 |
| What Sodom looked like based on archaeology in the time of the Patriarchs before destruction (Gen 19). courtesy of Dr. Leen Ritmeyer |
The scientific research report on the destruction of Tall el-Hammam has been published online in a peer reviewed well respected science journal (Original version had some errors so the publishers added an addendum of all affected figures used in the article are reproduced at this link for the record and transparency. Updated report Feb 202. In addition is was peer reviewed for a second time. It is the most downloaded scientific paper in the world) and sets forth the tests done on many samples we have collected from the site over 15 years of excavation in the Jordan Valley in Jordan. However, with everything related to the Bible, it has stirred up a lot of controversy and opposition (although only mentions Sodom twice in passing in the scientific report). One particular response was disturbing to me, as one who knows much about the research at Tall el-Hammam (TeH) since I has excavated at TeH for over 10 years (10/15) and have researched The Location of Sodom for over 40 years (I wrote an academic paper on the Location of Sodom in 1978 in my undergrad course on Biblical Archaeology when I argued for the southern end of the Dead Sea but have changed my mind to the north end of the Dead Sea based on the evidence, I have no preconceived ideas on the location other than where the biblical/scientific evidence leads).
Preamble
THE FALLACY OF NEUTRALITY
When it comes to ideas there is no neutrality. Everyone has certain assumptions when approaching archaeology and no one is completely objective. This is seen in the debate between MINIMALISTS and MAXIMALISTS. . . . Whether we decide that the history recorded in the Bible is accurate or just myths, we still have a view. Everyone comes with an opinion, and if we say we have no opinion, then we have the opinion of no opinion. The issue is whether we are honest about our presuppositions and assumptions. No one can say that they take a neutral position.[1]
My bias is that the biblical text is historically reliable and believe in the trustworthiness of the biblical account (as Sir William M. Ramsay defended it, who was from the University of Aberdeen, my alma matter), but also believe in the validity of the archaeological evidence wherever it leads (the Bible is still true when I understand it correctly). Truth is still God's truth and no apologies!! And yes I do have a PhD from higher Education (the University of Aberdeen, Scotland under one of the top NT scholars, the late I. Howard Marshall along with Alan Millard and Edwin Yamauchi interdisciplinary research requiring three supervisors), so I am not anti-education or anti-science or anti-Bible.
Keep "your" bias (yes you have one) in mind as you read the rest of the post and other archaeological reports, as this will no doubt affect your conclusions.
This fallacy of neutrality has become painfully obvious in the recent debate over the new Scientific Report on the destruction of Tall el-Hammam, where I have volunteered (no paid salary) as a staff field supervisor for some 15 seasons (I missed a couple of seasons due to illness).[2] Also, I did not do my Ph.D. degree at Trinity Southwest University but the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, who have no connection with the excavation). Phil Silvia, one of our scientific staff members (a graduate from Gordan Conwell Theological Seminary so not anti-Bible) worked with over 19 other scientists from around the world (no idea if they are Christians or not, but not a prerequisite for the testing and several of them did visit our site to see first hand the material evidence) to examine and test many of our samples from the site and published a peer reviewed article on the samples that we carefully collected from the MB destruction layer of the site (the site is the longest continuously occupied sites in the Jordan valley [yes even compared to OT Jericho].
More transparency has been listed on the update of the article and states The Competing Interests section was updated and now reads: See Link
Lets describe the biases of some who are connected with this debate (at least on the archaeological side) to put it into perspective (not meant to be derogatory [ad hominem] only informative).
Witnesses Called
1. Dr. Steven Collins. A Christian archaeologist (and colleague) and professor with the College of Archaeology and the Executive Dean of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque, NM, and Professor of Archaeology and Biblical History along with Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Veritas International University. He has excavated Tall el-Hammam (TeH), Jordan for over 15 years and spent his lifetime searching for the truth of the biblical text regardless of where the evidence leads him (much like myself).
2. Gordan Govier. Gordon is a journalist and member of the Near East Archaeological Society ( I designed their website) of which I and Dr. Collins are members. NEAS is an evangelical society of biblical archaeologists. He is the editor to their NEAS Artifax magazine, which I do enjoy reading. He often contributes articles to Christianity Today (CT) magazine in which he published the article “Sodom Destroyed by Meteor, Scientists Say. Biblical Archaeologists Not Convinced." which I am responding to here. I have met him at several of our society meetings (ETS) and believe that he holds to an early date to the Exodus based on his comments in his article in CT, although I have not personally discussed this with him. His statement, that may be accepted as fact by most Christians states that "at 1650 BC, the Israelites were in Egypt, with the Exodus still 200 years in the future", is not a fact, but rather the early date for the Exodus (1450 BC) that is not embraced by even other Christian scholars (see chart below). He does not present the late date of the Exodus (1250 BC) even as an option in the spirit of transparency for the untrained public (transparent bias?).
3. Dr. Robert Mullins. Chair and Professor, Department of Biblical and Religious Studies and currently codirects the excavation at Abel Beth Maacah (our co-director and registrar of artifacts at Tall el-Hammam Dr. Carol Kobs also worked at Abel Beth Maacah with him for many seasons). He has performed blind readings of the pottery from Tall el-Hammam at Albuquerque, New Mexico, for many years, although we have never met as these readings were conducted in the United States and I was unable to attend the events (however I did attend and witness the first reading of the pottery in Jordan each year I was there). The readings from the first 7 seasons are published in Steven Collins, Steven, Carroll M. Kobs, and Michael C. Luddeni. The Tall Al-Hammam Excavations: An Introduction to Tall al-Hammam with Seven Seasons (2005–2011) of Ceramics and Eight Seasons (2005–2012) of Artifacts. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
4. Dr. Steve Ortiz [ANES member], director of Lipscomb University’s Lanier Center of Archaeology, and not certain as to which date he holds to the Exodus, but holds to the late date [Steven M. Ortiz, “Hermeneutical and Methodological Comments on the History of the Conquest and Settlement: The Archaeological and Biblical Support for the 13th Century,” in Southwest Regional ETS Meetings (Fort Worth, TX, 2006), 1].
5. Dr. Aren Maeir an American-born Israeli archaeologist and professor at Bar Ilan University. He is director of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project where our assistant director Dr. Carol Kobs has volunteered for a number of seasons (yes it is a small world in biblical archaeology and we all have our biases).
Argument rebuttals
1. First, the CT article begins with the headline “Naturalistic explanation for biblical miracle doesn’t resolve questions of chronology at Tall el-Hammam excavation in Jordan.". I know that Dr. Collins is not looking for a naturalistic explanation for the biblical account and has spent his life examining the archaeological remains of Tall el-Hammam and determining if there is a connection to biblical Sodom. Govier's article begins with an assumption that Govier's chronology is the correct biblical chronology which is not settled even by biblical scholars (see chart included below).
2. Govier states: “Pottery is a key tool for archaeological dating. Mullins, reviewing Tall el-Hammam pottery, saw a lot of 16th-century BC pieces, which seems to indicate the city was destroyed after the date of the airburst fireball described in the article." Over 50,000 diagnostic (handles, rims and bases) pieces of pottery (fewer publishable pieces) were examined from the 15 seasons at Tall el-Hammam and there were certainly 16th cent. BC pieces present but Mullins, doing a blind reading in Albuquerque, USA, would not know which locus they were coming from at Tall el-Hammam in Jordan or what square on the tell they were excavated (to my knowledge he has never been to Tall el-Hammam). To make a statement that the city was destroyed at this time based on seeing 16th century BC pieces of pottery is irresponsible on Govier's part, since the site had multiple levels of occupation from Neolithic to Byzantine periods3 (little Late Bronze occupation). There were also a large number of Middle Bronze 2A pottery identified as published in The Tall Al-Hammam Excavations Vol 1.[4]
“The Bible’s internal chronology places Abraham and the events in his life, including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, three to four centuries earlier. At 1650 BC, the Israelites were in Egypt, with the Exodus still 200 years in the future."
 |
| Dates for the patriarch by many biblical scholars. from The Location of Sodom. p. 203-204. |
This assumes an early date for the Exodus which is not embraced by all scholars (See blog post on The Date of the Patriarchs) and also challenged by many evangelical scholars (see chart "Dates for the Patriarchs"). The mean date for our MB2 14C is 1700+/-50 BCE for the destruction of Sodom does not destroy the Biblical credibility of scripture but does embarrass maximalists who closely embrace the early date for the Exodus and also does not align with the late date proponents of the Exodus (minimalists). Perhaps both are off in their dates, and let the archaeology go where it will if documented scientifically (ironically the criticism that Govier leveled at Collins).
The Location of Sodom, FACT 35: NOT ALL ARCHAEOLOGISTS APPROACH BIBLICAL NUMBERS IN THE SAME WAY: An issue which affects chronology is the different methods of handling biblical numbers. For example Dr. Bryant Wood proposes a literal chronology using base-10 hard numbers. Wood states that he bases his dating scheme on “a straightforward reading of the chronological data in the Old Testament.” [Bryant G. Wood, “Locating Sodom: A Critique of the Northern Proposal,” Bible and Spade 20, no. 3 (2007): 78–84, see 81.] By contrast, Collins uses a different method of accounting for numbers, also employed by other conservative evangelical scholars, [8] where he treats the years as “formulaic/honorific” or authentic. He states: “I do take the number [440] as formulaic and not literal in the arithmetic sense, and I rely on historical synchronisms to link the Exodus to Egyptian history.” [9] Collins goes on to explain “in terms of its original cultural context. . . . Authentic may equate to literal if that’s what the writer intended.” This explains why two otherwise conservative scholars both arrive at conclusions with such a large spread between the dates of the Patriarchs.
 |
| Clarification of the city wall after it was cut by modern military to put in a road. Permitted the early stratigraphy of the site. |
5. Next, Govier quotes Mullins stating "Mullins, reviewing Tall el-Hammam pottery, saw a lot of 16th-century BC pieces, which seems to indicate the city was destroyed after the date of the airburst fireball described in the article." However, after the destruction in 1750 BC (1700+/-50 BCE) there is no Late Bronze age (1550-1200 BC) occupation at the site apart from a small installation on the acropolis (watchtower?). Mullins is likely referring to these 16th century BC pieces of pottery from the acropolis, but regardless of how much 16th cent. pottery he saw this in itself does not mean it was destroyed after the date of the airburst (ca. 1750 BC). It merely means that the site was resettled in a latter period and it was reoccupied in a significant way in the Iron Age which has been published (Steven Collins, Carroll M. Kobs, and Michael C. Luddeni. The Tall Al-Hammam Excavations: An Introduction to Tall al-Hammam with Seven Seasons (2005–2011) of Ceramics and Eight Seasons (2005–2012) of Artifacts. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015). The question is in what period (strata) was the destruction found (see photo where it is documented that it was in the Middle Bronze (MB) period determined by a MB handle in the destruction layer). That has been clearly identified in the MB2 period by the pottery, strata and C-14 dating (The mean date for our MB2 14C is 1700+/-50 BCE.). See the photos of the destruction evidence in my earlier post.
6. Next, Govier calls on “Archaeologists Steve Ortiz [ANES member], director of Lipscomb University’s Lanier Center of Archaeology, agreed that while Tall el-Hammam is an important site [and it certainly is an historic excavation], its destruction date is too late to fit the Sodom scenario. He dismissed the fireball hoopla to CT. “[Their] destruction does not look any different than any other destruction,” he said. “We have Assyrian and Egyptian destructions at Gezer that looks just as dramatic.” Again the date is the issue for Ortiz (one who holds to the early date of the Exodus) and his comment does not hold any legitimacy as the Assyrian and Egyptian destruction does not have the heat signature that is documented at Tall el-Hammam. If he believes it does he should have it tested and published (same criticism the Grover brings to us). No documentation or research is referenced for their claims and Gezer's destruction is far different from that found at TeH. Read the report!! They do not have pottery turned to glass, etc. but pottery they say that "looks" like it. No published reports on their testing so called pieces of look alike pottery that Ortiz claims he has seen.
noted a lack of citations to other studies of the archaeology of destruction [Ours is new research] and thought the destruction the report described was not that unusual [Report says otherwise and he is an archaeology as I am and not a geologist]. “I see some things that remind me of phenomena that we have in the Iron Age IIA (1000–925 BC) destruction at Tell es-Safi/Gath [e.g., does he have vitrified or “melted” bricks, ultra-high temperature melted pottery melted only on one side, destruction that is directional commensurate with an air burst, or human remains charred only on one side in the destruction layer]—a destruction that is most likely caused by the conquest and destruction of the site by Hazael of Aram [report documents why it is not destruction from a conquest],” he said.
However, the destruction is from a different period and unlike that found in destruction layers caused by conquest [documented in the report]. That is is not from a conquest or military is precisely what the scientific report has revealed from a scientific report of the tests done to our samples. Maeir and Ortiz have the opportunity to provide a similar report of their test results for comparison if they wish. While it may look like what Aren Maeir and Steve Ortiz have seen at their sites they have not produced any scientific tests that show they are or are not similar. People have criticized us for not providing more evidence now it is their turn. This is also a relatively new area of research in archaeology and so over time perhaps others will do more of this kind of research. I also know that air-bursts evidence has also been documented in Egypt in antiquity.
Genesis 18:16 states:
Then the men set out from there [Mamre=Hebron see Gen 13:18], and they looked down [elevation not direction] toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way.
Genesis 13:18
When Abraham and lot separated, Lot chose the Plain of Jordan while Abraham “settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron, and there he built an altar to the LORD.” (Gen 13:18). After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham witnessed the smoke rising from the destruction of the Cities of the Plain (Heb. kikkār) down in the floor of the Jordan Valley from the door of his tent.
Genesis 19:28
And he [Abraham] looked down (elevation not direction) toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley (Heb. kikkār), and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.
Geikie, before we were born and unaware of this debate, suggests that only the smoke would be visible from cities destroyed in the northern region in the Jordan Valley, stating:
Nor could Abraham, as he stood at his tent door at Mamre, have seen, as he did, “the smoke of the country rising like the smoke of a furnace,” as he looked “towards Sodom and Gomorrah,” had they been at the south end of the lake; whereas the openings between the hills are such that, though the plain itself is not visible from near Hebron, the clouds of smoke ascending from the doomed cities must have been seen in all their grandeur.[1]
[1] J. Cunningham Geikie, The Holy Land and the Bible: A Book of Scripture Illustrations Gathered in Palestine (London: Cassell & Company, 1887), 118–119.
Now neither the actual sites of Tall el-Hammam or Bab edh-Dhra (southern location argued for by Govier) can be seen from Hebron but as Geikie points out in 1887 (well before this debate) that even the smoke that rose could only be seen from Hebron if the fire was on the north end of the Dead Sea where Tall el-Hammam is located.
Thick smoke rising from the northern Jordan Valley would be visible from the Hebron plateau, which rises 3,094 ft. (943 m) above sea level. Again, what is central to the argument is the location of the kikkār (see Fact 23) since this was where Abraham was looking. To read "down" in Gen 18:16 as meaning south (direction) does injustice to the lay of the land and the geography of the region where down clearly means down into the Dead Sea (elevation) because Hebron is so much higher than the Jordan Valley.
Genesis 14:13
Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner. These were allies of Abram. When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. . . pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus.
The Battle of Chedorlaomer
Abraham was at Mamre (Hebron; Gen 14:13; see Fact 26) when he received word that Lot (Abraham’s nephew) had been taken captive, and so he pursued Chedorlaomer to Dan (Laish, identified as Tel el-Qadi).[8] Since Chedorlaomer was travelling north to Dan, with Lot, it would make sense that Chedorlaomer would not have turned south with his armies to encounter the kings of the Pentapolis.[9]
the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem (Jerusalem) brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)The valley on the north end of the Dead Sea makes more sense for Melchizedek the King of Jerusalem to come out and meet him with bread and wine.
[8] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Duane Garrett, eds., NIV Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 378.
[9]
Steven
Collins, “A Response to Bryant G. Wood’s Critique of Collins’ Northern Sodom
Theory,” Biblical Research Bulletin 7, no. 7 (2007): 8.
 |
| View of the Kikkar and the Cities of the Plain from Bethel and Ai (Gen 19:28). |
The Kikkar is clearly on the north end of the Dead Sea as it is defined in Hebrew as a round circular plain (Kikkar is still used in modern Israel to describe a roundabout). This is why Genesis 18:16 is not helpful in locating Sodom other than placing it down (elevation and not direction) in the Jordan Valley and why Gen 19:28 is the key verse for locating the Cities of the Plain because Abraham and Lot are between Bethel and Ai at the north end of the Dead Sea and look east and can see the Cities of the Plain. The southern end of the Dead Sea is impossible to see from this location because they are blocked by the mountains of Jerusalem.
10. Next, Govier throws out a red herring by saying "If the Bible is just a collection of oral traditions that were puzzled together centuries later, perhaps the fireball would fit. But a century and a half of increasingly detailed archaeological investigation shows time and again that the historical framework of the biblical story holds up back to the time of Abraham." That the text was written centuries later may be the view of some of the scientists who wrote the article (no idea I did not ask) and did some of the testing, but Govier knows very well that this is not the view of Dr. Collins who has argued for years that the biblical stories are historical and written when they say they were. Also, those who witnessed this event in antiquity would have described what they saw (i.e., an air-burst) as "smoke rising from the Kikkar" and "Fire and brimstone falling from the sky" whenever they were written (not trying to document when they were written).
11. Also, the phenomena of an air burst is not pseudoarcheology it is receiving more scientific analysis, and well documented even in our own generation with the Superbolide meteor air burst in Tunguska, Russia in 1908 and Superbolide Meteor, Chelyabinsk, Russia, 5 February 2013, not as powerful as the Superbolide 3.7KYrBP Kikkar Event in the 2nd mill BC. For a list of Air Bursts see Meteor Air Burst.
 |
| Courtesy of Dr. Leen Ritmeyer |
Some might respond that I am biased because I have excavated at the site for 15 years, but I met Dr. Bryant Wood in the late 70's and argued for Bab edh-Dhra (Southern location for Sodom having visited it several times) for many years until I examined the chronology, excavated and saw the destruction for myself at Tall el-Hammam that changed my mind (see the Location of Sodom). If contrary dates and evidence presents itself again I am perfectly willing to change my mind, but the evidence is overwhelming that Tall el-Hammam is the best candidate for the events that are described in Bible for the destruction of the Cities of the Plain. Can anyone provide possibly provide me with scientific archaeological evidence that locates the biblical city state of Sodom elsewhere and if this is not Sodom then why is the largest city in the entire levant at 62 acres not mentioned in the Bible if it is not when Jerusalem (MB 12 acres) and Jericho (MB 10 acres) are? Make absolutely not sense unless it is one of the Cities of the Plain who were trading with Ebla in the early Bronze Period.[7]
Don't let your bias get in the way of biblical and scientific research. And even if you do not believe that Tall el-Hammam is Sodom as I do the research presented certainly provides an explanation for what non-biblical archaeologists call "The Late Bronze Gap" in the Jordan Valley. From there you just need to join the dots.
As Phil Silvia has posted
The Tall el-Hammam destruction paper published on Nature Scientific Reports on Monday has now exceeded 210,000 downloads. Derivative reports on this paper in the media focus on the possible Sodom connection, but Sodom was mentioned anecdotally only twice in the paper. Stick to the science and download the full paper for free here:
Postscript
These same arguments from Govier have also been regurgitated in Biblical Archaeology Review magazine with nothing new (including my picture of the site).
Footnotes
1. I have declared this for many years to my students. David E. Graves, Digging Up the Bible: Introduction and Brief History of Biblical Archaeology, Biblical Archaeology 1 (Moncton, NB: Electronic Christian Media, 2019), p. 69.
2. Ted E. Bunch, Malcolm A. LeCompte, A. Victor Adedeji, James H. Wittke, T. David Burleigh, Robert E. Hermes, Charles Mooney, et al. “A Tunguska Sized Airburst Destroyed Tall El-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age City in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea.” Scientific Reports 11, no. 1 (September 20, 2021): 18632. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97778-3.
3. Graves, David E. A Preliminary Report on the Tall Al-Ḥammām Excavation Project: Roman, Byzantine and Islamic Remains, Field LR (2005–2017). Edited by Steven Collins, Gary A. Byers, and D. Scott Stripling. New Brunswick, Canada: Electronic Christian Media, 2021.
4. Collins, Steven, Carroll M. Kobs, and Michael C. Luddeni. The Tall Al-Hammam Excavations: An Introduction to Tall al-Hammam with Seven Seasons (2005–2011) of Ceramics and Eight Seasons (2005–2012) of Artifacts. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
5. "He discusses the Exodus tradition as a matrix of cultural memories, woven together and altered over a long period, thus defying any attempt to determine a single historical event that would correlate to the Exodus. It is not an historical myth but rather reflects the many periods and contexts, in which the Exodus mnemo-narratives were formed—a multi-faceted “narrative complex” and space of memory shaped by the needs of Israel’s identity." Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider, and William H. C. Propp, eds., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience (New York: Springer, 2015), xi.
6. FACT 32: SHEA’S IDENTIFICATION OF CITIES BASED ON THE EBLAITE GEOGRAPHIC ATLAS IS SUSPECT, pp. 104-105 The Location of Sodom.
7. Fact 5: Albright did not believe that BeD was Sodom. David E. Graves, The Location of Sodom: Key Facts for Navigating the Maze of Arguments for the Location of the Cities of the Plain (Toronto, ON: Electronic Christian Media, 2018), 75; Albright, “The Archæological Results of an Expedition to Moab and the Dead Sea,” 8.
8. David Mark Fouts, “A Defense of the Hyperbolic Interpretation of Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 377–87; “The Demographics of Ancient Israel,” Biblical Research Bulletin 7, no. 2 (2007): 1–10; Carol A. Hill, “Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55, no. 4 (2003): 239–51; Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Mysterious Numbers Of the Book of Judges,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005): 491–500.
9. Steven Collins, “Tall El-Hammam Is Still Sodom: Critical Data-Sets Cast Serious Doubt on E. H. Merrill’s Chronological Analysis,” Biblical Research Bulletin 13, no. 1 (2013): 1–31. 4; Steven Collins, “Tall El-Hammam Is Sodom: Billington’s Heshbon Identification Suffers from Numerous Fatal Flaws,” Artifax 27, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 16–18. 6.
Follow me on Academia.edu or Selected WorksFor Books see Amazon or Amazon
Updated March 8, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment