Introduction

Unlike many other biblical places, Sodom and Gomorrah's location remains unknown. This isn't for lack of trying. Today there's two competing theories about their site: north and south of the Dead Sea. I argue that despite the popularity of the southern hypothesis, the north is a more likely area for the Cities of the Plain. In his article "Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited", David M. Howard Jr. examines the various locations in detail. He argues for a southern locale, while I consider the evidence to point to the north.

Possible locations

North, South, East, West?

From the eight directions of the compass (N/NW/NE, S/SW/SE, W/E), a few places can be ruled out. Howard summarizes Rast and Schaub's position in that the salinity in the south makes any city after 3000 B.C. impossible, and the rivers in the southwest are all salty. [Howard, 396] So the submerged hypothesis is unlikely in addition to surveys that found nothing. [Howard, 396] Any theory suggesting the Northwest or West has to explain the fact that Lot is on the other side of the Jordan (Gen. 13:12 - where Abraham is specified as living in Canaan as opposed to Lot) [Howard, 387] and why Jericho or En Gedi and other surrounding cities (Josh. 15:61-2) didn't burn.

It's really only the Northeast and Southeast that remain, with "East" being divided between them, although given that Lot needs to run to Zoar because he can't reach the mountains, there's few areas in East proper that would make sense. So for convenience, the two possibilities are called North and South.

Inconclusive

Isaiah 15:5 and Jeremiah 48:34

I agree with Howard that these verses don't help because too many of the places are unknown or uncertain. [Howard, 392] Nebo, Heshbon, and numerous other sites in the north are attacked (Is. 15:2, 4), with the cries reaching Jahaz (somewhere near Dibon, which is in central Moab), so the disaster seems to be by an attacking northern army. But alternatively, the fugitives running "as far as Zoar" in Is. 15:5 could be south or perhaps escaping the Moabite plateau (west, hence northest of the Dead Sea), the way the cries reach as far as Jahaz even though Dibon south of it is attacked. A similar route seems to have been taken by the Mesopotamian army in Genesis 14 - attacking the plateau first, and the Cities of the Plain only on the way back. Horonaim is somewhere south of Dibon (Mesha Stele), but whether Zoar is connected to it geographically in Jer. 48:34 the way Heshbon and Eleah are in that verse (compare Is. 15:4) or the cries stretch across Moab from a northern Zoar to a southern Horonaim can't be certain.

Southern Hypothesis

Ancient Tradition

The oldest traditions, since Josephus, place Zoar in the southeast - modern Zoara. This site, like many in the region, dates from before Abraham. It was not burned by fire. The problem is that the only sites that can be associated with Sodom, Gomorrah and the others are so spread out that the textual evidence doesn't match the locations. They are spread all around the southeast coast of the Dead Sea (as well as south of Zoara), whereas Lot went to Zoar only because he couldn't make it to the mountains (Gen. 19:19-20). It would be illogical for him to say this and make it to Zoara which is much further north/south than the mountains to the east of any of the proposable locations for Sodom such as Bab edh-Dhra or Numeira.

Zoara probably became part of ancient Jewish tradition due to the extensive bitumen in the southern region - something that's not exactly an issue for a northern hypothesis. Josephus, Philo, and Strabo aren't independent sources: they all rely on this tradition, and they're the source for Eusebius and other later writers. Josephus and his traditions cannot be relied upon with any absolute certainty: he's accurate for facts chronologically close to his time. For example, he claims the Dead Sea was formed as a result of the destruction of Sodom and friends (Ant. 1.9).

Ezekiel 16:46

This is just about the only textual support for a southern location, which says a lot. The verse certainly refers to Moab and Ammon, not literally to Sodom, because this Sodom was mistreated and will be restored etc (Ez. 46:53-6; esp v.55 compared to Isaiah 1:9)! Also this "Sodom" is called the younger sister of Jerusalem (i.e. Judah), probably because Lot was Abraham's nephew, with Samaria representing the ten tribes with Reuben as the oldest amongst it. The words for north and south are more archaic and non-technical (left and right hand) and don't have to mean 180 degree opposites - e.g. with Balaam's donkey having no way to go to the left or right (Num. 22:26).

As some have said, the language is poetic: north and south instead of north and east. Similar poetic expression has Job use "north" for "up" (in the sky - Job 26:7), leading him to say the Sun comes out of the north (Job 37:22)! Overall this shouldn't be used as evidence of the location of Sodom. Notably, Abraham suggests he and Lot separate north or south ("left/right"), but Lot goes east (Gen. 13:9-12). Of course, Lot could've picked a different direction, but it could show the meaning behind "left" (north) and "right" (south) to be a general idea.

Genesis 10:19

This verse gives the boundary of Canaan: roughly sketched as a triangle from Sidon down to Gaza and toward the Pentapolis of Sodom etc. Howard thinks this supports a southern hypothesis because a northern Sodom excludes Hebron (just barely) and there were lands to the south that were Canaanite. But either a northern or southern Sodom excludes Hazor by just as much, and the arid land to the south may not have been considered as important as the relative location for the third vertex with Sodom. Either way there's Canaanite land unencompassed, so this verse can't be used with any certainty for a southern location.

Genesis 19:24-8

Here Abraham is at Hebron and wakes up the next morning to see the smoke from the burned cities. Smoke from the south of the Dead Sea is better visible from Hebron, but it's not invisible from the north. So this is pretty inconclusive and can only be used as supporting evidence if both locations explain all the evidence to some degree: which I don't think is the case for the southern hypothesis and only for the northern one examined below.

Northern Hypothesis

Genesis 13:10-12

Howard admits only the northern part of the Dead Sea is visible from Bethel. [Howard, 387] In order to salvage the southern hypothesis, he's forced to speculate that either Lot saw the north but ultimately settled in the south, or that the plain refers to the entire region around the Dead Sea! The first is an unwarranted addition to the text with the exact opposite implied, and it makes no sense that Lot would go anywhere else. The second idea is probably unlikely because the phrase "Plain of Jordan" loses all meaning if we include all the land that has no connection to the Jordan river. Even if Zoar is not visible from Bethel, in what sense is Lot looking at the valley "toward" it / "as it goes toward" it (Gen. 13:11)?

He also notes the word kikkar ("plain") is used only in regards to the northern area in 1 Ki 7:46/2 Chr 4:17 and 2 Sam. 18:23, and elsewhere only for Sodom and the other cities. [Howard, 387-8] That the Jordan Valley is north in 1 Kings 7:46 is shown from where Solomon has the metal vessels cast: Succot (Deir Alla) and Zarethan (Tell es-Sa'idiyeh), both in the north. However, based solely on the much later Nehemiah 3:22, 12:28 he tries to imply the term was loose enough to not mean only that area, when Nehemiah has Jerusalem in mind. He tries to claim Deut. 34:3 is explaining "the Plain" to be the one including the "valley of Jericho" because it could mean some other "plain". But by this theory Jericho being defined as "the City of Palms" means there was more than one Jericho. The boundary is simply being defined with exact points by using cities; either for a northern or southern hypothesis this plain would not have to be described as being as far as Zoar if it weren't for the boundary-defining purpose of the text. Yet if Zoar was on the southeast of the Dead Sea, the mention of a plain around the whole body of water without mentioning the sea itself is really strange, including the fact that there isn't any kind of "oval plain" around the Dead Sea.

Gen. 14:1-12

The route of the Mesopotamian armies attacks En Gedi on its way back north and only then fights with the five kings from Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela/Zoar. En Gedi is near the center on the west coast of the Dead Sea. So a southern hypothesis is very problematic: why would either army meet the other after the foreign army was halfway up the Dead Sea?

Howard tries to question whether En Gedi is Hazazon Tamar, when it clearly is (2 Chron. 20:2), or a more southern Tamar (1 Ki 9:18; Ez. 47:19, 48:28). But Ez. 47:10 unmistakably locates En Gedi on the coast, and Josh. 15:62 on a Dead Sea coast, since it's grouped with a "city of salt", which would have to be near the massive salt deposits of the Dead Sea. And since Josh. 15 describes Judean territory, En Gedi would be on the Dead Sea west coast.

Nor does the route seem to be non-chronological as Howard suggests is possible: the foreign army went through the plateau on the east of the Dead Sea, and returned to the west of it, avoiding the more heavily fortified city-states less inland like Jerusalem. If the battles are out of order, Sodom and Gomorrah would have to be attacked before the foreign army got down to Paran, which means Abraham would've been chasing the Mesopotamian army south, not north toward Damascus. If anything Genesis 14 alone should show that Sodom, Gomorrah, etc were in the north.

The bitumen pits don't have to be actual tar but the muddy slime that looks similar and has the same bog effect found all over the western side (so perhaps the army assembled somewhere to the northwest of the Dead Sea). The fiery sulfur balls ("fire from heaven") exist both in northern (Tell el-Hammam) and southeastern sites (Bab edh-Dhra): these would've burned everything, including the grass as Gen. 19 says (hence Lot's fear of not making it to the mountains), causing the black smoke from bitumen that caught fire to rise - and this doesn't need to be a southern site just because the bitumen pits are primarily there, as bitumen was used for mortar in buildings. Thus a burned, salty wasteland (Deut. 29:23 - a metaphor used for Israel's disobedience) doesn't imply the salt regions to the south/southwest of the Dead Sea (compare Zephanian 2:9), since the Cities of the Plain wouldn't be able to live in an environment with such salinity. [Howard, 396] Tell el Hammam has salt all over it anyway though. The connection with burned bitumen and salt and the Dead Sea would've applied for Sodom and Gomorrah regardless of where they were on its coast, especially since salt makes land uncultivatable, so it's an apt symbol. Neither the sulfur nor the burned bitumen would've made Sodom and its region salty at any rate. Similar misguided suggestions for Sodom being around the southwest have been made because of Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt. [Howard, 395]

Deut. 34:3

Here we have a more detailed tracing of Israel's allotted land. It begins from Gilead, goes north to Dan, then south along the Mediterranean coast, then east to the Negev and back toward "the plain of the Valley of Jericho as far as Zoar." Surely Zoar is near Jericho. But Howard tries to reinterpret this to mean Zoar is the southeastern-most point. Of course, this defies any natural meaning, and even if the Valley of Jericho isn't meant to be "as far as Zoar", but is Moses' vision, why complete the circuit by going back south? Why doesn't the text say "the Negev from Zoar as far as the Valley of Jericho" instead? There is no answer to this like many other such questions, because like all of them, Howard's theories are simply ad hoc.

He tries to envision a chiasmus, [Howard, 391-2] which means that just as Dan is the northernmost point, so Zoar is the southernmost one, though that's probably debatable as far as the Negev is concerned. At any rate, this would be a weird chiasmus to have, especially with an inexact parallel as Howard admits. [Howard, 391] He simply strains patterns based on supposed elements ("Judah" and the "Western Sea" with "Ephraim" and "Mannasseh" from v.2!) and a forced idea as if the boundary is being described as a mirror instead of the more logical and natural circuit.

And thus he transforms the Deut. 34:3 passage from "one of the principal ones in the arguments for a northern site" to one that "should be seen as favoring a southern one"! [Howard, 390, 392] Ultimately, we see that the reference of the Jordan Valley "as far as Zoar" shouldn't be translated "as you go to Zoar" (implying Zoar isn't in the Valley) in Gen. 13:10 based on Deut. 34:3.

Geography

The fact that Ammon and Moab were located respectively northeast and southeast from the Dead Sea's north strongly suggests in my opinion that Zoar was in the north. Otherwise, Lot travels a little far to a cave to escape either potential fire or Zoar's people (angry and blaming the only survivors?). Moab was essentially in the plateau east of the Dead Sea, with Ammon to its north/northeast, and Edom to the south (Mesha Stele).

Archaeology

Despite claiming there weren't any viable sites in the north, [Howard, 399 n.84] there are numerous unexcavated sites and innumerable ancient villages from the Middle Bronze Age. [Prag, 155] The sites Howard discusses are pretty spread out along the east, southeast, and below, and Zoar is not closer to any of them compared to the hills, so that already goes against Gen. 19:19-20. Even the dating was and I believe still is an issue for Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira specifically to be Sodom and Gomorrah. [Howard, 400]

Conclusion

In conclusion, I think the evidence overwhelmingly favors the north. Virtually all the textual evidence allows if not pushes for a northern location, while some of it outright rules out the south. The ancient tradition is not a relevant factor any more than it is for some New Testament sites (e.g. Bethany beyond the Jordan and the Madaba Map). And the archaeology is not an issue for a northern site, while it probably is for a southern one (except for Zoar).

However, all attempts to find the specific places of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other three cities will have to be frustrated. Tell el-Hammam today is thrown as a possibility, and while it was destroyed around the time needed for Abraham, it's at best a possibility. The name "Gomorrah" comes from "amar" (=ruined heap) and therefore "Sodom" probably comes from an unused root that meant "burning" (volcanic/bitumen). [Sedom (Strong's 5467)] So they weren't the actual names for the city. The other three may have been called that, at least in Zoar's case (Bela), but there's a very low chance of any remains of the name being found. Many sites in that area were burned because of the environment around the Dead Sea and its earthquakes, sulfur, and bitumen used for mortar in houses. The only certainty is that Sodom, specifically, was somewhere between the Jordan and the mountains of Moab, probably closer to the river.