The Sodom tradition in Romans 1:18-32

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2004 by 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.

**********

The 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 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 (119-20) 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 human condition.

Recently Dale Martin has taken an interesting new tack. As well as rejecting any allusion to Adam and the fall in Romans 1:18-32, Martin also suggests that "Paul apparently presupposes a Jewish mythological narrative about the origins of idolatry" and follows Stowers in proposing that a decline of human civilization narrative provides the context for Romans 1:18-32.

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 communicative 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 addressees 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 to communicate a message to them, not to produce an accomplished 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.