Examining Tell el-Hamman as Sodom
I. Introduction
Much has been written on Sodom and Gomorrah over the years and there still, in spite of thorough investigations by Dr. Wood and others, seems to be some controversy over the location of the cities of the plain. This controversy is fueled by the claim by Dr. S. Collins that he has found Sodom north-east of the Dead Sea.
By the way, I got a chance to present my case ‘live and on site’ to quite a few visiting archaeological dignitaries during the season. In those instances, Tall el-Hamman, itself did most of the talking, almost defying anyone to deny her pre-eminence as the dominant bronze Age city in the region (as Sodom was the dominant Bronze Age city on the eastern Jordan disk in Genesis). After an on-site tour of Tall el-Hamman with Genesis 13: 1-12 firmly in mind, the general response…was always something like, ’Well it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? To which I usually respond, ‘Welcome to Sodom’.1
There are a couple problems with the statements made in that quote but they will be addressed at a later time, what is important to note is that Dr. Collins has basically thrown any objectivity aside and has approached his dig with a bias that influences everything he does. This is underscored by the 4 reports he has posted on the official website for the excavation of Tell el-Hamman and over at his University’s website.2
There is nothing mentioned in those reports that would indicate any real archaeological objectivity is in play as the focus is clearly on supporting the contentions made by Dr. Collins as he has stated he has purposefully sought out remains of cities that would meet his idea of what and where Sodom should be.3 When people do that, we know that they always find what they are looking for, whether it is actually there or not.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the claim made by Dr. Collins and his supporters that the northern location for Sodom is actually Tell el-Hamman. This will be accomplished by first looking at the evidence he provides and applying some of his own criteria to his own work. These criteria are as follows:
1. If anyone will bother to put his/her biases (biblical; anti-biblical; conservative; liberal; personal) aside, and approach the subject from a strictly empirical direction, you'll quickly see that my ideas about Tall el-Hamman being a (the) most-likely candidate for biblical Sodom are thoroughly reasonable,
2. based entirely on logic arising from actual evidence (textual, geographical, chronological, archaeological).
3. The principle (and only) primary historical text regarding the location of Sodom is Genesis, mainly 13:1-12 (with chapters 10 and 14 conforming).4
This paper will also look at the many problems that come with this claim and his criteria, as what is already obvious is that Dr. Collins is placing restrictions upon the location that should not be there. He does not own the city nor the biblical narrative thus this imposing of his own criteria is presumptuous at best.
What this paper will not do is become embroiled in the discussion concerning the time restraints placed upon historical sites via the Age system so readily used by archaeologists to help support their theories. The Age system is a fallible, corrupt human construct and it is unwise to place the infallible word of God under its rule.
Since God did not use the 3 Age System, or its extensions, it is highly arrogant to say that events of the past fit one era and not another, solely based upon the subjective boundaries of the system employed. It is well known that different archaeologists use different dates to define the different ages and that not all archaeologists use the same categories to divide the historical events in question.
All dating systems are fallible and are more prone to error because the modern archaeologist is looking back over 4,000 years of history made vulnerable to the many different destructive forces that left their stamp on the area. Thus to rest one’s argument upon such a corrupt system is not smart, though references to these periods will be used, they are not germane to the article as they are just too easily manipulated to fit the theory.
Basically what will be used are Dr. Collins’ own words and the words of his supporters, brought to us via articles and discussions as they are the most revealing of his position:
Collins believes that the extensive and well fortified Middle Bronze Age city (c.2000-1550 B.C.) represents the Sodom known to Abraham and Lot…5
And,
Of course, for quite awhile now I have put forth the idea that Tall el-Hamman is likely the site of biblical Sodom. That it is in the right place, according to Biblical geography, is impossible to question on the basis of even a cursory textual analysis of Gen. 13:1-12 but what about the factors of ‘right time’ and ‘right stuff’ necessary to reasonably nail down such an identification? Well, after TeHEP Season One about a year ago, we stated that the archaeology of the site was leaning quite suggestively in the direction of a pretty straight-forward biblical chronology for Sodom.6
We shall see if Dr. Collins’ use of the buzz words were correct and that the evidence holds up to his claim. Or if all he has said is pure bias talking because it is using more wishful thinking and not archaeological analysis that motivates his work. The third movie in the Indian Jones series stated that ‘archaeology is about fact not truth’7 but if we do not have the truth then we do not have anything and everyone has wasted all their time.
This paper is about truth for that is what Jesus said we are to know and that the Holy Spirit will guide us to thus ‘fact’ needs to line up with ‘truth’ or it is of no value. We shall see if the claims and ‘evidence’ for Tell el-Hamman are fact or truth.
II. Their Evidence
In his 2008 report posted at both the official website for the Tell el-Hamman project and His University’s Dr. Collins had this to say:
As is now widely known, it was also realized coming into the excavation that Tall el-Hamman was a reasonable candidate for Biblical Sodom based on a detailed analysis of the relevant biblical materials regarding the chronology and location of the city. Extensive research along with data from three seasons of excavation is now leading many scholars to seriously consider this theory on its evidential merits.8
One must ask (and it has been asked often in many discussions with Dr. Collins and his supporters) what evidence? Discovering this evidence for the justification of Tell el-Hamman for being the Biblical Sodom has been a task worthy of some of the greatest private detectives in history. Dr. Collins and his troupe are not forthcoming very freely when approached to disclose what they have discovered at this site that supports their claim that this tell is actually Sodom.
What follows is a brief look at what evidence for the claim that can be gleaned from the many different sources in public publication. These pieces of evidence are in no particular order and will be offset by a comparison to the southern location’s evidence to keep perspective on the issue at hand.
1. Non-occupation: at Tell el-Hamman Dr. Collins says that the ‘evidence suggests that it was not occupied for over five centuries following its destruction.’9 Which means that Tell el-Hamman was re-populated at a later date. Whereas the southern location was permanently abandoned after a brief settlement after the destruction10
2. Fortification: Dr. Collins reports that Tel el-Hamman was a heavily fortified city11 but so was Bab edh-dhra12
3. Evidence of burning: In one article the author states almost in passing, that there ‘was some evidence of severe burning’.13 Yet not only was evidence for burning found for Bab edh-Drha but it was found to have burned from ‘the outside in.’14 (a side note, Dr. graves reports in one article that ‘..At Numeira (possible Gomorrah) a pit was dug which cut through a seven foot thick layer of dark ash and at Feifa, much the same evidence of destruction by fire could be found)
4. Mud brick structures: one huge mud brick structure has been found at Tell el-Hamman15 while many for Babe dh-Dhra were discovered.16
5. Pottery: Has been found at Tel el-Haman17 and at babe dh-Drha18.
So far no physical evidence has been found at Tell el-Hamman that sets it apart from the southern location candidate and nothing has been found to definitively state that Tell el-Hamman is Sodom. In checking the official website for the excavation project under the button titled ‘discoveries’ all the reader is treated to is the announcement, ‘coming soon’.19 This is it, after four years, now five, of hard work. All Dr. Collins and company can produce are two words which are meant to induce hope that something has been discovered, but if one reads all the reports, as I have, this coming soon sign is false hope.
The architecture described by Dr. Collins in his article, The Architecture of Sodom, does not present anything that would place Tell el-Hamman as the leading candidate as all that is described is normal components for any city of Abraham’s time20
This sparse production of physical evidence is enough to doubt the claim made by Dr. Collins and his supporters as it seems like they are acting in desperation not from the ‘actual evidence’ Dr. Collins made as a criteria to challenge his claim. This lack leads us into the next section and the problems that come with the claim made.
III. The Problems with the Claim
In researching this paper many inconsistencies arose that have set the northern location theory under a cloud of suspicion and to prove this true we will follow Dr. Collins’ criteria of restricting the argument to the passages found in Genesis and a few found in other books.
1. Separation: Dr. Collins has stated Genesis 13 places the separation of the two men at Bethel and Ai, an area supposedly with a commanding view over the northern Jordan plain and so on.21 Yet the text does not say that, it says that he pitched his tent between Bethel and Ai but it does not specify the exact location where the two men stood when they made their decision and parted company.
It is clear that Dr. Collins knows little about ranching as one does not put his herds in the same spot nor do they place them in front of the house, especially if there is no pasture land available. Cattle and sheep require good grass to feed upon and good water to drink and before they ruin an area they have to be moved to new land. This is a continuous process so Abraham and Lot could be anywhere at this time when they decide to separate. The passage does not give a specific location for them.
2. Observation: Dr. Collins argues that the passage claims Lot saw only the northern ‘disk’ area north of the Dead Sea,22 yet again that is not so. The passage clearly states he saw all of the land not just a portion of it. It is interesting to note that Dr. Collins can, without being present, determine what they saw or declare the size of the land that was viewed.
The word ‘all’ means ‘all’ not a portion of it and this phrase is repeated in Chapter 19:28 which states: ‘Then he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain.’ Keil & Delitzsch in their commentary support this as they say ‘the entire plain was judged’’23
3. Status: Dr. Collins then comments that Sodom was ‘the only major B.A. urban center mentioned in the Bible located on the eastern Jordan disk and that Tall el-Hamman is the only major B.A. urban center on the eastern Jordan disk.’24
The problem for Dr. Collins and friends is that the Bible does not put Sodom on the eastern Jordan disk, in fact none of the passages cited by Dr. Collins and supporters do so. This location is assumed because of the generality of the text and because Dr. Collins desperately wants to have his theory proven true.
Another blow to this idea is that the Bible never states that Sodom was a major urban center. We do not know how large it was or how much of a role it played, except for its sin, in local and national affairs. To say it was the ‘dominate urban center’ would take a lot more physical evidence than has been unearthed and clear textual support from ancient documents but to suggest that the ‘mere size of the tall’ is an indication of dominance25 is vastly misleading as Tell el-Hamman houses many cities not just one and they all contribute to the size.
This is a clear reading into the text what is not there as is the following:
The primary indicator here is the fact that Sodom was a fortified city. Not only did it have a city wall and gate, but it was also sizable enough to warrant a city administration replete with a system of judges. And it was cosmopolitan enough to allow a nomadic habiru herder/caravaner like Lot to integrate into its society and become a judge or city official.26
All of that is completely assumed as there is no textual or physical evidence to suggest such things were reality.
4. Destruction: Gary Byers writes in his article, Tell el-Hamman: A personal perspective that:
Either way, archaeological evidence does indicate at least two destructions of this city during the Iron Age- either by earthquake or enemy.27
This creates a very large problem for the northern location as though there were two destructions at Sodom; they took place in the time of Abraham and were 20 years apart approx.27, not 200 or more, approx... Every passage of scripture throughout the Bible referring to Sodom and Gomorrah only refer to the major destruction, save for Genesis 14 which records the first one. There is no more reference to destruction happening to Sodom after Abraham’s time. How could there be, it was utterly destroyed.
5. Historical Names: Returning to Gary Byers article, he mentions that ancient Biblical names ‘can be seen reflected in the modern Arabic names, and since both were Biblical sites, both would be appropriate for the pilgrim’s map.’28. But why is he using two names that have nothing to do with Sodom and Gomorrah? If Tell el-Hamman were Sodom or even Gomorrah one would think that the modern Arabic names for the area would reflect the Biblical sites as stated by Gary Byers.
Yet there are modern Arabic names in use for ancient Sodom but unfortunately for Mr. Byers and Dr. Collins, they are in use at the south end of the Dead Sea:
The site of the present Dead Sea Works, a large operation for the extraction of Dead Sea minerals, is called "Sdom" (סדום) according to its traditional Arab name, Khirbet as-sudūm (see above Historicity). Nearby is unique Mount Sodom (הר סדום), in Arabic, consisting mainly of salt. In the Plain of Sdom (מישור סדום) to the south there are a few springs and two small agricultural villages.29
One would have to ask why the modern names are in use so far away from the actual Sodom, if that city was located in the northern end of the Dead Sea. It makes much more sense to use them where Sodom actually was, in the south.
6. Chronology: In one article, Dr. Collins attempts to deal with the problem of chronology and argues that Dr. Wood ‘assumes a long sojourn in Egypt because he needs to push the date of Abraham’s entrance into Canaan as far back as possible to preserve some hope of identifying Babe dh-Dhra and Numeria as Sodom and Gomorrah.’31
Unfortunately for Dr. Collins, his argument can be turned around and made against him. He needs a short sojourn to preserve Tell el-Hamman as Sodom. He states that Paul basically agrees with him:
Even the apostle Paul in Galatians 3:17 supports a short Egyptian sojourn by affirming that
from “the promises....spoken to Abraham” to the giving of the Mosaic Law, the total elapsed
time was 430 years—again, 215 years in Canaan (Abraham to Jacob) and 215 years in Egypt
(Jacob to Moses).32
Yet the passage in question suggests no such thing as it reads:
‘ What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with his promise.’ (Gal. 3:17).
There is no allusion to a short sojourn nor that the time frame refers to 215 of those years was spent in Canaan prior to Jacob’s movement south.
In fact, we read in Exodus 12: 40-1 that the 430 years refer to the exact amount of time the Israelites spent in the land of Egypt. The passage reads:
‘Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 ears to the very day, all the Lord’s divisions left Egypt.
That leaves no doubt that the sojourn was long and Dr. Wood is correct and not making a desperate attempt to preserve the identification of Babe dh-Dhra as Sodom. Dr. Collins also forgets or ignores that Exodus 19:1ff provides us with the exact time the law was given to the Israelites, it reads:
In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt- on the very day- they came to the desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.
The law was given 3 months after the Israelites left Egypt and we know it was given at Sinai, long before they Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years. Chronology does not support Dr. Collins’ theory and he resorts to rewriting scripture, as evidenced by his adding in words to the Genesis references to the ‘plain’ and other places which allows him to say that Tell el-Hamman fits the Biblical description. It is clear that Dr. Collins manipulates much to show biblical support for his theory when it has none.
7. Arguing from Silence: In one of his papers, Dr. Collins resorts to arguing from silence to build his case. I quote in part:
The Bible does not say Sodom and Gomorrah were located anywhere near the southern end of the Dead Sea... The biblical record does not say all evidence of their existence was wiped from the face of the earth so that the same locale would never be inhabited again…Third, the biblical text does say the pervasive fire was so comprehensive over the target area
that no human beings in the region could have survived the blast. The Bible does not say the fire was so hot that it entirely consumed bodies, buildings, and personal belongings…Fourth, the Bible does say the new growth (such as sprouts, shoots, and buds) of the vegetation in the region was burned. The biblical account does not say the entire floral assemblage of the area was obliterated so that it could not at least recover somewhat through the course of time… Fifth, the biblical story does say that all the inhabitants of the Cities of the Plain were killed…The Bible does not say the area became permanently uninhabitable33
Yet the Biblical passage does say all of that as it reads:
Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord out of the heavens. So he overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities and what grew upon the ground. Gen. 19:24, 25)
What is clear is Dr. Collins has a problem with the word ‘all’ and wants to find some excuse to justify his locating Sodom in the far north when nothing supports that idea. To carry on with his logic, the Bible does not say that Sodom was located in the northern/eastern ‘kikkar’ either, which means to say Sodom fits the Biblical record is misleading and using silence to locate a lost city.
8. Ancient Textual Record: He also rejects many ancient writings and in a discussion at the BAS forum he made the following statement:
I must emphasize that the only geo-criteria that can legitimately enter into the discussion are those in Genesis. This is so because Genesis is the only ancient text that deals with the subject! Any sources later than the Iron Age must be considered with skepticism, and certainly should not be trusted at any point of departure from the Genesis geography. Josephus and the Byzantine pilgrims weren't always stellar biblical geographers34
And this sentiment is further supported by one of his more vocal supporters, Dr. Graves, who in the same discussion but 3 pages later had this to say:
You make my point exactly. Why can we rely on these early writers as though infallible, Josephus is no more reliable at times than these early pilgrims? He is 2000-1600 BC years removed from the actual historical events of Sodom's destruction. 35
Yet those ancient writers had access to far more ancient texts than either Drs. Collins or Graves, had a better knowledge of the events described as well as the geography and other details and had a better knowledge of the application of the surrounding languages of the time. It is quite ridiculous to state that the ancient writers need to be dismissed because they are approx. 2,000 years later than the events they describe, especially when the charge comes from those who are over 4,000 years removed, have access to fewer documents, and analyze evidence that has had a further 2,000 years of destructive forces thrust upon them.
Such dismissal only provides evidence that Dr. Collins and his supporters will not consider any written material that disagrees with them, (this is more evident in a point coming up), and whose bias influences their judgment. They have never considered Tell –el-Hamman as anything other than Sodom and this is one of their major un-doings as it displays a refusal to be objective, at least attempt to be objective, and very closed-minded.
9. Restoration: If the previous eight points were not enough to call into question the identification of Tell el-Hamman as Sodom, then this point, and the following one, are the ones that expose the faulty identification and manipulation of the texts to fit the theory and avoid the truth.
In most of the resources written by Dr. Collins and his supporters, it is clearly mentioned that the site was re-occupied approx. 500 years after the destruction.36 But we will quote from Gary Byers again;
Tall el-Hamman is rich with remains from almost every period…After destruction of the M.B.A. city; the whole site appears to have no city wall or permanent occupation for 500-700 years. During this same period, all of the cities on the eastern Jordan plain appear to have the same hiatus in settlement. That was also the time when the Israelites passed through this area…Yet occupation at Tall el-Hamman continued after the Iron age. 37
The problem is that this short ‘hiatus’ does not fit the Biblical timeline as all the scriptures from Deuteronomy on up to The Book of Revelation, including the words of Jesus himself, indicate that Sodom and Gomorrah were never inhabited again.38 This is a span of approx. 2,000 years and sinks the site of Tell –el Hamman completely. There was no re-population of the destroyed land.
To say otherwise would devalue God’s judgment and say that what he destroys permanently is not destroyed permanently and we should have the garden of Eden visible to us today. To diminish God’s judgment is not smart and a very dangerous thing to do as Zephaniah is quite clear that the destruction was not temporary:
Therefore, as surely as I live, declares the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, surely Moab will become like Sodom, the Ammonites like Gomorrah- a place of weeds and salt pits, a wasteland forever. (2:9)
This fits with what the Bible tells us of the area of Sodom in Moses’ time:
It describes the place as a wasteland…39
Yet a wasteland is not desirable nor is it good for livestock and also in the time of Moses we find this request made by the Reubenites and the Gadites in Numbers 32:1ff
The Reubenites and the Gadites, who had very large herds and flocks, saw that the land of Jazar and Gilead were suitable for livestock...came to Moses…and said… If we have found favor in your eyes, they said, let this land be given to your servants as our possession. Do not make us cross the Jordan.’
In the time of Moses how can the same land be a wasteland and suitable for livestock at the same time? It can’t and the area asked for by the tribes of Reuben and Gad is the same land where we find Tell el-Hamman. The dictionary has this to say about land that is waste:
2. Desolate; uncultivated; a waste country; a waste howling wilderness. Deut. 32.
3. Destitute; stripped; lands laid waste.
4. Superfluous; lost for want of occupiers.
—And strangled with her waste fertility. Milton.
5. Worthless; that which is rejected, or used only for mean purposes; waste wood.
6. That of which no account is taken, or of which no value is found; 40
Clearly such land is not desirable nor would be asked for to maintain herds. This description disqualifies Tell el-Hamman from being a candidate for Sodom but if this isn’t enough there is the next point which sinks the northern location completely.
10. Academic/Intellectual/Spiritual Dishonesty: With all of these problems concerning the northern location theory one still has to ask why. Why did Dr. Collins limit the geographical description to the first 12 verses of Genesis 13?
1. The principle (and only) primary historical text regarding the location of Sodom is Genesis, mainly 13:1-12 (with chapters 10 and 14 conforming).
It is well known that Dr. Collins dismisses anything and anyone who disagrees with him but no one would have thought he would dismiss God as well when He decided to be contrary to Dr. Collins’ theory. Not only is it intellectual and academic dishonesty but it is also spiritual dishonesty as well.
It is very clear that Dr. Collins is manipulating the text to fit his agenda as Genesis 13: 1-12 do not give the location of Sodom nor is it the primary or only historical text that refers to that city’s location.
He completely ignores and omits the very verse which gives the actual geographical marker to locate Sodom and the other cities. It is a verse not mentioned in any of his writings or conversations that I have been privy and it is found in verse 18 of chapter 13 and it reads:
Then Abram moved his tent and went and dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre, which are in Hebron ad built an alter there to the Lord.
There is not a map which locates Hebron or Mamre in the north in full view of Tell el-Hamman. They two cities are always located in the southern part of Israel, across the southern part of the Dead Sea from the southern location of Sodom. Abram had a great view of the destruction and could see all of the plain (19:28).
There is no hermeneutical, translational game that can be played with the passage. It is quite clear and exposes all of the arguments of Dr. Collins and his supporters as frivolous and wrong. What is worse is that according to Dr. Collins, he has read everything on the topic:
There is nothing that you can throw at me that I have not analyzed already in detail. And please don't quote the Bible to me on the point, as I have already done an extremely detailed analysis of every word of it relevant to this discussion. You obviously have not read my papers on the subject.41
I have read almost all of his papers and his reports, yet he does not mention Genesis 13:18 anywhere. Nor does he refer to Fausset’s Bible dictionary, the section titled Sodom, which discusses this move further south by Abraham or the book ‘East of Jordan’ by Burton Macdonald, published in 2000 which also discusses the move south by Abraham.** Why is that? Clearly his theory is ruined by that one passage of scripture so why does he hide the fact and restrict all location discussion to the first 12 verses whereby upon discovery his reputation and all his work is placed under a cloud of suspicion, no longer trustworthy or academic?
Even if he discovers something biblical at Tell el-Hamman, it is suspect and cannot be accepted for the character of the archaeologist has been sullied and it dirties everything that he has done, is doing and will do. He has falsified his research by the sin of omission and it is with a heavy heart one has to reveal this fact. His boasting is his downfall as he said the following words early in a discussion over at the B.A.S. forum:
One must also understand that all attempts to locate Sodom beyond the clear (primary) geography of Genesis 13:1-12 are doomed to failure.42
Yet it is not doomed to failure because the precise geographical marker for Sodom is found in verse 18. What does the man have to gain in order to omit something as vital as this? We may never know but it is an error that is too huge to ignore. The problems that come with the northern location theory are insurmountable and solution relies upon manipulation of ancient texts, physical evidence and sadly, the Biblical passages.
IV. Conclusion
As has been shown, there is nothing to support the Northern Location theory yet Dr. Collins still holds to the idea and won’t let go as the following demonstrates:
A note on the criteria for Sodom: Tall el-Hamman is, far and away, the only fit out there. It’s in the right place, in the right time frame, and has all the right stuff. It fits all the individual OT geographical criteria for Sodom…If T. Hamman isn’t Sodom, then one could question the veracity of the texts pointing to its location.43
No we would not question the ‘veracity of the texts’ but the person doing the interpreting of them. But Dr. Collins dies by his words as Tell el-Hamman is not in the right place, fits very few OT geographical criteria and possibly is in the right time frame. On clear examination of the texts available, everything points to the southern location at Babe dh-Dhra not Tell el-Hamman and it is only the manipulation of the texts that allows for the consideration of the northern location.
Dr. Collins ignores everything that disagrees with him including scripture and far better scholars because they do not tell him what he wants to hear. He also ignores Burton MacDonald who says:
On the basis of this text [13:18], Sodom and Gomorrah and all the land of the plain appear to be located around the southern segment of the Dead Sea.44
And when, after going through the ancient texts, he says;
For example, when the Israelites encamped in the plains of Moab…that is, in the area across from Jericho northeast of the Dead Sea, there is no mention of Sodom, Gomorrah or any other cities of the Plain. Thus they would seem to be located elsewhere…Clearly, extra-biblical texts are almost unanimous in placing Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela (Zoar) south or south-east of the Dead Sea.45
But this is a common theme with Dr. Collins as he is blinded by his obsession with creating a new Sodom out of nothing. In the B.A.S. discussions he constantly dismisses people, usually without good reason or actual proof and when called upon to present something substantial, he remains mute and often absent from the forum.
If Tell el-Hamman were Sodom, he would have ample physical evidence to provide and we would all hear about it quite quickly but we all know that the real evidence is at Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira and it has been well documented by Dr. Wood and others before him. (see Dr. Wood’s paper, The discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, for more details.)
The main problem is that people turn to the art of ‘interpretation’ to make their points and this is clearly seen by the Northern location supporters and Dr. Collins. Interpretation is subjective and leads one to existentialism where it allows a person to reject any contrary point for little or no reason at all. ‘Interpretation’ is not a scriptural tool or command; it is not of God as it leads to confusion and away from the truth and God is truth and not the author of confusion.
Too often people think they are in charge of what God has written in His word and that they get to determine what it says and when. They are not, God is and it is His Holy Spirit, not men like Dr. Collins or secular experts, who lead humble people to the truth. Interpretation allows people to pick and choose what they want to accept or reject and that is not of God either.
There is nothing that justifies the continual identification of Tell el-Hamman as Sodom, and the problems outlined above, that come with his work, prove that he is not listening to anyone but himself and he has no intention of listening to anyone who disagrees with him. We have seen where he will commit academic, translational and intellectual dishonesty to pursue his agenda though the cost to do so is far greater than the gain.
He cannot overcome that sin of omission, nor can Tell el-Hamman, and it is just final evidence for how far off track Dr. Collins and supporters have gone in their quest to re-write the Bible and Biblical history. The passage Gen. 13:18 was mentioned to Dr. Collins and his supporters in the discussion over at B.A.S. and it is no surprise to find that He, and they, all ignored it and went right on touting that the geographical marker is found in the first 12 verses of chapter 13.46
Everything that Dr. Collins and his northern location supporters do is based upon desperation and they charge others with the crimes they commit in order to make their theory work. They need to use subjectivity or else they cannot convince others of their claim simply because there is no real evidence to support it and they cannot produce one shred of ‘actual evidence’, promised years ago by Dr. Collins, that demonstrates that they are correct.
He and his supporters stoop to every imaginable trick to garner support from unwary and unconvinced people and it shows in their translational, historical, archaeological and evidential dishonesty The northern location theory is wrong as it builds its argument upon the sand not the rock .
**(Not just him but also his supporters do the exact same thing—avoid mentioning Abraham’s move south prior to the destruction)
***endnotes presented upon request
