The question of Sodom’s population is a fascinating one, blending biblical narrative, archaeology, and historical analysis. Sodom, often referenced as a symbol of moral decay, was one of the “cities of the plain” mentioned in the Book of Genesis, famously destroyed due to its inhabitants’ wickedness. However, determining its actual population size is challenging, as precise archaeological evidence remains limited, and biblical texts do not offer explicit demographic figures.

From a historical and archaeological standpoint, cities like Sodom, believed to be situated near the Dead Sea region, likely resembled small urban centers common in the Early Bronze Age (circa 3300–2000 BCE). Excavations in sites proposed as Sodom’s location, such as Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira, reveal settlements that were fortified but relatively modest in size. These sites suggest populations ranging from a few hundred to possibly a couple thousand inhabitants. The infrastructure visible through ruins—houses, defensive walls, and storage facilities—supports the notion of a community geared toward agriculture, trade, and some specialization, rather than a vast metropolis.

The societal structure of Sodom could have been a close-knit community, with social stratification typical of early urban settlements: a ruling elite managing trade and resources, craftsmen, farmers, and laborers forming the bulk of the populace. The proximity to trade routes connecting Mesopotamia and Egypt might have influenced demographic fluctuations, as transient merchants, traders, or nomads could temporarily swell the population. These external factors, including migration driven by economic opportunities or threats like conflict and environmental changes, would impact the city’s size over time.

When considering the biblical narrative, the population size has symbolic implications. The stories emphasize moral failings rather than demographic data, reflecting a community whose social cohesion might have been fractured by internal corruption and vice. The scale of destruction described—a complete obliteration—has led some scholars to speculate that the population could not have been exceedingly large, or the catastrophe would have left more evident archaeological traces.

Ultimately, while precise numbers are elusive, an estimated population ranging from several hundred to a few thousand seems plausible. Such a demographic framework underscores Sodom as a relatively small but influential city-state with a complex social fabric. Understanding its population dynamics allows us to appreciate how the community’s internal and external challenges possibly shaped its cultural identity and moral outlook. These demographic insights enrich our comprehension of Sodom, offering a nuanced perspective on its infamous fate and the lessons drawn from its historical and moral legacy.