When Ishmael was born, Abraham celebrated his eleventh year in Palestine. Thirteen years later he was a witness to a great military event, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, described in Genesis 18-19.
For some mysterious reason modern biblical scholars locate the Pentapolis in the southern basin of the Dead Sea.(21) In spite of exhaustive archaeological research, no traces whatsoever of any cities existing before the Middle Ages have been found on the southern shore of this sea. Nor has any trace been found leading one to believe that some city once existed in the area now under water. At the same time, geologically speaking, the Dead Sea has not changed substantially since the end of the Pleistocene period.
In spite of all this, biblical scholars insist in locating the Pentapolis in the southern basin of this sea and for the one simple reason: that the water there is...not very deep.(22) This is all the more surprising in view of the descriptions in Genesis 13,8-13, which are so clear and explicit that they leave no room for the slightest doubt: "Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as far as Zoar. So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan (...) and Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom." It is also there, in the Jordan Valley, to the north of the Dead Sea, that certain cities of the Pentapolis are to be found. Adama, was such a city which existed in Joshua's time, located a little north of the point where he crossed the Jordan (Josh. 3,16). Therefore, any inference that puts the Pentapolis in any area other than this plain is without foundation.
No less surprising is the fact that these scholars have always attributed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to a not clearly specified natural catastrophe. There are those who have even gone so far as to invoke geological happenings of millions of years ago, even theorizing about a sort of ancestral memory that handed down from primordial times a remembrance of some volcanic phenomenon, to be inserted into the thread of the biblical account.(23)
Apart from the fact that, (1) no volcanic phenomenon exists which could in any way resemble the events that led to the destruction of the Pentapolis; (2) that the Dead Sea has kept the same configuration for more than ten thousand years; (3) that no volcanoes have ever existed in that area, and that it is unimaginable that sulphur could rain down from the sky in a natural way; it must be noted that there is nothing imprecise or obscure in this episode that could cause us to believe in such an origin. The setting is so perfectly precise, both geographically and temporally, that there cannot be the slightest doubt that this was an event to which Abraham was an eye-witness. Also, it is beyond all reasonable doubt a military episode.
The story opens with the arrival of three people, undoubtedly human, at Abraham's summer camp by the oak-trees of Mamre: "Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them he hurried from the entrance of his tent and bowed low to the ground. He said, 'If I have found favor in your eyes, my Lord, do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree.'" The person who had the right to be called Yahweh had decided to destroy Sodom, guilty of a serious sin, not clearly specified (Gen. 18,21). Biblical scholars have always connected this sin with Sodomite threats of abuse to the messengers who were sent in a last-ditch attempt to save the city (Gen. 19,5).
Abraham accompanied the three guests up to a hillock overlooking Sodom (Gen.18,16). There he interceded in an effort to save it, but only managed to save Lot, who was virtually dragged out by force: "Lot hesitated, so the men grasped his hand and the hand of his wife and of his two daughters and led them out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them " (Gen.19,16). Only then could the destruction take place; sulphur and fire rained down from the sky upon the town, which began to burn. This operation was clearly limited to the city itself, since Abraham observed the scene from the high ground and saw smoke rising from the land, "like smoke from a furnace" (Gen. 19,27). The fire was limited to a specific area, and did not extend over the whole valley. The Lord, Abraham's guest, was the Pharaoh who came to Palestine to punish the cities which had committed a great sin against him. Evidently they had rebelled (Gen. 14,4), so he destroyed them, catapulting flaming sulphur and tar over them.
This is the story deduced from the literal translation of the biblical text, an event quite normal for those times. We can identify its place in Egyptian history by pin-pointing the year it happened and who was responsible for it. At first glance the solution to the problem seems simple and immediate: Sodom was destroyed during Abraham's twenty-fourth year in Palestine, that is, three years after the death of Tuthmosis the Third, who reigned altogether for fifty-four years. Now, from three stele, found at Amada, Elefantina and Karnak, we learn that Amenhophis the Second, Tuthmosis’ successor, conducted a great military campaign in Asia at the beginning of his reign.(24)
The date of this campaign is not given, but it is usually attributed to the second year of Amenhophis' reign. This is due to the presumption that during the first year he was too busy with affairs of succession to undertake such an expedition, coupled with the fact that at the beginning of the third year the stele at Amada, which gives an account of the campaign in question, was sculptured. Therefore, it seems that the destruction of Sodom is to be attributed to this highly exalted campaign. However, certain elements contrast with this conclusion.
First, there is a slight disagreement regarding dates; Abraham's twenty-fourth year in Palestine corresponds to the third year after Tuthmosis' death and not to the second. It is not an insurmountable difficulty, but somewhat distressing. Another disturbing factor is that the destruction of the cities which occurred during this campaign took place, it seems, only in Syria; there is no mention of any episodes of a military nature in Palestine, which means that there were none of importance.
Finally, there is the case of a certain Amenemhab, a courageous soldier who had accompanied Tuthmosis the Third in all his campaigns and had been nominated for general by Amenhophis just at the beginning of his first military campaign. According to a citation found in Amenemhab's tomb, it seems that this campaign actually took place before the ruler’s coronation.
There is certain supporting evidence, in historical documents of the period, that Tuthmosis the Third and Amenhophis the Second shared a period of co-regency. Historians on the whole agree on a period of co-regency, but they fail to agree on the duration. Some of these historians such as Wilson, Gardiner, or Cimmino accept a period of co-regency of a few months. This becomes two to three years for Kitchen, while C. Aldred, who made a thorough study of this aspect of Egyptian customs, goes as far to theorize a period of seven-to-eight years. In the absence of further data, opinions are bound to remain in discord. Genesis, however, offers very precise and circumstantial chronological references for this period, which, amazingly, give us the opportunity to solve the dilemma.
Amenhophis the Second conducted only two military campaigns in Asia; the first is the one described on the aforementioned stele and attributed--although without much foundation--to the second year of his reign. The second campaign undoubtedly was conducted in the ninth year of his reign and took place solely in Palestine and on the Sinai Peninsula. Here, a rebellion had broken out which the Pharaoh had decisively crushed in a ferocious manner, razing certain, but unidentifiable cities named in the text. An extremely interesting detail regarding this campaign is that Amenhophis made great use of incendiary material.
The description of the destruction of Sodom in Genesis practically coincides (considering the observation point) with that of Amenhophis the Second in Palestine during the ninth year of his reign. Therefore, it must be that they both describe the same historical event.
In that year "Abraham was ninety years old when the Lord appeared to him and said, 'I am El Shaddai; walk before me and be blameless. And I will make my covenant between me and thee...'" (Gen. 17,1). Who was this El Shaddai who insisted upon obedience from Abraham? Only a Pharaoh could speak in that way, but it could not possibly have been Tuthmosis the Third. Firstly, because after his forty-second year he never left Egypt again; secondly because he had a different name and, anyway, a new covenant between him and Abraham would have made no sense.
It is by no means a casual coincidence that in precisely that year the young Amenhophis was passing through Palestine, loaded with plunder and glory, returning from his great Syrian campaign. He was not yet the Pharaoh but knew he soon would be. He undoubtedly concerned himself with personally contacting the various princes of the Asiatic Empire, introducing himself as Tuthmosis' successor and demanding personal loyalty from them. Obviously among these was Abraham. Therefore, the name "El Shaddai" simply indicates the heir to the Egyptian throne.
From the writings that he had sculptured everywhere, it would seem that Amenhophis the Second had more muscles than brains; he liked violence and his tastes ran to the macabre and bloodthirsty. Typical of his character--averse to moderation--was the proof of loyalty he demanded from his subjects a year or two after the death of his father. "Elohim said to Abraham, 'This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: every male among you shall be circumcised; and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, and so must those born in your household or bought from foreigners, those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people ...'" (Gen. 17,3-14).
Circumcision was an Egyptian custom. Now that the rule over those areas of the Empire in Syria and Palestine was consolidated, Amenhophis the Second evidently intended to "Egyptianize" the inhabitants by means of a verifiable distinguishing mark, which he imposed upon all the Empire's subjects, or at least those in Palestine. Abraham hurried to obey: "On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household and circumcised them, as the Lord told him. Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised and his son Ishmael was thirteen: Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on the same day. Every male in Abraham's household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him".
But evidently not all those concerned were of the same opinion; this Pharaoh's decree put his subjects' loyalty to a severe test. A vast opposition to this decree broke out and many populations refused to obey the order. Since the measure concerned the male sexual organ, the opportunity was seized to tangibly demonstrate refusal of the decree and at the same time impose the greatest possible humiliation on the bearer of the order: to inflict the sort of behavior on him for which Sodom has become renowned throughout History. Amenhophis' emissaries, entrusted with imposing this decree, were met with abusive replies that could not be relayed. In view of this Pharaoh's particular character it is not surprising that he decided to eradicate the rebels to the last man.
Fourteen years after the campaign against the four Syrian kings, Amenhophis the Second "and the kings his allies advanced and defeated the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim and the Horites in the hill country of Seir as far as El Paran, near the desert. Then they went to En Misphat, that is, Kadesh, and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazezon-Tamar." (Gen. 14,5-7). These territories are all located in the Sinai Peninsula, south-west of the Dead Sea and bordered on Abraham's feudal land, immediately north of them.
The destruction occurred at the beginning of the summer season, perhaps just after the June harvest since Abraham was in his summer residence at Hebron. Amenhophis, after having devastated the Sinai region, turned towards the Jordan Valley and, therefore, had to pass near Hebron. "The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them he bowed low to the ground and said, 'My Lord, do not pass your servant by; I am here to serve you' (...). Then the Lord said, 'Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?' (...) So the Lord said to Abraham, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. I want to know.' (...) Then those men got up and went to high ground to survey the panorama of Sodom. Abraham wanted to accompany them...." Evidently he had gained the complete confidence and esteem of the Pharaoh who wanted Abraham near as an advisor.
Sodom, splendid and proud capital of a territory that could be compared to the garden of Eden, was dear to the hearts of the Patriarchs--"The Jordan Valley was completely irrigated, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, towards Zoar" (Gen.13,10). Abraham tried to save Sodom by intervening with the Pharaoh, from whom he managed to extract a promise: "If I find ten righteous people in the city I will not destroy it" (Gen. 18,32). The tally of the "righteous" was nothing if not simple; it was enough to assemble all the males of the city in the public square and check if they were circumcised. This in fact must have been the intention of the two emissaries sent by the Pharaoh (Gen. 19,2). Genesis is silent on one particular, but it is verified by subsequent events: the two did not arrive in the city alone. The entire Egyptian army accompanied them, taking up positions around the city walls. Only then did the two enter the city to dictate their terms.
Lot did his best to mediate. The check in the public square was outrageous and unacceptable to the citizenry; it could have been effected more discreetly in Lot's dwelling. Yet, in spite of the army deployed around their walls, the Sodomites refused to submit to such humiliating control and in a last desperate gesture of pride, attempted to subject the two emissaries to the act which had become the symbol of the rebellion against the Pharaoh.
The two, however, had taken precautions; one or two incendiary bombs dispersed the furious crowd (Gen. 19,11). This was Amenhophis' terrible secret weapon, perfected by his engineers: sulphurous projectiles, lighted and catapulted onto the enemy. The city was condemned. Lot, however, could not resign himself to this fact and pleaded, grasping at every straw. They had to drag him away. He went with a heavy, anguished heart, dragging with him his daughters and his wife, who fell prey to despair and could not bear the pain and sorrow caused by the loss of dear ones. She died of a broken heart at the sight of the fire in which they perished. As soon as they were clear, hundreds of flaming projectiles rained down, and in a very short time the city was reduced to an enormous brazier. Sodom, in spite of its impregnable walls erected in a double line by the Iksos, was quickly reduced to a mass of smoking debris.
More than three thousand years later, beginning in 1930, Doctor John Gerstang, an English archaeologist, carried out a six-year excavation at Tell-es-Sultan. He describes the vastness of the destruction of the fortifications that formed the double wall in the internal part of the city: "The space between the two walls is filled with wreckage and ruins. There are traces to be seen of a great fire, compact masses of blackened bricks, cracked stones, carbonized wood and ash. The houses along the wall have been destroyed by fire down to the foundations, the roofs have fallen onto the household goods." Carbon 14 analysis confirms that the fire took place exactly at the time of the 18th Dynasty.
So this age-old city paid for its desperate rebellion with complete destruction, and has continued to pay for its "sin" throughout history, becoming a symbol for all sorts of depravation. If its physical destruction was justified, the moral annihilation of the city, which has lasted for thousands of years, is a perpetration of injustice. If there was sin in Sodom, it was that of proud refusal, leading to the supreme sacrifice rather than submit to a tyrannical decree which humiliated the dignity of its citizens.
Thus it was that Sodom, the "Pearl of Jordan", was wiped off the face of the earth. Unlike the city of Troy, no poet was found to sing of its tragic glory; history has reserved for Sodom only contempt and mockery. The final insult occurred in 1907 when two Austrian archaeologists, Ernst Selling and Carol Watzinger, began to bring the ruins to light; they mistook it for another city and from then on it was denied even its very name.