THE SITE OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

FREQUENT as is the mention of these doomed cities in Scripture, and notorious as must have been, one would have thought, their geographical position, it might seem almost incredible that their site should be in any way open to dispute at the present time. Yet so it is; and that not merely to the extent of a mile or two, this way or that (which, considering that there are no visible traces of them left, would not be very wonderful), but to the extent of full fifty miles ;-some following the traditional, and we may say, until lately, the universal view, placing the cities at the south end of the Dead Sea;-some, and especially Mr. Grove and Mr. Tristram, two of the best living authorities on Biblical geography, placing them at the north end of the Dead Sea. To investigate in detail the evidence on which these two views rest is the object of the present paper. This evidence may be conveniently divided into three general groups, 1st. The Biblical statements concerning the site of the five cities before their destruction, as also concerning their sole survivor in later timesZoar; 2nd. The statements of ancient writers and travellers as to the site of Zoar; 3rd. The names at present given to the localities in question by the Arabs, with any purely local indications that may exist on the spot.

I. The Biblical Statements. These are of course by far the most important, and must be held, if perfectly clear and unmistakeable in their testimony, to be conclusive of the whole matter. The passages which we shall have to consider are the following:

as referring more or or less distinctly to the site of the five cities before their destruction, Gen. x. 19; xiii. 10-12; xiv. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10; xviii. 16, 22, 33; xix. 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30;-as referring to the site of the later Zoar, Deut. xxxiv. 3; Isaiah xv. 5, 6; Jer. xlviii. 34.

(a). Gen. x. 19. "And the border of the Canaanites was from Zidon,—on the way to Gerar, as far as Gaza ;-on the way to Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboim, as far as Lasha."a

Two limits are here given for the possessions of the Canaanites, one on the south-west, Gaza, and one on the south-east, Lasha; but inasmuch as neither of these places would seem to have been in the writer's days well known, he has added besides

a The Authorized Version renders "as thou comest to Gerar," "as thou goest unto Sodom;" the expression in the original is, however, the same in each case

, literally "thy going to," here used, of course, simply as a preposition (comp. Kalisch in loc.). The Authorized Version also inserts "even" before "unto Lasha," for which there is no warrant in the original, and which mars the exact parallelism between the two clauses.

in each case a line of general direction, somewhere along which they were to be found; placing Gaza on the way to Gerar, and Lasha on the way to Sodom and its neighbour cities. Both these lines of direction he plainly intends to be taken from Zidon as the common starting point; it being formally prefixed to the first, no other being named for the second, while the two clauses are precisely parallel to each other in construction, word for word. The idea generally entertained, that the second line is to be taken from Gaza eastwards, is hence quite out of the question, requiring as it would the insertion of the word "thence," -"thence on the way to Sodom," etc.,-of which there is no trace. It may be noted also, that when this method of describing the boundaries of any territory, by drawing a line through various places along its borders, is adopted, entirely different forms of expression are used (see Numb. xxxiv. 3-12; Joshua xv. 1—12; xvi. 1-8; xvii. 7-9; xviii. 12-20; xix. 10-14, etc.). To define the borders of the Canaanites in this sense does not seem, moreover, to have been the object of the writer, but merely to give a general idea of the extent to which they had spread southwards from their first settlement-Zidon. Zidon, he says, was the "first-born" of Canaan (verse 15), i. e., probably, the first and chief possession of the Canaanites in Syria, to which the younger tribes looked up as to their senior and superior. There were also, he tells us, many other tribes descended from the same source, who "afterward (i. e., we must suppose, after this first settlement at Zidon) were spread abroad" (verse 18) over the land at large. Their general course was southwards; to shew the extent of their dispersion he naturally, therefore, selects the two southernmost of their settlements,-one on the west and one on the east, and defines the position of these by two general lines of direction drawn from the common fountain-head, Zidon, whence the dispersion spoken of had in fact taken place.

This being the natural and proper meaning of the passage, we proceed to inquire what relation, geographically, must have, as a consequence, subsisted between Lasha, the south-eastern boundary named, and Sodom, the well-known spot south of Zidon, on the way to which Lasha was to be found? The answer is self-evident; Sodom must clearly have been in the same eastward direction as Lasha, but a little further south, since in no other case could it be said that "on the way to Sodom," or, as it is literally, "in thy coming to Sodom," from Zidon, Lasha was to be found. Had Sodom been further north than Lasha, it must have stood "beyond Sodom, as far as Lasha" instead of on the way to." To shew, however, that this is no assumption made merely to suit a particular view of the position

of Sodom, let us turn to the parallel clause concerning the south-western boundary: "on the way to Gerar, as far as Gaza.” Here, if our argument be correct, Gerar should be in the west of Palestine, a little to the south of Gaza. And precisely so we find it; Gerar is some ten miles further off from Zidon than Gaza, and in the same westerly direction. So, again, we may refer to Gen. xxv. 18, where we read of "Shur, which is to the east of Egypt on the way to Assyria;" where plainly Assyria is further east than Shur. We conclude, therefore, that the writer of Gen. x. 19 without doubt intended to imply that Sodom and its neighbours were farther south than Lasha. Where then, we now ask, was Lasha? Unfortunately, it is nowhere again mentioned in the Bible, nor has any vestige of the name been found by modern travellers. Our only authorities on the point are Jerome and some other ancient writers, who say that Lasha was the same with Callirrhoë, the modern Zurka Main, a hot-sulphur spring which falls into the Dead Sea about ten miles from its northern end; with which identification the meaning of the word "fissure, or cleft," well agrees (see Smith's Dict., art. Lasha). Plainly, then, Sodom and Gomorrah, which were still further south, cannot have been at the north end of the Sea, or the expressions used concerning their relation to Lasha would have been totally inappropriate, as well as opposed to Scripture parallels.

To estimate the full force of this testimony, however, it is necessary to glance for a moment at the signs of antiquity which this passage presents: 1st. We notice that Gaza is spoken of as a place little known, and requiring a special note of direction to fix its whereabouts; Gerar, on the contrary, is regarded as well known to all, and so employed to define the position of Gaza. Now in the days of Joshua Gaza was certainly sufficiently notorious; it was an independent state, with "towns and villages," as such assigned to Judah (Joshua xv. 47), though like the other Philistine cities, too powerful to be dispossessed at once (Joshua xiii. 3; comp. Judges i. 18; iii. 3); how prominent a part it played further on in the history of the Judges it is unnecessary to insist upon; it is more to our purpose to notice how twice-once in Joshua (x. 41), and once in the editorial notes to Deuteronomy (ii. 23; Authorized Version " Azzah "),—it is employed alone in the defining of certain limits. On the other hand, Gerar, though common in Genesis (xx. 1, 2; xxvi. 1, 6, 17, 20, 26), falls out of sight altogether in the later books, being never once named in the lists of places in Joshua, and in fact being only mentioned once again in the Bible (2 Chron. xiv. 13, 14), where the flight of the Ethiopians before Asa is described; it would seem then to have been part of the territory of Egypt. Clearly, then, had

Gen. x. 19 been written after or at the time of the conquest of Canaan, neither would Gaza have needed any further note of direction to determine its situation; nor would Gerar, now fallen into obscurity, have been the fitting place to mention to define it, if it had. The date of Genesis x. 19 must plainly have been very much earlier,-most probably before the incursion of the Caphtorim mentioned in Deut. ii. 23 (comp. Gen. x. 14). But then, 2nd., we notice that Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim are named as marking the line of direction to the southeast. Now in Gen. xiii. 10; Deut. xxxiv. 3, where the same locality is required to be designated, we find Zoar alone mentioned, no doubt from its being the only city left there when those passages were written; which however here, in Gen. x. 19, is altogether passed by. Surely the natural conclusion to be drawn is, that Gen. x. 19 was written before Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown, or at all events while their situation was still notorious, and before Zoar rose into eminence. Their selection as the guides for the finding of Lasha is then reasonable enough, which otherwise must seem strange; and at the same time an explanation is given for the omission of Bela or Zoar, which we know was of inferior note to the other four (Gen. xix. 20, and comp. xiv. 2), though afterwards of course the guide to their original locality."

But if Gen. x. 19 be thus so extremely ancient-contemporaneous indeed with Abraham, the worth of its testimony to the site of Sodom is plainly immense; in fact, if we had but fuller proof of the identity of Lasha with Callirrhoë, it might be well regarded as conclusive to the whole controversy.

(b). Gen. xiii. 10-12, “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the hollow of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere (before Jehovah destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah), like the garden of Jehovah, like the land of Egypt,-on the way to Zoar. Then Lot chose all the hollow of the Jordan. And Lot journeyed in the east, . . . .... and Lot dwelled in (or "among") the cities of the hollow, and pitched his tent as far as Sodom."c

To this it may be objected, that if Sodom and the other cities were in existence when this passage was written, they surely should have been named as the southernmost of the Canaanitish settlements. But then what Scriptural evidence have we that they were peopled by Canaanites at all? They are plainly excluded from the list of Canaanitish tribes given just before, while in Gen. xiv. 4-8 they are coupled together very remarkably with the Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, and Horites, the pre-Canaanitish inhabitants of the land, as joint sufferers from the attack of Chedorlaomer; may not their affinities then rather have lain in that direction?

The Authorized Version renders "east" instead of "in the east ;" but the word here is not, but, which in other places plainly has this latter

Four points have here to be noted:-(i.) The designation of the site of Sodom and its neighbours as "cities of the hollow." (ii.) The particular portion of this "hollow" which suffered from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, that namely "on the way to Zoar." (iii.) The particulars concerning Lot's sojourn, that he "journeyed in the east," and pitched "as far as Sodom." (iv.) The point of view from which Lot looked upon this "hollow of the Jordan," as defining the position of the place intended.

(i.) The import of the phrase "cities of the hollow." Much here turns upon the meaning assigned to the last word, which the Authorized Version renders "plain," and which has been variously taken by other translators as signifying "district," circuit," "circle," or "round," but which is rendered above "hollow." It is a word whose origin has been regarded as very obscure, whose form is in Hebrew certainly all but unique, and whose application is withal most varied, it being used as here to denote a tract of country, as also in other places a loaf of bread, and a talent of gold, silver, etc. This latter fact should, however, rather help than hinder the unravelling of the mystery, as affording additional means of checking the soundness of any derivation which may be proposed. The view generally held by lexicographers and critics is, that is an anomalous form, produced by reduplication from 7, "to encircle, or move in circuit" (Fürst), in the same way as "Babel,” is formed (?) from, "to confound." Its signification may therefore be either, 1, the district round any place; or, 2, a district of circular shape; or, 3, a winding circling district; in each of which senses it has been taken by one or another as applying to the valley of the Jordan. Its use as a name for loaves and talents is explained as arising from their (assumed) circular shape. But it should be observed that this verb,, is after all itself but a derivative from another and older root, , or

',

,"to cut, cleave, or dig" (Fürst). This root, though not used (with one exception, Psalm xxii. 17) in this its primitive form in Hebrew, yet appears plainly in a large number of derivatives, e.g.,, "to dig," , "to cut off," N, "a ploughman,", "to cut, lay open, or inquire,"

27, "to

sense (see Gen. ii. 8; iii. 24; xi. 2; xii. 8; Isaiah ix. 12; Zech. xiv. 4; comp. also the parallel, "beside.") For the substitution of "hollow" for "plain" (Authorized Version), see above in the text.