Biblical Research Bulletin
The Academic Journal of Trinity Southwest University
Biblical Research Bulletin (BRB) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by Trinity Southwest University. Because BRB encourages interaction among scholars from diverse backgrounds, the views expressed in a given article may or may not represent the views of the faculty or administration of Trinity Southwest University. Biblical Research Bulletin is copyrighted by Trinity Southwest University, with all rights reserved.
Biblical Studies
-
Locating Tall el-Hammam on the Madaba Map
$2.50Locating Tall el-Hammam on the Madaba Map
by David E. Graves and Scott Stripling
The Madaba Mosaic Map indicates a prominent but unnamed site near the upper-left edge, just above the Jordan River. Various attempts have been made to identify it with Tall Iktanu, Tall Kefrein, Tall Nimrin, Tall Rama, and Khirbet Sweimeh. This article demonstrates that the better candidate for this site is Tall el-Hammam which boasts superior size, perfect location, abundant water, and Early Roman/Byzantine remains.
$2.50 -
The Bible, History, and Objectivity
$2.50The Bible, History, and Objectivity
by Steven Collins PhD
God’s representation of reality, the Bible, has been given for the purpose of allowing us to see what mere human observers cannot: the hand of God in the whirlwind.
$2.50 -
The Home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites: Is Yahweh’s Promise a Significant Historical Synchronism?
$2.50
Biblical Studies Old Testament
-
A Response to Bryant G. Wood’s Critique of Collins’ Northern Sodom Theory
$2.50A Response to Bryant G. Wood’s Critique of Collins’ Northern Sodom Theory
by Steven Collins PhD
My “northern Sodom” theory has been batted about the scholarly community since I first began to publish on the subject in 2002. In the fall of that year, I presented a paper to the Near East Archaeological Society wherein I provided a detailed refutation of the traditional “southern Sodom” hypothesis held by several scholars, including B. G. Wood. Since that time, I have continued to challenge southern Sodom advocates regarding the many serious “cracks” in the southern theory, encouraging them to come up with a substantive refutation of my theory, if they could muster one. Up to the present time no one has attempted a detailed critique of my northern theory in print, until now. In my opinion, the fatal weaknesses inherent in Wood’s criticisms of my position reveal the untenable nature of the southern Sodom hypothesis.
$2.50 -
Testing the Factuality of the Conquest of Ai Narrative in the Book of Joshua
$2.50Testing the Factuality of the Conquest of Ai Narrative in the Book of Joshua
by Peter Briggs
Summary of the problem. The gamut of views concerning the conquest of Ai narrative in the 7th and 8th chapters of the Book of Joshua can be summarized as follows: the narrative is factual, having the weight of eye witness testimony; or, it is an aetiological legend, compiled long after the fact, either just before or during the Babylonian exile for the purpose of justifying Israel’s presence in the land of Canaan; or, it is a pernicious myth, deceptively and skillfully fabricated to correspond with the material time-space context in which it is alleged to have occurred. Is there a method that is capable of objectively arbitrating among these three views?
$2.50 -
The Home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites: Is Yahweh’s Promise a Significant Historical Synchronism?
$2.50The Home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites: Is Yahweh’s Promise a Significant Historical Synchronism?
by Steven Collins PhD
It was an Egyptian-less land with a significant Hittite presence that Yahweh promised to deliver into Israelite hands, and this scenario fits uniquely into a rather narrow time-slot during the 14th century BCE.
$2.50
Hermenutics/Linguistics
-
Testing the Factuality of the Conquest of Ai Narrative in the Book of Joshua
$2.50Testing the Factuality of the Conquest of Ai Narrative in the Book of Joshua
by Peter Briggs
Summary of the problem. The gamut of views concerning the conquest of Ai narrative in the 7th and 8th chapters of the Book of Joshua can be summarized as follows: the narrative is factual, having the weight of eye witness testimony; or, it is an aetiological legend, compiled long after the fact, either just before or during the Babylonian exile for the purpose of justifying Israel’s presence in the land of Canaan; or, it is a pernicious myth, deceptively and skillfully fabricated to correspond with the material time-space context in which it is alleged to have occurred. Is there a method that is capable of objectively arbitrating among these three views?
$2.50 -
The Logic of True Narrative Representations
$2.50The Logic of True Narrative Representations
by John W. Oller, Jr. and Steven Collins PhD
This paper proves that TNRs are the only representations that are (1) relatively determinate with respect to their embodied meanings, (2) well-connected to the matter-space-time continuum, and (3) fully generalizable to all possible contexts (real or imagined) with respect to their relatively well-determined content. It follows that if the Bible is a TNR, then the genuine facts of history cannot contradict it, nor it them. If TNR-theory is correct, it is possible, as a result, to set subjects such as hermeneutics and biblical archaeology on a strictly logical footing.
$2.50
biblical Archaeology
-
A Response to Bryant G. Wood’s Critique of Collins’ Northern Sodom Theory
$2.50A Response to Bryant G. Wood’s Critique of Collins’ Northern Sodom Theory
by Steven Collins PhD
My “northern Sodom” theory has been batted about the scholarly community since I first began to publish on the subject in 2002. In the fall of that year, I presented a paper to the Near East Archaeological Society wherein I provided a detailed refutation of the traditional “southern Sodom” hypothesis held by several scholars, including B. G. Wood. Since that time, I have continued to challenge southern Sodom advocates regarding the many serious “cracks” in the southern theory, encouraging them to come up with a substantive refutation of my theory, if they could muster one. Up to the present time no one has attempted a detailed critique of my northern theory in print, until now. In my opinion, the fatal weaknesses inherent in Wood’s criticisms of my position reveal the untenable nature of the southern Sodom hypothesis.
$2.50 -
Explorations on the Eastern Jordan Disk
$2.50Explorations on the Eastern Jordan Disk
by Steven Collins PhD
Before my research into the biblical parameters for the location of Sodom, few scholars had paid much attention to the area specified by Genesis 13:1-12 as the actual place: the eastern Kikkar of the Jordan River, just north of the Dead Sea. This paper applies those parameters, in the form of a criterial screen, to various “Sodom candidate” sites, and reveals that Tall el-Hammam is the most reasonable choice for the infamous city.
$2.50 -
How Low Did the Once-Great Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty Sink?
$2.50How Low Did the Once-Great Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty Sink?
by Steven Collins PhD
After 158 years of empire-building, Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty entered a bizarre, sixty-year period of implosion, seemingly slow at first, but ever-accelerating toward ultimate collapse. It is my contention that the demise of the once-powerful Eighteenth Dynasty was largely, if not entirely, due to the events surrounding the Israelite Exodus from Egypt.
$2.50 -
Tall el-Hammam is Not Sodom
$2.50 -
Tall el-Hammam Is Sodom: Billington’s Heshbon Identification Suffers from Numerous Fatal Flaws
$2.50Tall el-Hammam Is Sodom: Billington’s Heshbon Identification Suffers from Numerous Fatal Flaws
by Steven Collins PhD
In this article, S. Collins responds to an article by C.E. Billington published in the Spring 2012 issue of Artifax magazine titled “Tall el-Hammam is Not Sodom.” Billington rejects Collins’ identification of Tall el-Hammam as Sodom because the date of its destruction is too late (between 1750 and 1650 BCE) to conform to Billington’s early placement of Abr(ah)am, ca. 2166-1991 BCE. He also attempts to support a more southern location for Sodom via textual geography. Finally, Billington suggests that Tall el- Hammam is perhaps a ‘western’ Heshbon. Collins refutes these ideas as categorically untenable.
$2.50 -
Tall el-Hammam Is Still Sodom: Critical Data-Sets Cast Serious Doubt on E.H. Merrill’s Chronological Analysis
$2.50Tall el-Hammam Is Still Sodom: Critical Data-Sets Cast Serious Doubt on E.H. Merrill’s Chronological Analysis
by Steven Collins PhD
In this article, S. Collins responds to an article by E.H. Merrill published in the Autumn 2012 issue of Artifax magazine titled Texts, Talls, and Old Testament Chronology: Tall el-Hammam as a Case Study.” Merrill rejects Collins identification of Tall el-Hammam as Sodom because the date of its destruction is too late (between 1750 and 1650 BCE) to conform to Merrill s early placement of Abr(ah)am, ca. 2166- 1991 BCE. While Merrill takes a literal, base-10, arithmetic approach to the patriarchal numbers in Gene- sis, Collins suggests that every available line of evidence from ANE archaeology, history, culture, litera- ture, climatology, and socio-economics demonstrates that the patriarchs fit best in the period following 1800 BCE, which also conforms to the terminal MB2 destruction of Hammam/Sodom.
$2.50 -
Terms of Distruction of the Cities of the Plain
$2.50 -
The Architecture of Sodom
$2.50The Architecture of Sodom
by Steven Collins PhD
If Sodom existed, then was destroyed, during the Middle Bronze Age, then something of its architecture can be known by comparing statements from the text with known standard features of typical MBA cities.
$2.50 -
The Geography of Sodom and Zoar
$2.50 -
The Geography of the Cities of the Plain
$2.50 -
The Home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites: Is Yahweh’s Promise a Significant Historical Synchronism?
$2.50The Home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites: Is Yahweh’s Promise a Significant Historical Synchronism?
by Steven Collins PhD
It was an Egyptian-less land with a significant Hittite presence that Yahweh promised to deliver into Israelite hands, and this scenario fits uniquely into a rather narrow time-slot during the 14th century BCE.
$2.50 -
Using Historical Synchronisms to Identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus
$2.50Using Historical Synchronisms to Identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus
by Steven Collins PhD
It is the purpose of this study to suggest a placement of the Old Testament Exodus/Conquest narratives alongside a corresponding segment of Egyptian history during the Eighteenth Dynasty, whereupon an optimal number of historical synchronisms are realized.
$2.50 -
Which Site is Sodom? A Comparison of Bab edh-Dhra and Tall el-Hammam
$2.50Which Site is Sodom? A Comparison of Bab edh-Dhra and Tall el-Hammam
by Steven Collins PhD
In this article, S. Collins responds to an article by C.E. Billington published in the Spring 2012 issue ofArtifax magazine titled “Tall el-Hammam is Not Sodom.” Billington rejects Collins’ identification of Tall el-Hammam as Sodom because the date of its destruction is too late (between 1750 and 1650 BCE) to conform to Billington’s early placement of Abr(ah)am, ca. 2166-1991 BCE. He also attempts to support a more southern location for Sodom via textual geography. Finally, Billington suggests that Tall el- Hammam is perhaps a ‘western’ Heshbon. Collins refutes these ideas as categorically untenable.
$2.50
Chronological Methods
-
A Chronology for the Cities of the Plain
$2.50A Chronology for the Cities of the Plain
by Steve Collins PhD
Biblically, the timeframe for the existence of the Cities of the Plain ranges from the early patriarchal period of Genesis 10 to the time of Abram and Lot in Genesis 13-19. Taken at face value, the biblical chronology would thus require the Cities of the Plain to exist during the Middle Bronze Age. Southern Dead Sea sites such as Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira belonged to the Early Bronze Age, and were destroyed hundreds of years before the time of Abram. This is problematic for the identification of these two southern sites as Sodom and Gomorrah.
$2.50 -
Tall el-Hammam Is Still Sodom: Critical Data-Sets Cast Serious Doubt on E.H. Merrill’s Chronological Analysis
$2.50Tall el-Hammam Is Still Sodom: Critical Data-Sets Cast Serious Doubt on E.H. Merrill’s Chronological Analysis
by Steven Collins PhD
In this article, S. Collins responds to an article by E.H. Merrill published in the Autumn 2012 issue of Artifax magazine titled Texts, Talls, and Old Testament Chronology: Tall el-Hammam as a Case Study.” Merrill rejects Collins identification of Tall el-Hammam as Sodom because the date of its destruction is too late (between 1750 and 1650 BCE) to conform to Merrill s early placement of Abr(ah)am, ca. 2166- 1991 BCE. While Merrill takes a literal, base-10, arithmetic approach to the patriarchal numbers in Gene- sis, Collins suggests that every available line of evidence from ANE archaeology, history, culture, litera- ture, climatology, and socio-economics demonstrates that the patriarchs fit best in the period following 1800 BCE, which also conforms to the terminal MB2 destruction of Hammam/Sodom.
$2.50 -
The Length of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt
$2.50The Length of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt
by Steven Collins PhD
If one adopts the short sojourn scenario (Jacob to Moses is approximately 215 years), then numerous conclusions about biblical chronology and its correspondence with ancient Near Eastern history and archaeology, which are based on a 430-year Israelite sojourn in Egypt, must be abandoned.
$2.50
biblical Geography
-
A Late Nineteenth-Century Missionary-Scholar’s Position on the Location of Sodom and Gomorrah: Excerpts from The Land and the Book
$2.50A Late Nineteenth-Century Missionary-Scholar’s Position on the Location of Sodom and Gomorrah: Excerpts from The Land and the Book
by William M. Thomson
Many biblical scholars who frequented the Dead Sea region during the 19th century favored a location for Sodom and Gomorrah northeast of the Dead Sea. They did so on the basis of clear statements in Genesis 13:1-12 as to their location on the Kikkar of the Jordan. Once they had visited the entire region, it became obvious to geographical thinkers like W.M. Thomson that the Cities of the Plain belonged to the Jordan Valley proper, not the southern end of the Dead Sea.
$2.50 -
A Response to Bryant G. Wood’s Critique of Collins’ Northern Sodom Theory
$2.50A Response to Bryant G. Wood’s Critique of Collins’ Northern Sodom Theory
by Steven Collins PhD
My “northern Sodom” theory has been batted about the scholarly community since I first began to publish on the subject in 2002. In the fall of that year, I presented a paper to the Near East Archaeological Society wherein I provided a detailed refutation of the traditional “southern Sodom” hypothesis held by several scholars, including B. G. Wood. Since that time, I have continued to challenge southern Sodom advocates regarding the many serious “cracks” in the southern theory, encouraging them to come up with a substantive refutation of my theory, if they could muster one. Up to the present time no one has attempted a detailed critique of my northern theory in print, until now. In my opinion, the fatal weaknesses inherent in Wood’s criticisms of my position reveal the untenable nature of the southern Sodom hypothesis.
$2.50 -
Canon Tristam Fires a Lethal Shot at the Southwern Sodom Theory
$2.50 -
Forty Salient Points on The Geography of the Cities of the Kikkar
$2.50 -
If You Thought You Knew the Location of Sodom and Gomorrah…Think Again
$2.50If You Thought You Knew the Location of Sodom and Gomorrah…Think Again
by Steven Collins PhD
What we now know about the archaeology of the eastern Kikkar, particularly from excavations at Tall Nimrin and Tall el-Hammam, is well enough to put an end both to the Albrightian legend of the southern Dead Sea location, and the Finkelsteinian legend about aetiological legends.
$2.50 -
Locating Tall el-Hammam on the Madaba Map
$2.50Locating Tall el-Hammam on the Madaba Map
by David E. Graves and Scott Stripling
The Madaba Mosaic Map indicates a prominent but unnamed site near the upper-left edge, just above the Jordan River. Various attempts have been made to identify it with Tall Iktanu, Tall Kefrein, Tall Nimrin, Tall Rama, and Khirbet Sweimeh. This article demonstrates that the better candidate for this site is Tall el-Hammam which boasts superior size, perfect location, abundant water, and Early Roman/Byzantine remains.
$2.50 -
Reassessing the Term hakikkar in Nehemiah as Bearing on the Location of the Cities of the Plain
$2.50Reassessing the Term hakikkar in Nehemiah as Bearing on the Location of the Cities of the Plain
by Steven Collins PhD
In this paper I demonstrate that in no instance in the OT does kikkar refer to a geographical-topographical feature other than the southern Jordan Valley, north of the Dead Sea, and areas contiguous with it.
$2.50 -
Rethinking the Location of Zoar
$2.50Rethinking the Location of Zoar
by Steven Collins PhD
Zoar is typically located near the southern tip of the Dead Sea. However, a careful analysis of key biblical passages signals that it must be outside the territories of Moab and Edom, which makes the southern Dead Sea location questionable. Zoar is designated as the southern boundary of the Reuben tribal allotment, and, therefore, should be placed somewhere near the Arnon Gorge, north of the Moabite Kingdom boundary.
$2.50 -
Tall el-Hammam is Not Sodom
$2.50 -
Tall el-Hammam Is Sodom: Billington’s Heshbon Identification Suffers from Numerous Fatal Flaws
$2.50Tall el-Hammam Is Sodom: Billington’s Heshbon Identification Suffers from Numerous Fatal Flaws
by Steven Collins PhD
In this article, S. Collins responds to an article by C.E. Billington published in the Spring 2012 issue of Artifax magazine titled “Tall el-Hammam is Not Sodom.” Billington rejects Collins’ identification of Tall el-Hammam as Sodom because the date of its destruction is too late (between 1750 and 1650 BCE) to conform to Billington’s early placement of Abr(ah)am, ca. 2166-1991 BCE. He also attempts to support a more southern location for Sodom via textual geography. Finally, Billington suggests that Tall el- Hammam is perhaps a ‘western’ Heshbon. Collins refutes these ideas as categorically untenable.
$2.50 -
Tall el-Hammam Is Still Sodom: Critical Data-Sets Cast Serious Doubt on E.H. Merrill’s Chronological Analysis
$2.50Tall el-Hammam Is Still Sodom: Critical Data-Sets Cast Serious Doubt on E.H. Merrill’s Chronological Analysis
by Steven Collins PhD
In this article, S. Collins responds to an article by E.H. Merrill published in the Autumn 2012 issue of Artifax magazine titled Texts, Talls, and Old Testament Chronology: Tall el-Hammam as a Case Study.” Merrill rejects Collins identification of Tall el-Hammam as Sodom because the date of its destruction is too late (between 1750 and 1650 BCE) to conform to Merrill s early placement of Abr(ah)am, ca. 2166- 1991 BCE. While Merrill takes a literal, base-10, arithmetic approach to the patriarchal numbers in Gene- sis, Collins suggests that every available line of evidence from ANE archaeology, history, culture, litera- ture, climatology, and socio-economics demonstrates that the patriarchs fit best in the period following 1800 BCE, which also conforms to the terminal MB2 destruction of Hammam/Sodom.
$2.50 -
The Demographics of Ancient Israel
$2.50The Demographics of Ancient Israel
by David M. Fouts
It is the purpose of this paper to examine the archaeological data that contribute to the understanding of population demographics for ancient Israel from the earliest periods until the first century A.D. It will be demonstrated herein that, given the data that we now possess, at no time in the ancient history of the land of Palestine would there have been more than 1,000,000 inhabitants.
$2.50 -
The Geography of Sodom and Zoar
$2.50 -
The Geography of the Cities of the Plain
$2.50The Geography of the Cities of the Plain
by Steven Collins PhD
Tradition seems to provide the only support for a southern Dead Sea location for the Genesis Cities of the Plain. The biblical text clearly supports their location north of the Dead Sea, on the east side of the Jordan River, in a circular, alluvial area known in the Old Testament, particularly in Genesis, as the Kikkar. This paper provides a detailed textual analysis of this geography.
$2.50 -
Which Site is Sodom? A Comparison of Bab edh-Dhra and Tall el-Hammam
$2.50Which Site is Sodom? A Comparison of Bab edh-Dhra and Tall el-Hammam
by Steven Collins PhD
In this article, S. Collins responds to an article by C.E. Billington published in the Spring 2012 issue ofArtifax magazine titled “Tall el-Hammam is Not Sodom.” Billington rejects Collins’ identification of Tall el-Hammam as Sodom because the date of its destruction is too late (between 1750 and 1650 BCE) to conform to Billington’s early placement of Abr(ah)am, ca. 2166-1991 BCE. He also attempts to support a more southern location for Sodom via textual geography. Finally, Billington suggests that Tall el- Hammam is perhaps a ‘western’ Heshbon. Collins refutes these ideas as categorically untenable.
$2.50
Submitting articles
information, research & perspective
for theology & religious studies
Biblical Research Bulletin is published in annual volumes, beginning with Volume I in the year 2001. Thus, for example, any article published in the year 2007 belongs to Volume VII. Articles published in an annual volume are numbered serially with Arabic numerals (example: “5”). Therefore, for citation purposes, a given article would appear by Author, “Title,” Biblical Research Bulletin, followed by Vol. VII No. 5 (2008) or simply VII.5 (2008), depending on the academic format used.
BRB is a universal access journal, and requires no subscription. However, users must follow all utilization and citation instructions contained on the cover page of each article published herein. Please refer to the cover sheet of any BRBarticle or book review for these details.
BRB’s Magazine section includes articles and other items of interest that are written in a more casual, popular style, but are of interest to both scholars and lay-readers. BRB also publishes book reviews. To access an article or book review, click on the selected category above. Then click on the article/review you wish to read. Each is a simple pdf file. Articles are organized by discipline, then by subject sub-category, then alphabetically by author.
How to Submit an Article
BRB is an open journal. As such, individual articles are published as they are approved by the Editorial Committee. Articles are published in pdf format on the BRB website. They are made available to the academic community and the public at-large without charge. While issues of BRB are copyrighted by Trinity Southwest University, the content of individual articles/reviews remains the intellectual property of the author(s).
Your submission to BRB confirms that you have read the contents of this page carefully, and that you explicitly grant BRBthe right to publish your article/review for an indefinite period of time as deemed appropriate by the Editorial Committee.
If your article/review is accepted for publication, a member of the BRB Editorial Committee will contact you by email, usually within six weeks of your submission.
Prepare your article/review and supporting information package in accordance with the guidelines below.
Submit your article/review and supporting information package as email attachments to .
BRB Article and Review Guidelines
1. Submissions must be made in Microsoft Word format (.doc) or, if that is not possible, submissions may be made in Rich-Text Format (.rtf).
2. Submitted document files may not exceed 3MB in size, except in rare cases approved by the Editorial Committee (EC).
3. Write your article or review using a standard journal or academic format. BRB editors recommend use of the SBL Manual of Style, but other formats (Turabian, APA, or MLS) are acceptable, even with appropriate modifications.
4. Use one-inch margins on all sides.
5. Use charts, graphs, figures and photographs sparingly. Photos should be in jpg format.
Supporting Information Package Guidelines
1. Provide a one-paragraph biography that includes relevant academic credentials, research, publications, professional associations, etc. (this information is for EC use only, and will not be published with the article).
2. Provide a one-paragraph abstract of your article or review.
3. Provide a statement clarifying whether the article/review is previously unpublished, published, revised, or modified. Provide detailed publication information if it is a previously published piece, along with your statement that you have the appropriate rights/approvals to allow publication of said piece in BRB.
4. If applicable, provide details on any special instructions that may apply to publication.