SCHOLARSHIP OR TRADITION?

When I published a post recently entitled WHAT DID SODOM DO?, questioning the traditional understanding that the city of Sodom was destroyed by God (Genesis 19) for homosexual behavior, I expected to receive comments, but I only received two, as follows:

• Very thought provoking. My hesitation is that the early Jewish scholars seemed to think/feel that Sodom sin was Homosexuality. They were much closer to the culture and language than we will ever be; therefore I give their view considerable weight. As King Agrippa once said "Almost thou persuaded me."
• How does one know what early Jewish scholars thought? Is the Bible a stand- alone document or are additional resources required?

After reading these two comments, I began to wonder, what is it that "the early Jewish scholars" knew that was not available to me?  While I recognize that my study was not exhaustive, I could find little in the biblical text that would lead me to agree with these "scholars."  Yes, of course, their knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and other ancient tongues was undoubtedly much greater than my own, but there seemed to be no hidden meanings in the biblical text that could be discovered by linguistic expertise.

I suspected that I needed to do some studies of Hebrew words that might tie Sodom's destruction to homosexual behavior.  While I found there were certain words such as TO'EBA - "abomination" which were used to describe homosexual acts, the word was also used of all sorts of sexual, religious and ethical misbehavior and I found no direct connection to Sodom's sin and destruction.

I decided to examine some of the inter-testamental literature.  I consulted the Apocrypha -- those books which are found in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) but not in the Hebrew Bible.  I found but one reference, in The Wisdom of Sirach (ca .180 BC):  "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride ..." (16:8, Goodspeed Translation).  Hmm, nothing there.

I went to the books known as the Pseudepigrapha -- those Jewish writings so named because they were apparently falsely attributed to biblical authors.  (All quotes are from J.H. Charlesworth's edition).  As with the biblical texts most are concerned primarily with the destruction of the city and not with the specific sin or sins that brought this on.

Well, I did find a few that could be construed as alluding to homosexual behavior.

·      The Testament of Naphtali (ca. 150 BC), "... so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature.  Likewise the Watchers (angels in Genesis 6, who cohabited with women) departed from nature's order" (3:4, 5).  This could very well be a passage the New Testament author Jude was thinking of in Jude 6, 7.  See also Paul's reference to homosexual behavior as "against nature" in Romans 1:26, 27.

·      The Testament of Benjamin (ca. 150 BC), speaks of the "promiscuity of the Sodomites" and "actions with loose women" (9:1).  This looks to me like heterosexual promiscuity.

·       The Testament of Levi (ca. 150 BC), speaks of greed, profanation of married women, "intercourse with whores and adulteresses" "... your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah" (15:5, 6).

·       Jubilee (160-140 BC), speaks of "the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah ... " and that "they were polluting themselves and they were fornicating in their flesh ... "

·       2 Enoch (1st century AD), has a clear reference to pederasty:  "the sin which is against nature, which is child corruption in the anus after the manner of Sodom" (10:4).  However, this reference is found in only one late manuscript.

As can be seen, the later Jewish writings add little to the biblical material.  We must also consider that these writings were much later than the latest dated canonical books.  The last book of the Hebrew Old Testament (Malachi) is dated around 435 BC -- nearly 300 years before the texts mentioned above.  And the actual destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was somewhere around 1900 BC.  How much can we trust stories of events written that long after the actual events?  Where did the information come from?

If I may digress, I'd like to draw a parallel with our own day, with the thinking of "Christian scholars."

When I was in my early teens, I recall reading on the front page of my home town newspaper (11/1/1950) that the Pope (Pius XII) had just issued a bull declaring that Mary, the mother of Jesus had been taken bodily to heaven.  This doctrine was known as "the Assumption of Mary."  Of course, to a 13 year old the word "bull" grabbed my attention first; the next word that grabbed me was "assumption."  I questioned my mother, who was a Roman Catholic, as to how the pope could, after over 1900 years, make such a claim.  She very uncomfortably explained that this "truth" had always been known and he was only making it official.  I, by this time was beginning to become a bit skeptical concerning such traditions.

Another that I'll throw in here is the tradition that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.  She has been portrayed that way in many, many movies and not a few sermons.  Again, there is no basis in the Scripture for such a portrayal.

Traditions can, of course, be quite helpful in the study of Scripture.  To our understanding of the Gospels, for instance, a study of contemporary Jewish practices and traditions will shed much light.  But we should be very careful about reinterpretation based on myths and stories from a later era.

Most likely, Jesus was familiar with the Jewish tradition of his day that God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual behavior.  Just imagine how shocked his hearers must have been when they heard him say to his disciples:  "Into whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your city that clings to our feet, we shake off at you.  Yet know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near.'  I'm telling you that it will be easier for Sodom in that day than for that city!"

Can't you just see the heads shaking and hear the tsk-tsks?