War of the Nine Kings: The Battle of the Vale of Siddim

EA Baker
Oct 14
15 min read

Updated: 6 days ago

WARS OF THE BIBLE SERIES

The first war, in the sense of the word that we know it, occurs in the first book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis, in chapter 14. However, before we get there, here’s some context for where we are in the story of Abraham.

Abram (not yet called Abraham), his wife Sarai, and his nephew Lot had just been cast out of Egypt by Pharaoh. They had gone there to escape a famine. But Abram feared that the Egyptians would kill him to claim his beautiful wife, Sarai. He convinces his wife that they should enter Egypt as brother and sister, not husband and wife.

This plan quickly unravels. Pharaoh becomes enamored with Sarai after his princes praise her beauty to him. Thinking she was not taken, Pharaoh then marries her, treating Abram well with animals and servants. However, this lie leads to a plague upon Pharaoh’s house, and the truth is revealed. The Pharaoh returns Abram’s wife to him and tells them to leave Egypt.

They travel toward the Negeb (today known as the Desert of Negev), and eventually split from Lot (who has also accumulated a great herd), for the land was not big enough to support both of them. To avoid further confrontations between their herdsmen and themselves, Lot heads toward the Jordan Valley in the direction of Zoar. Abram turns to Canaan and moves as far as Sodom. This is where we transition into the War of the Nine Kings.

Abram Rescues Lot

14 In the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, 2 these kings made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 And all these joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). 4 Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El-paran on the border of the wilderness. 7 Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh) and defeated all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who were dwelling in Hazazon-tamar.

8 Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim 9 with Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, four kings against five. 10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them, and the rest fled to the hill country. 11 So the enemy took all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way. 12 They also took Lot, the son of Abram's brother, who was dwelling in Sodom, and his possessions, and went their way.

13 Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks

of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner. These were allies of Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus. 16 Then he brought back all the possessions, and also brought back his kinsman Lot with his possessions, and the women and the people.

Genesis 14: 1-16

Map titled "Chedorlaomer's Invasion" showing battle routes, key cities, and destruction sites. Blue and red lines indicate movements and locations. — **Source:** *https://armstronginstitute.org/299-uncovering-the-battle-that-changed-the-world*

Historicity of these Events: The Kings and Their Kingdoms

Genesis 14 names four eastern kings: Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tidal of Goiim. It also names five western kings from cities in the Jordan Valley: Bera of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admah, Shemeber of Zeboiim, and an unnamed king of Bela (called Zoar).

Scholars and archaeologists have long sought parallels for these names in known Bronze Age records. Here are some of the theories for the four kings:

Chedorlaomer, King of Elam – Possibly derived from the Elamite Kudur-Lagomer (“servant of Lagamar”), a plausible royal name from that region and period.
Arioch of Ellasar – May correspond to Eri-Aku or Rim-Sin I of Larsa, a Mesopotamian city-state active around 1900 BCE.
Amraphel of Shinar – Sometimes associated (though controversially) with the Amorite king Hammurabi of Babylon.
Tidal, King of Goiim – Thought to reflect the Hittite royal name Tudhalia, though this connection is chronologically distant.

While none of these identifications are certain, they show that the onomastics (name forms and linguistic roots) in Genesis 14 fit within a known Near Eastern political environment of the early second millennium BCE.

As for the five kings, scholarly evidence is lacking to verify the names of these kings, but they’ve tried to identify the locations of these cities:

Sodom (Bera) — often proposed identifications: Bab edh-Dhra or Tall el-Hammam. Both have MB destructions; neither identification is universally accepted.
Gomorrah (Birsha) — commonly associated by some with Numeira or sites in the same southern plain; identification remains debated.
Admah (Shinab) — no secure archaeological match; various candidates have been proposed, but there is no consensus. One possibility is es-Safi.
Zeboiim (Shemeber) — location uncertain; generally thought to be in the southern Dead Sea region, but no firm site has been identified. One possibility is Khanazir.
Bela / Zoar (unnamed king) — Zoar has a well-attested later antiquity and is identified with the area of Ghor es-Safi / Tell es-Safieh in Jordan; ancient writers (Josephus, Eusebius) preserve the name Zoar/Bela. Archaeology confirms settlement continuity there in later periods. Still, no Old Bronze Age inscription has been found that provides the personal name of a king of Bela/Zoar that corresponds to the Genesis account.

Source: https://armstronginstitute.org/299-uncovering-the-battle-that-changed-the-world — **Source:** *https://armstronginstitute.org/299-uncovering-the-battle-that-changed-the-world*

Archaeological Cross References

The “Chedorlaomer” Tablets

Beginning in the late 19th century, Assyriologists (e.g., Theophilus Pinches and others working on collections such as the Spartoli tablets) identified Babylonian/Elamite-style names in cuneiform tablets that they thought echoed the names in Genesis 14 (notably a form like Kudur-Lagamar that resembles “Chedorlaomer”). Several museum tablets were labelled or discussed in early scholarship as “Chedorlaomer” texts. The British Museum holds tablets from these late collections catalogued as historical-literary and referencing names that earlier editors linked to the Genesis roster.

Two ancient clay tablets with cuneiform script, one cracked, on a textured surface. A ruler below shows centimeters. Numbers 35404, 34062. — Clay cuneiform tablet featuring a historical-literary text, part of the collection known as the 'Chedorlaomer' texts in the British Museum.

Early translators and editors read certain cuneiform sequences as close parallels to the biblical names; this led to 19th–early 20th-century enthusiasm for dating Abraham by tying the Bible to known rulers. Subsequent reanalysis and a better understanding of the texts and sign-values have shown that many of the initial identifications are uncertain or misread. Some tablets thought to preserve Kudur-Lagamar turned out to contain different names or titles when read with improved philology.

In short, the “Chedorlaomer tablets” are genuine artifacts, but they do not provide an unambiguous, contemporary inscription documenting the Genesis 14 campaign.

Late Babylonian Tablets

Several later Mesopotamian literary and historical tablets (some preserved in museum collections) include traditions about Elam, kings named in similar forms, or generic stories of coalitions and conquest. These are sometimes cited as indirect corroboration of the claim that the Genesis account preserves ancient memory. They show that Near Eastern scribal culture preserved and retold stories about named rulers and coalitions — i.e., long memories and literary traditions existed.

However, most such tablets are later compositions or literary texts that cannot be dated securely to a single event in the early 2nd millennium BCE. They can show plausibility of the setting at this time but not a contemporaneous, documentary confirmation of Genesis 14.

Tall el-Hammam (a proposed candidate for biblical Sodom)

Excavations at Tall el-Hammam in the southern Jordan Valley uncovered a dramatic destruction layer from the Middle Bronze Age (commonly cited dates ~19th–17th centuries BCE). Several publications argued the layer bears evidence of extreme heat (melted materials, high-temperature minerals) and catastrophic destruction — findings some authors linked to the Sodom tradition and, in some popular treatments, to an airburst/impact event.

There is a clear Middle Bronze Age destruction horizon at Tall el-Hammam, with collapsed architecture and a rich assemblage of burned and disturbed remains, providing archaeological support for the view that catastrophic events occurred in the Jordan Valley in the second millennium BCE.

A high-profile 2021 paper advocating a Tunguska-scale airburst explanation was later challenged and ultimately retracted (journal editors cited methodological and interpretive errors). That retraction undercuts the strongest sensational claims (e.g., temperatures equivalent to nuclear-scale blasts). The site’s destruction remains archaeologically real, but its cause—warfare, earthquake, localized fire, or some natural catastrophe—remains debated and is not conclusively established as the biblical fiery destruction.

Mari Tablets and Middle Bronze Texts

Archives like the Mari tablets and other Middle Bronze texts show the existence of city-state politics, vassalage systems, tribute payments, long-distance campaigns, and alliances across Mesopotamia and Syria — the kind of political texture that makes Genesis 14’s description of tribute for “twelve years” and a punitive campaign plausible as a generic phenomenon.

Two ancient cuneiform tablets on stands, displaying intricate markings. Set against a plain background, one numbered "7". Brown, weathered texture. — Archaeological discoveries made by André Parrot in 1936, including the excavation of a grand palace dating to the early second millennium B.C., which housed nearly 25,000 cuneiform tablets, two of which are featured here.

These textual archives do demonstrate the plausibility of a pattern: powerful rulers pressing tribute from smaller polities and regional coalitions engaging in punitive raids. That strengthens the argument that Genesis preserves a memory shaped by an actual Bronze Age political reality. Such archives do not record the specific names and events of Genesis 14; they provide contextual plausibility rather than direct confirmation.

Scholarly assessments and onomastic (name) studies

Onomastic work (the study of names) compares the biblical roster with documented ancient names: e.g., Chedorlaomer → Kudur-Lagamar (an Elamite-style name), Arioch → forms like Eri-Aku (attested in Old Babylonian texts), Tidal → compare to Hittite Tudhaliya, Amraphel → variously compared to Hammurabi or other Amorite/Mesopotamian names.

Many of the proposed links are linguistically plausible in broad terms; the biblical names fit the phonetic environment of the early 2nd millennium Near East. Scholars such as Stephanie Dalley and others have explored these correspondences and noted where they might fit.

The connections are often problematic or inconclusive: some identifications require phonetic shifts that are possible but not demonstrable, and some proposed matches (notably Amraphel = Hammurabi) have been highly contested or rejected by modern specialists. The balance of scholarly opinion today is cautious—names look plausible but do not constitute proof by themselves.

The Geography of the Battlefield

A Valley Beneath the Salt Sea

The biblical text identifies the Valley of Siddim as “that is, the Salt Sea” (Genesis 14:3), an ancient term for the Dead Sea. For centuries, scholars have interpreted this to mean that the valley once existed in what is now the southern basin of the Dead Sea. This area was a dry plain before being flooded by rising waters in antiquity.

This theory, first popularized by 19th- and 20th-century explorers such as Claude Conder and William F. Albright, remains the dominant view today. Geological surveys reveal that the southern portion of the Dead Sea is extremely shallow—less than 20 feet deep in most places—and was likely above water during the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000 BCE), when the Genesis 14 events would have occurred.

Tar Pits and Tectonic Faults

The description of “tar pits” or “bitumen pits” in Genesis 14:10 offers one of the most compelling geographic clues. The Dead Sea region sits atop the Great Rift Valley fault line, where tectonic activity has caused natural asphalt and bitumen to seep to the surface for millennia. Ancient sources, including Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, recorded that locals collected bitumen from the Dead Sea and traded it widely, especially for use in mummification in Egypt.

***A. Northern lobe of the Dead Sea, B. Southern lobe, now converted into salt pans. 1. Bab edh-Dhra (Sodom), 2. Numeira (Gomorrah), 3. Safi (Zoar/Bela), 4. Feifa (Admah), 5. Khanazir (Zeboiim)***

This geological reality directly supports the biblical portrayal of Siddim as a treacherous, tar-filled battleground, one where the retreating kings of Sodom and Gomorrah “fell into” these pits during their flight from Chedorlaomer’s forces.

The Cities of the Plain

Near the southern Dead Sea, archaeologists have uncovered five Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age sites—Bab edh-Dhra, Numeira, Feifa, es-Safi, and Khanazir—that together form what scholars call the “Cities of the Plain Complex.”

Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira in particular show evidence of sudden, fiery destruction and abandonment, consistent with the biblical narrative of catastrophic judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).
These sites also exhibit dense urban planning, advanced water management systems, and trade links with Mesopotamia—traits that align with the image of the fertile and prosperous “plain of the Jordan” described earlier in Genesis 13:10.

Radiocarbon dating places their destruction around 2350–2060 BCE, matching the approximate cultural horizon of Abraham and his contemporaries in Mesopotamian chronology.

Alternative Theories: The Northern Hypothesis

A smaller group of researchers locates the Valley of Siddim north of the modern Dead Sea, near the Jordan Rift Valley and Jericho. Proponents of this view argue that the “Salt Sea” may have expanded over time, submerging the original valley. They cite geological evidence for fluctuating Dead Sea levels, as well as textual parallels to the “Kikkar of the Jordan”, a fertile alluvial plain stretching northward.

However, this theory remains less supported archaeologically, as the most promising destruction sites, Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira, lie firmly in the south. Much of the archaeological evidence we would need to validate these theories further may now be under the water and sediment of the Dead Sea.

Geopolitical Context and Other Records

Historically, this was an era when the Elamites and their Mesopotamian allies conducted military campaigns westward toward Canaan and Syria. The idea of a coalition of eastern powers asserting control over the smaller city-states of the Jordan plain is not implausible.

Records from the same general period, such as the Mari Tablets, describe complex alliances, shifting loyalties, and raids that echo the political dynamics depicted in Genesis 14. The notion that local Canaanite kings might pay tribute for twelve years and then rebel in the thirteenth is consistent with the vassalage systems of the time.

However, one major challenge is the absence of external inscriptions explicitly mentioning this war or its kings. The Elamites, Babylonians, and Canaanites left abundant records, but none yet discovered describe a “Chedorlaomer campaign” or the conquest of the cities of the plain.

This absence doesn’t necessarily disprove the event; small-scale regional conflicts were rarely recorded unless they directly affected great powers. Still, from a historian’s perspective, the silence makes it impossible to confirm Genesis 14 as a literal record of a single historical battle.

As such, Abram’s victory with just 318 men is the most debated element of the story. Strategically, the description of a night raid on a dispersed, loot-laden army is plausible. Ancient sources do record small, elite groups overcoming larger forces under favorable conditions. And this is a running theme throughout the Bible. For that reason, this event carries theological significance for believers; divine providence and covenant protection, rather than mere tactics, explain the outcome.

Thus, the Genesis 14 narrative operates on two levels as a story of real-world conflict and as a demonstration of faith and divine favor.

Scholarly Consensus

Modern biblical scholarship remains cautious. Most historians view Genesis 14 as a later composition that preserves authentic echoes of Bronze Age politics but may not describe a single verifiable war. Its detailed geography and foreign names could stem from ancient oral traditions or archival memory, later woven into the Abraham cycle by scribes.

In contrast, archaeologists and faith-based researchers, like those at the Armstrong Institute, argue that the narrative fits too neatly into known historical patterns to be dismissed as fiction. To them, Genesis 14 is best read as an authentic historical account, perhaps the earliest recorded international conflict in human history.

While the War of the Nine Kings cannot yet be confirmed by archaeology, neither can it be dismissed as pure legend. The text’s use of plausible names, its geopolitical realism, and the archaeological hints from the region together suggest that Genesis 14 may preserve a memory of a genuine Bronze Age conflict, one that shaped the story of Abram and the faith traditions that followed.

The Spiritual Lessons of these Events

From the first sixteen verses of this chapter, we know that someone had escaped the tragedy and found Abram to tell him the bad news about Lot. Abram the Hebrew, as he is called (for he was in Canaan as a sojourner or foreigner), is living “by the oaks of Mamre,” a historically recognized site. However, its exact location has been disputed. In this sense, Mamre is both a person in this story and also the site named after this individual. Along with them is another man named Aner.

These are Abram’s allies, who muster a force of 318 “trained men” to rescue Lot from the allied armies of Chedorlaomer, which are making their way back to their homeland with their loot. We don’t know much about the attack other than that Abram divided his men, defeated the army, scattered them, rescued Lot along with his possessions, as well as “the women and the people.”

Chaotic battle scene with soldiers in armor fighting on horses. Intense action with swords and shields. Monochrome engraving, dramatic mood. — The Battle of Abraham Against Kedorlaomer) is a 1545 engraving by Cornelis Massijs, housed in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. This 16th-century engraving vividly depicts the biblical Battle of the Kings from Genesis 14, where Abraham leads a daring night attack against King Kedorlaomer and his allies.

This attack has always fascinated me, for it felt like something akin to a special forces hostage rescue operation. It was a surprise attack at night. By dividing his forces, he may have created confusion, which helped him defeat a much larger force or rear guard that confused the larger army into thinking they were being viciously attacked, causing them to panic. But these are mute points as the tactics can only be inferred, which is the point. In the remaining verses, we can identify the spiritual takeaways I think we should draw from Abram’s victory.

Abram Blessed by Melchizedek

17 After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) 19 And he blessed him and said,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor[b] of heaven and earth;

20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”

And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. 21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.” 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have lifted my hand[c] to the Lord, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I would not take a thread or a sandal strap or anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ 24 I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me. Let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share.”

Genesis 14: 17-24

Now that we’ve read the aftermath of the battle, here are my spiritual takeaways:

The victory always belongs to God.

We should never idolize our own abilities. God formed us and gave us the gifts we have, and we should use them for his glory, not ours.

Trust in the power of the Lord.

We know that Abram’s company of 318 men must have been greatly outnumbered by the force they were facing. But we see this in the Bible time and time again (Gideon comes to mind), where God delivers his people’s enemies into their hands despite seemingly impossible odds. His power is truly awesome, and we should trust in that rather than our own worldly logic, reasoning, and ability.

God can do the impossible.

As humans, we are limited by our mortal understanding of things and fall prey to the logic of the world. But God delivers the impossible throughout the Bible. Despite the Israelites not being a military power, God gives them victories that would not have been possible. We should believe that he can do anything because of his power.

God uses all things.

A horrific invasion of these lands would appear as something terrible and therefore not what God intended. Yet we'll see many times in the Bible men taking matters into their hands, turning away from God's plan. Despite this, God finds a way to transform the bad into something good, for he's sovereign over everything. No matter what happens, he'll find a way to use it for his grand plan, which we see in the Bible through the bloodline he builds that would eventually give us our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Join me in the next blog where I explore Dinah and the Destruction of Shechem. We’ll learn about a very dark story involving Dinah, the only daughter of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. After a terrible sexual violation of Dinah’s honor, two of her brothers rage for revenge, leading to an episode of deceit, massacre, and divine consequences.