ZOAR zō’ ər (צֹֽעַר, צֹֽועַר); LXX usually Ζηγώρ, but at Gen 13:10 Ζόγορα and Jer 48:34 Ζογὸ̀ρ; in Vul. Segor; in Josephus Ζοαρα and Ζοαρ). In this proper name the letter ’ayin is transliterated by the Gr. gamma in all the several LXX occurrences. This renders it quite certain that the Heb. ע in ancient times represented two distinct sounds, as does the corresponding Arab. alphabetical letter. The harsher sound, completely lost to later Heb. pronounciation, is near a hard G—as is also the Arabic ga. (cf. Gomorrah).

Known Biblical facts about Zoar derive from ten references (Gen 13:10; 14:2, 8; 19:22, 23, 30; Deut 34:3; Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34), all quite barren of definite geographical information, and the fact that it is clearly geographically connected with four other cities—Sodom, Gomorah, Admah and Zeboiim—all said to be located in a certain “plain (Heb. כִּכָּר, H3971) of the Jordan.” Sodom is the best known of this “pentapolis” (Wisdom of Solomon 10:6) and the problem of its location is inextricably united with that of Sodom. Scholarly industry has shown that throughout post-Biblical times travelers—Christian, Jewish, and Moslem—have been aware of Zoar and its connection with Sodom. Most of the references in these surviving notices indicate that current opinion located this Pentapolis at the S end of the Dead Sea. This post-Biblical historical evidence, indecisive as it is, has strongly influenced most modern scholars, to locate Zoar at the SE corner of the Dead Sea near the edge of the barren saline plain called the Sebkha, four or five m. up the River Zered from where it empties into the Sea (Denis Baly, The Geography of the Bible [1957], 263). Several of the older reference works list these post-Biblical historical references (e.g., HDB Vol IV. 985, 986, Smith-Hackett, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, 3639-3643). The survival of certain place names in the district, e.g. Jebel Usdum (=Mount Sodom), supports this theory. The presence of extensive mineral salt deposits is thought to be connected with the story of Lot’s wife who turned to a “pillar of salt” as she walked toward Zoar (Gen 19:26). Further, there is a widely accepted theory that the area has been changed in historical times by some natural catastrophe somewhat like that described in Genesis 19:22-30. Finegan is typical: “It must also have been in the Middle Bronze Age that the catastrophic destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah...took place. A careful survey of the literary, geological, and archaeological evidence points to the conclusion that the infamous ‘cities of the valley’ (Gen 19:29) were in the area which is now submerged beneath the slowly rising waters of the southern part of the Dead Sea, and that their ruin was accomplished by a great earthquake, probably accompanied by explosions, lightning, ignition of natural gas, and general conflagration” (FLAP, p. 147).

There are, however, serious objections to this view. The Bible locates Zoar specifically at an extremity of the “Plain...the valley of Jericho” in the recital of the dimension of the Promised Land (Deut 34:3). This most naturally would be on the eastern edge of the Jordan Valley near the N end of the Dead Sea, the opposite end from the “traditional” site esp. considering that Mt. Nebo (or Pisgah) from which Moses espied the place is directly overlooking a plain which has Jericho in plain view at its western edge. Further, it is difficult to understand the purpose of the expedition to invade cities so remote, and inaccessible as the S end of the Dead Sea, by armies from Mesopotamia (Gen 14). How would Moses have seen the area at the S end of the Dead Sea from Mt. Nebo in Moab opposite Jericho (Deut 34:1, cf. v. 3), for it is cut off from view by heights intervening? The geographical notations in connection with Lot’s choice of a city of the “Plain of Jordan” (Gen 13:10-12 cf. 3, 4) seem clearly to indicate the valley of Jordan opposite Bethel and Ai, fifty or sixty m. N of the S end of the Dead Sea. Against the scholarship and traditions regarding the location of Zoar and the rest of the “Pentapolis” this writer holds that the sense of the Biblical texts is contrary.