the social history of satan, part three.pdf

7/23/2019 The Social History of Satan, Part Three.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-social-history-of-satan-part-threepdf 1/19

The

Social

History

of

Satan,

Part

Three:

John of

Patmos and

Ignatius

of

Antioch:

Contrasting

Visions

of "God's

People"

Elaine

H.

Pagels

Princeton

Universit'

Leviathanand

Satan-

A

Composite Image

of

Evil

At the

climactic

moment of the

cosmic

drama

n

the book

of

Revelation,

the seer

tells how two

great

portents

appeared

n heaven,the firsta woman"clothedwith

the

sun"

12:1).

As in

a

dream,

he scene

changes,

andhe

sees

her

pregnant,

"crying

out in the

agony

of

giving

birth,"

being

menaced

by

a

"great

red

dragon

with seven

heads

and

ten

horns,

and

seven crowns

on each

of

its heads"

(12:3);

thus the seer

pictures

Israel

in

danger,

confronting

her

enemies,

the

foreign

oppressors.

At this

point

John

transforms raditional

magery,

as

he

does

throughout

his

prophecy,

veering

into a

startlingly

non-traditional

irection.

John

knew,

of

course,

that

the

imagery

he

revises

here,

with echoes

from Genesis

and

the

psalms

to

I Enoch,hadbeendevelopedespeciallyby Isaiah,Ezekiel,andDanieltocharacter-

ize Israel's

alien

enemies--"the

nations"

such

as

Egyptians

and

Babylonians--as

mythological

monsters,

often

dragons

like

Behemoth

and

Leviathan

who have

fought against

God

from the

beginning

of time.'

John

takes

his cues

in

particular

from Isaiah

26:17-27:1,

where

the

prophet

depicts

Israel

as

a woman

crying

out

For discussion and

references, see,

for

example,

Adela Yarbro

Collins.

The

Combat Myth

in

the Book

of

Revelation

(Harvard

Dissertations

in

Religion

9:

Missoula.

Mont.:

Scholars,

1976);

Neil

Forsyth,

The Old

Enemy:

Satan

and

the Combat

Myth

(Princeton,

N.J.:

Princeton

University

Press,

1987),

as well as the articles cited in note 6.

I

regret

that the

excellent collection of articles

just

now

published.

edited

by

David

Barr,

was

not

available

whileI was

writing

except

ora

then

unpublished

rticle

which

Paul

Duff

kindly

ent

after

discussion

at

the

SBL):

see

now.

The

Reality

of

Revelation:

Rhetoric

and

Politics

in the

Book

of

Revelation

(SBLSymS

39: Atlanta:

Society

of Biblical

Literature.

2006).

HTR

99:4

(2006)

487-505



488

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

"in

the

pangs

of

giving

birth"

26:17),

until

"that

day"

when

the Lord

will

come

"to

punish

the

inhabitants

f the

earth"

26:21),

and "with his

cruel,

and

great,

and

strong

sword

will

punish

Leviathan,

the

fleeing serpent,

Leviathan the

twisting

serpent,andhe will kill the dragonthat is in the sea"(27:1).

Abruptly,

however,

Johnbreakswith

tradition o reveal

a

new

composite

-

im-

age

of

evil.

Having pictured

Leviathan

menacing

Israelas

scene one

of

the

cosmic

drama,

John

suddenly

shifts the

expected

course of

the

narrative o scene

two,

the

messiah's

birth,

which

signals

the outbreakof "war

in

heaven:"

Michaeland

his

angels

[were]

ightingagainst

he

dragon.

The

dragon

and

his

angels

ought

back,

but

they

were

defeated,

nd herewas no

longerany

place

or them

n

heaven

12:7-9).

But,a traditionalistmight object:When was thedragonever up"inheaven"?And

how could

the

primordial

monster

have

angels

as allies?

According

to

a

tradition

well

known to

John,

as

he had

already

shown in his own

narrative,

God's

ancient

adversary

dwells

far

below,

as "the beast that

comes

up

from the

bottomless

pit"

(11:7).

When

he

appears,

he

emerges

from

the

"depths"-from

the

abyss,

or the

primordial

ea.

How, then,

could the

dragon

ever have

claimed a

"place"

or him-

self and

his

allies

in

heaven,

or stood at the

head of

an

angelic army,

making

war

against

"Michael

and his

angels"?

Is

John

simply getting

his

stories

scrambled,

or

is he makingwhatis for him a centralpointof his revelation'?

Yet John

boldly

combines the Satan tradition

of

the

rebellious

angelic

com-

manderwith the Leviathan raditions

nvolving

the

dragon

from the

abyss

in

order

to reveal a

great

secret:that

the one who once held

power

in

heaven and fell down

from there like

a star was

actually

none other than

the

great

dragon,

that

ancient

serpent,

who

is

called

the devil and

Satan,

the

deceiver of the whole world-he was thrown

down

to

earth,

and his

angels

were thrown

down

with him.

(12:9)

Scholars long have noted that John is the first to identify the serpent of Eden

with

Satan,2

nd the

only

author

of

any

Jewish or

Christian

iterature f

his

time to

speak

of

"war

nheaven."3

While

other

scholars have noted these

bold innovations

and have

traced

he

theological

and

literary

means

by

which

he makes

them,

what

I intend

to

ask here

is

for what

reasons

John

does so.

What,

for

example,

do these

innovationshave

to

do with social

history

how John

envisions

holy

war

here on

earth?What

urgent

and

pressing

concerns

impel

John to

make them?

This

article

thus

continues research

published

in two

previous

articles

("The

Social

History

of

Satan,"

parts

1

and

2),'

and

makes

three

suggestions,

here sketched

2

See, for

example,

Forsyth,

The Old

Enemy,

199-257,

and

David

Aune,

Revelation

6-16

(WBC

52B;

Nashville:

Nelson,

1997)

696.

Forsyth,

The Old

Enemy,

254; Aune,

Revelation,

691-710.

SElaine

Pagels,

"The Social

History

of

Satan,

the

'Intimate

Enemy':

A

Preliminary

Sketch,"

HTR

84:2

(1991)

105-28;

and "The Social

History

of

Satan,

Part II: Satan in the

New Testament



ELAINE

H. PAGELS 489

in

brief.

First,

I

suggest

thatJohn's

graphic

description

of

"war

n heaven"

s

the

key

to

understanding

is

practical

concerns

as a

prophet:

namely,

thathe

combines

the

Satan and

Leviathan

raditions

n

order

o

persuade

his

constituency,

God's

"holy

ones,"that heynowhave to fighton two frontsatonce.Whathe revealsinRevela-

tion

12

is

what he

recognizes

as

the

great

secret

that the

enemy

in heaven

is

none

other than

God's

ancient

enemy,

the

dragon,

a.k.a.

both

"Leviathan"

nd

"Satan."

John

intends to show

that

those he identifies

as

"intimate

enemies"

among

Jesus'

followers now have

joined

forces with hostile outsiders

n an

unprecedented-and

unholy-

alliance.

Since he takesthis

to

mean

that

he forces

of

evil

thus

have

gained

overwhelmingpower,

Johnbelieves he

is

impelled

o sortout

who

really

does

belong

to

God's

people

and

who does not. For

much as

he detests

the

"beasts,"

John sees

inside

enemies

as

even moredangerous:he says

thatJesus

praises

those

who

truly

are

"holy

ones,"

but warns that

there

are

others,

lurking

among

them,

whom he

"hates,"

as

well as

some

in the

middle.5

Thus from

the

first

century

o

the

twenty-

first,

John's

powerful

and innovative

narrative

has offered

his

readers

an

example

of how to

"out"certain

nsiders

by

identifying

deviants

among

them

as,

in

effect,

secret

agents

for

forces

they

see

rampant

n

the

monstrous

culture

outside.

Second,

when

asking

who the enemies

are

that John

warns

against,

we

prob-

ably

all

would

agree

about the alien enemies.

John

gives

such obvious

clues that

we

cannot fail to

identify

them

with

the Roman

forces

and

their

supporters.

Much

more

complicated--and

much

more

contested- is the

question

of whom he sees

as

Satan's

allies within

the "assemblies"

he

addresses.

To

what

extent,

as

one

scholar

puts

it,

can

we locate actual

first-century

ollowers

of

Jesus

behind

John's

polemical

characterizations?6

o

doubt the

most

complicated

question,

recently

addressed

again by

Paul Duff

and

David

Frankfurter,

mong

others,

is whom

the

prophet

has in mind

when he

denounces

"those

who

say

they

are

Jews

and are

not,

but are the

synagogue

of Satan"

2:9,

3:9).7

Although

we

must

consider

this

ques-

Gospels," JAAR52/1 (1994) 201-41.

5

Paul

Duff makes this

perceptive

suggestion

especially

in

chapter

four

of

Who

Rides

the

Beast?

Prophetic Rivalry

and

the Rhetoric

of

Crisis

in the

Churches

of

the

Apocalypse

(Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

2001)

48-60;

he also shows

there the close

relationship

between

John's

vision of

the

"whore

of

Babylon"

and the

prophet

he calls "Jezebel."

6

David

Frankfurter,

"Jews or

Not?

Reconstructing

the

'Other'

in Rev

2:9

and

3:9,"

HTR

94

(2001)

403ff.;

for

an

incisive

discussion,

see

Elisabeth S.

Fiorenza,

The

Book

of

Revelation:

Justice

and

Judgment

Philadelphia:

Fortress,

1985);

see also

ibid.,

Revelation:

Vision

of

a

Just

World

Min-

neapolis:

Fortress,

1991);

Adela

YarbroCollins.

"Vilification

and

Self-Definition

in the Book of

Revelation" HTR 79

(1986)

308-20:

A. Thomas

Kraabel.

"The Roman

Diaspora:

Six

Questionable

Assumptions,"JJS

33

(1982) 455ff.:

Tina

Pippin.

Death

and

Desire:

The

Rhetoric

of

Gender

in

the

Apocalypse of

John

(Louisville:

Knox,

1992):

Paul

Duff.

"Wolves

in

Sheep's

Clothing:

Literary

Opposition

and

Social Tension in the

Revelation

of John"

in

Reading

the

Book

of

Revelation:

J.

W.

Marshall,

"Collateral

Damage:

Jesus and

Jezebel

in

the

Jewish

War."

n

Violence

in the

New Testa-

ment

(ed.

Shelly

Matthews

and

E.

Leigh

Gibson:

New

York:T&T Clark,

2005)

35-49.

7

See n.

6;

also

Paul

Duff. "'The

Synagogue

of

Satan':

Crisis

Mongering

and

the

Apocalypse

of

John,"

unpublished

paper graciously

sent

by

the author.

used

by

his

permission:

for earlier discus-

sion,

see Adela Yarbro

Collins,

"Vilification

and Self-Definition

in the

Book of

Revelation,"

HTR



490 HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

tion,

we cannot claim to

resolve it

here; instead,

we

only

make

some

observations

about the

discussion.

Traditionally,

of

course,

most

commentators

have

assumed that this

polemic

is not aboutinsidersat all; instead,it refers to Jews hostile to Christians.So our

answer to

this

question

has

much

to

do

with

the

question

now

engaging

heated

discussion,

of

how

we

envision these Asian

groups

of

Jesus'

followers at

the end of

the first

century

and,

in

particular,

what we

assume about

boundaries

between Jews

and

Christians.For

the

purpose

of

this

article,

I

agree

with

those who

point

out

that

John,

like other

Jews

devoted

to

Jesus Christ

among

his

first-century

ollowers,

sees

himself and his fellows

not

as

Christians

but as Jews

(Paul,

of

course,

called

himself an

"Israelite")-the

"holy

ones" who await

the return

of God's

messiah.

If

John

does

know

the

term

"Christian,"

he does

not use

it,

much less

apply

it

to

himself,

perhaps

because,

as we

shall

see,

those who coined

and used the

term n

late

-first- and

early-second-century

Asia

most often

applied

it

to Gentile

converts.

Third,

I

suggest

that

we

may

find some

help

understanding

John's

specific

concerns

with

"intimate enemies"

when we

compare

his

vision of

these

Asian

assemblies

with

that of

Ignatius,

who wrote letters

to

groups

in

some

of the same

towns John had

addressedabout ten

years

later.

This

Syrian

believer

who called

himself

"bishop

of

Antioch,"

a

devoted follower of

Paul,

was the

first,

so far as

we

know,

to

insist

that

only

those who

are called "Christians"

ruly belong

to God.

In

contrast o John,Ignatius s the firstto demandthatJesus'followers preach,in his

words,

only "Christianity-

not

Judaism."

To

address

these

issues,

we

begin

by asking:

what do

John's

characterizations

of evil

powers

show

about the

way

John sees

himself and his

fellow

saints

in

rela-

tion to

specific

"enemies on the

ground"-both

inside

and

outside

of

his

group'?

What do

his

prophetic

visions

suggest

about

his

own

situation

and

that of

those

with whom-and

against

whom-he

identifies'?

For,

in

Peter

Brown's

apt phrase,

John and his

fellow

believers see the

story

of

the fallen

angels,

like

the stories of

the archaicchaos dragon,"not as a myth,butas a mapon which they plottedthe

disruptions

nd

tensions

of

the world

around hem." As is

well

known,

Johnfollows

traditionwhen

he identifies Israel's

"outside"

enemies,

whom he sees

embodied

in

the Roman

forces,

as

"the

great

dragon"

and his

two

allies,

the "beast

from the

sea" and the "beast from

the land."

To

appreciate

the

impact

of

John's

revisionism,

let

us

briefly

recall

how the

gospel

writers

characterize he cosmic war

they

see

manifest

in

Jesus'

execution.

As

noted

above,

in two

previous

articles

I

have

shown

that

the New

Testament

evangelists

chose

to deal

with the

question

of who embodied

evil forces

by drawing

upon

and

amplifying,

in

varying

ways,

a handfulof biblicalstories that came to be

associated

with

"the

satan"-an

angelic being

who

defected,

so

to

speak,

to the

(1986)

308-20;

see

also

Shaye

J. D.

Cohen,

"Judaismwithout

Circumcision and

'Judaism'

without

'Circumcision'

in

Ignatius,"

HTR

95:4

(2002)

395-415.

X

Society

and

the

Holy

in

Late

Antiquity

(Berkeley: University

of California

Press,

1982)

24.



ELAINE

H. PAGELS 491

darkside.

Genesis

6,

for

example,

tells

how the

angelic

"sons

of

God,"

seduced

by

the

beauty

of

human

women,

descended

to earth

where

they spawned

heroes

and

warriors,

half

angel

and

half human

what the Greeks

would

call

demigods

but

who, latercommentatorsdeclared,generated,in turn,demonic powers and evil

spirits.9

The famous

folktale

in

Numbers

22 tells

how the

foreign

prophet

Balaam

found his

way

blocked on a

journey

by

an

angelic

figure,

whose

obstructiveness

hints at

his

association with "the satan"

(note

thatthe

Hebrew

noun

that

describes

him,

1=,

suggests

his adversarial

ole).

Johnof

Patmos

draws

upon

this

same

story

to

derisively suggest

that

some insiders

follow

the

teaching

of

"Balaam,"

a false

prophet

whose

notorious name

suggests

that

he

is a

"deceiver

of the

people."'0

Followers

of Jesus later

connected hese

passages

with others

that

tell of

an

angelic

accuserwho

standsbefore theLordto accusehumans,

a

kindof

"devil's

advocate"

(Zech

3:

lf.;

Job

1-3),

and with Isaiah'saccount

(14:7ff)

of

the

luminous

heavenly

being

called

"day

star,

son of the

dawn,"

who,

having

defied

his commander n

chief,

was cast

out

of

heaven,

demoted,

and

disgraced

a

passage

that

apparently

inspired

Revelation

12-

and,

over

a thousand

and

five

hundred

ears

later,

nspired

Milton's account

of Satan'sfall in Paradise

Lost."

In the

firstarticlecited

above,

we noted

that

the Satan

raditions

lowered

espe-

cially

in

Jewish

pseudepigraphic

sources

from

c.

165

B.C.E.

o

200

C.E.,

inding

their

deepest

resonances

among

certain

groups

of

so-called

"dissident

Jews"

ranging

from the

Qumran

ectarians o followersof Jesusof Nazareth.The authorsof such

works

as

1

Enoch and

Jubilees

amplified

and

retold such

biblical

stories

of fallen

angels

to

tell how the

angelic

"watchers,"

ften

called

"sons

of

God,"

and leaders

in the

angelic army

rebelled

against

God

and

finally

became

his enemies.

Thus,

we

suggested,

members

of

certainsectarian

Jewish

groups

adapted

uch

stories

to

characterize heir

own

situation--above

all to

interpret

heir

own

marginal

status,

and the

apostasy

with

which

they charged

he

majority

of

God's

holy

people.

Thus

they

could

explain

that

just

as

God's

own

angels

once

turned

against

their com-

mander nchief, so nowmanyof his own peoplehaveturnedagainst heirGod. The

moral

of the

story

s

thateven

Israelites,

although

hey

are

called

God's

own

"sons,"

they,

like

the

angels

themselves,

could

fall

from

their

rightful

place

to

become,

in

effect,

his

enemies--and

thus

enemies of the

"remnant"

who

remained

aithful to

God-who,

such

sectarians

explained,

in

this

case

were

themselves.

'

I

Enoch

6-16;

Jubilees

5:3: 10:1-14,

passim.

For

discussion,

see

my

"The Social

History

of

Satan,"

part

1;

for

more detailed

discussion,

see

Martha

Himmelfarb,

Ascent

to Heavenin

in

Jewish

and

Christian

Apocalypses

(New

York: Oxford

University

Press.

1993).

"'

Revelation

2:14;

J.

Braverman.

"Balaam

n Rabbinic

and

Early

Christian

Traditions."

n

Sefer

ha-vovel li-khevodDoktor

Yehoshu

a

Finkel

(ed.

Sidney

B.

Hoenig

and Leon

D. Stitskin:

New

York:

Jewish

Publication

Society.

1974)

41-50:

J.

T.

Greene.

"Balaam:

Prophet,

Diviner,

and Priest in

Selected Ancient Israelite

and

Hellenistic

Jewish

Sources."

in SBLSP (1989)

57-106: and see the

detailed discussion in

Aune,

Revelation,

vol.

1.

185-88.

"

For

discussion,

see

Forsyth,

The

Old Enemy.

105-81.



492

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

At first t

may

seem

strange

if

not absurd

that

the authorsof

Matthew,

Mark,

and John

sought

to

blame other

Jews

for

Jesus'

death,

since

it

was

well

known,

of

course,

that

Jesus

had been

sentenced

by

the Roman

governor,

and

executed

by

his soldiers on chargesof sedition against Rome. Had these evangelists chosen

to

follow

the

well-known

prophetic

tropes

they

found in

the

writings

of

Isaiah,

Daniel,

and

Ezekiel,

they

could

have told

the

story

of Jesus'

death in

a far

more

traditional and

historically

plausible way. They

might

have told it

insteadas

the

story

of

a

righteous

man like

Daniel,

sentenced

to

death

by

"the

nations,"

Israel's

hated

foreign

oppressors.

Had

they

done

so,

they

probably

would

have

character-

ized the

powers

of

evil

as

Isaiah, Jeremiah,

Ezekiel,

and Daniel

had,

by

retelling

stories of

Yahweh's battle

with

the

dragon,

who

embodies the

monstrous

power

of

evil-a

dragon

associated with

the

sea,

the

primordial

chaos-and

thus with

Israel's

foreign

oppressors.

Surprisingly,

however,

the

evangelists

ignored

such familiar

tropes

and

drew

instead

upon

the far more

peripheral

Satan

traditions,

n

order

to

make the aston-

ishing

claim

that

although

Romans

crucified

Jesus,

it was his Jewish

enemies

who

actually

killed

him;

Luke and

John

go

so

far as

to

identify

these

diabolical

powers

explicitly

with

those

they

see as

Jesus' Jewish

enemies.'2

When

I

asked

for

what reasons

they

told the

story

as

they

did,

I

recognized

that

they

did so

primarily

as a

defensive tactic.

Writing

in

the

shattering

aftermathof

the failed Jewish war,themselves known to be followers of a manconvicted of

sedition

against

Rome,

Jesus'

followers

fell under

suspicion

on

the

same

charge.

In that

dangerous

situation,

they

apparently

hoped

to

deflect outsiders'

suspicion

and

hostility

by

telling

the

story

of their

leader's

death in a

way

calculated to

show that even

the Roman

procurator

ound Jesus

innocent of

sedition-and

to

imply

the

innocence

of the rest

of his followers.

Thus

they

chose to

tell

the

story

of Jesus' death in

a

way

that

showed the

Romans

treating

Jesus

in

the

historically

implausible,

but fair-mindedand

respectful,

way

that

his

followers

hoped

to be

treated

themselves,

should

they

come

to

trial.

Luke and Matthew

both insist

that

Pilate not

only

repeatedly

declared

Jesus

innocent,

but

resolved several

times to

release

him-before

giving

in

to

a

shouting

mob of

hostile Jews.

When we turn

to

John's

Revelation,

however,

we

see

at

once

that

John of Pat-

mos makes no

such defensive

moves. While

sharing

he

evangelists'

conviction

of

Jesus'

innocence,

John

makes no

attempt

to

placate

Gentile

fears

and

suspicions.

Instead of the

apologetic

charge

Luke

has

Peter

address to the "men

of Israel"

("you

killed

the

righteous

one,

and

delivered

him

into the hands of

lawless

men,"

Acts

2:23),

the

author

of

Revelation

clearly

indicts

Roman

forces,

whom he sees

as theominous shadowgovernment or those who

actually

wield

power--namely,

the

supernatural

orces

of evil

that he

depicts

as

the

"greatdragon"

and

his

allies.

Yet

hostility

toward

"the

nations" need not-and

often does

not-preclude

hostility

toward those identified

as "intimate

enemies." For while the

author

of

"

For citations and

discussion, see

my "Social History of

Satan, Part 2."



ELAINE

H.

PAGELS

493

Revelation

takes as

his

dominant

heme

how

monstrous

evil

powers

"war

against

God,"

he

simultaneously

weaves into

his narrative he

second,

more

minor

theme,

showing

how

fallen

angels

challenge

and

impersonate

divine

power,

and

how,

at the sametime, intimateenemies infiltrateGod's people.

For

while

the

prophet

says

that Jesus

"hates"

these

false

insiders,

he

never

makes

any

charge

against

them

so

harsh

as the

one

that dominates

the

passion

narratives- the

charge

hat

Jews themselves

engineered

Jesus'

arrest,

passion,

and

death.

Instead,

John

of

Patmos

adopts

the

prophets'

raditional

view:

that

foreign

enemies-in this

case,

the

Romans-had

slaughtered

he

"lamb

of God." John of

Patmos leaves no

doubt that

those

guilty

of

killing

Jesus,

as

well

as

his

witness

Antipas,

and the

other

martyrs

John

saw in heaven

("those

who had

been

slaugh-

tered for

the word

of

God,"6:9)

are those

whom

he, following Isaiah,

calls

"the

inhabitants

of

the

earth"

Isa

26:21).

When

John

conflates

Leviathanwith

Satan,

as

we

noted,

he

wants to show that

the

powers

of evil

have

grown

more

powerful

than

ever,

now

having

taken not

one,

but

two

quite

different manifestations

both,

however,

working

toward

the

same end. In a

moment

we will ask who John believes

these

enemies

are,

but first

let

us

note how

ingeniously

he relates

what

he

sees

as the

practical

effect of

this

unprecedented

-

and

unholy

-

alliance.

John

proceeds

to

tell

how

the

dragon,

having

united

n

himself

all the

forces of

evil,

now cast out of heavenand

raging

with

fury,

"went

off to make

war"

upon

"thosewho

keep

the

commandments f God

and

hold

the

witness

of

Jesus"

13:17).

To do

so,

he

takes

his

stand

on

the

seashore

and manifests

himself

first

as

the

"beast

rising

from the

sea,"

who

combines

within

one

monstrous

orm

the

characteristics

that Daniel had

ascribed

to the four

beasts

who manifest

four

foreign empires.

Now,

John

says,

the

"beast

from

the sea"

wields the

dragon's

rresistible

"power,

and

..,

throne,

and

great authority"

13:2).

When

John

goes

on

to describe the

dragon's

second

manifestation,

his

innova-

tions areeven moreevident. For Johngoes on to saythat"thenI saw anotherbeast

that rose out of

the

earth;

t had two

horns

like

a

lamb,

and

it

spoke

like

a

dragon"

(13:11).

Thusthis

formof

evil

power

bearssome

resemblance

o

the

"lamb"-

Jesus

the

messiah,

the

"son of

man

coming

with

the

clouds of

heaven,"

whom

John,

like

Daniel,

sees as

the

antitype

of the "beast

from

the

sea"13--but

t

speaks

"like

a

dragon."

What

this

beast

does

is

promote

he

authority

f the

first,

by

making

them

bow down

to

worship

its

image

and

by

forcing everyone

to

bear

the

markof the

beast.

Although

John,

ike

most

of his

contemporaries,

oes

not

definitively

eparate

'"

Adela

Yarbro

Collins,

Crisis and

Catharsis:

The Power

of

the

Apocalypse

(Philadelphia:

Westminster,

984),

n her

nfluential

tudy uggests

hat

his

mage

efers

n

particular

o

wealthy

r

noble

Asians

who

supported

he

imperial

cult:

Simon

Price,

Rituals

and

Power:

The

Roman

Imperial

Cult in Asia Minor

(Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press.

1984)

10lff:

Leonard

L.

Thompson,

The Book

of

Revelation:

Apocalypse

and

Empire

(New

York: Oxford

University

Press.

1990);

see

also the fine

discussion

in

Steven J. Friesen.

Imnperial

Cults and

the

Apocalypse

of

John:

Reading

Revelation

Among

the Ruins

(New

York: Oxford

University

Press.

2001)

25-131.



494 HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

military

and

political power

from

religious authority,

he

pictures

the

"beast from

the sea" above all as the active evil

energy

that

wields and

manipulates

"signs

and

wonders,"

mages,

symbols

of

submission,

and its

secret

identifying

number.'4

No wonder,then,that as John's narrativeproceedsto the final battle the Word

of God

leading

his armies into

battle

against

the combined

forces of the

evil

pow-

ers-he

calls

this beast from

the

land "the false

prophet."

So,

although

John

says

that the "beast from the land"

s

actually

a

second

manifestationof the

dragon,

he

wields

powers traditionally

associated with Satan

inverting

the

powers

of God's

messiah,

and

deceiving people

into

worshipping

that which is evil.

Thus

John's

portrait

f this multiform

diabolical

usurper

s

meant

to demonstratehow

"intimate

enemies"

are

now

secretlycollaborating

with

openly

hostile outsiders.

Christians n

later

generations,sensing

these

connections,

would

conflate John's

account of this

"beast"

and

"false

prophet"

with

warnings

found

in

the

Johannine etters

against

the

coming

"antichrist."

Intricate

as is

John's

narrative,

what

he

conveys

by

conflating

this

powerful

im-

agery speaks clearly

to

many

readers.One

message

it

communicates

s

that,

evil as

arethe

powers

thatrulethe

earth,

"intimate nemies"

areeven more

dangerous,

ince

some of

them,

like the beast from

the

earth,

are

actually

undercover

agents

working

for "the

dragon."

As Paul Duff

has shown from a

somewhat different

perspective,

one of John's

primary

concerns is

to unmask these

intimateenemies."

The

Identity

of the

"Intimate

Enemies"

As

noted

above,

the

identity

of

the alien enemies

is

not in doubt.

Besides

the well

known association of the

dragon

with

Israel's traditional

oes,

few

readerscould

miss the

allusions to the Roman

empire

and its rulers

behindJohn's

caustic

portrait

of

the rich

and decadent

city

of

"Babylon"

enthronedon seven

hills

beside

a

river.

Probably

some

in his

audience

knew,

too,

that other

contemporary

Jewish

writers

also called

Rome

"Babylon,"

since the Romans

had

destroyed

the

second

temple

as the Babylonianshaddestroyedand desecratedthe first. And while manyhave

puzzled

the

riddling

"number

of

the

beast,"

virtually

all

recognize

that

it

signifies,

one

way

or

another,

an

imperial

name.'"

More

complicated-and

more contested-is

who John

has in

mind

when he

castigates

the intimateenemies

whom he

implicates

along

with the

"false

prophet"

and

charges

with

deflecting

worship away

from

God.

First of

all,

I

agree

with

the

scholarly

consensus,

recently

well articulated

by

Steven

Friesen,

that

shows

that John

associates the

"false

prophet"

with the

religious ideology

of

the

Roman

empire-perhaps especially,

as

Adela

Yarbro

Collins has

suggested,

with

officials

'

See

especially

Richard

auckham's

normously elpful

discussionn The

Climax

f

Prophecy:

Studies

n

thie

Book

of

Revelation

New

York:T&T

Clark,

1993)

384-452.

'5

Who

Rides the Beast?

31-125;

Leonard

Thompson,

The

Book

of

Revelation,

passim.

'"

Bauckham,

The Climax

of Prophecy,

384-452.



ELAINE

H.

PAGELS 495

promoting

he

imperial

cult."

Second,

and

more

ambiguously,

John

goes

on

to im-

plicate

certain

groups

of

Jesus'

followers,

suggesting

hat

hese,

although

ostensibly

worshipping

God

and his

Messiah,

actually

deceive

people

into

worshipping

hat

which is evil-which meansfor Johnthatcovertlythey lendtheirsupport o the

demonic

powers

that

lurk

behind

Rome's

gods

and

rulers.

Can

we

understand

whom John

has in

mind when

he

castigates

insiders?

We

recall that

after

opening

his

"revelation"

with

a

stunning

vision

of "one like

a

son

of

man,"

John

says

that

this

radiant

being

entrusted

him

with

messages

directed

o

"the seven

assemblies

(iKKh?cGiat)

of

Asia"

(

1:1-11

).

John

addresses

the

members

of

these

tiny

Asian

assemblies

as

"kings

and

priests

of

God"

paut?0iav

irpcit

t~o

OeF

1:5-6),

echoing

the

famous wordsMoses

firstaddressed

o

God's

people

Israel

at

Sinai

(cf.

Exodus

19:6;

Greek:

p3aothiaviep6v,

the

Septuagint

translation

or

F'

z

nq?)).

Yet

John's Jesus

warns

that

nearly

all

of

these

assemblies

contain

a

mixed

group,

some of

whom he

praises,

others

whom

he

"hates,"

and

some,

ap-

parently,

n the

middle."'

Since

"Jesus"

addresses these

messages

to

"God's

holy

ones"

to

sort out

who

actually

does

belong among

them and

who

does

not,

it

we

are

not

surprised

o find

that

these

messages

contain

the densest

concentrationof

allusions

to

Satan in

the

entire

book.

While

weaving together

threats from the

inside

and

from the

outside,

the

prophet's

warningssuggest

that

he

regards

evil

insiders

as the

most

dangerous

of

all. Thushisletters o thesevenassemblies

open

as "Jesus"

praises

hosein

Ephesus

because,

he

says,

"you

cannot tolerateevildoers"

who

"say

that

they

are

apostles

and are

not"

(2:2).

He

praises

them because

they

have

tested

and

rejected

these

false

apostles,

and

because

"you

hate

the

works

of

the

Nicolitains,

which I

also

hate"

(1:6).

When John

addresses those

in

Smyrna,

where

arrests

occurred,

and

those

in

Pergamon,

where one

"witness"

was

killed,

the

prophet

makes sure

they

know

thatoutside

threats,

oo,

come fromthe

Evil One:

thus

Jesus

warns

he

former

that

"the

devil

is

aboutto

throw

some

of

you

in

prison"

and

reminds

he latter

that

they live "whereSatanlives," apparently eferring o the greattempleto Zeus or

the

imperial

emple

to the

augusti,

"where

Satan's

throne

s"

(2:13).'9

John

unleashes

an

even more vehement

denunciation

upon

a

rival leader

in

Thyatira,

who

"says

she

is

a

prophet,"

but whom

he

calls

"Jezebel,"

and accuses

of

"teaching

nd

seducing

my

servants o

practice

ornication

nd

to eat food sacrificed

to idols."

Shortly

before,

addressing

hose

in

Pergamon,

John

had

accused

some

people

of

accepting

"the

teaching

of

Balaam," hat,

he

says,

encourages

the

same

practices.

Of

course,

the

term

TropvEia

as

a

long

history

in

prophetic

literature

thatsuggestsconsortingwithforeigncultureandflirting,so to speak,withforeign

'~

Steven J.

Friesen,

Imperial

Cults and the

Apocalypse

of

John; Collins,

Crisis

and

Catharsis,

72-107.

"'

Duff

makes

his

point

well.

For

example:

The

group

ve

might

all

'the

invisible

majority'"

is "the

group

that

represents

John's

primary

audience." Who

Rides the

Beast,

48.

'"

See

Aune,

Revelation 1-5.

52A,

182-84;

Price. Rituals

and

PoweI;

133-48;

Friesen,

Inperial

Cults

and

the

Revelation

of

John,

27-32.

107-29.



496

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

gods. Finally,

as John

addresses

the

two assemblies

in

Smyrna

and

Philadelphia,

which

Duff

identifies

specifically

as

"strongholds

of

John's

loyalists,"20

e

bitterly

denounces

those who

"say

that

they

are Jews and are

not,

but

are

a

synagogue

of

Satan" 2:9), and who "are ying"(3:9).

We can

see, then,

that

every

one

of

John's

accusations

against

these

various

enemies

charges

that

they

are

subverting

God's

people internally.

Above

all,

like

members

of the

"synagogue

of

Satan," some,

apparently,

pretend

to be

God's

people

while

actually

being

Satan's

agents.

Such

charges,

as

is well

known,

are

familiar

among

such dissidents

as the

Qumran

sectaries,

who

apply

them to

those

they

regard

as

apostate.21

While

earlier

generations

of scholars scrutinized John's

rhetoric to

delineate

specific groups

among

these

detested

insiders,

more

recently,

commentatorshave

recognized

that

at least several of

the

groups

he

describes

are

more

likely

to be

variations on

a

composite portrait.Many

now tend to

agree,

at

least

in

general,

with the scenariodescribed

n detail

by

Paul Duff:

that when John indicts

the

three

groups

mentioned

above,

he is

challenging

followers of

Jesus

who

accommodate

more to outside

culture hanthis

rigorist

prophet

would

allow--in

particular,

hose

who follow Pauline

teaching.

For

when we discount

John's

polemical

vehemence,

we can see that the

specific

accommodationscondoned

by

those he

denounces

as

"false

apostles"

and

"false

prophets"

ook

very

much like the

practices

Paul

allows

to his convertsin 1Corinthians7-10: eatingmeatsacrificedto idols, andallowing

sexual

practices

hat

rigorously

observantJews

often

prohibited,

such

as

marriage

to outsiders."

I

agree

with

Collins,

Duff,

and

others that

John's

target

includes

followers

of

Jesus

who

accept

Pauline

teaching-

teaching already widespread

in

Asia

Minor,

especially

among

Gentiles.

More

difficult, however,

and

more

debated

is

whether those

whom John

de-

nounces

in

Smyrna

and

Philadelphia,

who

"say

they

are

Jews,

and are

not-but

a

synagogue

of Satan"

(2:9;

3:9),

are to

be

grouped

with the

others addressed in

such a

compositeportrait.

Are

we to

take John

at

his

word

and

assume

that

these

people

are not

Jews,

but

Gentiles

presumably

followers of Jesus- who

"say they

are

Jews,

and are

not,

but are

lying"

(3:9)?

Or are

they,

as

Collins,

Duff,

and

others

have

assumed,

actually

not

only

Jews,

like John

himself,

but

outsiders hostile to

the Jesus movement?23

ecently

David

Frankfurter,

aking up

and

modifying

what

'"

Duff,

Who Rides the

Beast,

48.

2'

For

discussion,

see

my

"The Social

History

of

Satan,

Part

I."

22

Many scholars

have

observed

this

connection. For

a

recent

example,

see

Duff,

Who

Rides

the Beast, 48-60; for more specific suggestions about the practices that may be involved, see

Frankfurter,

Jews or

Not'?"

2-

See,

for

example,

Collins,

Crisis

and

Catharsis: "These

comments

(Rev

2:9 and

3:9)

imply

great hostility

between

at least

some Christians

and Jews of Asia

Minor.

At

the same

time,

the author

of

Revelation,

perhaps along

with

other Christians

also,

claimed the

name 'Jew' for

himself

and

his

fellow

Christians;" 75;

"The

name 'Jews' is

denied

to

the Jewish

community

in

Smyrna;"

85.

See also Aune:

"[Rev

2:9]

implies

that Christians are the true

Israel,"

which Aune characterizes as



ELAINE

H.

PAGELS

497

Ferdinand

C.

Baur

and

other

members of the

Tubingen

School

suggested

over

a

hundred

years

ago,24

has

argued

that

these,

like

the

other

insiders

John

censures,

are

predominantly

Gentile

followers

of Jesus who

anger

John

by claiming

Israel's

legacy while neglectingreligious practicesincumbentupondevoutJews.25Paul

Duff,

while

rightly

rejecting

often restated

tropes

about

Jewish

persecution

of

Christians,

which

are

based

on anachronistic

assumptions,

recently

has

offered

instead

a

detailed

textual

analysis

for

taking

these as Jewish

outsiders.26

How

we

assess their

views

has much

to

do with how

we envision

the

first

century

groups

John has

in mind.

During past

decades,

most commentators

have

concluded,

with

Aune,

Schiissler

Fiorenza,

and

Collins,

to mention

a

few,

that

when

speaking

of

"those who

say they

are Jews

and are

not,"

John is

drawing

a

line

between

himself

and his

fellow believers on the one

hand

and

non-Christian

Jews

in

Smyrna

and

Philadelphia

on the other.

Many

take

this as

indicating

"the

parting

of the

ways;"

most have

sharedthe

assumption,

restated

by

Paul

Duff

in

his

book,

that

"Judaism

and

Christianity

would

probably

have been

separatedby

this

time."27

David

Aune

speaks

for

many,

too,

when he

characterizes

John

as

a

"Jewish-Christian

rophet

who

had moved from Judaism

to

Christianity

at

some

point

in his

career.""28

oth

Aune and

Collins

have

expressed

the

widely

shared

view

thatJohn

"denies

the term

Jew

to actualJews of

the local

synagogues,"

most

likely

because

they

participated

n

hostile acts

against

Christians.

Both

conclude

thatJohn,

consequently,

deniesthemthename

"Jews,"

becausehe holdsthat"fol-

lowers

of Jesus

are

.

..

the

true

Jews,"

which

Aune characterizes

s "a

widespread

Christian iew."29

une's

view of

John'sevolution from

"Jew" o

"Christian"

ives

rise to

his

theory

of

two

editions

of

the

Apocalypse

that account

for what

Aune

interprets

as

the

author's

psychological

and

theological

"development,"

ne

that

conveniently

recapitulates

what

Christians

ypically

have seen

as a

progression

from

Judaism

o

Christianity.30

Yet

this

kind

of

interpretation

projects

onto John's

autobiography,

as

onto

the firstcenturyAsian groupshe addresses,whatChristians n latergenerations

came

to see

as

the

course of

salvation

history.

But when we

step

back

from

this

"a

widespread

Christian

view"-as

evidence for

which

he cites

passages

from

Pauline and

Petrine

letters,

along

with

the

gospel

of John. Revelation

1-5,

175.

24

See

Ferdinand

C.

Baur,

Vorlesungen

iber

neutestamentliche

Theologie (Leipzig:

Fues,

1864)

207-30;

Gustav

Volkmar,

Commentar

zur

Offenbarung

Johannes

(Ziirich:

Drell,

1862)

80-85.

25

Frankfurter,

Jews

or Not?"

403-12.

26

,"'The

Synagogue

of

Satan':

Crisis

Mongering

and

the

Apocalypse

of

John,"

unpublished

paper

used

by

the

author's

permission,

just

now

published

in The

Reality

of

Revelation

(ed.

David

L.Barr).

27

Duff,

Who

Rides the

Beast,

52;

on

the

supposed

"parting

of the

ways"

between

Jews

and

Christians,

see,

for

example,

Collins.

Crisis

and

Catharsis.

84-87.

2'

Aune,

Revelation

1-5. cxxi.

29

For

reference,

see

above,

n.

23.

3

Aune,

Revelation

1-5,

cxx-cxxxiv. For a

morecurrent

and

much

more nuancedcritical

discus-

sion,

see

Frankfurter,

Jews

or Not?"

and Cohen. "Judaismwithout

Circumcision."



498

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

interpretation

nd

attempt

to read what

John

says

in

the context of first

century

history

before

the

invention of

"Christianity,"

o to

speak

we can

see that what

John

writes does not

support

this

view.

Instead,

as

Aune

acknowledges,

"one of

the strikingfeatures of Revelation is the virtualabsence of the typical features

of the

polemic

between Jews

and

Christians

.. and an absence of

the threatof

Judaising.""'

But

Aune somehow takes

this as

evidence

that the

prophet

himself

stands

firmly

within the "Christian"

amp-and goes

so

far as to

conclude that

the absence of

warnings against "Judaising"

ndicates that the seer

"espoused

a

'Pauline'

type

of

inclusivism."32

In this

paper,

I

tend

to

agree

with-and

extend-the

views

of those whose

research

has

led to

a

very

different

conclusion:

that

far from

"espousing

a kind

of

'Pauline'

nclusivism,"

John

here

again

excoriates the

groups

thatdo-

groups

that

apparently

onsist

largely

of Gentile converts who

follow Pauline

and

neo-Pauline

teaching.

Especially during

the

past

ten

years, many

of

us have

recognized

thatthe

traditional iscussion

often

has

turned

upon

anachronistic se

of

the

terms"Jew"and

"Christian."

or

if, indeed,

John

knows

the term

"Christian,"

e never

uses

it- and

certainly

never

applies

it to

himself

or those of

whom

he

approves--apparently

because,

as

Philippa

Townsend

has

persuasively

has

shown,

the

term,

adapted

rom

a

self-designation

current

among

groups

of Paul's

Gentile converts

who followed

Paul's lead

and

called

themselves

o6t

o6

Xptoroi-,

probably

was

coined

by

Roman

magistrates o referin particularo Gentileconverts."3While we can only sketch

her

argument

here,

we

note that

the

authorof

Luke-Acts associates the firstuse of

the term with

Paul

and

Barnabas's

mission to

Gentiles

in

Antioch

(Acts

1

1:26)

and

that

governor Pliny

also uses

it

apparently

o

designate

Gentiles who have made

themselves

conspicuous by joining

those

who

"pray

o Jesus

as a

God."34

Perhaps

it

is

no

accident that

Ignatius,

himself

a

Syrian

convert

writing

perhaps

ten

years

after John

(depending

on how we

date

his

writing)

to believers

in

several

of

the

same

Asian

towns,

is

the

first,

so

far as we

know,

to

aggressively identify

himself

and

his

fellow believers

as "Christians" ver

against

what he

sees

as

the adherents

of

an inferiorand obsolete

"Judaism."

Furthermore,

while

we have

no

indication that

John

thinks of

himself as a

"Christian,"

we have noted

that

he

strongly

identifies himself

in

positive

terms

as

a

Jew,

specifically

as one whose concern

with

the holiness and

purity

of God's

people

impels

him

to advocate

certain

practices

and

abominateothers.

Intriguingly,

within about a

generation

of

his

writing,

some of

John's

earliest

commentators

assumed

that

those whom John attacks

largely

consist

of Gentile

converts;

thus

Irenaeus

and

later

Hippolytus, ollowing

his

lead)

associates those whom the seer

31

Ibid,

165.

32

Ibid.

31

Philippa

Townsend,

"Who Were

the Christianioi?"

Paper

submitted to

Princeton

Seminar,

2004;

forthcoming publication;

used

by

author's

permission.

34 Pliny,

Letter

to

Trajan.



ELAINE H.

PAGELS

499

calls

"Nicolitains"

with

the

figure

of

Nicolaus,

described

n the book

of Acts

as

a

Gentile

proselyte

from

Syria.35

But

were

they

wrong?

Paul Duff

recently

has

argued

that the

structure

of

the

lettersto SmyrnaandPhiladelphia,whichare,in his words,"strongholds f John's

supporters,"

hows that

they

lack

the

structure

ommon to

John's

correspondence

to insiders.

The

latter,

Duff

says,

...

includeboth

a

call

for

repentance

aimed

at some

or

all of the

church

members)

nda

threat

rom

he risen

Jesus

directed

gainst

he

recipients

f

the

letter)

f that

repentance

oes

notoccur.

The atter

et,

on theother

hand,

includes

either

f

these

elements.36

Duff

makes some

incisive

points

about

style.

Yet an

addressee

of either

of

these

letterscould hardlyavoid hearing"Jesus"'bitterdenunciationof "Satan'ssyna-

gogue"

as a

serious

warning.

Who

among

the

group

John

denounces

could

miss

his

threat hat

when the

Son

of Man comes

back--very

soon -he

will

put

such

wrongdoers

n

their

place, humiliating

hem so

that

they

will have to

"bow down"

before God's

own

people?

If,

on the

other

hand,

John's

Jesus here

addresses

Gentile

converts,

the

punish-

ment

Jesus

threatens

would

precisely

fit the

crime

against

Jews

of

which

such

converts

apparently

were often

guilty.

Paul

himself,

writing forty

years

before

John,admits hathehadfoundsuch attitudeswidespreadamonghis own followers,

and

he

repeatedly

chastises

them

for

"boasting"

f

their

superiority

o

"Israelites."

Yet

Paul

acknowledges

that

many

Gentile

converts

have

taken

his

own words as

encouragement

o think

of

themselves

as

being, spiritually

peaking,

he real

Jews.

Many

could have taken

that

to

be

his

meaning

when,

for

example,

in his

letterto

the

Romans

he

speaks

of

who

the

"real

Jews"

are:

Forhe

is

not

a

Jew,

who

s

one

externally,

or

s circumcision

hat s

external

in

the

flesh;

buta

person

s

a Jew who

is one

inwardly,

nd

circumcision

s

in the

heart,piritual,ot iteral.Rom2:28-29)

In

the same

letter,

of

course,

Paul

goes

on

to

say

that

he

grieves

continually

for

"my

kinsmen

according

o

the

flesh,

who

are

Israelites,"

ince,

as

he

explains,

"not

all who

are

from

Israel are

Israel;

not

all

who

are the

seed

of

Abrahamare

his

children,"

for

"it

is

not

the childrenof

the

flesh

who

are the

children

of

God,

but the childrenof the

promise"

9:1-8).

In his letter

to the

Galatians,

he

assures

Gentile

convertsthere

that

"if

you belong

to

Christ,

you

are

Abraham's

eed,

heirs

according

to

the

promise,"

childrenof

Sarah,

"born

according

to the

spirit;"

hus,

he admonisheshis hearers,"you are childrenof the promise, like Isaac"(Gal

3:1-4:28).

Concluding

this

letter,

Paul

proclaims

the

blessing

of

peace

upon

all

who

belong,

he

says,

to "the

Israel

of

God"

(6:16).

Finally,

when

Paul

writes

to

35

Irenaeus,

Against

Heresies

1.26.3;

3.10.7.

36

Duff,

"'The

Synagogue

of

Satan.'"

11.



500

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

converts

in

Corinth,

he

compares

their

experience

favorably

to that of

"Israel

according

to

the

flesh"

(1

Cor

10:

18).37

Paul's

letters,

along

with

the

various

supercessionist

views

expressed

in

such

writingsas the letterto theHebrewsand thegospel of John,show how widespread

such

views

had

become,

even

around the end of the

first

century.

We need

not,

then,

indulge

in

elaborate

speculation,

as

scholars

often

have,

about what

these

"would-be

Jews" had done to

anger

John. For while

neglecting

the

very practices

that John

believes

keep

God's

people

holy-observing

the

commandments

and

strictly

maintainingpurity-these

Gentile converts

dare

not

only

to

"say they

are

Jews"

when

they

are

not,

but

even to boast of their

superiority.

f

they

have,

in-

deed,

"blasphemed"

y

imagining

thatGod

no

longer

loves his

people,

no

wonder

the

prophet ongs

for the

day

when Jesus

will

come to

punish

them

in

a

way

that

perfectly

fits their crime:

I

will make

hose

of the

synagogue

f

Satan,

who

say

they

are

Jews

andare

not,

but are

lying-I

will make them

come and bow

down before

your

feet,

and

they

will

learn that

I

have loved

you.

This

reading

tends to

support

Frankfurter's

bservation

that:

scholars who have cast John

of

Patmos

as a

Christian,

as

opposed

to a

Jew,

distorthis text and obscure

a

properunderstanding

f his

relationship

o Jews

who were not devoted to Jesus."Christian"would implythathis Jesusdevo-

tion somehow

displaces

or

preempts

his

Jewishness.3x

While

we

may

not be able to

solve

entirely

the

problem

of whom

John

addresses

in Rev

2:9 and

3:9,

for our

present

purpose,

we need

not do so. In

any

case,

Frank-

furter

makes a

perceptive point

when he

says

that

for

observantJewish

followers

of

Jesus

like

John,

"the term

'Christian,'

of

course,

is

the least useful

label,

either

for

denoting separation

rom Jews as a

taxonomic

category,

or

for

denoting

ancient

religious

self-definition."39

In regard to John of Patmos, we agree. Yet this comment raises another ques-

tion

noted earlier:

when,

and

for

whom,

did

"Christian"

become

not

the

least

but

the most

useful

label,

even

a

necessary

one? This

question

points

us toward

one

obvious source: the

famous

letters written about

a

decade after John

wrote

Revela-

tion

by Ignatius, bishop

of

Antioch. It is hard to know

what

to make of the

famous

statement we noted from the

book of Acts that

"the

disciples

were

called

Christians

first

in Antioch." Yet we

cannot

help noting

that

some

twenty

or

thirty years

after

Luke

wrote these

words,

Ignatius,

who

calls

himself

"bishop

of

Antioch,"

is

the

.7

See the incisivediscussion

by

Daniel

Boyarin

n

Carnal

srael:

Reading

ex

in

Talmudic

ul-

ture

Berkeley:

University

f

California

ress,

1993);

ndnote

he

"politically

orrected"

ranslation

now

found

n

the NRSV ranslation

f this

passage.

See also the

important

iscussion

by

Schiissler

Fiorenza,

TheBook

of

Revelation,

14-34.

' "Jews or Not?" 408.

3,

Ibid.



ELAINE H. PAGELS 501

first,

so far

as

we

know,

not

only

to insist

on

calling

himself

"Christian,"

ut

also

to

define

what

he calls

"Christianity"

o

separate

his

own

stand

from

what

he calls

"Judaism."

At

the same

time,

Ignatius

nsists

on

separating

himself

and his fellow

"Christians"rom Jesus followers who, like John,both apparentlyare Jews and

proudly

claim

the

name.

Like

John,

of

course,

Ignatius

wrote

seven

extant

letters

to

groups

of Jesus

followers

in

Asia

Minor,

ncluding groups

in three

of the same

Asian

towns

thatJohn

had

addressed,

directing

hem to

those

whom

he,

of

course,

does

call

Christians-and,

as noted

above,

the term

as

he

uses

it

specifically

de-

notes

Gentile

converts.

John and

Ignatius:

Early Diversity

Among

Followers

of

Jesus

Let uscompare, hen,therhetorical trategiesof Johnof PatmosandIgnatiusof An-

tioch

as each of

these

two

intense,

passionate

polemicists

attempts

o circumscribe

the

boundary

of

"God's

people"

against

"others"

who,

each

charges,

falsely

claim

a

place

within

that

magic

circle.

Of course

we

need not

assume

that the

two were

in

direct

communication,

r

even that

Ignatius

knew of

John's

writing,separated

s

they

were

by

over a

decade

and

by

the

distance

between

Syria

and

the

regional

owns

near

Ephesus

in

Asia.

Yet Christine

Trevett inds

in

Ignatius's

writing

evidence to

show

not

only

thathe

was

familiarwith John's

writing,

but

thathe

intendedcertain

passagesof his own lettersto Jesus' followers in Philadelphia o challenge

some

of John's

claims and

teachings."

And while

keeping

in

mind that

the evidence is

too

dense

and

complex

to allow

us to characterize

heir

respective

standpoints

as if

they

were

simply

diametric

opposites--for

we

acknowledge,

indeed,

that

various

groups

of

Jesus'

followers

coexisted,

and sometimes

competed,

in Asia

Minor at

the

turn

of

the

first

century

the

contrasts

are

intriguing.

In

the

first

place,

while

Ignatius

seems to

be

responding

to

similar

issues,

his

perception

of

the

icicKkrllat

e

addresses

differs

sharply

rom

John's.

As we

noted,

John

apparently

dentifies himself not

only

as

a

prophet

but

also

as

a

priest

who

stands

among

a

"kingdom

of

priests,"

perhaps

ntending

o characterizehe whole

community

of

"holy

ones"

(or,

at

least,

the men

among

them)

as,

in

effect,

a

group

of

priests-

words

that,

as

noted

above,

echo

Exod

19:6,

n

which

the

Lord

addresses

the

Israelites

through

Moses,

saying,

"You shall

be for

me

a

kingdom

of

priests"

4

Christine

Trevett,

Montanism: Gender,

Authority,

and

the

New

Prophecy

(Cambridge:

Cam-

bridgeUniversity

ress,

995);

Apocalypse,

gnatius,

Montanism:

eeking

he

Seeds,"

VC

43

(1989)

313-38. See

also

Henning

Paulson.

tudien

Zur

Theologie

es

Ignatius

ion

Antiochien

(G6ttingen:

Vandenhoeck Ruprecht,978);WilliamR.Schoedel.gnatius fAntiochPhiladelphia:ortress,

1985).

On

Ignatius's

iew of

apostles,

ee

also Charles

E.

Hill.

"Ignatius

nd

he

Apostolate:

he

Witness f

Ignatius

o

the

Emergence

f

Christian

cripture,"

n

Studia

Patristica:

aperspresented

at the

Thirteenth

nternational

Conference

on

Patristic Studies

held

in

Oxford,

1999

(ed.

Maurice F.

Miles

andEdward .

Yarnold;

tPatr

6:

Leuven:

eeters,

001)

226-48.

Hill

observes,

or

example,

that

Ignatius's

letters

"place

the

apostles

beyond

the

merely exemplary.

The

apostles

are

a

definite

and

closed

group

which

participates

n

an

astonishing

triumvirate

with

Jesus Christ

and

the

Father

representing

divine

authority"

233).



502 HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

(n•.

r•.

,-n ~r•i).

John envisions each group of saints standing

under the

leadership

of

a

protectingangel,

to

whom is

entrusted

divine revelation

mediated

throughprophets

ike John. But

when it

comes to human

eaders,

John

recognizes

above all prophetslike himself. Despite his elaborately phrasedmodesty about

his

own

prophetic

role,

the

prayer

of

the

twenty

four

elders

in

heaven

indicates

that he

regards

he

prophets

as

leaders of the

"holy

ones,"

that

is,

membersof

the

congregations hey

address

2:20;

10:7; 16:6;8:24;

22:6;

22:9).

Furthermore,

s

we

have

seen,

John

reserves

his

bitterest nvective for

the

two

prophets

he

denounces

as

false-perhaps,

as

we have

seen,

because the

practical

teaching

of

both these

"false

prophets"

choes that of

Paul,

and

perhaps

because one

is

female.41

John

regards

apostles quite

differently

from

Paul--and,

as

we

shall

see,

very

differently

from

Ignatius,

who

takes

Paul as

the

primary

model for his

own

life.

Occasionally

John mentions

apostles

with

some

respect-but

only

those

who are

dead and

safely

enshrined

n

past

tradition.Thus

John

envisions

apostles

in

heaven,

praising

God's

judgment along

with the saints and

prophets

who are

already

there.

But when he

designates specific

apostles,

he

mentions

only

those he

calls

"the

twelve

apostles"

(21:14)

whom

Jesus

chose,

whose

names he envisions

inscribed

upon

the

foundationsof the

twelve

gates

of the

heavenly

Jerusalem.

Yet

among

his

contemporaries,

ohn seems to

regard

"apostles"

only

with

sus-

picion.

Thus

the Jesus he channels

opens

his first

addressto the

Ephesians

praising

thosewho, inhis words,"do not tolerateevildoers,"whichmeans,heexplains,that

"you

have

tested those who call

themselves

apostles,

but

are

not,

and

you

found

them to be

false"

(2:2).

Did

John

have

in

mind,

among

others,

the

most

famous

self-professed

apostle,

Paul--one

whom John never

mentions

(if,

indeed,

he knew

of

him)

but

whom others

among

his

near

contemporaries

n Asia

called

simply

"the

great

apostle"''

and revered

even

above

"the

twelve?" Paul himself

says,

of

course,

that

his

missionary

work

was

dogged by

charges

that he

falsely

claimed to

be an

apostle.

Note, too,

that

when Paul himself

enumerates

those

divinely gifted

for

leadershipamong

the

churches,he ranksapostlesandprophets nreverseorder

from

John:

"God has

appointed

in

the churches

first

apostles,

second

prophets,

third

teachers"

1

Corinthians

12:28).

Paul's own

letters

indicate,

of

course,

that

"apostles"

were

prevalent

among

his

groups,

and

Ignatius,

some

sixty years

later,

acknowledges

among

Pauline

groups

not

only "apostles,"

but also

bishops, pres-

byters,

and

deacons.

Not

surprisingly,

hen,

Ignatius

envisions

apostles,

not

prophets,

standing

as

the

primary

eaders of

his

churches. Thus

Ignatius

gives

advice to the

groups

he

~'

Tina Pippin, on the basis of her reading of certain passages in Revelation, claims that John

regards only

males as members of

God's

holy community;

see "The

Heroine

and

the

Whore: Fan-

tasy

and the

Female

in

the

Apocalypse

of

John,"

in

Semeia

60

(1992)

67-82. While

I

do not find

her

reading persuasive,

I tend to take

John's reference of

the

holy

ones as a

"kingdom

of

priests"

as

indicating

that,

as

often

happens,

men form the essential

and

holy

center-and in

all

likelihood,

the

only legitimate

leaders-of God's

people.

42

See,

for

example,

"The

Hypostasis

of the

Archons,"

in

NHL

87:4-5.



ELAINE H. PAGELS 503

addresses

that

is

the

reverse of John's: Test

prophets,

not

apostles.

Although

he

does

not

deny

that there

are

some

prophets

among

Jesus'

followers-as

we

shall

see,

his Letter

to the

Philadelphians

shows

that

he knows

how

highly

many

re-

vered them, perhapsespecially in Asia Minor-Ignatius apparently ollows the

view

expressed

in

Luke-Acts

that

bishops,

understood

as

latter-day

agents

of

the

apostles,

now hold the

essential

leadership

role

in the churches

(Acts

20:17-38).

Ignatius,

of

course,

takes the

suggestions

made

in Acts

20

to a far

more

radical

and

systematic

conclusion.

Not

only

does

he

identify

himself

as

the

sole authentic

leader

of

Jesus'

followers in

Antioch,

but

he insists

that

every

genuine

iKK&#hotia

must

have a

bishop,

like

himself,

as leader.

"Without he

bishop,

nothing

can

be

called an

FnKKXI•ic'a"3

fighting

words,

one would

imagine,

when

resonating among

groups

whose

members

agreed

with

John

that their

assembly

was

divinelyguided

by

an

angel

who

gives

divine

direction

hroughprophets.

And

should

such

prophets

have

taught,

as

John

had,

that

all members

of God's

people

are

priests,

Ignatius

apparently

elt

compelled

to

set

them

straight.

For when

Ignatius

writes

to

the

iKKX-qoia

at

Philadelphia,

where

only

ten

to

fifteen

years

before,

John

of Patmoshad

written

o

"a

stronghold

of

(his)

loyalists"

who

lived

there,

Ignatius

at firsttreads

carefully.

When

he

takes

up

the

question

of

the

roles

of

priest

and

prophet,

ar from

metaphorically

haracterizing

ll of God's

people

as

priests,

as John

had,

Ignatius

defines

"priests"

as church

functionaries

specifically

authorizedand

assigned

to the second rankof

leadership,

below the

bishop

and

above the

deacons. Thus

he defines

them

as three

formal

ranks

be-

longing

to

the

K•Xi?pog,

"clergy,"

by

contrast

with

what

he calls

the

"laity"

(Xa6g;,

the

"people").4

After

admonishing

Jesus'

followers

to

obey

the

bishops,

priests,

and

deacons,

Ignatius

adds

what

sounds

like

a

pointed

concession:

"and

also let

us

love the

prophets,

because

they

anticipated

he

gospel

in their

preaching,

and

hoped

for and

awaited

him,

and were

saved

by

believing

on

him."'5

What John

of

Patmos

had

implied

about

apostles

that

the

only

authoritative

nes

are

people

of

the past-Ignatius now impliesaboutprophets: hose who aregenuineare,above

all,

the

classical

prophets,

ong

dead

and sanctioned

by

tradition.

Yet

Ignatius

seems to have

known

that

many

prophets

had been

active

in Phila-

delphia, including

the

four

daughters

of the

apostle

Philip,

all

of

them

prophets,

and

the famous woman

prophet

Ammia,

who

was active

there

from

around

John's

time to his

own.

Apparently

because

he

recognizes

Philadelphia's

trong

tradition

of

prophetic

teaching,

when

he

writes

to believers

there,

Ignatius

refrains

from

challenging

their

authority.

nstead,

far from

deprecating

present

day prophets,

Ignatiusclaims thatwhile in Philadelphiahe himself proved

that

he, too,

could

43

Trall.3.1.

For

a

fascinating

ecent

discussion

f

Ignatius's

iew

of

episcopacy

nd

church

order,

see

Harry

O.

Mauer,

"The

Politics

of the Silent

Bishop:

Silence

and

Persuasion

in

Ignatius

of

Antioch"

in

JTS

(2004)

503-19.

4

Eph.

1.3; 2.2;

Trail.

1.1;

3.1;

81:

Mag.

2.1.

*

Phld. 5.2.



504 HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

speak

as

a

prophet.

Later,

writing

to

believers

there,

he remindsthem that

while

he

was

visiting

Philadelphia,

he had

publicly

demonstrated

his own

prophetic

creden-

tials: "I cried

out

when

I was with

you;

I cried

out

in a

loud

voice-it

was

God's

voice " But whatIgnatiussays he spoke in prophecyturnedout to be antithetical

to

a

continuing

and active

prophetic

radition.

nstead,

t was

what he

preached

all

the time:

"Pay

attentionto the

bishop,

and to

the

presbytery,

and to the

deacons "

Ignatius

admitsthat

some

who heardhim

speak

this

"prophecy" bjected,

charging

thatrather han

speaking

by

the

spirit's

nspiration,

he

bishop

had said these

things

because

he

had been

tipped

off about

dissenters

among

the

Philadelphia

group.

But

Ignatius vehemently

denies the

charge,

and swears

by

God that

I

did not earn

his

from

any

human

ource.

t was

the

spirit

hat

kept

on

pro-

claiming

n these

words:

"Do

nothing part

rom he

bishop .. prizeunity;

flee

schism;

mitate

esusChrist."46

Despite

his claim to

speak

as

a

prophet-and

the

unconventional

message

he

delivered

in

that

role-Ignatius

rejects

entirely

the

premise

central

to

the teach-

ing

of John

of

Patmos,

as well

as

many

other

prophets

and

their admirers

n

Asia

among

Jesus'

followers,

including

the authorsof Didache and

the

Gospel

of Mat-

thew. For each of these

authors,

n

various

ways,

takes care to

demonstrate hat his

"gospel"-the message

of

Jesus

Christ,

as each

presents

it-is

grounded

n

clas-

sical

prophecy.

John's own

oracles,

as

Prigeantobserves,

are

"literally

saturated"

with allusions

to

the

oracles of

Isaiah,

Ezekiel, Daniel,

and

Zachariah,47

s

is

the

Gospel

of Matthewand its

predecessors.

But

Ignatius,

on

the

contrary,

hardly

ever

refers

to

what

he

calls

the

apXaila-that

is,

to

texts from the

Hebrew

Bible. On the

contrary,

he insists that what is

primary

s the

gospel

message

and not the

Hebrew

Scriptures.

Knowing

his

own

standto be

controversial,

he describes the

opposing

arguments

o those

in

Philadelphia:

I

have heard ome

people

say,

"If I

don't find it

in

the

&pxaia,

I

do not

believe n the

gospel."

AndwhenI

say

to

them,

"but

t

is

written,"

hey

re-

torted,

"thats

precisely

he issue."But he??

me,

the

dapxaia

re

Jesus,

and

the inviolable

UpXcrat

re

his

cross,

his

death,

his

resurrection,

nd he

faith

that

s

through

im."4

Insteadof

founding

his faith

upon

the testimonies of the

Hebrew

Bible,

as

oth-

ers

do,

Ignatius

declares that he founds

it

upon

what Paul

says

are

the

elementary

themes of his

preaching

("ippvyLa),

hat

is,

"Jesus

Christ,

and him

crucified"

(1

46

Ibid.,

7.1-2.

47

PierrePrigent, L'Apocalypsede Saint Jean (2d ed.; Geneva: Laboret Fides, 1988) 41.

41

Phld.

8.2.

On

the term

i~uayyihXtov,

ote the incisive discussion

by

Helmut

Koester,

Ancient

Christian

Gospels

(Philadelphia:

Trinity

Press

International,

1990)

7-8;

for

another

view,

see J.

P.

Meier,

"Matthew

and

Ignatius:

A

Response

to

William

R.

Schoedel,"

in

Social

History of

the

Matthean

Community

ed.

David L.

Balch;

Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1991)

178-86.

Note, too,

C.

E.

Hill's

discussion of

Ignatius

on the

authority

of

written

sources,

in

"Ignatius

and the

Apostolate,"

247-48.



ELAINE

H.

PAGELS

505

Corinthians

2:2)--that

is,

"his

cross,

his

death,

his resurrection."

his,

apparently,

is

what

he

means

when

he

repeatedly

nsists that

Jesus'

followers

are to

"eat

only

Christian

ood."

(Are

we

to

infer, here,

the

eucharist,

the

"gospel"

preaching,

or

both?)The bishopcontinues,"I pleadwith you, do nothingin strife,butaccord-

ing

to

Christ's

teaching."

What this

means,

and what

matters

most,

is to

focus

on

Christianity,

not

Judaism:"if

anyone

interprets

Judaismto

you,

do

not

listen

to

him."49

As

we

might

expect

of

one

who

helped

coin and

contrast

hese two

terms,

Ignatius

does

not

claim

for

himself

or

for

those

with whom

he

identifiesthe term

"Jew."

Although

he

regards

himself

as

a

participant

n Israel

the "newIsrael"

he

insists on

the

clear

superiority

f

"Christianity." gainstany

like

John,

who is

proud

to

understand

himself a

Jew,

Ignatius

declares that "whoever

s

not

called

by

this

name

[Christian]

s not

of

God "

As Townsend

pointsout, Ignatiusargues

for

a

complete

reversal

of the

historical

relationship

between

Jewish

traditionand

the

emerging

sects

of

Jesus'

followers. "Not

only

must the

Christianoi

no

longer

orbit

'Judaism,'

Jews

who

believe in

Jesus must now

adopt

'Christianism';

hey

must

become

Christians.""'

hus

Ignatius

radically

hifts

the

boundaries.Unlike John

of

Patmos

or

Matthew,

who

sought

to demonstrate he truthabout

Jesus Christ

from

the

Hebrew

Bible,

Ignatius

goes

so

far

as

to

accuse

those

who introduce

'Iou8a•cto6

of

introducing

a'cpeatg.

Yet

even

having

repudiated

"Judaism,"

gnatius

goes

on

to

claim

that he

and

his fellow Christianshave taken over the Jews'

identity

as God's

people.

Thus

this

Syrian

convert

can

enjoin

Jesus'

followers to

"give

no occasion

to the

iOvEotv

[that

is,

to

the

'nations,'

to

Gentiles]"

to slander

God's

people.

Thus

he

seems

to

assume

that

God

has

disenfranchised

he

Jews,

and thathe

and his fellow

Gentiles

have

become,

in

effect,

Israel.

Let

us

state,

then,

our

conclusion.

First,

we

agree

with

the

perspective

of

many

colleagues

who

see

John,

hat

fervently

Jewish

follower

of

Jesus,

attacking,

as

rival

prophets

and

teachers,

followers

of Jesus

in

Asia

who

follow

Pauline

teaching.

Second, in light of recentdiscussion of usages of the term

Xptoztavoi,

we agree

that the

latter

probably

consist

primarily

of Gentile

converts.

Third,

we

want

to

indicate

how

this

picture

its

into currentdiscussionof

the

emergence

of

boundaries

between

"Jews"

and

"Christians,"

nd,

n

Ignatius's

words,

between

"Judaism"

nd

"Christianity."

inally,

we

want

o

show

how

John,

by

conflating

wo

distinct

biblical

traditions

characterizing

vil

powers

one

involving

"thatold

serpent,"

he

chaos

dragon

and

his

beastly

allies,

the

other"thesatan"

andhis

angelic

armies

intends

to

"out"

hose

"insiders"

whom he

detests

as,

in

effect,

secretallies

of

the

"outside"

enemies

who

threatenandpersecuteGod'speople.

49

Loc. cit. 6.1

the social history of satan, part three.pdf

Documents