Sodom and Gomorrah - Research Paper Example

?Sodom and Gomorrah Identify the Archaeological Site each position Believes is Sodom Bryant Wood and Steven Collins had different positions when it comes to the location of biblical cities Sodom and Gomorrah which existed during the time of Abraham. Bryant based his stance on the recent archaeological excavations conducted by Rast and Schaub in 1973 in a specific area in the so-called Cities of the Plain, in Es-Safi, found in the southern part of Bab edh-Dhra (Sodom).1 Based on the excavation, the presence of bitumen, or petroleum residue resembling that of asphalt, was found within the southern part of the Dead Sea. Simply saying, Wood believes that the ancient city of Sodom can be found in the southern basin of the Dead Sea because that petroleum product was actually the black sulfur that destroyed the two ancient cities as stated in the bible.2 On one hand, a very assertive archaeologist Steven Collins had laid down strong points in his position disproving Wood’s theory that the southern part of the Dead Sea was indeed the location of the two cities. Collins strongly believed that Sodom existed in the eastern Jordan Disk, alongside other cities and towns that were logically arranged and mentioned in the bible basing on their relative sizes and proximity with each other.3 Sodom and Gomorrah, based on his interpretations of the text found in Genesis 13, were actually located in the northern part of the Dead Sea in the eastern part of the Jordan Disk.4 Date Each Scholar Uses for the Patriarchs Wood dates back his position on the matter way back during the Early Bronze period.5 Bab edh-Dhra (Sodom) had remnants of ashes from burnt houses possibly being theorized as indeed the raining of the black sulfur. In addition, the ancient Sodom excavation also revealed a cemetery consisting of the cities of the plain during the Early Bronze period. These cities were actually thought to be the major cities mentioned in the bible alongside the well-known Sodom and Gomorrah which were among the cities destroyed during the so-called wrath of Yahweh. On one hand, Steven Collins noted that it was during the Middle Bronze Age that Sodom and Gomorrah actually existed and made known.6 Collins traced the history of the Jordan Disk, the main location of the two cities, which, accordingly, “matched the detailed Genesis 13 geographical parameters.”7 The Kikkar, or the Jordan Disk, housed four to five ancient cities that existed during the Middle Bronze Age that matched the descriptions in Genesis 13. Archaeological Evidence for Destruction from Both Sites A fellow from the Geological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vladimir Trifonov stated that the destruction of biblical cities Sodom and Gomorrah was a real disaster, citing the natural disaster as a volcanic eruption, and among its evidences were human bones buried in southwestern Syria.8 Woods has presented evidences in the destruction of both sites. Using the findings of Rast and Schaub, Woods stated that, following the end of the Early Bronze period, Bab edh-Dhra suffered from a major destruction.9 The evidence was: destruction of the northeast gate due to “fire as indicated by charcoal, broken and fallen bricks, and areas of ash.”10 In Numeira (Gomorrah), the effects of the destruction were quite significant. Towers were burnt, human bones and skeletons excavated, and debris of ashes, mud bricks, and rocks were also found. Moreover, Collins had several evidences similar to what Woods had revealed, such as cemeteries burying human bones and skeleton, ashes, and mud bricks. In addition, Collins presented a simplistic approach in providing evidences to support his claims. He stated a simple analysis based on sheer logic and analysis of past events. “No mental extrapolation needed,” Collins said because obviously, the area (Bab edh-Dhra) was a “wasteland” because “Yahweh had burned up the Cities of the Plain in his fierce anger!”11 Each Site Meets the Criteria for the Biblical Location of Sodom Collins describes the order that comes with the major cities mentioned in the Cities of the Plain: the pairing of two prominent cities followed an order of geographical size.12 Sodom is geographically larger than Gomorrah, and so the former is always mentioned first. In addition, Collins was not also sure or had no factual evidence to support but stated that being mentioned together, Sodom and Gomorrah were actually close in proximity.13 Admah and Zeboiim are also two cities found in the Cities of the Plain which were usually mentioned together; based on the premise stated, Admah had a bigger land area compared to Zeboiim, and were distantly proximal with each other.14 Bethel and Ai also followed the same pattern. The term ‘kikkar’ originally meant in Hebrew as plain, and was not generally referring to geography alone. In fact, in the bible, the term was mentioned almost 70 times but only thirteen of those referred to a geographical location in Genesis.15 However, Collins stated that the “root meaning” of kikkar was actually ‘plain’, suggesting that the term described thirteen times in the bible referred to Sodom and Gomorrah.16 Kikkar, or flat-disc plain, described particularly the Cities of the Plain in which Sodom and Gomorrah were the most popular. The disc-region was clearly visible when viewed even in a map from west to south of the Dead Sea and crossing Jericho using the Jordan River.17 Moreover, Woods described the site as destructed due to combustible elements, such as bitumen and petroleum, both of which were found in the south basin of the Dead Sea.18 This evidence described what was called in the bible as burning black sulfur and the destruction of sin cities. Weaknesses and Strengths of their Arguments First of all, the two scholars have different stance when it comes to the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. Basing from that difference alone, both have clearly varied justifications. Woods and Collins were excellent in finding ways with which to base their claims in the book of Genesis. Collins’ argument regarding the relevance of Hebrew terms established strength. Goprit, for example, means sulfur, and the other unintelligible Hebrew word complements sulfur into ‘sulfur and fire.’ It helped in strengthening his claim that the south basin of the Dead Sea was actually Sodom because of the presence of sulfur. It also helped that he elaborated pertinent evidences found in the town sites. However, Woods failed to clearly establish the exact geographical location of the Cities of the Plain, in which Sodom and Gomorrah can be found accordingly, simply because he was not able to clarify whether the south basin of the Dead Sea was actually barren, dried, and destroyed even prior to the so-called Sodom and Gomorrah raining of sulfur. On one hand, Collins stressed various strong points in his arguments because he answered pertinent questions with straight facts.19 Genesis 13 and his interpretation of it practically made his paper justifiable. His interpretations strengthened his claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were actually located in the northern part of the Dead Sea. He was also able to establish the logic behind the arrangement of cities being mentioned in the bible as a symbol of geographical proximity. However, the weakness in his argument is the lack of sufficient archaeological evidence presented to provide empirical explanations. Collins relied more on his logic and observation, and he focused too much on the relevance of this city to that city without highlighting major findings of archaeologists who discovered shocking revelations, just like what Woods did. Personal Reflection and Opinion for the Weight of Evidence for Each Location I must agree to Collins in his idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were found in the northern part of the Dead Sea. First and foremost, it was clear in Genesis 13 that Lot was overlooking the “kikkar in Jordan,” and the location points out to the northern basin of the Dead Sea when we look at it in the map.20 It might not be necessary to side with the existing and orthodox theory establishing the southern basin of the Dead Sea as the location of Sodom and Gomorrah because logic and sheer evidence were enough to be awakened from this myth. On a lighter note, I do believe that the location itself presents an issue that needs to be addressed because accuracy matters, at the same time also seeks for acceptance and understanding of each proposition. These theories underwent research both from libraries and the field, and therefore, are contributions for further academic endeavor and exchange of powerful insights. Lastly, these theories also suggest that conflict with these inconsistencies should not be taken personally, and instead must be an inspiration to those who want to seek for truth themselves. References Collins, Steven. 2007. “If you thought you knew the location of Sodom and Gomorrah... think again.” Biblical Research Bulletin 7, no. 4: 1-6. Collins, Steven. 2002. “The geography of the cities of the plain.” Biblical Research Bulletin 2, no. 1: 1-17. Howard, David M. Jr. 1984. “Sodom and Gomorrah revisited.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 4: 385-400. Rast, W. E. 1981. “Settlement at Numeira.” In The Southeastern Dead Sea Plain Expedition: An Interim Report, edited by W. E. Rast and R.T. Schaub, 35-44. Massachusetts: American Schools of Oriental Research. Trifonov, Vladimir. 2007. “The bible and geology: Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.” In Myth and Geology, edited by Luigi Piccardi and W. Bruce Masse, 132-140. London: Geological Society Publishing House. Wood, Bryant G. 1999. “The discovery of the sin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.” Bible and Spade 12, no. 3: 67-80. Read More