The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1:18-32

Philip F. Esler

Abstract

Many commentators have made suggestions as to the major allusion in Romans 1: 18-32, with recent examples including Adam in Genesis 1-2 and decline of civilization narratives. This article proposes instead that the dominant tradition underlying this passage of the letter is that of Sodom. Yet rather than configuring the discussion as an example of how one or more texts have influenced another text, in this case Romans, it is argued that we must consider how traditions such as this would have been mediated to an audience that was largely illiterate. This suggests that the appropriate model lies in the processes of collective memory rather than the practice of intertextuality. A survey of relevant material in Israelite and Christ-follower writings is then conducted with an emphasis on how the character and fate of Sodom were remembered, understood, and utilized in a residually oral culture. An examination of the argument of Romans 1: 18-32 in the light of this discussion reveals so many elements of the collective memory of Sodom as to justify the view that it is the dominant tradition in this passage. The concluding section of the article situates this result in relation to Paul's communicative strategy in the letter.

he purpose of the present study is to argue that Sodom is the dominant Israelite tradition underlying Romans 1: 18-32. In the first section of the article I consider some existing suggestions for major allusions to Israelite scripture in this passage and propose an alternative hypothesis. In the second section I discuss the type of influence from Israelite tradition that one could reasonably expect to find in a letter intended for a largely illiterate audience. The third section presents the extant data relating to Sodom, moving through the Old Testament, other Israelite literature, and the New Testament, as a tradition developing in a largely oral culture. In the fourth (and central) section of this study I mount a case from the course of the argument and details in Romans 1: 18-32 that Sodom constitutes the multifaceted master image underlying this part of the letter. In the fifth, and last, section I briefly delineate the significance of this conclusion within Paul's wider communicative strategy in Romans.

Some Current Views on Major Metaphors Underlying Romans 1: 18-32 and Sodom as an Alternative Proposal

The attempt to identify Israelite traditions in Romans 1: 18-32 is not new. In 1960 Morna Hooker (78) contended

4

that in Romans 1: 18-32, especially at v 23, Paul deliberately described the human predicament in terms of the biblical story of Adam's fall in Genesis 1-3. Hooker's view has been accepted by several scholars, such as Barrett (17-19), Wedderburn 019-20) and Dunn (72). But her case is unconvincing. Joseph Fitzmyer (274) has explained the similarities she cites on other grounds. Ernst Kasemann (45) found her reference to Adam "arbitrary" and reasonably states that "there can be no reference to making an image of this man." Eliminating Adam from the passage also has the effect of seriously challenging any claims that in this passage Paul is speaking about the universal

Philip F. Esler, D. Phil. (Oxford University) is Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK, where he has been on the faculty since 1"992, having previously been a barrister in Sydney, Australia. He would like to thank the Leverhulme Trust in the UK for funding a year's research leave that allowed him to conduct the research on which this article is based. Prof. Esler is' the author of GALATIANS (London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge, 1998) and CONFLICT AND IDENTITY IN ROMANS (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), and the editor of THE EARLy CHRISTIAN WORLD (two volumes, London, UK/New York, NY:

Routledge, 2000). His e-mail addressispfe@st-andrews.ac.uk.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN • VOLUME 34

human condition.

Recemly Dale Martin has taken an interesting new tack.

As well as rejecting any allusion to Adam and the fall in Romans 1: 16-32, Martin also suggests that "Paul apparently i presupposes aJ~wish mythological narrative about the origins of I idolatry" and followaStowers in proposing that a decline of human civilization narrative provides the context for Romans

1:16-32.

Although Martin and Stowers are correct in looking for some other Israelite passage lying behind this part of the letter, it is submitted that they have opted for the wrong ones. Paul is not interested in the invention of idolatry for its own sake, although he does explain how it came about (1 :21-23), nor does he put forward some diachronic narrative of decline. Rather, using the aorist tense he describes in vv 21-27 events in the past, the origin of idolatry and same-sex relations between women and men, which, in themselves (apparently) and in their effects (clearly), continue into the present and are falling under the sway of divine wrath-as unequivocally revealed in the present tenses in the framing vv 18 and 32. A plausible prima facie candidate as a tradition upon which Paul might have relied, which can be reconciled with these features, is the biblical and extra-biblical material bearing upon Sodom and its destruction. Does such an allusion to Sodom constitute part of Paul's com-

municative strategy and, if so, why? .

Oral Culture as the Context for Determining the Tradition Underlying Romans 1: 18-32

How does one go about mounting an argument in support of a hypothesis such as this, one that satisfies the standard of proof appropriate to historical research, that the case should be more probable than other possibilities? As I have argued recently in a monograph on Romans, I am assuming here that Paul's addresse~s comprised Israelite and non-Israelite believers in Christ, most (if not all) of whom were members of the non-elite,

, and who met in house-based congregations. His primary aim is I to communicate a message to them, not to produce an accomi plished literary production (even though he had clearly given

great thought to the terms of his letter). In this context the essential preliminary question as to how to substantiate my hypothesis relates to the nature of the access Paul himself would have had to ideas concerning Sodom and would have assumed among his audience. There would be no point employing Sodom as a metaphor in a manner unrelated to the way the intended recipients of the letter had encountered ideas concerning that city and its fate.

Above all, we must remember that Paul was working in a culture in which the great majority of people were illiterate. In an article that appeared in 1990 Paul Achtemeier urged schol-

ars to pay close attention to the oral environment in which the New Testament was written, and further research has made this advice all the more urgent. William Harris, the author of the first historical monograph on Greco-Roman literacy, published in 1989, has estimated (328) that even in Greece in the fourth century BeE no more than 1 0-15 percent of the population would have been literate. As for the Roman empire, he argues (330) that a high degree of literacy can only be assumed for the urban upper classes and that only a few artisans and traders and even fewer farmers and rural workers would have been literate. Harris suggests that in the provinces the level of women's literacy is likely to have been well under 5%. Catherine Hezser reasonably concludes from this (23) that an overall literacy rate of 1 0-15 percent would have applied in the Roman period as well. Although Harris's book stirred up a lively discussion (see the essays in Beard 1991), Hezser correctly notes (26) that " [h] ardly anyone has questioned his low estimation of the literacy rate in the ancient world." In her own substantial monograph, JEWISH LiTERACY IN ROMAN PALESTINE, Hezser argues that in spite of the common view that literacy rates were higher among Israelites because of their use of written texts in prayer and worship, in fact their literacy rate must have been lower than elsewhere, especially because of the high percentage of the population living in rural areas in Palestine. The rate was possibly as low as 3% (496). Harry Y. Gamble has recently estimated (1995: 5, 10) that literacy levels among Christ-followers were probably similar to those in the population at large--about 10-15 percent. The general accuracy of these well argued estimates is assumed in what follows.

Carolyn Osiek has observed (156) that "while literacy was present and was the medium for most official transactions, ancient Mediterranean culture was characterized more by oral than literate thinking," a context she usefully characterizes as "residually oral." Walter Ong has shown that the thinking processes for oral cultures are significantly different from those in societies where literacy has become widespread. The same also applies to residually oral cultures, since it is clear from research by Jack Goody (205-16) that the arrival of literacy among the elite and their retainers does not immediately or necessarily produce a changed consciousness in the rest of the population. Although texts certainly existed (and I will mention several below), we should not equate their use in this ancient context to that with which we are familiar post-Gutenberg. Werner H. Kelber has carefully explored (140-83) some of the consequences for New Testament interpretation of the different processes of thinking and assimilating information in oral or residually oral cultures. As far as Paul is concerned, for example, "faith comes from hearing" (Romans 10; 17).

We may reasonably conclude that literacy levels in the Christ-movement in first-century Rome were equally low and that at least 85-90 percent of the membership was illiterate.

5

Esler, The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1: 18-32

The character of the Roman congregations is revealed in the list of people that Paul addresses in Romans 16 (and I accept the arguments of Harry Gamble [1977] that this was always part of the letter). None is given an honorific title (as appropriate if they were from the elite). Peter Lampe has shown that most of the members came from the non-elite and many were women (among whom illiteracy was more common). He observes, for example, that the people from the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus (Romans 16: lOb, 11 b) are "slaves, freedmen, or freedwomen of Aristobulus and Narcissus" (221). While some of them could have been literate (scribal slaves, for example), the proportion of such persons in the Christ-movement could not have exceeded the 1 0-15% literacy figure possible in urban populations. Carolyn Osiek has persuasively argued for a residually oral culture in Rome when the SHEPHERD of Hermas was composed, and there is no reason to suppose the situation would have been any different when Paul wrote Romans, a generation or so earlier. Accordingly, any notion of the vast majority of Paul's audience (listeners, rather than readers) having first-hand experience of written texts and then making sense of Paul's letter in the light of them is anachronistic and must be rejected.

These considerations suggest caution in the use of the notion of "intertextuality" (the process of one text influencing another), such as that advocated by Richard Hays in his important and brilliantly argued work ECHOES OF SCRIPTURE IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL, as a guide to the way Paul mediates ideas to his audience. Hays has already run into some criticism for features of his approach, for example, from Christopher Tuckett in 2000 and myself (176-77). One concern with Hays' accomplished practice of intertexuality is that it is arguably too tied to modern methods of appropriating meaning from texts that depend on physical access to the texts in question. This issue seems to emerge in his description of Israel (21), following Michael Fishbane, "as a reading community," when perhaps as few as 3% of the people in Israel could read.

Instead, we must imagine a setting in which, although Paul . himself had probably read Israelite texts (although perhaps more usually he had heard them), he was writing to people who encountered traditions represented in those texts either from hearing them (most typically in synagogues on the sabbath, as described by Philo in the section of his HYPOTHETICA preserved in Eusebius, PRAEPARATIO EVANGELICA 8.5.1 ff,) or during conversations. As Christopher Tuckett notes (407), in the Pauline communities "virtually all 'literature,' be it Paul's own letters or Jewish scripture, would have been available to most members of the community in oral form: they would have heard it, rather than read it" (emphasis original).

With most of the population illiterate (which is not to suggest that they were uninformed), texts were important, not as the focus of scrutiny in themselves (a type of interpretation

6

apparently valorized in the practice of intertextuality), but as the embodiments and transmitters of traditions which had a lively place in the collective memories and consciousness of particular groups. The issue _is not how one text influences another-in the hands of people who have access to and read both-but how, among particular groups of people, the past (living on in all forms of memory, not just in its textual manifestations) has an impact on the present.

The illiterate (yet not thereby ignorant or unintelligent) members of an oral culture like this (such as 85-95% of Paul's addressees) hold a tradition in their heads by remembering what they have heard on a number of occasions when people have spoken about it or read aloud some text referring to it. But they do not possess the precise and detailed grasp that comes from line-by-line study of a written text based on its continuing physical availability. Only a tiny scribal elite might have had such an understanding and opportunity. Even here we should be careful not to underestimate the oral dimension of the scribes' familiarity with texts, in effect by imagining them to be like the modern biblical interpreter with a developed literary sensibility blessed with actual ownership or access to any text he or she should desire. Werner Kelber has accurately noted (14) that "the circumstances of performance, the composition, and the transmission of oral versus written materials are sufficiently distinct so as to postulate separate hermeneutics:"

When people want to remember a story or an argument, especially one heard some time in the past, Jack Goody has shown (178) that accuracy of recall is the exception, even if it does occur at times (perhaps with texts they hear most often, where more specific remembering is to be expected). They reconstruct the original material as much as remember it, and what remains are "isolated but striking details." When they try to recall stories, they eliminate some parts to make the narratives more coherent, while inventing others. The whole process has rightly been called "constructive remembering." No doubt members of an oral or residually oral society, however, have greater powers of memory than those in a literate culture, who have let such capacities atrophy.

Paul well understood the oral nature of his setting when he set about reconstructing the collective memories of his Roman addressees in his letter to them: "Faith comes from hearing," he says in Romans 1 0: 17, and not, we might add, from reading.

Sodom in Israelite Tradition and the New Testament

Sodom in the Old Testament

Sodoro and its fate are vividly recounted in Genesis. As early as Genesis 13: 12-13 it is stated that Lot settled in Sodom but that the people of Sodom were exceedingly evil and

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN • VOLUME 34

sinful before God. Genesis later recounts that, while Abraham was accompanying towards Sodom and Gomorrah the' three "men" who had visited him at Mamre, God revealed to him that the sins of the two cities were very great and that he was minded to destroy them (18: 16--21). At this point Abraham,

, by dint of remarkably persistent negotiation (18:23-33), managed to persuade God not to destroy Sodom if it contained ten righteous persons among the inhabitants, who are described as "godless" on four occasions (twice in v 23 and twice in v 25).

I After this, two angels (from the three men of Mamre) , arrived in Sodom and were taken in by Lot (19.1-3). But before they went to sleep, the men of the city, from young men to old, all of the people together (women not being mentioned), surrounded

the house (19:4). These details reveal that there was not a single just man in the city, apart from Lot, and accordingly that Abraham's concession from God will not save-the town. The Sodomites called for the two men in Lot's house, "to be with them" (19:6; LXX), a euphemism for rape, since Lot offered them his virgin daughters instead (19:5-8). The men of Sodom rejected this offer and attacked the door, but were struck blind by the angels (19:9-11). Nothing in the text, it should be noted, suggests that the men of Sodom had any idea that Lot's visitors were angels; they thought they were men like themselves. It is possible to envisage a number of factors that motivated the men of Sodom: lust, envy of Lot if they imagined he would have sexual relations with his guests, or, possibly, a factor mentioned by K. J. Dover (105) in relation to Greek "homosexuality":

Anthropological data indicate that human societies at many times and in many regions have subjected strangers, newcomers and trespassers to homosexual anal violation as a way of reminding them of their subordinate status.

(I note that I have placed homosexuality in quotation marks here and I have chosen the expression same-sex [relations] in this article because of the arguments of Michel Foucault, David Halperin and others that the former expression

! is so tied to modern notions of gender and sexuality that it is I misleading in relation to the ancient Graeco-Roman world.)

I Whatever the motivation, such behavior was a gross viola-

tion of the duty to extend hospitality to strangers, and any ancient Israelite reading the account in Genesis 19 would have found this aspect of the narrative a most serious affront to acceptable and respectable behavior. Judith Newman has argued that the inhospitality of the people of Sodom continued to be stressed as long as the tradition developed. As we will see, however, inhospitality was only one of a rich ensemble of vices that came to be attributed to the city and its inhabitants.

Warned by the angels, Lot and his wife and two daughters left the city (19: 12-23). "Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; and

he overthrew these cities and all the surrounding land, and all those dwelling in the cities, and the plants springing up from the ground" (19:24-25; LXX).

Deuteronomy 29:23 briefly recalls the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone and burning salt. Yet it adds a new element to the composite picture concerning Sodom that was to develop among Israelites: namely, that the Lord overthrew the cities "in his wrath and anger" a feature not expressly stated in Genesis 13 or 18-19. In addition, this reference constitutes the first of a long series of places in the Old Testament where the destruction of Sodom is seen, as Fields notes (158), "as prototypical of divine judgment upon wicked cities, nations, or peoples." In this instance the wicked nation, from a wide range of possibilities, is Israel itself.

Yet now another element is introduced into the emerging tradition of Sodom that will become very prominent-idolatry. The fact that the Deuteronomic author offers Sodom and Gomorrah as a terrifying example of what will happen to Israel if she practices idolatry (Deut 29:24-28) strongly suggests an assumption that the two cities were idolatrous. Although idolatry is not explicitly attributed to the Sodomites in Genesis 13 and 18-19, the use of the expression godless person (asebes) in Genesis 18:23 and 25 easily carries this implication. This was to become an important aspect of the composite picture of Sodom that developed among Israelites.

There are other instances of Sodom and Gomorrah being cited as paradigmatic of an Israel sunk in sinfulness that takes the form of idolatry. Deuteronomy 32 contains a song of Moses in which he castigates the sinfulness of the Israelites who have turned from their faithful God, especially through idolatry (vv 16--1 7, 21), with the result that God will punish them (vv 21-27). When, accordingly, it is said at Deuteronomy 32:32 that "their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and their vinebranch from Gomorrah" (LXX), this indicates both that Israel will share Sodom's fate and that the problem with Sodom was its idolatry, since (according to this passage) that was the form that Israel's wickedness had taken. A similar point is made in Isaiah 1 :2-31. God's punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah exemplifies what will happen to an Israel steeped in sin, including idolatry.

At times, the general sinfulness of Israel or of groups within Israel, without explicit reference to idolatry, can lead to suggestions that those in question have become like Sodom and will share her fate (jer 21 : 13-14; Lam 4:6).

Ezekiel 16 contains a denunciation of Jerusalem that focuses on her having prostituted herself with surrounding peoples. Such a theme is based on the common practice of personifying cities as feminine. Having announced that the city's mother was a Hittite and her father an Amorite, in Ezekiel 16:46--51 the prophet goes on to explain how Jerusalem is worse than her older sister Samaria and her daughters and her younger sister Sodom

7

Esler, The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1: 18-32

and her daughters. Fields rightly observes (171) that vv 48-50 represent" a remarkably expanded application of the Sodom tradition," where Sodom is presented as archetypal of wickedness. Ezekiel offers a novel description of the sins of Sodom and her daughters as arrogance, abundance of food, failure to help the destitute and poor, boasting, and committing iniquities before God (16:48-50). In relation to the inclusion of the daughters of Sodom (16:48,49), it is notable that although the term persons (anthrOpoi) in Genesis .13: 13 might be taken to include men and women, the rest of the tradition focuses firmly on the men of the city and does not mention women. Ezekiel 16 is unique in this respect. In their context in Ezekiel 16, the "daughters" of Samaria and Sodom refer to the inhabitants of those cities. Nevertheless, the "daughters of Sodom" is a powerful notion that could easily lodge in the minds of people in a largely oral culture so as to propel them to the view that the women of the city were also wicked, especially if they had not retained the original significance of this phrase as used in the text. Ezekiel also mentions that Sodom provoked God to anger (16:54).

Whenever someone wished to speak of God's bringing destruction upon the earth, the fate of Sodom and Gomorah seems to have been very commonly cited as a model.

Finally, it is noteworthy that Sodom and Gomorrah can also be proffered as precedents for what will happen to other nations, such as Babylon in Isaiah 13: 19-20 and Jeremiah 27:33-40 (LXX), where mention is made of the idolatry of the city (w 38-39) and Idumea in Jeremiah 29:17-18 (LXX). Sirach 16:8 states that God did not spare the people among whom Lot lived on account of their pride and sins. At 3 Maccabees 2:4-5 Simon the High Priest recalls that God had in the past destroyed those who ~racticed injustice, including the Sodomites, who behaved with arrogance and were notorious for their deeds of wickedness, so that they became an example to subsequent generations.

Sodom in Intertestamental Texts

We move now to intertestamental and New Testament texts that refer to Sodom. As already noted, it is not suggested that Paul or his Roman audience was necessarily familiar with any of these texts, but rather that (as is appropriate for a culture where the vast majority of the population is illiterate) they embody elements of the multi-faceted picture of Sodom that was lodged in Israelite consciousness.

At one point in the TESTAMENT OF NAPHTALI, which

8

Kee (778) reasonably dates to the Maccabean period, the patriarch exhorts his children not to act corruptly. He notes that "Sun, moon, and stars do not alter their order," nor should they alter the law of God by disordered actions. Then he proceeds to warn them as follows:

The gentiles, because they wandered astray and forsook the Lord, have changed the order, and have devoted themselves to stones and sticks, patterning themselves after wandering spirits. But you, my children, shall not be like that:

In the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, in all the products of his workmanship, discern the Lord who made all things, so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature [3:2-4; ET Kee 812].

This is a highly significant passage, since it implies that Sodom had failed to recognize God in his creation. In its context, this is the primary meaning of the statement that Sodom "departed from the order of nature"; yet it is very likely, as Fields suggests (182), that this clause also relates to the practice of same-sex relations. A little later the patriarch mentions that they will commit every lawlessness of Sodom (4: 1).

In JUBILEES, a text that should be dated to about the second century BeE and probably represents a particular group or movement within Israel, the author mentions God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and asserts that their deeds were cruel (or "savage" as James Vanderkam translates the relevant word in the Ethiopic version), that they were guilty of fornication and pollution and that God will execute justice on other places like them (16:5-6). Later in this text, when Abraham is making his farewell address to his children, he urges them to preserve the way of the Lord and, in particular, to avoid fornication and pollution, since otherwise they will meet the fate of the giants and of Sodom and Gomorrah (20: 1-6). He then continues immediately after mentioning the two cities by exhorting his sons not to "go after their idols and their defilement. And do not make gods of molten or carved images for yourselves" 20:7-8; ET Wintermute 94). Here we have the polluting activities of Sodom and Gomorrah closely tied with idolatry, which represents a development of the Genesis account already begun in the biblical passages mentioned above and further developed in the TESTAMENT OF NAf>FI'tALr.

In 3 Maccabees, a text probably to be dated (with Anderson [51 0-12]) to the earlier part of first century BCE, there is a prayer by Simon the High Priest in· which the story of Sodom is mentioned among God's great interventions in the past against the wicked. Simon castigates the "arrogance" and "crimes" of ' the inhabitants of Sodom and asserts that their destruction was a "model" for later generations (2:5).

In the Wisdom of Solomon (c. mid first century BCE) the

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN • VOLUME 34

author compares Egypt to Sodom to demonstrate that Egypt was more sinful (19: 13-17). The particular point made in telation to the inhabitants of Sodom is worth noting: they refused to welcome strangers who came to them, showing them hostility from the start (19: 14-15).

The fullest Israelite account of Sodom outside of scripture occurs in the work of Philo (c. 20 BCE-50 CE) entitled ON

RAHAM. Philo initially relates that Sodomwas located in Canaan, later called Palestine, a land full of innumerable iniq-

IUities, and especially of gluttony and debauchery, on account of the unlimited abundance of all kinds of goods its people enjoyed because of the fertile soil, a description at least partially dependnt on the type of material found in Ezekiel. 16. He continues as follows:

~ men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them [133-34; ET jonge 422-23].

Accordingly, God took pity on humanity and, in his love of the natural desire of men and women to procreate and in his detestation of "the unnatural and unlawful intercourse of the eople of Sodom," he extinguished their city with a violent rain of fire which also left the surrounding countryside desolate, moking and sulphurous to this day (137-41).

Lastly, the judean historian josephus, writing late in the rst century CE, refers to Sodom. In his jUDEAN WAR he mentions that Sodom was destroyed by thunderbolts on account of e "godlessness" of inhabitants (4:484). In the re-telling of enesis in his jUDEAN ANTIQUITIES josephus states that the odomites, because of their large population and wealth,

ecame aggressively "insolent" to other people and godless awards God, forgetting the benefits he had given them, hating reigners and declining social relations with others, so that od decided to punish them for their "arrogance" by uprooting eir city and blasting the land around them (1: 194-95). Here ain the influence of a tradition such as that seen in Ezekiel 16

is evident. Later josephus offers a loose summary of Genesis 19 (I: 199-201).

Sodom in New Testament Texts (Excluding Romans 1:18-32)

In the New Testament, outside of Romans, Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned a number of times, chiefly for their being a paradigm of what happens to sinners. This point is made in Q (Matt 10:15; Luke 10:12), Matt 11:23-24,2 Pet 2:6, and Jude 7 (which also mentions improper sexual conduct as the cause). Luke uses ·the destruction of the city to describe what will happen when the Son of Man is revealed (17:29). In Revelation 11.8 the city where the Lord was crucified is called "Sodom and Egypt."

Lastly, that Paul himself was aware of the tradition of Sodom and Gomorrah having a paradigmatic significance in relation to later phenomena emerges from his quoting Isaiah 1:9 in Romans itself: ''And as Isaiah predicted, 'If the Lord of hosts had not left us children, we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah'" (Rom 9:29; RSV).

Whenever someone wished to speak of God's bringing destruction upon the earth, the fate of Sodom and Gomorah seems to have been very commonly cited as a model.

Sodom as the Master Image Underlying Romans 1: 18-32

God's Anger From Heaven Upon Godlessness and Injusti~e unto Death (Romans I: 18-32)

Paul opens this section of the letter with the statement (v,

18) that "the anger of God is being revealed from heaven upon all the godlessness and injustice of human beings who constrain the truth by injustice. He ends it (v. 32) with the warning that those who do such things deserve to die. All of these features correlate closely with the picture of Sodom that existed in the collective memory of Israel and (we must presume) of nonIsraelites who were aware of its traditions. This had been a town full of men who were "godless," a town notorious for its "injustice," upon which God, in his anger, rained' down destruction from heaven, killing all of them (with the solitary exception of Lot, the only "just man," and his family).

The expression "from heaven" in Romans 1: 18 is especially significant in establishing the connection. While Sanday and Headlarn (41) usefully point to a number of biblical instances in which the anger of God was inflicted upon Israelites for a gross breach of a covenantal relationship and upon non-Israelites for oppression of the chosen people, in none of these is God said to act "from heaven," as in Genesis 19:24. The closest parallel (which they overlooked) is found at

9

Esler, The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1: 18-32

Deuteronomy 28:24 where Moses, in the midst of enumerating a long list of curses that will fall upon the Israelites if they do not observe the commandments, states "May the Lord your God turn the rain of your land into dust, and dust will come down from heaven, until it will have erased you, until it will have quickly destroyed you" (LXX). But here there is no mention of God's anger; neither godlessness nor injustice is expressly attributed to the Israelites, nor, above all, is this isolated threat anywhere as vivid as the narrative of Sodom' s fate. The image of an angry God showering fire and brimstone on godless and unjust Sodom and Gomorrah /rom heaven made this incident uniquely memorable. Although the words "impiety" and "depravity" mentioned in Romans 1: 18 in contrast with "justice" and "upright" in the preceding verse (Romans 1: 17) would not of themselves have established a link to the Sodom tradition-in as much as this contrast can be found elsewhere, such as in Proverbs 1 0-15 and in the ethical rhetoric of }udean writers of the Hellenistic period-the fusion of this antithesis with manifestation of God's anger from heaven points unerringly to Sodom. The destruction of the cities was probably the most vivid exemplar in the Israelite consciousness of how God treats the godless and the unjust. This may explain why Paul does not actually use the name Sodom in the passage. There was no need. Everyone exposed to Israelite tradition knew that this was the paradigmatic incident used in relation to the expression of God's anger from heaven. The close alignment between Paul's language in the most prominent parts of this passage--at its beginning and its end-with the central thrust of this powerful and pervasive tradition make it highly probable that Paul intended that the Christ-followers in Rome who heard his letter read to them would understand this passage in relation to Sodom and its fate and, in fact, that they did so.

Idolatry (Romans 1: 19-23)

In the next section of the-passage Paul describes how, although knowledge of God can be derived from his creation, "they" (the object of his attack) inexcusably and foolishly failed to honor God. Instead, they turned to images of human beings, birds, reptiles and animals, so that God gave them up to impurity, because they exchanged the truth about him for a lie and worshipped the creature rather than the creator (Rom 1 : 18-24). This material also draws upon the Sodom tradition.

Idolatry is not specifically mentioned in Genesis 13 or 18-19, although this was a Canaanite city that had never had a covenant with God and idolatry was almost certainly implied in the word "godless" in Genesis 18:23 and 25. But that Sodom had been idolatrous was strongly suggested in Deuteronomy 29:23-28 and 32:32, and in Isaiah 1 :2-3, since otherwise the attack on the idolatry of Israel in these passages would make no sense. Similarly, the fact that Jeremiah includes the idolatry of

10

Babylon in his tirade against that city (27:33-40) suggests that Sodom, whose fate Babylon will share (27:40), was also idolatrous. In view of this biblical picture, with which Israelites and ·God-fearers would have become familiar from hearing them during synagogal readings of the writings in question, it is not surprising that at times idolatry is attributed to Sodom in other Israelite texts, as it is directly in JUBILEES 16:7-8 and by necessary implication in TESTAMENT OF NAPHTALI 3:3-4.

Yet it is not simply the reference to idolatry that suggests Sodom here. I noted above that in the TESTAMENT OF NAPHTALI Sodom was included among a general condemnation of non-Israelite idolatry but also as having failed to recognize God in his creation (3:2-4). Precisely this additional point is made in Romans 1: 19-23. While we should not assume that Paul was alluding to or echoing the TESTAMENT OF NAPHTALl, still less that his audience would have recognized the fact if he were, this text provides valuable evidence that within the conflation of memories concerning Sodom retained by Israelites (and others familiar with their traditions) the idolatry of Sodom had come to be interpreted as produced by the Sodomites' failure to discern the Creator in his creation.

It seems almost certain, however, that while Sodom represents the master image, other aspects of Israelite tradition have contributed to the picture of idolatry and its folly in Romans 1 :20-23. Thus, the notion that non-Israelites have been stupid and reduced to futility (1:21) in not recognizing God from their knowledge of the natural world and in worshipping idols finds a close parallel in Wisdom 13: 1, 8-9. Secondly, the list of paraphernalia used in idol-worship mentioned in v 23 probably derives from their memory of a source like Deuteronomy 4: 16-18. As already noted, Paul does not have Adam in mind in v 23. Thirdly, the "image of a mortal man," which heads the list in v 23, is most probably a reference to emperor worship, which was extremely popular at this time, although this is a possibility rarely raised in the secondary literature. Dominique Cuss, writing in 1978, did not mention the possibility; nor does N. T. Wright, who, taking up more recent interest in the imperial cult expressed by Richard Horsley and others, has argued that in Romans Paul is confronting that cult, even though "the image of a mortal human being" in Romans 1 :23 seems stronger evidence for his case than the material he cites. Fourthly, as the other objects .<1f idolatry in v 23 are images of birds, animals, and reptiles, it is lik~ly that Paul implied here the typically Israelite scorn expressed by the author of Wisdom toward Egyptians for their worship of such idols (1 l: 15- t 6).

In addition, since there was a tendency in Israelite tradition to link the invention of idols with "fornication," as in Wisdom t 4: 12, the sexual excess to which it was believed that Sodom had been devoted may have been associated with idolatry even in passages where idolatry was not specifically mentioned. This brings us to the next section of the Romans passage.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN • VOLUME 34

Same-Sex Relations (Romans 1 :24-27)

In Romans 1 :24-27 Paul relates that God "handed 'them' over" to "impurity" and dishonoring of their bodies, manifested principally in women and men engaging in same sex relations. That Pa~l begins v 24 with "for this reason" closely ties the sexual malpractice he is about to describe with the idolatry just mentioned. In addition, the perfect 'tense of the verb handed over indicates that God's past intervention is continuing into the present. In vv 24 and 26a Paul asserts a surfeit of desire and passion by the people he is denouncing, which he characterizes as impurity and dishonor. The former word was at home in Israelite attitudes to non-Israelites, such as those Paul himself employs to categorize the pre-conversion existence and identity of his Thessalonian Christ-followers, who had turned to God from idols (1 Thessalonians 1 :9, 2:3, 4:7). At. argued by Malina in general terms (27-57) and by Barton specifically in relation to Rome (197-269), the notion of dishonor constituted the primary Greco-Roman means to express a negative evaluation of behavior. In v 25 Paul further specifies the identity of those targeted by God as those who "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and reverenced and worshipped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed for ever." In vv 26b-27 Paul begins a detailed account of the sexual conduct he has in mind, here presented as a punishment for the idolatry lambasted in the previous verse:

For their females exchanged natural intercourse for that which is contrary to nature, while likewise the males abandoned natural intercourse with females and burned with lust for one another, males engaging in shameless conduct with males and receiving in themselves the "penalty" which suited their error.

Paul attacks same-sex relations, not just between men, but also between women, who are actually mentioned first. The initial point to be observed is that same-sex relations constituted a key feature in the tradition of Sodom, so that here Paul is continuing to rely on this prevailing image in the passage.

There are several references to same-sex misconduct having been characteristic of Sodom, such as Genesis 19:5, TESTAMENT OF NAPHTALI3:5 and Philo's ON ABRAHAM 133-36. Yet in these reminiscences of the Sodom tradition men are the ones who engage in these practices. What is the significance of Paul mentioning women at all in this connection in vv 26b-27 and, indeed, before the men~ It is submitted that this phenomenon is quite remarkable and yet also explicable, and that the explanation to be offered considerably strengthens the case for Paul's having relied upon the polygenetic memory of Sodom among Israelites as the integrating image in this part of Romans. It is clearly necessary to situate these verses within ancient Mediterranean cultural codes relating to honor and gen-

der (see White).

In ancient Greece, as Winkler observes (11), sex "was basically a way for men to establish their social identities in the intensely competitive, zero-sum formats of popular culture." Similar views prevailed among the Romans, as can be seen in the coarse way in which Catullus boasts he is going to treat two men whom he labels as assuming a passive position in same-sex intercourse: Pedicabo ego vas et irrumabo, Ameli pathice et cinaede Furi ... ("I will rape both of you as each of you prefers it: you rectally, anal-receptive Furius, and you orally, oral-receptive Aurelius"- 16.1-2; ET by Charles Martin), the meanings of the two verbs being well explained by Adams (123-30). The discourse and practices of honor were closely connected with notions of sexuality and gender. Thus, it was, generally speaking, honorable for a man to penetrate a woman. It was also honorable for a man to be the active partner in male samesex relations involving penetration, but generally dishonorable to be the passive one, except perhaps, as suggested by Dover (100-09), where a young man was receiving the attention of an older man of superior social status. There is no doubt that male same-sex relations were common, but the situation is not so clear in relation to those between females.

Commentators on Romans 1 :26 traditionally cite only a handful of texts in connection with sexual practices between women, such as Plutarch, LYCURGUS 18, the Greek ApOCALYPSE OF PETER 32 and Lucian, DIALOGI MERETRICUM 5.2 (third century CE). This whole area has recently been considered, however, in the important monograph by Bernadette Brooten, LOVE BElWEEN WOMEN (1996). The paucity of ancient references to same-sex relations between women noted by other commentators is confirmed by the small body of material upon which Brooten works with such illuminating results (29-71). This scarcity of evidence reflects the fact that most extant sources were written by men, or that samesex practices between women were not very common, or both factors. Denys Page comments (145) that silence about such practices "is almost universally maintained." Yet it is surely significant that of some 1 ,500 extant binding spells (by which the petitioner sought to bind someone to his or her will), whereas some 350 are erotic spells, even the assiduous Brooten (77-99) has been able to identify only three spells (less than 1 % of the total) as produced by one woman to bind another. The marked rarity of spells of this type seems inconsistent with female same-sex relations having been widely practiced.

It is necessary briefly to explore how such practices would have been regarded in Greco-Roman society. In Lucian, DIALOG! MERETRICUM 5.2 one courtesan says to another that there are certain women on Lesbos "with faces like men, and unwilling to experience 'anything from men,' but having intercourse only with women, as though they themselves were men."

11

Esler, The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1,' 18-32

The women on Lesbos referred to refuse to accept the dishonorable, passive position in intercourse (it is worth noting that "from men" in the quoted passage could also be translated "under men"). Instead they opt for the active position, although Lucian does not specify the means at this point, nor at the end of the dialogue--where the courtesan claiming to have experienced such a practice modestly refuses to go into the details (5.3). Perhaps women assuming the active role used dildos. These are mentioned by Sappho (99, col. 1.5 and Herodas (MIMIAMBI 6.19 and 7.63) and depicted on Greek vases, as discussed by Dover, with vase illustrations (102; illustrations CE34 and RZ07 show women together, while in illustration R 1071 one woman is depicted with a basket of dildos). Women who took the male position in sex with women (who were called tribades), or who engaged in any form of sexual activity with one another or alone, clearly threatened the hierarchical value systems inscribed in the respective roles of penetrater and penetrated. Male anxiety concerning same-sex relations between women is a factor offered by Dover (172-73) to explain the complete silence of Athenian comedy on the subject.

Given the reticence on the subject of sex between women in Greco-Roman literature, it is quite remarkable that Paul should mention it at all, let alone before same-sex relations between men. In commenting upon Romans 1 :26, Bernadette Brooten fails to comment on the startling fact of Paul's raising the subject at all (an omission made all the more surprising by her earlier acknowledgement that Israelite scripture did not prohibit female same-sex acts), although she does venture upon the reasons for the women appearing first (240). Let us consider these issues in turn.

There is a plausible solution to the first puzzle--why female same-sex relations are raised at all-and one that also relates Paul's views to Sodom. As noted above, Ezekiel refers to the daughters of Sodom on no fewer than six occasions (16:46, 48, 49 (twice), 53, and 55). It was suggested above that the "daughters of Sodom" is the sort of catch-phrase that could float free of its original context (here in Ezekiel 16). In association with the same-sex behavior that had been part of the Sodom story since Genesis 19, the thought that these women also engaged in same-sex practices may easily have lodged in the minds of people in a predominantly oral culture such as this.

Paul's inclusion of females in Romans 1 :26 is a phenomenon crying out for an explanation. It is submitted here that the development of the Sodom tradition along these lines offers the most plausible solution available.

The biblical warrant for and clarity of the notion "the daughters of Sodom" may also explain why Paul mentioned them first. But it is also possible that, like JohnChrysostom after him ON EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS, Homily 4, PG 60.417; cited by Brooten, 240), he regarded sex between women as more shameful than sex between men.

12

But let us sharpen this proposal by considering how an imaginary interlocutor, in particular one dedicated to the study of intertextuality-the way one text influences another-would respond to it. He or she would probably object that Ezekiel 16 is a denunciation of Jerusalem (that is, of Israelites rather than non-Israelites) in which Sodom is presented as a mother and its inhabitants as daughters. The feminine imagery would be merely a result of the ancient tendency of personifying cities as female in gender, coupled with the fact that Israel is often portrayed as a woman who prostitutes herself. Furthermore, no mention is made of sexual sins in the list of Sodom's sins in Ezekiel 16:49-50, and the feminine imagery of Ezekiel 16 says nothing about same-sex relations between women. Ergo, the idea that Ezekiel 16 could lie behind Paul's reference to sexual relations between women is a very improbable one indeed.

In fact, such an objection makes sense only in the context of modern reading habits dependent on physical access to the texts in question and is anachronistic in relation to the way that traditions develop in a culture where most people are illiterate. The notion of the sinful daughters of Sodom, unique to Ezekiel 16, is one of those "isolated but striking details" which we have noted above tend to be remembered by people from stories and arguments they have heard, even long before. It is highly likely that this was a feature of Ezekiel 16 that was so memorable a phrase and a notion that it became one of the many ingredients that, when collected together in the memory of Israelites, formed the composite image of Sodom. While it is self-evident that same-sex relations are not attributed to the daughters of Sodom in Ezekiel 16, same-sex misconduct as characteristic of Sodom began with Genesis 19:5 and crops up elsewhere in Israelite tradition, such as the TESTAMENT OF NAPHTALI (3:4) and, most fully, in Philo's ON ABRAHAM (133-36). Let us therefore drop the unsustainable idea of either Paul composing particular passages in his letter, or his audience listening to them, on the basis that one needed to have particular scriptural texts in hand to read carefully in order to get his point, and focus on the realities of communication in an oral culture. Having done so, we should find no difficulty in the suggestion that in the evolving tradition and memory of Sodom the sexual abuses of its men merged with the reference to its sinful daughters to yield a conclusion that the sinfulness of the women extended to same-sex relations.

~- - -- -

Philo's account of sexual relations between the men of

Sodom bears enough similarities to what Paul says in v 27 further to strengthen the case for the Sodom tradition constituting the master metaphor for Romans 1:18-32. Philo, as noted above, describes how the male Sodomites, through same-sex practices by degrees "became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons."

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN • VOLUME 34

Stowers (95) reasonably suggests, in line with ancient Mediterranean attitudes on the intersection of honor and gender codes, that "the disease of females" mentioned by Philo refers to a man's losing his male self-mastery and becoming overcome with-passions in a woman-like way.

Once again, we should eschew any notion of some "intertextual" link between Paul and, still less, his largely illiterate (but nevertheless not uninformed) addresleerand the works of Philo and proceed on the basis that an idea such as Philo pro-

I poses had taken root among Israelites. A transition from honorI able male domination to dishonorable female passivity and subservience may well be what Paul has in mind when he refers to their "receiving in themselves the penalty which suited their error" (v 27). Given Paul's description of this conduct as "shameless conduct," thus providing a particular example of the dishonorable activity mentioned in vv 24 and 26, this seems more plausible than Dunn's suggestion (65) that Paul was implying "that unnatural sexual practice is its own penalty" or Brooten's that he had venereal disease in mind (258). Some disadvantage to these men within the context of first-century Mediterranean honor codes is required, and the transition to shameful effeminacy is the likeliest candidate.

Apart from Paul's castigation of same-sex practices drawing sustenance from Sodom and its fate, this tradition also connected such behavior with idolatry. Thus JUBILEES 16:5-8 describes both the sexual immorality of the city and its practice of idol-worship. This passage suggests a link between the two, such as Paul relies upon in vv 24-26. It is reasonable to assume that there was a wider Israelite belief in a relationship between idolatry and sexual impurity beyond JUBILEES, even though it is noteworthy that Philo does not draw the connection when describing the sinfulness of Sodom, Brooten (262) suggests that the typical Israelite anti-idolatrous diatribe of this period included sexual misconduct among its charges.

The Vice Lut (Romans 1:28-32)

The fourth broad area of comparison between Sodom and Romans 1: 18-32 lies in the twenty one vices in vv 28-32. To establish a connection we do not inevitably require exact or near exact verbal duplication, since that standard is necessary only on an intertexual approach, which is inappropriate here. On the other hand, the repetition of the exact words is possible, since sometimes certain aspects of a tradition, for various reasons, may be accurately recalled. In addition, we do not know what sources, which could have fed into the Israelite understanding of Sodom in the first century, have been lost. Accordingly, in the following comparison I will employ a spectrum of similarity that covers a range of possibilities under three broad headings: close, substantive and reasonable similarity. These categories have been devised for this essay not as a precise technical specifica-

tion but rather as a practical way of classifying the data in an exercise for which I have not found an equivalent elsewhere in discussions of oral culture. They cover nineteen of the twenty one vices Paul lists.

... it is noteworthy that Philo does not draw the connection when describing the sinfulness of Sodom.

A close similarity is constituted by Paul's using words (or paronymns thereof) expressly employed of Sodom in extant sources. Paul's audience does not have to be literate for close similarity to occur, since we may assume that the judeans and any God-fearers among them could have remembered the expressions from having heard them in the synagogues. There are five instances. Adil(ia ("unrighteousness"), which starts the list, is general enough to cover all the other items. The notion of adil(ia, although not the word. appears clearly in Genesis 18 in Sodom's spectacular failure to produce the ten "righteous men" (dil(aioi) whose presence there God had agreed with Abraham would induce him to spare the city. In 3 Maccabees 2:4-5 the word itself is applied to the Sodomites. Poneria is a word of fairly general application meaning "wickedness." Its adjectival paronym poneroi is used of the people of Sodom at Genesis 13: 13. while the verbal form ponereusesthe is employed by Lot to characterize the intentions of the men of the town at Genesis 19: 7 . Kakia means wickedness in a rather general sense. It is used of the people of Sodom at 3 Maccabees 2:5 in the plural. "crimes," or "acts of wickedness." Hubristai are people who aggressively affront others. who practice hubris. including by sexual assault. thus damaging the honor of those so treated. What the men of Sodom tried to do to Lot's guests made them hubmtai. and the word is used specifically of them by josephus, who says that the men of Sodom became aggressively insolent (hubristai) to other people OUDEAN ANnQumES, 1.194-5). Huperephanoi are people who have an inHated sense of their own honor so that they treat others with contempt and disdain. even violence (which is why it is connected with hubris). In Ezekiel 16:49, Sirach 16:8. 3 Maccabees 2:5. and josephus. jUDEAN ANTIQUITIES 1 .194-95 the men of Sodom are described as manifesting Huperephania.

A substantive similarity occurs when Paul uses language that closely describes behavior that is attributed to Sodom. There are seven vices under this heading. Pleonexia literally means a desire to have more. that is beyond what one needs or is entitled to. a serious moral anomaly in a world where. as Malina has argued (89-90) all goods were thought to exist in finite quantities and where someone could only increase his or

13

Esler, The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1: 18-32

her supply at the expense of someone else. Although the word is appropriate in relation to the desire of the men of Sodom for Lot's guests-indeed it would have been the disposition causing them to gather at this door-it is not used in Genesis 19 or elsewhere in the tradition. Similarly, the attitude of Sodom and its daughters to the destitute in Ezekiel 16:49 comes dose to pleonexia in meaning. Kakoetheia means a bad disposition, malice or malignity. While not expressly used in relation to Sodom, it is a portmanteau word capable of describing what drove the various vices exhibited by the Sodomites.

17reostugeis means "hated by God" in classical Greek (cf Euripides, TROADES 1213) but seems to have developed the active sense, "God-haters," in Hellenistic Greek, the meaning it almost certainly has here, as Fitzmyer notes (289). A word of such general application is appropriate for the people of Sodom, especially in view of their idolatry. Epheuretai kakon are, literally, "inventors of evils." The only parallel in the Septuagint is 2 Maccabees 7:31 where Antiochus IV Epiphanes is described as "the discoverer of all evil (pases kakias heureles) against the Hebrews" in connection with his torture and execution of them. It is most apt in relation to Sodom in view of the inhospitable, violent and presumably murderous disposition of its inhabitants and their involvement in the various other sorts of wickedness already considered. The word astorgoi means "without natural affection," "heartless." It well captures the initial inhospitality of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 and the attitude of Sodom and her daughters to the poor and destitute castigated by Ezekiel (16:49). Aneleemones, meaning "without mercy," appears twelve times in the Septuagint, always in Wisdom contexts (Job 19:14, 30:21; Prov 5:9, 11:17, 12:10, 17:11,27:4; Wis 12:5, 191; and Sir 13:12, 32(35): 18, 37: 11.). The notion of being "without mercy" is most suitable to Ezekiel's picture of the attitude of Sodom and her daughters to the poor.

A reasonable similarity refers to the case where vices on the list that, while not specifically attributed to Sodom in the sources that survive, are consonant with or even very similar to behaviors ascribed to Sodom within the distinctive world of ancient Mediterranean values. There are eight' examples. Phthonos is envy, meaning the desire to have a good which one does not possess, usually accompanied by antipathy toward the person who does (to be distinguished from jealousy, meaning the passionate desire to preserve what one already has), as noted by Malina in an important discussion of the subject (108-33). If the men of the town who surrounded Lot's house (Genesis 19:4-5) had initially imagined that he was about to do with his visitors what they would like to do, then phthonos would have been one of the passions motivating them. Ancient hearers of Genesis 19 would have assumed that phonos, "murder," was the likely consequence of the men of Sodom assaulting Lot's guests in the way they intended. This view is strength-

14

ened by the comparison with the fate of the concubine of the Levite from Ephraim in Judges 19.

Eris means competitive rivalry and strife, a typical problem in a face-to-face culture like this where people sought to maximize individual and group honor. The fact that the inhabitants of the city engaged in boasting (Ezekiel 16:50), a practice that was at home among Mediterranean men who regularly made honor claims for themselves at the expense of others, suggests that an ancient reader would naturally have regarded eris as present in Sodom. Psithuristai are "whisperers," people who slander' others quietly and behind their backs. Katalaloi are those who "talk against" others, slanderers without the connotation of doing so under their breath. Psithuristai and katalaloi are two expressions from the rich semantic field covering gossip, meaning critical talk and comment about absent third parties, in the ancient Mediterranean world that has recently been the subject of an important essay by Richard Rohrbaugh. This form of behavior was widespread in a society marked by intense social competition and conflict, as Elliott has noted (398). In this context, gossip could do tremendous damage by diminishing or destroying one's honor, as ancient Greek and Israelite authors were well aware, as can be in seen in the passages from Plutarch, MORALIA 6.518c and e and 6.519f, and Lucian, SLANDER 1 quoted by Rohrbaugh (244-45). While slander and gossip are not expressly referred to in connection with Sod om, the fact that the developing Israelite tradition understood this to have been a city where honor claims were pressed hard (as shown by the reference to boasting in Ezekiel 16:50), meant that the existence of slander to pull people down to size would have been regarded as an inevitable concomitant. Alazones are people who boast and brag, often where there is no foundation for the boasting (as in Wisdom 1 :7). This item follows naturally from the previous item in the list, huperephanoi, since alazonia is associated with those who are proud (cf. Wisdom 5:8). Asunetoi, "void of understanding," "senseless," was also used at Romans 1 :21. It is the first of three vices linked by beginning with the same sound: as-. It is a rebuke capable of covering anyone who fails to honor God and succumbs to the vices listed. Asunthetoi literally means "bound by no covenants," hence "faithless" (as of Judah in Jeremiah 3:7-11). The original meaning is apt for the people of Sodom.

There are only two of the twenty one vices not similar to features of Sodom under the categories of similarity, just described. These are goneusin apeitheis, meaning "disobedient to parents," and dolos, "deceit" or "treachery." Clearly, however, these would be expected of people who perpetrated the other types of wickedness mentioned.

The result of this analysis is that virtually all of the twenty one vices mentioned by Paul in Romans 1 :29-31 are either precisely, substantively or reasonably similar to those attributed

Esler, The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1,' 18-32

INTRODUCfION. New York, NY: Random House.

Gamble, Harry Y. 1995. BOOKS AND READERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH: A HISTORY OF EARLy CHRISTIAN TEXTS. New Haven, CT/London, UK: Yale University Press.

1977. THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS: A STUDY IN TEXnJAL AND LITERARY CRITICISM. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Goody, jack 1987. THE INTERFACE BElWEEN THE WRITTEN AND THE ORAL. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Halperin, David 1989. ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SEXUALITY AND OrnER EssAYS ON GREEK Lovs, New York, NY:

Routledge.

Harris, William V 1989. ANCIENT LITERACY. Cambridge, MA/London, UK: Harvard University Press.

Hays, Richard B. 1989. ECHOES OF ScRIPTURE IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hezser, Catherine. 2001. JEWISH LITERACY IN ROMAN PALESTINE. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Hooker, Morna D. 1990. FROM ADAM TO CHRIST: EsSAYS ON PAUL. Cambridge, UK et alibi: Cambridge University Press.

Horsley, Richard A, ed. 1997. PAUL AND EMPIRE: RELIGION AND POWER IN ROMAN IMPERIAL SocIETY. Harrisburg, PA:

Trinity Press International.

jung, Patricia Beatty, & joseph Andrew Coray, eds. 200 1. SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM. A Michael Glazier Book. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

Kasemann, Ernst. 1980. CoMMENTARY ON ROMANS. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromley. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Kee, H. C. 1983. Testaments 0/ the Twelve Patriarchs, in Charlesworth 1983: 775- 828.

Kelber, Werner H. 1983. THE ORAL AND THE WRlTfEN GOSPEL:

THE HERMENEUTICS OF SPEAKING AND WRITING IN THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION, MARK, PAUL, AND Q. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Lampe, Peter 1991. The Roman Christians 0/ Romans 16. Pp, 216-30 in THE ROMANS DEBATE, edited by Karl P. Donfried. Revised and expanded edition. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.

Martin, Charles. 1992. POETIC LICENSE OF POETRY AND PLAYFULNESS. NEW HAVEN, CT: Yale University Press).

Martin, Dale B. 1995. Heterosemm and the Interpretation 0/ Romans 1:18-32, BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 3: 332-55.

Malina, Bruce j. 2001. THE NEW TESTAMENT WORLD: INSIGHTS FROM CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Third edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster john Knox Press.

Newman, judith H. 1998. Lot in Sodom: The Post-Mortem 0/ a City

16

and the Afterli/e 0/ a Biblical Text. Pp. 34-44 in THE FuNCfION OF ScRIPTURE IN EARLy JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITION, edited by Craig A Evans and james A Sanders. jSNT Supp. Series 154; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Ong, Walter. 1982. ORALITY AND LITERACY: THE TECHNOLOGIZING OF THE WORD. London, UK/New York, NY:

Methuen.

Osiek, Carolyn. 1998. The Oral World 0/ Early Christianity in Rome:

The Case 0/ Hermas. Pp, 151-72 in JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY IN FIRST-CENTURY ROME, edited by Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson. Grand Rapids, MVCambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans.

Page, Denys. 1955. SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF ANCIENT LESBIAN POETRY. Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press.

Rohrbaugh, Richard L. 200 1. Gossip in the New Testament. Pp, 239-59 in SOCIAL ScIENC£. MODELS FOR INTERPRETING THE BIBLE: ESSAYS BY THE CONTEXT GROUP IN HONOR OF BRUCE j. MALINA, edited by john J. Pilch. Leiden The Netherlands! Boston, MNKoln, Germany: Brill.

Sanday, William, & Arthur C. Headlam. 1895. A CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Volume 1. ICC; Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark.

Stowers, Stanley K 1994. A REREADING OF ROMANS: JUSTICE, JEWS, AND GENTILES. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tuckett, Christopher M. 2000. PauL Scripture and Ethics. Some &/lections, NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES 46: 403-24.

Vanderkam, james C. 1989. THE BOOK OF JUBILEES. CSCO, Vol. 511. Translated from the Ethiopic. Louvain, Belgium: E. Peeters.

Wedderburn, A J. M. 1988. THE REASONS FOR ROMANS.

Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.

White, Leland J. 2001. Romans 1:26-27: The Claim that Homosexuality Is Unnatural. pp. 133-49 in SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CATHOLICISM, edited by Patricia Beattie jung with joseph Andrew Coray. A Michael Glazier Book. Collegeville, MN:

Liturgical Press.

Winkler, john j. 1990. THE CONSTRAINTS OF DESIRE: THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF SEX AND GENDER IN ANCIENT GREECE. New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge.

Wintermute, O. S. 1993. JUBILEES, in Charlesworth 1985: 35-142. Wright, N. T. 2002. Paul And Caesar: A New Reading 0/ Romans.

Pe. 173-93 in Bartholomew et al.

Yonge, C. D. 1993. THE WORKS- OF PHILO: COMPLETE AND UNABRIDGED. New updated edition with foreword by David M. Scholer; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers - (original edition published 1854).

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN • VOLUME 34

to Sodom in Israelite tradition. This strengthens the case for Paul's having intended Sodom as the dominant metaphor in Romans 1: 18-32 and for his readers having so understood his message.

The Signific8I)ce of the Sodom Comparison for Paul's Communicative Strategy in Romans

Many of the sources relating to Sodom testify to its having been regarded as a paradigm of the way in which God vents his wrath on the extremes of wickedness. It is hardly surprising then that Paul should appeal to the richly elaborated tradition concerning this city to underpin his presentation of the divine anger hanging over the godlessness and injustice with which he is concerned in Romans 1: 18-32. In this passage we witness the anamnetic coalescence of the various details of this tradition in a manner that is explicable within a residually oral culture and that Paul judged necessary for his Roman audience. To conclude, I will briefly set this passage within Paul's wider communicative strategy in the letter that I have explored in detail in my recent monograph on Romans.

We have seen that appeal could be made to the fate of Sodom in relation both to Israelites and non-Israelites. While the start of this theme, in Romans 1: 18, applies to Israelites and non-Israelites, in vv 19-32 Paul has only non-Israelites in mind. Adam is not referred to in the passage, and Paul is not saying something about the human condition in general; he has in mind only the non-Israelites of his time. The notion that the Israelites contemporary With him engaged in idolatry (his central target in these verses) is alien to his thought, as is clear from Romans 2:22. Paul's treatment of Israelite sin -appears in Romans 2: 17-24, especially at vv 21-22, where his struggle to come up with some sins he could charge against Israelites to match what he had said of non-Israelites in Romans 1: 19-32 is almost comic. Throughout Romans Paul seeks to bring Israelites and non-Israelites together under one common ingroup identity, but without losing sight of the very different nature of these two subgroups. The full horrors of the condition of non-Israelites in the absence of Christ emerge in their similarity to the sinfulness of the men and women of Sodom, announced in Romans 1: 18 and then developed in vv 19-32.

Works Cited

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1990. Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment 0/ Late Western Antiquity, JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 109: 3-27.

Adams, J. N. 1982. THE LATIN SEXUAL VOCABULARY. London, UK: Duckworth.

Anderson, H. 3 Maccabees, in Charlesworth 1985: 509-29.

Barrett, C. K. 1962. FROM FIRST ADAM TO LAST: A STUDY IN PAULINE THEOLOGY. London, UK: Black.

Dunn, James D. G. 1988. ROMANS 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary, 38A. Dallas, TX: Word Books.

Bartholomew, Craig; Jonathan Chaplin; Robert Song, & A. I.

Wolters, eds. 2002. A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD~ THE USE OF THE BIBLE ETHICALLY AND POLITICALLY: A DIALOGUE WITH OLIVER O'DONOVAN. The Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, No.3. Carlisle, UK/Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster & Zondervan.

Barton, Carlin A. 2001. ROMAN HONOR: THE FIRE IN THE BONES. Berkeley, CMos Angeles, CMondon, UK:

University of California Press.

Beard, Mary, ed., 1991. LITERACY· IN THE ROMAN WORLD.

JOURNAL OF ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGY Supplement Series 3. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Binder, Donald D. 1999. INTO THE TEMPLE COURTS: THE PLACE OF SYNAGOGUES IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD. SBL Diss. Series, 169; Atlanta, GA: SBL.

Brooten, Bernadette J. 1996. Lovs BE1WEEN WOMEN: EARLY CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO FEMALE HOMOEROTICISM. Chicago, Il../London, UK: University of Chicago Press.

Charlesworth, James H. ed., 1983. THE OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA: VOWME 1. APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE AND TESTAMENTS. London, UK: Darton, Longman and Todd.

1985. THE OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. Volume 2.

ExPANSIONS OF THE "OLD TESTAMENT" AND LEGENDS, WISDOM AND PHILOSOPHICAL LITERATURE, PRAYERS, PSALMS AND ODES, FRAGMENTS OF LOST JUDEa-HELLENISTIC WORKS. London, UK: Darton, Longman and Todd.

Cuss, Dominique. 1974. IMPERIAL CULT AND HONORARY TERMS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Fribourg, Switzerland: Fribourg University Press.

Dover, K. J. 1978. GREEK HOMOSEXUALI1Y. London, UK:

Duckworth.

Dunn, James D. G. 1988. ROMANS 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary, 38A; Dallas, TX: Word Books.

Elliott, john H. 2000. 1 PETER. A NEW TRANSLATION WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY. The Anchor Bible; New York, NY, et alibi: Doubleday.

Esler, Philip F. 2003. CONFLICT AND IDENTI1Y IN ROMANS: THE SOCIAL SETTING OF PAUL'S LETTER. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press.

Fields, Weston W. 1997. SODOM AND GOMORRAH: HISTORY AND MOTIF IN BIBLICAL NARRATIVE. jSOT Supp. Series, 23 1. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Fitzmyer, joseph A. 1993. ROMANS: A NEW TRANSLATION WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY. Anchor Bible, volume 33; New York, NY: Doubleday.

Foucault, Michel 1978. THE HISTORY OF SEXUALI1Y, I: AN

15