologists reckon includes the Dead Sea.”
1. What do you mean by the phrase “the southern Jordan valley”? Do you mean by that phrase an area that, subsequent to chapter 19 of Genesis and to the present day, has allegedly been lying underneath the Dead Sea? If so, would that be the northern half of the Dead Sea, or the shallow southern half of the Dead Sea?
I know of no serious historian or archaeologist who accepts any such view.
2. No area near the Dead Sea has ever been “well-watered”, if by that phrase is meant having water resources that allow fine fields of grain to flourish. There are oases east of the Dead Sea, but Lot’s Sodom has never been placed there.
Never in historical times has any place near the Dead Sea been a breadbasket for its region. Rather, it’s the Eastern Jezreel Valley that is “well-watered” and that has always been the breadbasket for east-central Canaan. That is the locale of Lot’s adopted hometown city of Sodom.
3. The “new news” I will be setting forth on this thread (which we have not gone over before) consists of the following two items: (i) proof of the historical destruction of Sodom by fire; and (ii) evidence that helps us figure out what Lot historically was doing in Sodom.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
A. Historical Time Period of Sodom: Year 13
As I have noted on previous threads, Genesis 14: 4 expressly refers to “Year 13”. In the context of Genesis 14: 1-4, which has pinpoint historical accuracy in describing the Year 13 instigating events of the Great Syrian War (involving Hittites/“Tidal” and Hurrians/“Arioch”, at a “salt sea” which in that context must be the Mediterranean Sea [not the Dead Sea], with everything thus matching to the Great Syrian War), that would be Year 13 of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign.
B. Sodom/Shunem Featured Fine Fields of Grain
Biblically, “Sodom” is likely a Patriarchal nickname that is a pun on “Siddim”, with the latter being an archaic plural of “field”. As such, both names mean: “good fields place”, based on having fine fields of grain. The reason why Lot was attracted to the soft city life of Sodom was precisely because Sodom had some of the best fields of grain in all of Canaan, being located in the Eastern Jezreel Valley -- the breadbasket of east-central Canaan.
Historically, Shunem (located in the northwest Jezreel Valley) is the best fit for Biblical “Sodom”. We know that in Late Amarna, the city of Shunem was a “good fields place”, because Amarna Letter EA 365 makes clear that Shunem featured fine agricultural fields fit for pharaoh Akhenaten of Egypt himself: “Cultivation of [Egyptian] royal estates in Shunem…by corvée laborers is reported in a letter from the king of Megiddo to the pharaoh in the fourteenth century (…[Amarna Letter] EA 365….).” Norman Gottwald, “Tribes of Yahweh” (1999), p. 716.
C. Shunem/Biblical “Sodom” Was Likely Destroyed by Fire in Year 13
(i) Cities are frequently said to have been set on fire in the Amarna Letters. So if a city is said to be “destroyed” in the Amarna Age, there’s a good chance that it was burned to the ground. Amarna Letters EA 126: 43-52; 185: 16-27; 186: 12-27; 189: 12 (from Etakama [Biblical “Arioch”]); 53: 23-49 and 55: 38-43 (from Akizzi [Biblical “Shemeber”]); 306: 28-35; 174: 8-17; 175: 7-13 (from the Amorite princeling ruler of Hasi/Hizzin/Hazezontamar); 176: 7-13; 363: 7-14; 162: 30-32 (from pharaoh Akhenaten).
(ii) Here’s what the Holman Bible Dictionary has to say about Shunem: “SHUNEM… Town…located southeast of Mount Carmel [in the Jezreel Valley]. The site was captured…by Labayu of Shechem about 1350 B.C., and rebuilt by Biridya of Megiddo.” In an Amarna Age context, a city that, like Shunem, has to be “rebuilt” had likely been burned to the ground by fire.
(iii) And/or it may have been the fine agricultural lands of Shunem that were set on fire. Non-biblical historian Eric Cline both says that “Labayu…destroys Shunem”, and also references “the devastated fields of Shunem”: “Labayu attacks and destroys Shunem. …[Later, Hurrian princeling] Biridiya sends corvée workers to cultivate the devastated fields of Shunem.” Eric H. Cline, “The Battles of Armageddon: Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley from the Bronze Age to the Nuclear Age” (2002), p. 39.
Note that Genesis 19: 25 says both that the cities of the KKR/kikkar of the Jordan were overthrown, and that “that which grew upon the ground” was also destroyed: “25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain [KKR/kikkar], and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.” The phrase “he overthrew…that which grew upon the ground” may historically be a reference to the fields of grain at Shunem that were set on fire when Labayu destroyed Shunem in Year 13.
Unfortunately, no excavation work has been done at Shunem, so we cannot prove the matter archaeologically (unlike at nearby Beth Shean, which we will examine next, where the archaeological record of a fiery destruction is clear). But based on the foregoing textual sources, it seems likely that the city of Shunem itself [Biblical “Sodom”], and/or its fine fields of grain, were destroyed by fire in Year 13. (We will also soon see non-biblical textual support for Gomorrah/Tel Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr being intimately involved with the fiery fate of Sodom/Shunem as well. But that must wait for a later post.)
As per usual, it turns out that chapters 13, 14 and 19 of Genesis have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy, if the historical time period is Year 13. Biblical “Sodom”/historical Shunem, and/or its fine fields of grain, were indeed burned to the ground in Year 13, just as Genesis 19: 25 accurately reports.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
As I have noted on previous threads, Genesis 14: 4 expressly refers to “Year 13”. In the context of Genesis 14: 1-4, which has pinpoint historical accuracy in describing the Year 13 instigating events of the Great Syrian War (involving Hittites/“Tidal” and Hurrians/“Arioch”, at a “salt sea” which in that context must be the Mediterranean Sea [not the Dead Sea], with everything thus matching to the Great Syrian War), that would be Year 13 of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign.
B. Sodom/Shunem Featured Fine Fields of Grain
Biblically, “Sodom” is likely a Patriarchal nickname that is a pun on “Siddim”, with the latter being an archaic plural of “field”. As such, both names mean: “good fields place”, based on having fine fields of grain. The reason why Lot was attracted to the soft city life of Sodom was precisely because Sodom had some of the best fields of grain in all of Canaan, being located in the Eastern Jezreel Valley -- the breadbasket of east-central Canaan.
Historically, Shunem (located in the northwest Jezreel Valley) is the best fit for Biblical “Sodom”. We know that in Late Amarna, the city of Shunem was a “good fields place”, because Amarna Letter EA 365 makes clear that Shunem featured fine agricultural fields fit for pharaoh Akhenaten of Egypt himself: “Cultivation of [Egyptian] royal estates in Shunem…by corvée laborers is reported in a letter from the king of Megiddo to the pharaoh in the fourteenth century (…[Amarna Letter] EA 365….).” Norman Gottwald, “Tribes of Yahweh” (1999), p. 716.
C. Shunem/Biblical “Sodom” Was Likely Destroyed by Fire in Year 13
(i) Cities are frequently said to have been set on fire in the Amarna Letters. So if a city is said to be “destroyed” in the Amarna Age, there’s a good chance that it was burned to the ground. Amarna Letters EA 126: 43-52; 185: 16-27; 186: 12-27; 189: 12 (from Etakama [Biblical “Arioch”]); 53: 23-49 and 55: 38-43 (from Akizzi [Biblical “Shemeber”]); 306: 28-35; 174: 8-17; 175: 7-13 (from the Amorite princeling ruler of Hasi/Hizzin/Hazezontamar); 176: 7-13; 363: 7-14; 162: 30-32 (from pharaoh Akhenaten).
(ii) Here’s what the Holman Bible Dictionary has to say about Shunem: “SHUNEM… Town…located southeast of Mount Carmel [in the Jezreel Valley]. The site was captured…by Labayu of Shechem about 1350 B.C., and rebuilt by Biridya of Megiddo.” In an Amarna Age context, a city that, like Shunem, has to be “rebuilt” had likely been burned to the ground by fire.
(iii) And/or it may have been the fine agricultural lands of Shunem that were set on fire. Non-biblical historian Eric Cline both says that “Labayu…destroys Shunem”, and also references “the devastated fields of Shunem”: “Labayu attacks and destroys Shunem. …[Later, Hurrian princeling] Biridiya sends corvée workers to cultivate the devastated fields of Shunem.” Eric H. Cline, “The Battles of Armageddon: Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley from the Bronze Age to the Nuclear Age” (2002), p. 39.
Note that Genesis 19: 25 says both that the cities of the KKR/kikkar of the Jordan were overthrown, and that “that which grew upon the ground” was also destroyed: “25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain [KKR/kikkar], and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.” The phrase “he overthrew…that which grew upon the ground” may historically be a reference to the fields of grain at Shunem that were set on fire when Labayu destroyed Shunem in Year 13.
Unfortunately, no excavation work has been done at Shunem, so we cannot prove the matter archaeologically (unlike at nearby Beth Shean, which we will examine next, where the archaeological record of a fiery destruction is clear). But based on the foregoing textual sources, it seems likely that the city of Shunem itself [Biblical “Sodom”], and/or its fine fields of grain, were destroyed by fire in Year 13. (We will also soon see non-biblical textual support for Gomorrah/Tel Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr being intimately involved with the fiery fate of Sodom/Shunem as well. But that must wait for a later post.)
As per usual, it turns out that chapters 13, 14 and 19 of Genesis have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy, if the historical time period is Year 13. Biblical “Sodom”/historical Shunem, and/or its fine fields of grain, were indeed burned to the ground in Year 13, just as Genesis 19: 25 accurately reports.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
1. Genesis 19: 25: “And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain [KKR/kikkar], and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.”
In my prior post, we saw that Shunem/Sodom in the Eastern Jezreel Valley/kikkar of the Jordan was likely burnt to the ground in Year 13. Now consider that likely in that same year, another city in the Eastern Jezreel Valley/kikkar of the Jordan (southeast of Shunem/Sodom) was definitely burned to the ground -- Beth Shean:
“We have shown that Level IX [of Beth-Shean] was destroyed by a great fire during the mid-14th century BCE, towards the end of the Amarna Period….” Amihai Mazar, “The Egyptian Garrison Town at Beth-Shean”, in S. Bar, D. Kahn and J.J. Shirley (editors), “Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature: Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Haifa, 3-7 May 2009” (2011), p. 156.
So Year 13 historically featured what chapter 19 of Genesis accurately reports: cities in the kikkar of the Jordan/Eastern Jezreel Valley being burnt to the ground.
[In a later post we’ll see how Gomorrah figures into this, and figure out what Lot was doing at Sodom/Shunem.]
2. Genesis 19: 4, 9: “4But before they [Lot’s two visitors] lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter….9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.”
Based on my prior post, we know that strongman Labayu’s greatest triumph, if short-lived, was successfully conquering Shunem/Sodom in Year 13, commandeering pharaoh Akhenaten’s fine fields of grain there. Based on what Labayu’s sons later said after the fact, it is clear that, in accordance with Genesis 19: 4, 9 cited above, many of the locals in Shunem/Sodom had in fact gone over to Labayu’s side (the dark side) and were openly defying pharaoh Akhenaten (with Lot, as we shall later see, being on pharaoh’s side):
“And thus the two sons of Labayu keep saying to me, ‘Wage war against the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], your lord, as our father did, when he attacked Shunama…and deported the evil ones, lifting up the loyal. …[H]e cultivated the fields of the king, your lord.’” Amarna Letter EA 250: 40-47.
From the standpoint of Labayu’s sons, Lot and the handful of locals who remained faithful to pharaoh Akhenaten were “the evil ones” who needed to be “deported”. Whereas by contrast, “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom,…both old and young, all the people from every quarter” who had broken with pharaoh and were now following Labayu were “the loyal” ones, who would ostensibly receive a “lifting up” by Labayu.
So we see that the site and occasion of Labayu’s greatest, if short-lived, triumph, being one of the two cities in Canaan that were the biggest immediate problem for Akhenaten in Year 13, namely Shunem/Sodom, gets a whole chapter to itself in the Patriarchal narratives: chapter 19 of Genesis. As we see over and over again, if there’s a story in the Patriarchal narratives, then it’s likely closely based on what actually happened non-biblically in Year 13.
3. Genesis 34: 2, 6, 8: “2And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. …6And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. …8And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.”
With “Hamor” being an anagram of the logogram for “lion”, and “Labayu” meaning “lion”, the historical Hamor, that is Labayu, of Shechem adds verse 8½ immediately after Genesis 34: 8 quoted above: “I did not know that my son was consorting with the ‘Apiru.” Amarna Letter EA 254: 30-37.
In a later post we will pull together Labayu’s actions at Shechem and his actions at Shunem/Sodom and the destruction of Beth Shean and how Tagi of Tel Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr/Gomorrah was tied into all of this. But for now, just note that the second city in Canaan that caused Akhenaten the most problems in Year 13 was Shechem, which Labayu was trying to make the capital city of a fully-independent new state in central Canaan that would dominate the entire Jezreel Valley. That is the only other city in the Patriarchal narratives that gets a whole chapter to itself: chapter 34 of Genesis. And note that the ending is the same Biblically and non-biblically: on behalf of, but without the prior knowledge or approval of, the first monotheistic leader of his people [pharaoh Akhenaten non-biblically, Jacob/“Israel” Biblically], the ruler of Shechem is assassinated under very peculiar circumstances, involving masterful deceit.
* * *
I’ll stop there now. Next up will be Gomorrah, and what Lot was doing in Sodom/Shunem.
Please note that the Patriarchal narratives have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in reporting what happened non-biblically in Year 13. There is a virtual one-for-one match! In just this one post, we have seen all three of the following: (i) the non-biblical basis for cities in the kikkar of the Jordan/Eastern Jezreel Valley (the most attractive part of Canaan because it was “well-watered”) being accurately portrayed as being burnt to the ground in Year 13; (ii) the people of Shunem/Sodom in Year 13 turning to the dark side (before getting their well-deserved comeuppance); and (iii) the ruler of Shechem being assassinated in Year 13 under very peculiar circumstances, involving masterful deceit.
When university scholars insist that all of those stories in the Patriarchal narratives are fiction, they know not what they say. Just think Year 13, and it’s right there.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
In my prior post, we saw that Shunem/Sodom in the Eastern Jezreel Valley/kikkar of the Jordan was likely burnt to the ground in Year 13. Now consider that likely in that same year, another city in the Eastern Jezreel Valley/kikkar of the Jordan (southeast of Shunem/Sodom) was definitely burned to the ground -- Beth Shean:
“We have shown that Level IX [of Beth-Shean] was destroyed by a great fire during the mid-14th century BCE, towards the end of the Amarna Period….” Amihai Mazar, “The Egyptian Garrison Town at Beth-Shean”, in S. Bar, D. Kahn and J.J. Shirley (editors), “Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature: Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Haifa, 3-7 May 2009” (2011), p. 156.
So Year 13 historically featured what chapter 19 of Genesis accurately reports: cities in the kikkar of the Jordan/Eastern Jezreel Valley being burnt to the ground.
[In a later post we’ll see how Gomorrah figures into this, and figure out what Lot was doing at Sodom/Shunem.]
2. Genesis 19: 4, 9: “4But before they [Lot’s two visitors] lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter….9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.”
Based on my prior post, we know that strongman Labayu’s greatest triumph, if short-lived, was successfully conquering Shunem/Sodom in Year 13, commandeering pharaoh Akhenaten’s fine fields of grain there. Based on what Labayu’s sons later said after the fact, it is clear that, in accordance with Genesis 19: 4, 9 cited above, many of the locals in Shunem/Sodom had in fact gone over to Labayu’s side (the dark side) and were openly defying pharaoh Akhenaten (with Lot, as we shall later see, being on pharaoh’s side):
“And thus the two sons of Labayu keep saying to me, ‘Wage war against the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], your lord, as our father did, when he attacked Shunama…and deported the evil ones, lifting up the loyal. …[H]e cultivated the fields of the king, your lord.’” Amarna Letter EA 250: 40-47.
From the standpoint of Labayu’s sons, Lot and the handful of locals who remained faithful to pharaoh Akhenaten were “the evil ones” who needed to be “deported”. Whereas by contrast, “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom,…both old and young, all the people from every quarter” who had broken with pharaoh and were now following Labayu were “the loyal” ones, who would ostensibly receive a “lifting up” by Labayu.
So we see that the site and occasion of Labayu’s greatest, if short-lived, triumph, being one of the two cities in Canaan that were the biggest immediate problem for Akhenaten in Year 13, namely Shunem/Sodom, gets a whole chapter to itself in the Patriarchal narratives: chapter 19 of Genesis. As we see over and over again, if there’s a story in the Patriarchal narratives, then it’s likely closely based on what actually happened non-biblically in Year 13.
3. Genesis 34: 2, 6, 8: “2And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. …6And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. …8And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.”
With “Hamor” being an anagram of the logogram for “lion”, and “Labayu” meaning “lion”, the historical Hamor, that is Labayu, of Shechem adds verse 8½ immediately after Genesis 34: 8 quoted above: “I did not know that my son was consorting with the ‘Apiru.” Amarna Letter EA 254: 30-37.
In a later post we will pull together Labayu’s actions at Shechem and his actions at Shunem/Sodom and the destruction of Beth Shean and how Tagi of Tel Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr/Gomorrah was tied into all of this. But for now, just note that the second city in Canaan that caused Akhenaten the most problems in Year 13 was Shechem, which Labayu was trying to make the capital city of a fully-independent new state in central Canaan that would dominate the entire Jezreel Valley. That is the only other city in the Patriarchal narratives that gets a whole chapter to itself: chapter 34 of Genesis. And note that the ending is the same Biblically and non-biblically: on behalf of, but without the prior knowledge or approval of, the first monotheistic leader of his people [pharaoh Akhenaten non-biblically, Jacob/“Israel” Biblically], the ruler of Shechem is assassinated under very peculiar circumstances, involving masterful deceit.
* * *
I’ll stop there now. Next up will be Gomorrah, and what Lot was doing in Sodom/Shunem.
Please note that the Patriarchal narratives have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in reporting what happened non-biblically in Year 13. There is a virtual one-for-one match! In just this one post, we have seen all three of the following: (i) the non-biblical basis for cities in the kikkar of the Jordan/Eastern Jezreel Valley (the most attractive part of Canaan because it was “well-watered”) being accurately portrayed as being burnt to the ground in Year 13; (ii) the people of Shunem/Sodom in Year 13 turning to the dark side (before getting their well-deserved comeuppance); and (iii) the ruler of Shechem being assassinated in Year 13 under very peculiar circumstances, involving masterful deceit.
When university scholars insist that all of those stories in the Patriarchal narratives are fiction, they know not what they say. Just think Year 13, and it’s right there.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
You shouldn’t show off your ignorance like that.Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:
You wrote: “The archaeological spade has uncovered the five bronze age cities in an area which in the bronze age was a well watered. They were situated in the southern Jordan valley, which geologists reckon includes the Dead Sea.”…I know of no serious historian or archaeologist who accepts any such view.
You may not have heard of him, but an archaeologist like Paul Lapp wouldn’t be allowed to lead three years of excavations at one place without being a serious archaeologist.
What he found is a place that had a sizable population, well-fed, with a wide variety of food available and apparently locally grown. Genesis 13:10 indicates that the situation was different before and after the destruction of the cities. Before—well watered and fertile, afterwards—a desert. Anybody who says differently from what the history indicates doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Nah, I didn’t finish reading this essay, nor the next two.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
Karl:
You wrote: “You may not have heard of him, but an archaeologist like Paul Lapp wouldn’t be allowed to lead three years of excavations at one place without being a serious archaeologist.’
Karl, that was over 50 years ago, in the 1960s. None of those theories have been proven archaeologically.
Here is an article from Haaretz that appeared just today, November 5, 2014, specifically citing Paul Lapp’s work and confirming that no such archaeological theories have been proven:
Haaretz
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-1.569560
“The fiery theology - and inconclusive archaeology - behind Sodom and Gomorrah”
…“Based on the five wadis leading into the southeastern Dead Sea, W. F. Albright, the founder of the Biblical Archeology movement, first theorized that these dry riverbeds once flowed with water, providing desirable and therefore likely places for the pentapolis in question to have established itself. Excavations at a Bronze Age site called Bab edh-Dha on the sea’s south-eastern bank, carried out in the 1960s by Paul W. Lapp, appeared to substantiate this theory.”
…“[But] no smoking gun has been found in the Dead Sea region – and likely not through the bible-and-spade brigade’s lack of trying.”
Various theories have been proposed based on archaeology, but nothing has been proven. As an historian by training, I myself am deeply skeptical about these Dead Sea theories because there is zero documentary evidence to support them.
In fact, chapter 19 of Genesis has n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with homosexuality, and n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with the Dead Sea. Rather, Lot’s adopted hometown city of “Sodom” is Biblical Shunem in the Eastern Jezreel Valley/kikkar of the Jordan. As I will discuss in my next post, what the townspeople of Shunem/Sodom were mad about in Year 13 was that pharaoh Akhenaten had, per Amarna Letter EA 365, confiscated their fine fields of grain and taken them over as his own private estate. Like I said, it had nothing to do with sex or the Dead Sea. The story has p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy, but only in the context of Year 13 and Shunem.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “You may not have heard of him, but an archaeologist like Paul Lapp wouldn’t be allowed to lead three years of excavations at one place without being a serious archaeologist.’
Karl, that was over 50 years ago, in the 1960s. None of those theories have been proven archaeologically.
Here is an article from Haaretz that appeared just today, November 5, 2014, specifically citing Paul Lapp’s work and confirming that no such archaeological theories have been proven:
Haaretz
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-1.569560
“The fiery theology - and inconclusive archaeology - behind Sodom and Gomorrah”
…“Based on the five wadis leading into the southeastern Dead Sea, W. F. Albright, the founder of the Biblical Archeology movement, first theorized that these dry riverbeds once flowed with water, providing desirable and therefore likely places for the pentapolis in question to have established itself. Excavations at a Bronze Age site called Bab edh-Dha on the sea’s south-eastern bank, carried out in the 1960s by Paul W. Lapp, appeared to substantiate this theory.”
…“[But] no smoking gun has been found in the Dead Sea region – and likely not through the bible-and-spade brigade’s lack of trying.”
Various theories have been proposed based on archaeology, but nothing has been proven. As an historian by training, I myself am deeply skeptical about these Dead Sea theories because there is zero documentary evidence to support them.
In fact, chapter 19 of Genesis has n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with homosexuality, and n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with the Dead Sea. Rather, Lot’s adopted hometown city of “Sodom” is Biblical Shunem in the Eastern Jezreel Valley/kikkar of the Jordan. As I will discuss in my next post, what the townspeople of Shunem/Sodom were mad about in Year 13 was that pharaoh Akhenaten had, per Amarna Letter EA 365, confiscated their fine fields of grain and taken them over as his own private estate. Like I said, it had nothing to do with sex or the Dead Sea. The story has p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy, but only in the context of Year 13 and Shunem.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
You claimed that the region was never other than a desert, that it never could have had a large population, and so forth. Whether you agree that those ruins could have been Sodom and the other cities of the region is immaterial to the findings (not theory) of archaeology:Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:
You wrote: “You may not have heard of him, but an archaeologist like Paul Lapp wouldn’t be allowed to lead three years of excavations at one place without being a serious archaeologist.’
Karl, that was over 50 years ago, in the 1960s. None of those theories have been proven archaeologically.
• bronze age ruins
• destroyed by a conflagration so vast that it extended outside of city walls
• previous destruction layer only a short time before final destruction
• rebuilt immediately after previous destruction
• evidence of large population
• botanical remains indicate a rich and varied diet
• skeletal remains indicate a well-fed, physically healthy population
Theory that is still in dispute, as other sites also presented:
• these ruins are of the five cities of the region.
The facts, and I didn’t list all, belie your claims.The facts are consistent with the theory that these were the ruins of the five cities of the region, but not proof as there is no written evidence found among the ruins. But the evidence shows that your contrary claims are without merit.
Notice, I didn’t write “cities of the plain” as that’s not what the Hebrew claims.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
3,000 years of Egyptian records never once mention the Dead Sea area as being "well-watered" or attractive or boasting grand cities. By sharp contrast, we know that Egypt viewed Shunem and the Eastern Jezreel Valley precisely that way, as that was the locale of pharaoh Akhenaten's private estate holdings in Canaan (as shown below). Moreover, unlike the area southeast or south or southwest of the Dead Sea, which in Biblical usage is n-e-v-e-r part of "Jordan", the Eastern Jezreel Valley is an integral part of "Jordan", since its Harod River empties into the Jordan River.
A. Sodom: Why All the Townspeople Were So Irate
Once we figure out that Sodom in chapter 19 of Genesis is historical Shunem in Year 13, the Biblical story makes perfect historical sense.
Pharaoh Akhenaten had taken over the wonderful agricultural fields of Shunem, and turned them into his own private royal estate. He expected the fields to be tended on the basis of corvee labor. After dispossessing the people of Shunem/Sodom of their own fields, then to add insult to injury, Akhenaten refused to appoint a new princeling ruler of Shunem/Sodom, and instead instructed Hurrian princeling Biridiya of Megiddo to supervise the fields of Shunem/Sodom on Akhenaten’s behalf:
“Say to the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord and my Sun: Message of Biridiya, the loyal servant of the king. …In fact, only I am cultivating…in Shunama, and only I am furnishing corvee workers. But consider the mayors that are near me. They do not act as I do. They do not cultivate in Shunama, and they do not furnish corvee workers. Only I…(by myself) furnish corvee workers.” Amarna Letter EA 365.
The locals, not surprisingly, refused to tend Akhenaten’s private estate in Shunem/Sodom. The mayors of the surrounding small towns sympathized with the locals and also refused to help. Only Biridiya of Megiddo was trying to get these fields tended.
Shunem should have been the richest city in all of Canaan, with its fine agricultural land. But instead it had been reduced to being a beggar of a city. It had no ruler of its own, its fine agricultural land had been appropriated by pharaoh Akhenaten, and now those fields were not even being tended.
The townspeople of Shunem/Sodom were so outraged by Akhenaten’s despicable actions toward their city that, in protest, they burned down the small Egyptian garrison at Beth-Shean (as noted in my prior post). In fact, that happened three times in the Late Bronze Age. So if the locals got fed up with pharaoh, they were perfectly capable of destroying the small Egyptian garrison at Beth-Shean.
B. Lot Is Stuck in the Middle
Lot had originally thought he had a cushy concession from pharaoh Akhenaten. Lot’s offer to help provide workers to till pharaoh’s fields at Shunem had been accepted. But now none of the locals were willing to work such fields! Lot was caught between a rock and a hard place.
Pharaoh now does exactly what Abraham had advised YHWH to do in that unusual scene at Genesis 18: 20-33: two representatives were sent to see how widespread the rebellion was against pharaoh. In fact, essentially everyone in town except Lot had gone over to the dark side, openly rebelling against pharaoh Akhenaten for his outrageous actions regarding Shunem/Sodom, with such rebellion including burning to the ground the Egyptian garrison at Beth-Shean. But Akhenaten wanted to find out if some, most, or essentially all of the townspeople of Shunem/Sodom had turned against him.
With Lot being the only person in Sodom who remained on speaking terms with Egypt, note that only Lot knows that pharaoh’s two representatives are coming to Shunem/Sodom:
“And there came two [representatives] to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground….” Genesis 19: 1
Note that Lot is waiting for pharaoh’s two representatives [who on another level function as YHWH’s angels], and Lot wants to make sure that Lot sees those representatives as soon as they arrive. Lot well knows that all the townspeople hate pharaoh and will treat pharaoh’s two representatives extremely rudely. So Lot’s plan is to try to get the representatives quickly into Lot’s house for the evening, and then enable them to sneak away unharmed at the crack of dawn the next morning:
“2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways.” Genesis 19: 2
If the entire city of Shunem/Sodom had not broken with pharaoh, then the proper way for things to proceed would have been for Lot to introduce pharaoh’s two representatives to the elders of the city, who should welcome pharaoh’s representatives. But Lot knows that all the townspeople in fact were unalterably opposed to pharaoh’s outrageous actions regarding Shunem/Sodom, which had resulted in the loss of the city’s surrounding fields to pharaoh, and with Sodom/Shunem now not even having its own ruler. The two representatives quickly get the unspoken message: pharaoh’s representatives are definitely not welcome here, and the best they can do will be to sneak out of town at the crack of dawn the next morning.
Lot is not surprised at the incredible hostility of the townspeople of Sodom/Shunem toward pharaoh’s two representatives, nor are the representatives all that surprised either, since it’s now clear exactly what’s going on:
“4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? …8[And Lot said] only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.” Genesis 19: 4, 5, 8-10
Note that the townspeople say that Lot, a relative newcomer to Shunem/Sodom, should not be the “judge” of whether pharaoh’s representatives should be welcomed to town. That’s because the townspeople have good reasons to be 100% against pharaoh, and the die has already been cast.
As noted in my prior post, the plan of Labaya [who is Biblical “Hamor”] had been to “deport…the evil ones” from Shunem/Sodom, that is, Lot, pharaoh’s two representatives, Biridiya, and Biridiya’s (non-local) corvee workers. The townspeople don’t really want to kill Lot and pharaoh’s two representatives (much less have sex with anyone); rather, they want them to leave town immediately. Nor do the townspeople want to destroy Lot’s fine house, which as a fortified house was, as in Jerusalem, one of a handful of houses that was essential to the city’s security. What the townspeople want is for Lot and pharaoh’s two representatives to be forced to leave town unceremoniously, and then the townspeople will take over Lot’s house. That’s exactly what happens at the crack of dawn the next day.
Note how realistic this Bible story is, including but not limited to the fiery destruction of Shunem/Sodom and Beth Shean (as cities of the kikkar of Jordan) as discussed in my prior post, and the unanimous, implacable opposition of the townspeople to Lot’s two guests, once we know the non-biblical background of Shunem/Sodom in Year 13.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
A. Sodom: Why All the Townspeople Were So Irate
Once we figure out that Sodom in chapter 19 of Genesis is historical Shunem in Year 13, the Biblical story makes perfect historical sense.
Pharaoh Akhenaten had taken over the wonderful agricultural fields of Shunem, and turned them into his own private royal estate. He expected the fields to be tended on the basis of corvee labor. After dispossessing the people of Shunem/Sodom of their own fields, then to add insult to injury, Akhenaten refused to appoint a new princeling ruler of Shunem/Sodom, and instead instructed Hurrian princeling Biridiya of Megiddo to supervise the fields of Shunem/Sodom on Akhenaten’s behalf:
“Say to the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord and my Sun: Message of Biridiya, the loyal servant of the king. …In fact, only I am cultivating…in Shunama, and only I am furnishing corvee workers. But consider the mayors that are near me. They do not act as I do. They do not cultivate in Shunama, and they do not furnish corvee workers. Only I…(by myself) furnish corvee workers.” Amarna Letter EA 365.
The locals, not surprisingly, refused to tend Akhenaten’s private estate in Shunem/Sodom. The mayors of the surrounding small towns sympathized with the locals and also refused to help. Only Biridiya of Megiddo was trying to get these fields tended.
Shunem should have been the richest city in all of Canaan, with its fine agricultural land. But instead it had been reduced to being a beggar of a city. It had no ruler of its own, its fine agricultural land had been appropriated by pharaoh Akhenaten, and now those fields were not even being tended.
The townspeople of Shunem/Sodom were so outraged by Akhenaten’s despicable actions toward their city that, in protest, they burned down the small Egyptian garrison at Beth-Shean (as noted in my prior post). In fact, that happened three times in the Late Bronze Age. So if the locals got fed up with pharaoh, they were perfectly capable of destroying the small Egyptian garrison at Beth-Shean.
B. Lot Is Stuck in the Middle
Lot had originally thought he had a cushy concession from pharaoh Akhenaten. Lot’s offer to help provide workers to till pharaoh’s fields at Shunem had been accepted. But now none of the locals were willing to work such fields! Lot was caught between a rock and a hard place.
Pharaoh now does exactly what Abraham had advised YHWH to do in that unusual scene at Genesis 18: 20-33: two representatives were sent to see how widespread the rebellion was against pharaoh. In fact, essentially everyone in town except Lot had gone over to the dark side, openly rebelling against pharaoh Akhenaten for his outrageous actions regarding Shunem/Sodom, with such rebellion including burning to the ground the Egyptian garrison at Beth-Shean. But Akhenaten wanted to find out if some, most, or essentially all of the townspeople of Shunem/Sodom had turned against him.
With Lot being the only person in Sodom who remained on speaking terms with Egypt, note that only Lot knows that pharaoh’s two representatives are coming to Shunem/Sodom:
“And there came two [representatives] to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground….” Genesis 19: 1
Note that Lot is waiting for pharaoh’s two representatives [who on another level function as YHWH’s angels], and Lot wants to make sure that Lot sees those representatives as soon as they arrive. Lot well knows that all the townspeople hate pharaoh and will treat pharaoh’s two representatives extremely rudely. So Lot’s plan is to try to get the representatives quickly into Lot’s house for the evening, and then enable them to sneak away unharmed at the crack of dawn the next morning:
“2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways.” Genesis 19: 2
If the entire city of Shunem/Sodom had not broken with pharaoh, then the proper way for things to proceed would have been for Lot to introduce pharaoh’s two representatives to the elders of the city, who should welcome pharaoh’s representatives. But Lot knows that all the townspeople in fact were unalterably opposed to pharaoh’s outrageous actions regarding Shunem/Sodom, which had resulted in the loss of the city’s surrounding fields to pharaoh, and with Sodom/Shunem now not even having its own ruler. The two representatives quickly get the unspoken message: pharaoh’s representatives are definitely not welcome here, and the best they can do will be to sneak out of town at the crack of dawn the next morning.
Lot is not surprised at the incredible hostility of the townspeople of Sodom/Shunem toward pharaoh’s two representatives, nor are the representatives all that surprised either, since it’s now clear exactly what’s going on:
“4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? …8[And Lot said] only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.” Genesis 19: 4, 5, 8-10
Note that the townspeople say that Lot, a relative newcomer to Shunem/Sodom, should not be the “judge” of whether pharaoh’s representatives should be welcomed to town. That’s because the townspeople have good reasons to be 100% against pharaoh, and the die has already been cast.
As noted in my prior post, the plan of Labaya [who is Biblical “Hamor”] had been to “deport…the evil ones” from Shunem/Sodom, that is, Lot, pharaoh’s two representatives, Biridiya, and Biridiya’s (non-local) corvee workers. The townspeople don’t really want to kill Lot and pharaoh’s two representatives (much less have sex with anyone); rather, they want them to leave town immediately. Nor do the townspeople want to destroy Lot’s fine house, which as a fortified house was, as in Jerusalem, one of a handful of houses that was essential to the city’s security. What the townspeople want is for Lot and pharaoh’s two representatives to be forced to leave town unceremoniously, and then the townspeople will take over Lot’s house. That’s exactly what happens at the crack of dawn the next day.
Note how realistic this Bible story is, including but not limited to the fiery destruction of Shunem/Sodom and Beth Shean (as cities of the kikkar of Jordan) as discussed in my prior post, and the unanimous, implacable opposition of the townspeople to Lot’s two guests, once we know the non-biblical background of Shunem/Sodom in Year 13.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T
Egyptian records are irrelevant to this discussion, as they don’t mention that area of the Levant until much later, long after Abraham. Go with the archaeology. Archaeology fills in where the Egyptian records are lacking.Jim Stinehart wrote:3,000 years of Egyptian records never once mention the Dead Sea area as being "well-watered" or attractive or boasting grand cities.
Don’t forget, Abraham’s great-grandson, Joseph, was Imhotep, the first grand vizier of Egypt under Pharaoh Zoser, so Abraham had to be earlier.
That’s all I needed to read of that essay, so I read no further.
Karl W. Randolph.