Blog

Many experts do not accept that Tall el-Hammam is Sodom. As I noted in the first article in this series, the prevailing theory for the past century has placed Sodom at the southern end of the Dead Sea. Perhaps even beneath the surface of the Dead Sea. 

It’s hard to go against a century of tradition, and the common belief in a southern location has resulted in several objections to a northern location. To wrap up this series on Tall el-Hammam, let’s look at the common objections raised against a northern location for Sodom.

How well does the date of the destruction of Tall el-Hammam line up with the Bible’s chronology for the destruction of Sodom? We’ve already considered that Tall el-Hammam is in the right place to be Sodom. It’s also been observed that Tall el-Hammam contains the right stuff to be Sodom. However, if Tall el-Hammam’s destruction was hundreds of years before or after the time of Abraham, it can’t be Sodom.

In the previous blog post and accompanying video, we compared the area of Tall el-Hammam with the Bible’s description of the location of Sodom. As a candidate for the ruins of Sodom, Tall el-Hammam definitely meets the Bible’s geographical criteria. If Tall el-Hammam is Sodom, the artifacts from the excavations should also be consistent with the Bible’s description. What have archeologists discovered at Tall el-Hammam?

Size and architecture

The Bible describes Sodom as a fortified city based on the fact that it had a gate. 

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth (Gen. 19:1 ESV)