A Response to Dr. Collins’ 40 Salient Points
Introduction
This paper is going to focus on Dr. Collins’ argument that Tell el-Hamman meets 40 requirements needed to be identified as Sodom. These ‘salient’ points are found in his 2007 article, Forty Salient Points on the Geography of the cities of the Kikkar, and unless otherwise footnoted, all quotes will be from that article.
To begin, one must first look at the attitude behind his writings and we find that attitude right in the first page of his article and will be exampled by three quotes.
1. At this juncture, I have been studying the subject of Sodom’s location for nearly 7 years…I have analyzed the definitive text on Sodom’s location (Gen.13: 1-12 {see my other article Tee:2010 for a response to this}) in extreme detail. I have investigated the chronological issues with rigor, I believe, second to none. I have read virtually every piece of literature from every period available on the subject. I have discussed/argued every conceivable point in the discussion with many of the world’s leading scholars…who are capable of interacting meaningfully on the issues involved.
It continues and each sentence is started with the word ‘I’ and so in his mind this discussion is all about him, not Sodom, God or the truth. It is about what he thinks and he alone, according to him, gets to decide what is meaningful, what is definitive and so on. Unfortunately for Dr. Collins, such study and interaction does not mean he is correct, has not been deceived, or led astray or that he has not made a mistake or mistakes somewhere along the line during his course of study and discussion.
He also forgets that the Bible tells us that a ‘persons own testimony is not true’ ( )
2. By this point in the process, it is safe to say that I have heard every conceivable argument for every Sodom candidate and have dealt squarely and scientifically with every question and objection raised with regard to the identification of Tall el-Hamman as biblical Sodom. While I am always open to further discussion, I think it is fair to suggest, to the objective observer, that the weight of the evidence in favor of Tall el-Hamman being Sodom s overwhelms every idea to the contrary that the issue should be laid finally to rest.
Having been a participant in discussions with Dr. Collins and having read a few of his other ones, it is safe to say he does not deal ‘squarely and scientifically with every question and objection.’ In fact, he rarely uses any scientific argument or evidence to support his points and basically bullies and dismisses anyone who dares disagree with him.{see the forums at Bib-arch.com).
In fact, though he promised in one discussion to present ‘actual evidence’ to support his claim, he never did and in reading his reports on his excavation at Tell el-Hamman, there is none to present. He hides in subjectivity to make his case. (Tee: 2010).
He also ignores the fact that Dr. Wood, and others, have documented compelling actual evidence for the Bab edh-Dhra area in his article on the discovery of the sin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Wood: 1999). In my own research, all real evidence points to the southern-eastern location not Tell el-Hamman. (Tee: 2010)
3. The ‘southern Sodom view’ has had its day, but that day is drawing to a close, whether its advocates want to admit to it or not…I do appreciate the scholarship regarding the subject of Sodom’s location provided by the many scholars who have dealt with issue. They did the best they could with the evidence available to them. Based on that paucity of evidence, they had no choice but t bend and stretch the Sodom story beyond its contextual limits in order to accommodate sites like Bab edh-Dhra and Numeria
Having read some of those reports, and in doing my own research, one can only conclude that Dr. Collins is actually describing his own work here and not the scholarship of those who hold to the ‘southern’ location view. (See Tee: 2010 for a more detailed examination on this point)
The southern view is not dead and as said earlier, all actual evidence points to Bab edh-Dhra as Sodom or Gomorrah not Tell el-Hamman. What we shall see here is the scholastic and academic dishonesty of Dr. Collins, as he tries to shout down his opponents in hopes of convincing people because he is making the most noise.
There is no evidence to support Tell el-Hamman as Sodom and any claim is actually based upon eisogetic infusion of reasons and not based upon actual fact. The major downfall of Dr. Collins and his claim is his arrogance, which is highly visible in those quotes and throughout all of his papers. He thinks because he has done the leg work, that he is 100% correct and everyone should disregard their own reasoning and listen to him.
It just doesn’t work that way and we shall see through an annotated analysis of his 40 points why he is wrong and that he is completely biased and dishonest in his work. Maybe it is his jealousy of more accepted scholars or that he is obsessed with Tell el-Hamman being Sodom that he takes this attitude, one does not know but it is wrong and exposes the fraudulent work of Dr. Collins . We see evidence of this fraudulent work in the following statement made by Dr. Collins:
One final detail that you should consider as you move through this list: Not a single ‘southern Sodom advocate’ has ever produced a detailed analysis of Genesis 13:1-12 in support of that position. Never. The reason? It is simple: Genesis 13:1-12 is the plague that drains the life from the southern view. It always has been. It always will.
We do not need to produce a ‘detailed analysis’ of Gen. 13: 1-12 because we know it does not provide the definitive clues to Sodom’s location. To claim such, one has to read into the passage a lot of information that is not there plus we accept verse 18 as part of the description of the location for Sodom whereas Dr. Collins does not (Tee: 2010). Genesis 13: 1-12 is not ‘the plague which drains the life ‘ out of the southern view simply because it contains no geographical marker for the location of Sodom.
To say otherwise, like Dr. Collins does, is to again read into the passage clues that simply do not exist. It is academically and scholastically irresponsible and dishonest on the part of Dr. Collins to make such a claim in the quote provided. It shows his obsession with his theory and Tell el-Hamman and removes any claim of objectivity or scientific work.
I say annotated because it is impossible to deal individually with each point and most of his ’40 salient points’ are redundant and can be grouped together for easier discussion and they will be grouped together to avoid the same redundancy presented by Dr. Collins.
The methodology used to distinguish the separate issues will be as follows: I will sub headline with the word ‘Points’ followed by the number of points addressed in that section, then provide a quote in smaller font from Dr. Collins’ paper, then follow it up with a rebuttal in larger font.
Rebuttal
Points 1 &2: “Story tellers and writers in the ancient Near East did not invent fictitious geographies but used what was known from personal experience…Whether or not ancient stories…are factual or fictitious, they were layered over real world geography and topography…”
If this over-generalization is so, and it is safe to say that Dr. Collins has not read all the myths, stories and legends that were produced for over 4,000 years prior to the time of Christ, then we can expect to find a buried island in the Atlantic with the remains of the city of Atlantis. Plato being an ancient writer obviously had to use ‘real world geography and topography’ to write his story, according to Dr. Collins’ logic.
Even if true, there is nothing in the Biblical passages that places Sodom in a specific location and one needs to remind Dr. Collins that the ‘real world geography and topography’ supports the southern eastern location because the ancient names for Sodom and Gomorrah and their Arabic derivatives are in the Bab edh-Dhra area and not Tell el-Hamman’s.
In any case, this is not evidence for the location of Sodom nor is it an important point for it is too generic to be of any use for locating the city. It is far too subjective as well and could support any location in the Near East.
Points 3-5: “The writer of the Sodom tales…likely had personal knowledge of the geography he utilized…Genesis 13:1-12 is the only narrative passage among the Sodom tales marking out the location of the Cities of the Plain by employing geographical data points and directions…The Genesis passage in question contains both specific and approximate geographical quantities.”
The Biblical writer did not need to have personal knowledge of the location of Sodom for he was guided by the Holy Spirit not his own understanding thus it is not a requirement that he know of the location of the destroyed cities. Plus such knowledge does not prove that he wrote the exact locations in the passages pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The passage Dr. Collins uses as the definitive work for Sodom’s location does not locate Sodom at all. In fact it does not state where Sodom is in any verse, it is pure reading into the passage to say that Sodom is located near bethel or across the Jordan River. No such geographical points or directions have been given and it is a misreading of the passage to say otherwise.
Of course, in point #5 Dr. Collins has to go outside of his ‘definitive’ passage to find other general geographical points to help his cause because the passage he has picked to anchor his argument upon just does not do what he wants: provide a specific location for Sodom. There is absolutely none given and eisogesis is not truth nor fact let alone scientific.
Points 6-8: “Outside of the O.T. among the Semitic cognates and Egyptian , kikkar/kikkar/kakkaru/kerker is never used as a geographical referent…kikkar in OT Hebrew likewise refers to a talent of metal or circular loaf of bread…The thirteen geographical uses of kikkar, found exclusively in the OT, ten of which are in the Sodom tales, denote the disk shaped southern Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea.”
He is not building a strong case for his argument here as he demonstrates that the use of the Hebrew word is more towards money and bread than a geographical spot and it would be a waste of time here to discuss the application of the word ‘kikkar’ to only a portion of the Jordan valley when the passage states that ‘all of the plain was viewed’ (13: 9 & 10). That discussion can be saved for other scholastic works. Suffice it to say it is a subjective application.
We disagree with Dr. Collins use of the words ‘north of the Dead Sea’ because the passage in question does not limit the area viewed to that specific geographical restriction. In fact, verse 9 of chapter 13 uses the word ‘whole’ and verse 10 says ‘all’ thus to include the words ‘north of the Dead Sea’ is fudging the details and being highly dishonest.
We were not privy to that viewing thus we cannot say, and Dr. Collins certainly cannot say, that the view was limited to the Tell el-Hamman region. That is a biased and unscientific conclusion that cannot be supported by the facts or the evidence. Especially when in verse 18 of chapter 13 tells us that Abraham moved to the Hebron/Mamre area and that when he viewed the land after the destruction, the words ‘toward all the land of the plain…’ (Gen. 19:28) are used. Thus if Abraham could see all of the plain including the Tell el-Hamman region from Hebron/Mamre, then he and Lot could see all of the plain, including the Bab edh-Dhra area from Bethel/Ai.
He cannot have it both ways. Given the fact that Tell el-Hamman is located 8 kms. north of the Dead Sea and 12 kms. East of the Jordan River.1 That is extraordinary eye-sight on the part of Abraham if Tell el-Hamman and surrounding area was the portion of the plain in question. It is more likely that Abraham viewed the region surrounding and including Bab edh-Dhra.
Points 9 & 10: “The kikkar of the Jordan is confined to the area north of the Dead Sea because (a) hayarden never refers to anything other than the fresh water system of the Jordan River proper and the valley through which it flows and (b) hayarden is never extended to include any part of the Valley of Siddim…Thus the kikkar of the Jordan can only refer to the disk-shaped alluvial plain north of the Dead Sea…”
There are many problems with this idea. First, one needs to wonder what Dr. Collins’ definition of ‘proper’ and ‘valley’ when he uses it with the Jordan River. It is a well known fact that lakes are included in a river valley thus the Dead Sea would be considered part of the Jordan River valley, all of it. (The Okanagan River Valley is evidence of this). Is Dr. Collins hedging and restricting the dimensions because the real one does not fit his theory and he needs to find more subjective evidence to support his claim? Hard to tell.
Second, in doing some light research, the word ‘hayerden’’s use is not restricted to the land between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. In fact it extends north of the Sea of Galilee and originates in the Hula Basin2, so to accept Dr. Collins’ manipulative conclusion would be wrong and further research is needed on what the word ‘hayerden’ really applies to in that country.
By Dr. Collins’ logic, we must then include the Sea of Galilee and the Hula basin as part of the ‘kikkar’ of the Jordan, extending further the surmised location of Sodom in the northern location theory and the eye-sight of both Abraham and Lot.
Upon further research, the word ‘hayarden’ is associated with the different names of the Jordan Rift and not attributed to fresh water supplies:
The Jordan Rift, a local geographical term, is part of the Syrian-African Rift Valley and was referred to by several names in the Bible: the Jordan Wilderness (˒Arebat Hayarden), the Jordan Plain (Kikkar Hayarden), the Jordan Districts (Gelilot Hayarden), and the Pride of the Jordan (Ge˒on Hayarden). It appears that each of these names referred to a different specific geographical location and to different economic and settlement functions. (Har El: 1978:41:2)
One can one surmise how Dr. Collins made the connection to the fresh water system of the Jordan River from geographical locations. This in and of itself is not evidence for the location of Sodom nor the restriction of that city to the northern region and much more study is needed here to see what has been done by Dr. Collins for him to make the his claim quoted above.
Point 11: “The western Jordan Disk, the location of Jericho and little else, has reasonable perennial water resources plus the Jordan River…”
This is an argument from modern geography not ancient and is very misleading. One cannot take modern geography, ignore the destruction by God, and say that Bab edh-Dhra is disqualified because it is not a well watered plain today. That is again manipulating the evidence to fit one’s theory. One has to take into account the ancient geography and then factor in the results of the destruction before drawing any conclusions.
A researcher cannot just haphazardly say the land was restored because there is no Biblical evidence to support such a conclusion. In fact the Bible states that the Sodom area remained a waste land forever (Zeph. 2:9). Thus to say that the modern area is well watered so it must be the area for Sodom is just wrong and not honestly using all the facts.
Points 12-16: The text suggests that Lot viewed with his ‘unaided’ physical eyes the entire Jordan Disk from the area east of Bethel /Ai…Lot traveled eastward from Bethel/Ai, pitching his tent toward Sodom, one of the cities of the Eastern Jordan Disk…Sodom was one of the cities of the Plain. No city south of the mouth of hayarden would have been considered as belonging to the Jordan Disk…As the Yahwist mentally works his way through the geography of the passage, the Cities of the Kikkar are perceived to have existed on the eastern Jordan Disk, north of the Dead Sea…The story teller calculated or assumed that Sodom was the largest urban center on the eastern Jordan Disk.”
The text suggests no such thing and Dr. Collins uses a very restricted and literal interpretation of the words ‘and Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered…’ The word ‘all’ does not indicate a portion nor does it indicate only the Jordan disk, it indicates all of the valley. Dr. Collins’ restriction is un-provable as no specifics are given for the dimensions of the viewing, save for the word ‘all’. It is irresponsible to and un-academic to claim one knows what was viewed when one was not present at the time.
Then to say that Tell el-Hamman is Sodom or a candidate for Sodom based upon the few words ‘Lot journeyed, started out, headed east’ is leading people astray from the facts. We do not know the exact route taken by Lot, for all we know he had to start east then take another road south towards Sodom. The passage does not say that Lot remained in an easterly direction nor went due east.
Also, the passage, picked by Dr. Collins as the definitive geographical description for the location of Sodom, does not say that Lot crossed the Jordan River. Remember, he was an owner of livestock and if Dr. Collins had any knowledge of herding livestock he would realize that the current of the Jordan river is too swift for animal crossings. (New World Encyclopedia. See also Byers:2007). Ranchers pick slow, safe areas of a river to use to move their livestock across because loss of an animal or animals means a loss of revenue and Lot must have been a shrewd rancher for he, like Abraham, accrued a large herd and he would not want to lose any animals in a crossing through a swift current. He would choose another way to go.
The passage does not indicate that Lot went to the Tell el-Hamman region, in fact it is pure reading into the passage to say that he did. As for Dr. Collins’ contention that ‘no city south of the mouth of the ‘hayerden’ would be considered part of the Jordan Disk, he forgets that traditionally, ‘the circle of the Jordan was at the south end of the Dead Sea and this idea was universally maintained’. (ISBE).
To suddenly change the location of the Jordan disk without actual evidence is wrong, dishonest and unscholarly. We know that the southern identification for the Jordan Disk is more credible because, once again, the ancient names or Arabic derivatives are in use in the southern Dead Sea region and not in the northern area. There is no point in using the ancient names in the south if Sodom was actually located in the north, it makes no sense and shows that Dr. Collins will dismiss all reasonable evidence simply because it disagrees with him.
As for the Yahwist ‘perceiving the cities of the plain are on the northern Jordan Disk’ that is just not supported by the facts or any biblical passage. The doublets do not place the cities in the north but a north-south direction which means they could be located at Bab edh-Dhra and Numeria as well as at Tell el-Hamman, except that no other city at Tell el-Hamman has been identified as Gomorrah or any other city of the plain thus to say otherwise is stretching the evidence to fit one’s theory.
The idea that the biblical writer ‘assumed that Sodom was the largest urban center of the plain’ is just ridiculous because sole mentioning of a city does not indicate size but that the account is focusing on events happening at that city. There is no reason to mention Gomorrah or any other city for Lot was living within Sodom’s boundaries and that is where the encounter with the angels took place. (Genesis 19)
Then to use things reasons like it is listed first or that its king was the spokesman for all the others is again ignoring the fact that certain names going first are more natural even if they are smaller than other cities used in the list and we do not know if the King of Sodom was the spokesman for all the rest of the kings, we are just privy to one conversation and the passage doesn’t say that he spoke on behalf of all the other kings. It simply records that he spoke of his own desires, so Dr. Collins is really stretching the textual accounts to make his theory work.
Points 17-20, 24- 31,33: “The story of Abram and Lot, minimally, has its roots in the Bronze Age…Biblical dating places Abram, Lot and the Sodom tales squarely in the Middle Bronze Age…Given a Middle Bronze Age date for Abram, archaeologically and geographically speaking, the largest fortified bronze Age urban center on the eastern Jordan Disk would be a ‘most likely’ candidate for biblical Sodom…An occupational hiatus of several centuries after a fiery MBA destruction would make that identification irresistible…Given a MBA date for Abram, Tall el-Hamman satisfies every Sodom criterion embedded in Genesis 13: 1- 12…”
Not all of the points are represented by the above quotes simply because of space demands and that they are really not salient points and not worth discussing. The problem we have here that scholars and archaeologists are applying a once modern (19th century) fallible human construct to the infallible word of God and making claims that the Bible does not make and saying things the Bible does not say.
The Bible does not place Abram, Lot and Sodom in the Bronze Age, especially the MBA period, that is complete fabrication. Biblical dating does not place Abram and company in the MBA period. Such is done by human opinion, which is not supported by any Biblical data or passage, and it is a matter for the category of subjectivism. Simply because we have no artifacts from that time period that we can say relate to Abraham and Sodom and because the Bible does not name the Pharaoh Abram encountered.
God does not use a modern dating system for his placing of ancient events in human history and to do so would be careless and misleading. The modern system was designed out of random grouping of artifacts that were not dated properly and by a man who had no idea exactly where those artifacts used placed on a chronological timeline. (Bibarch:2009)
To say that the destruction of Sodom took place in the Middle Bronze Age and not the Early Bronze period is taking advantage of a system full of corruption and ambiguities, then to stake one’s argument upon such a grey, fallible area is not being honest but manipulating the current systems to ensure one’s theory has support. (See Tee:2009 for more discussion on this issue).
Then how can Dr. Collins claim that the ‘largest fortified urban center…’ be a candidate for Sodom when the biblical text does not say that it was the largest, or that it was on the eastern Jordan Disk? In a close examination of the passage he chose as the definitive geographical location marker, no such description is given to Sodom. All it says about the city is that ‘Lot pitched his tents even as far as Sodom’ (v. 12). There is no more description of the city, its size, fortifications, etc., other than Lot was found in the gate and he took the men to his house. (19:1, 3). We do not know anything more about the city than that
Now we come to the famous ‘hiatus’ that Dr. Collins and his supporters love to talk about. He claims that there was a period of about 500 years where the land was unoccupied (Collins:2007-10) but the Bible, as mentioned earlier, states that the destroyed area was never restored. This alone sinks Tell el-Hamman as being a candidate for biblical Sodom and no further discussion is needed on this point. (See Tee:2010 for a fuller discussion of this issue).
Tell el-Hamman does not satisfy all of the supposed criterion for being biblical Sodom, in spite of what Dr. Collins claims simply because the so-called evidence and salient points do not provide any concrete or actual evidence to support the claim. All that is used to substantiate the identification is subjective areas of the archaeological field and a misuse of scripture.
Points 21 & 22: In Genesis 10, the mention of actual, known cities…strongly suggests that Sodom…, in the same context , were also real cities…Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim were known by the writer of Genesis 10 to mark the eastern extent of the Canaanite clans…
The first part of that quote doesn’t mean anything. If they were mentioned in the Bible and included in the subsequent narratives then Sodom, et al, would be real cities. Such a point does not provide any proof that those 5 cities were in the northern region of the Dead Sea.
The second part of that quote shows how desperate Dr. Collins is as though those cities marked the eastern border, the Biblical text does not put them on the Jordan Disk at the northern end of the Dead Sea. They could be, and were, placed on the southern eastern border. Genesis 10 does not indicate nor state that those cities were north and it is highly un-academic to claim it does. Given that the southern eastern region still contain the ancient names and Arabic derivatives for those cities, it is more credible to suggest that they were originally located in the Bab edh-Dhra area than at Tell el-Hamman.
It takes a big stretch of the evidence to place them in the northern region of the Dead Sea.
Points 34-40: The Yahwist penned his stories about the cities of the Jordan kikkar while ruins, more ancient still, dotted the eastern Jordan disk, readily visible and well known to anyone living in or near that region…Had the author of Genesis 13: 1- 12 thought that the southern Dead Sea sites like Bab edh-Dhra and Numeria were Sodom and Gomorrah, his clearly written geography would have been constructed to incorporate the specificity of that location.; it does not, by any stretch of the imagination…For sake of argument, one is forced to admit that a face-value reading of the biblical text places the patriarchal period in the Middle Bronze Age…
Again, only a minute number of points are represented here because they are not salient or germane points to discuss and just rehash what has already been said by Dr. Collins. Simply put, it is academically dishonest to restrict the definitive geographical marker to the first 12 verses of Genesis 13 and then attack the Bab edh-Dhra location because v. 18 adds more information for the geographical location for Sodom. Abram moved to the Hebron area which is far closer to Bab edh-Dhra than Tell el-Hamman. (See Tee:2010 for a fuller discussion of this issue)
Thus, the writer did add more’ specificity’ to Sodom’s location; he placed it in the southern region, where the ancient names still support his passage. As for the ancient ruins and how well they are known, it is good to know that Dr. Collins can read long dead minds and know exactly what people knew or didn’t know. Such are not germane to the issue of the geographical location of Sodom and have no bearing upon the passage or its writing.
No one is ‘forced to admit’ anything. A face-value reading does not place the patriarchal period in the Middle Bronze Age, it places it no where except in the time of Abram and Lot, whenever that was. God is not specific to the exact time nor should we be and it is dangerous to have the Bible say anything it does not.
In his 40th point Dr. Collins draws this conclusion:
Given the fact that the Yahwist’s geography unequivocally places the Cities of the Kikkar north of the Dead Sea and east of the Jordan River, one must conclude …they are layered over the physical geography of the eastern Jordan Disc where multiple bronze Age ruins provided his readers with eloquent physical testimony of the destruction of a bygone civilization.
To come to that conclusion Dr. Collins then commits the very crimes he accuses the southern location supporters of committing. There is no actual evidence to support the northern location theory, it is all manipulation of grey area textual work and of the scripture passages that refer to Sodom itself.
Dr. Collins presents no actual evidence to support his claim, and ignores the fact that Tell el-Hamman is not even close to the area that uses the ancient names for Sodom and their Arabic derivatives. It is clear that Dr. Collins cares little for facts and only wants to see his theory be accepted by his peers but unfortunately for him, we see his errors and his academic dishonesty in handling the ancient texts and evidence.
Tell el-Hamman died as a candidate for Sodom the moment Dr. Collins and company said the site was restored. Why? Because that claim disagrees with God’s word and last I looked Dr. Collins was not infallible nor does he trump God. The only way for Tel El-Hamman to be identified as Sodom is through manipulation, eisogesis and confusion, all such methods are not of God as is his arrogant attitude plus his dismissal of all ancient and modern writers who disagree with him shows he is not looking for the truth or achieving something for the glory of God but seeking his own desires without God’s help
Dr. Collins may have studied this issue for 10 years and may have read nearly all of the articles written on the topic but that does not make him right or the last word on the location of Sodom. It just means he is biased, not objective and not honest in his handling of the information he studied. His 40 points do not even begin to support his claim but expose the great lengths he will go to support his theory and those lengths are not honorable nor scholarly.
All the actual evidence supports Bab edh-Dhra and region. The condition of the land around those ruins support the Biblical record and identification for that being the place of the destruction of the sin cities. One cannot look at the Biblical passage and selectively see ‘well watered’ then look at the modern landscape and say- ‘that is where Sodom is because it is well watered’. One has to look at what God said and see that the northern Jordan disk does not qualify as Sodom for it is not a ‘wasteland forever’ as God said in Zeph.
God has the final word on the matter not Dr. Collins, and Dr. Collins work, writing and excavating, is a prime example of someone who is not listening to God and leading people away from the truth under the guise of being a Christian. Sadly, he is leading many away from the truth and God and that is wrong and destroys his claims and reputation.
Bibliography:
1. Season Activity Report 2005-6
2. Answers.com
3. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
4. Biblical Archaeologist, Volume 41, Issue 2
5. Bibarch.com-3 Age System
6. Tee, Dr. David, Examining Tel el-Hamman as Sodom
7. Byers, Dr. Gary, The Jordan River Valley, The Jordan River, And the Jungle of the Jordan
