Recently, I was made aware of two articles in The Journal of Creation written by Anne Hbermehl on her idea of where Sodom should be located.

Habermehl, Anne. ‘Sodom: Part 1’. Journal of Creation, Viewpoint II, 31, no. 2 (1 January 2017): 53–60.

Habermehl, Anne. ‘Sodom: Part 2’. Journal of Creation, Viewpoint II, 31, no. 2 (1 January 2017): 71–77.

I have addressed her arguments and concerns in detail in this blog post.

Part 1

First, she (Anne Hbermehl) is a chemist and not an archaeologist nor a biblical specialist (and it shows), although she has published several articles in The Journal of Creation, but I do appreciate that she is a fellow Canadian just not an informed biblical scholar :-).


What Lot would have seen from between Bethel and Ai. (C) Michael Ludenni Labelled by David Graves

Sodom on the North end of the Dead Sea

She is correct in reading secondary sources about the location of the Cities of the Plain on the north end of the Dead Sea (Heb. Kikkar undeniable in the biblical text and argued by many scholars before William F. Albright came along. See The Location of Sodom where I quote them]. But I can see that Hbermehl has never been to the area of Bethel and Ai to see what Lot could see. Not only is it impossible to see the southern end of the Dead Sea (which she documents) but the west side of the Jordan river from this location is impossible to see, so she not only has an argument from ignorance but also an argument from silence as there are no ruins there with a destruction layer. The biblical text does not demand the obliteration of the sites as even Hiroshima left remains. Impossible for the cities to be where Hbermehl said they are as they are not visible from Bethel and Ai as she argues for the southern cities of Bab edh-Dhra.

Location of Canaan

The identification of Canaan appears to be defined differently from period to period in Scripture defined by the ebb and flow of the settlements of those known as Canaanites and not a defined territory. To mix the various biblical periods can lead to confusion as Hbermehl has done in her article. The Encyclopedia Judaica describes Canaan as follows:

"According to certain biblical passages, the name Canaan applied to an area along the coast of the Mediterranean, including the important cities of Tyre and Sidon (e.g., Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; Isa. 23:11). No single geographical definition for the land of Canaan exists in the Bible (Num. 34:2–12; Ezek. 47:13–20; 48:1–7, 23–29) or in other sources. The term occasionally indicates an extensive area encompassing all of Palestine and Syria, while at other times it is confined to a strip of land along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean (for the southern boundary, see Josh. 15:2–4, and for the northern boundary, see Josh. 19:24–31). According to Genesis 10:19, Canaan extended in a restricted fashion from Sidon in the north to Gaza, Gerar, and the southern end of the Dead Sea in the south. The inclusion of Zemar, Arvad, and Sin (Siyanu, to the south of Ugarit) in Genesis 10:15–18, and the mention of Ammia (near Tripoli) as a city "in the Land of Canaan" in the inscriptions of Idrimi, king of *Alalakh (dated by various scholars to the 15th–13th centuries B.C.E.), indicate that even areas north of Sidon were included in the land of Canaan. However, the mention of a Canaanite among other foreigners in a merchant list from Ugarit from around 1200 B.C.E. suggests, therefore, that at that time Ugarit was not considered a part of Canaan. According to the detailed description of the borders of the land of Canaan in Numbers 34:2–12, the southern border began at the southern tip of the Dead Sea and continued southwest to the ascent of Akrabbim and Kadesh-Barnea, reaching to the Brook of Egypt (probably Wadi El-Arish). On the west was the Mediterranean. The northern border started at the coast near a place known as Mount Hor and extended east to Lebo-Hamath, the present-day Labwa in the valley of Lebanon (the Biqā), north of Baalbek (ancient Heliopolis). From there the border continued east to Zedad, the present-day adad, about 65½ miles (c. 100 km.) north-northeast of Damascus. The northeast corner of Canaan was marked by the settlements of Ziphronah and Hazar-Enan, identified today with awārīn and Qaryatayn, southeast of adad. The eastern boundary included the region of Damascus and the Hauran to the east and the Bashan and the Golan to the south, touching the southeast corner of the Sea of Galilee and continuing south along the Jordan River to the Dead Sea (cf. Ezek. 47:17–18). Neither Numbers 34 nor other biblical passages include Transjordan within the land of Canaan (Num. 33:51; 35:10; Josh. 22:10–11; et al.). It is reasonable to assume that the political and demographic realities reflected in the boundaries of Canaan given in Numbers 34 are roughly similar to those existing at the time of Egyptian rule in Ere Israel and Syria in the third quarter of the second millennium B.C.E. This area is given in one instance, in a broken and doubtful context, as [p-i?]-ati ša ki-na-i (J.A. Knudtzon (ed.), Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, 1 (1915), 36:15, p. 288), which would mean "the province (?) of Canaan." According to certain biblical passages, the name Canaan applied to an area along the coast of the Mediterranean, including the important cities of Tyre and Sidon (e.g., Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; Isa. 23:11)." Bustanay Oded and Shimon Gibson, "The Land of Canaan," Encyclopedia Judaica (22 vols., 2nd ed., eds. Berenbaum and Skolnik, 2008).

In the covenant with Abraham, God gave him the land of Canaan (Gen 12:4a, 12:5d). Genesis defines Canaan’s southern border as “the river of Egypt.” This is NOT the Nile River, but the Wadi el Arish, located in Egypt’s northeastern region. The northern border of Canaan is defined as the River Euphrates (Gen 15:18). The land of Canaan changes over time with the resettlement of the Canaanites throughout the region. At this time Sodom was included in Canaan (Gen 10:19). But this does not mean that Canaanites always occupied the same area.

Again under Hbermehl's argument for the boundary of Canaan on the west side of the Jordan she quotes two passages from Numbers (Canaan at the time of Moses) arguing that Canaan is on the west side of the Jordan, but the passage simply states that they travel into the territory where Canaanites lived and also crossed the Jordan assuming that the Jordan river was the boundary. However, the border varied from time to time and is not static as she assumes.

The promised land (including the land of Canaan) also included territory on the east side of the Jordan (i.e. East Manasseh, Gad, Reuben Joshua 13:15–23; Numbers 32 see map).

Josephus

Next, Hbermehl argues from Josephus (J.W. 4:8:452–454) for the location of Sodom, but fails to deal with the testimony of Egeria and other Byzantine pilgrims. (See The Location of Sodom) She states:

"Josephus tells us that the mountain behind Jericho (i.e. on the west side of Jericho) runs from Scythopolis (ancient Beth Shean) in the north down past Sodom and on to the far southward limits of the Dead Sea. To make the geography of the area clear, Josephus then says that there is a mountain on the other (east) side of the Jordan as well; it begins at Julias in the north and goes southward to Somorrhon, which is the bounds of Petra in Arabia (i.e. in Edom). Note that Josephus only mentions Sodom when he describes the mountain on the west side behind Jericho."

She draws on Josephus who wrote in c. 37 – c. 100 AD, so again mixes her historical periods. Roman/Byzantine tradition places Sodom in the southern end of the Dead Sea. Also, note that Josephus refers to Julias and I have published that this was part of Tall el-Hammam in the Roman/Byzantine period and the Sodom tradition at the time was around Tall el-Hammam visible from Mt. Nebo according to the Bishop of Sodom communicated to Eugeria.

The Prophecy of Hosea (11:8)

She make an assumption that is not demonstrated in the text. She assumes that it must be inside of Ephraim when it could equally have been beside it in Gad or Reuben. A more plausible argument is that because Jesus mentioned Sodom when he was in the Decapolis (east side of the Jordan) that Sodom was in the Decapolis (Matt 10:1–15, 11:20–24; cf. Luke 10:1–12, 17:28–30).

Significance of Zoar/Bela

Most of what she says here is a mute argument as I demonstrate in The Location of Sodom. The actual location of Zoar is not known and only placed at the south end of the Dead Sea (Sila) demonstrated on the Madaba map. Her argument does not support either the East or West of the Jordan.

What would the cities’ territory look like today?

First, hermenutically prophetic passages need to be dealt with differently than narrative.

See FACT 19: EZEKIEL IS NOT BIBLICAL NARRATIVE 90
FACT 20: JEREMIAH 50:35–46 IS PROPHETIC LITERATURE 91

Hbermehl make an assumption, based on Google Earth, that the west side of the Jordan is desolate even today, but fails to have visited the areas and found that there are date palm plantations all along the road driving to En Gedi and a kibbutz that has beautiful gardens near Qumran. Just a shallow argument and fails to knew that other sites were also cursed and yet had recovered and prospered. The site of Tall el-Hammam was destroyed and the entire Jordan valley was uninhabitable for ca. 500 years (archaeological fact). The biblical text does not demand the obliteration of the sites as even Hiroshima left remains.

Jeremiah 50:39–40 does not say “forever” but for “all generations” (Heb. dōr’ wā dōr’ דֹּור). Jeremiah indicates that Babylon will be destroyed to such an extent that one generation after another will not dwell in it (i.e., “generation to generation”). Although this is sometimes understood as “forever” (Heb. olam i.e., Joel 3:20), Babyon was resettled.

Hbermehl states: "Because the cities’ destruction occurred very early in history, they would not necessarily have been situated on mounds formed from previous layers of occupation (called
tells), as is commonly the case in the Near East." However, Sodom is mention in the Ebla tablets dated to the Early Bronze period and listed among the early nations in Gen 10 (Early Bronze period). Then it is mentioned among the patriarchs (Abraham and Lot) so dates to the Middle Bronze period. This is an occupation from ca. 3600-1500 BC. That is 2100 years of occupation that would certainly be evident in a tell, although she argues that it would not exist. Guess she has never excavated a tell.

Then Hbermehl states "Indeed, if there were previous layers, it is possible that the fierce fire
of God burned not only the current cities of Abraham’s time, but also any earlier layers beneath." Even Hirochima left remains and this hypothesis is just nonsense or arguing from silence.

An example of the destruction of Sodom.

Then she states "However, we have no way of knowing any of this unless the sites are located and excavated." Well Tall el-Hammam has been located and excavated for 15 seasons and there is EB and MB destruction layer and unusual destruction identified as from an Air Burst, so we do know. There is plenty of ash, several meters in some places.

Mention of sulphur balls is just echoing Ron Wyatt's nonsense for his location of Sodom near Madada that has no archeaological validity what so ever.

The rest of her arguments about Zoar, Madaba map and Bab edh-Dhra are mostly correct and do not affect her conclusion against Tall el-Hammam or her argugment for the west side of the Jordan, so I will not comment on them here.

Part 2

Date of the Patriarchs: Divergence of the biblical and secular timelines

Hbermehl points out the importance of the dates and discrepancy between biblical and secular timelines. What she fails to point out is that there is no firm date for the patriarchs found in scripture (we base this on the cultural clues mentioned in the text) nor agreed upon by biblical conservative scholars within the Middle Bronze Age (where the majority of biblical scholars place them).

Era of the destruction of the country of Sodom

Hbermehl mentions the importance and likelyhood that Sodom was a city state. This is excavtly what scholars are now calling Tall el-Hammam at over 62 acres and one of the largest site in the southern levant. So her assumption is correct and confirmed in the excavations.

Historical level of the Dead Sea

I agree and documented the levels of the Dead Sea in The Location of Sodom. This is a mute argument for either the East or West side of the Jordan but just demonstrates that they are not under the Dead Sea (as Albright and followers claimed).

What about Jericho? A tale of power politics

Hbermehl states "the destruction of Sodom at around 3000 BC [how does she know the Bible does not give the date but must be extrapolated from the details and everyone disagrees on the precise date].. . We suggest here that Jericho would have been uninhabited at the time of the destruction of the cities and that this explains why Jericho was not mentioned in the biblical story." This just sounds like nonsense to me.

Her assumption is that the destruction of Sodom "had to have occurred near the beginning of the Early Bronze Age period, according to the timeline presented here.This means that any archaeological claims about the location of the land of Sodom need to fit this timeline." However, she does not give adequate arguments for this date and as I have shown (see chart) conservative evangelical Christians differ with her dates (she claims are biblical dates), and place the Patriarchs in the Middle Bronze Age.

Why Tall el-Hammam is not Sodom

Hbermehl states: "With no other evidences in hand he (Dr. Collins director of Tall el-Hammam) essentially leaped to a decision that Tall (or Tell) el-Hammam must be Sodom." She wrote in 2017 but now the excavations have entered their 15th season (2009-2021) and there is insurmountable evidence and publications.

Hbermehl states: "Another problem with the el-Hammam site is that it was rebuilt after its major destruction, and had an extensive Iron Age occupation later on. This does not accord with the biblical verses cited in part 2 that describe Sodom as being a wasteland forever after its destruction." The fact that Sodom was destroyed and was never resettled as Sodom, but 500 years later people settled again on the site does not violate the biblical passage about the destruction of Sodom, similar to Babylon being cursed but did exist after its destruction.

Hbermehl states: "We might wonder whether, in fact, it was the children of Israel who destroyed
el-Hammam, because God had told the people to conquer the cities in the territory east of the Jordan." Most accept Tall el-Hammam as Abel-Shittim and there was no late bronze occupation on site "late Bronze Gap" according to the archaeological remains in 15 years of excavation (there is a small LB structure on the top of the tall likely a signal station). She does not understand or ignores the stratigraphy of the site that is well published.

Hbermehl's attempt at explaining the meaning of the Hebrew term "kikkar" is totally nonsense and wonder if she has even consulted a Hebrew dictionary. Even today kikkar is the term used in Israel for a traffic roundabout, and Dr. Collins does not maintain that it only applies to the Jordan Valley, but when it does refer to the geography connected to Sodom refers to the Jordan Valley as a round circular plain (visible from the rim overlooking the plain, as they did not have Google Earth in the antiquity :-).

Hbermehl state in conclusion that "There is no biblical or other clue to support Collins’ belief that Sodom was a large city" however she earlier argued that it must have been a city state, which is now what scholars are calling Tall el-Hammam, at 62 acres, a city state. Her arguments contradict themselves.

The Appendix

The Appendix about her early date (ca. 3000 BC) for the destruction of Sodom (patriarchs) is debated by most good conservative evangelical scholars see the chart earlier that place the Patriarchs in the Middle Bronze Age.

__________________