Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Princeton Universit'
articlewhichPaulDuffkindlylent
notavailablewhileI waswriting(exceptfora thenunpublished
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
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL
488
REVIEW
"in the pangs of giving birth"(26:17), until "thatday" when the Lord will come
"to punishthe inhabitantsof the earth"(26:21), and "withhis cruel, and great, and
strong sword will punish Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting
serpent,and he will kill the dragonthat is in the sea" (27:1).
Abruptly,however,Johnbreakswith traditionto reveala new - composite- image of evil. Having picturedLeviathanmenacing Israelas scene one of the cosmic
drama,John suddenly shifts the expected course of the narrativeto scene two, the
messiah's birth,which signals the outbreakof "warin heaven:"
Michaelandhis angels[were]fightingagainstthe dragon.The dragonand
his angelsfoughtback,buttheyweredefeated,andtherewas no longerany
placefor themin heaven(12:7-9).
But, a traditionalistmight object: When was the dragonever up "in heaven"?And
how could the primordialmonsterhave angels as allies? According to a tradition
well known to John, as he had alreadyshown in his own narrative,God's ancient
adversarydwells 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
primordialsea. How, then, could the dragonever have claimed a "place"for himself and his allies in heaven, or stood at the head of an angelic army, making war
against"Michaeland his angels"?Is John simply getting his stories scrambled,or
is he making what is for him a centralpoint of his revelation'?
Yet John boldly combines the Satan traditionof the rebellious angelic commanderwith the Leviathantraditionsinvolving the dragonfrom the abyss in order
to reveal a great secret:thatthe 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 throwndown with him. (12:9)
Scholars long have noted that John is the first to identify the serpent of Eden
with Satan,2and the only authorof any Jewish or Christianliteratureof his time to
speakof "warin heaven."3 While other scholarshave noted these bold innovations
and have tracedthe theological and literarymeans by which he makes them, what
I intendto ask here is for what reasonsJohn does so. What, for example, do these
innovationshave to do with social history-how John envisions holy war here on
earth?What urgentand pressing concerns impel John to make them?
This article thus continues researchpublished in two previous articles ("The
Social Historyof Satan,"parts1 and2),' andmakesthreesuggestions,here sketched
2
See, for example, Forsyth, The Old Enemy, 199-257, and David Aune, Revelation 6-16 (WBC
ELAINE H. PAGELS
489
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 commentatorshave assumed that this polemic
is not about insiders at 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 groupsof Jesus' followers at the end of
the firstcenturyand, in particular,what we assume aboutboundariesbetween Jews
and Christians.For the purposeof this article,I agree with those who point out that
John, like other Jews devoted to Jesus Christ among his first-centuryfollowers,
sees himself and his fellows not as Christiansbut as Jews (Paul, of course, called
himself an "Israelite")-the "holy ones" who await the returnof God's messiah.
If John does know the term "Christian,"he does not use it, much less apply it to
himself, perhapsbecause,as we shall see, those who coined andused the termin late
-first- and early-second-centuryAsia most often applied it to Gentile converts.
Third, I suggest that we may find some help understandingJohn's specific
concerns with "intimateenemies" when we compare his vision of these Asian
assemblies with that of Ignatius,who wrote lettersto groups in some of the same
towns John had addressedabout ten years later.This Syrian believer who called
himself "bishopof Antioch,"a devoted follower of Paul, was the first, so far as we
know, to insist thatonly those who are called "Christians"truly belong to God. In
contrastto John, Ignatiusis the firstto demandthatJesus' followers preach, in his
words, only "Christianity- not Judaism."
To addressthese issues, we begin by asking: what do John's characterizations
of evil powers show aboutthe way John sees himself and his fellow saints in relation to specific "enemies on the ground"-both inside and outside of his group'?
What do his propheticvisions 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, but as a map on which they plotted the
disruptionsandtensionsof the worldaroundthem." As is well known,Johnfollows
traditionwhen he identifies Israel's "outside"enemies, whom he sees embodied
in the Roman forces, as "the greatdragon"and his two allies, the "beastfrom the
sea" and the "beast from the land."
To appreciatethe impact of John's revisionism, let us briefly recall how the
gospel writerscharacterizethe cosmic war they see manifest in Jesus' execution.
As noted above, in two previous articles I have shown that the New Testament
evangelistschose to deal with the questionof who embodiedevil forces by drawing
upon and amplifying, in varyingways, a handfulof biblical stories thatcame 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
in Ignatius," HTR 95:4 (2002) 395-415.
and the Holy in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982) 24.
'Circumcision'
XSociety
ELAINE H. PAGELS
491
darkside. Genesis 6, for example, tells how the angelic "sons of God,"seducedby
the beauty of humanwomen, descended to earthwhere they spawnedheroes and
warriors,half angel and half human- whatthe Greekswould call demigods- but
who, later commentatorsdeclared, generated,in turn, demonic powers and evil
spirits.9The famous folktale in Numbers22 tells how the foreign prophetBalaam
found his way blocked on a journey by an angelic figure, whose obstructiveness
hints at his associationwith "thesatan"(note thatthe Hebrew nounthatdescribes
him,1=, suggests his adversarialrole). Johnof Patmosdrawsuponthis same story
to derisively suggest that some insidersfollow the teaching of "Balaam,"a false
prophet whose notorious name suggests that he is a "deceiver of the people."'0
Followersof Jesus laterconnectedthese passageswith othersthattell of an angelic
accuserwho standsbeforethe Lordto accuse humans,a kindof "devil's advocate"
(Zech 3:lf.; Job 1-3), and with Isaiah'saccount(14:7ff) of the luminousheavenly
being called "day star, son of the dawn," who, having defied his commanderin
chief, was cast out of heaven, demoted,and disgraced- a passage thatapparently
inspiredRevelation 12- and,over a thousandandfive hundredyearslater,inspired
Milton's accountof Satan'sfall in Paradise Lost."
In the firstarticlecited above, we notedthatthe Satantraditionsfloweredespecially in Jewish pseudepigraphic sources from c. 165 B.C.E.to 200 C.E.,finding their
492
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
ELAINE H. PAGELS
493
Johnproceedsto tell how the dragon,having unitedin himself all the forces of
evil, now cast out of heaven and raging with fury, "went off to make war"upon
"thosewho keep the commandmentsof God andhold the witness of Jesus"(13:17).
To do so, he takeshis standon the seashoreandmanifestshimself firstas the "beast
rising from the sea," who combines withinone monstrousform the characteristics
that Daniel had ascribed to the four beasts who manifest four foreign empires.
Now, John says, the "beastfrom the sea" wields the dragon'sirresistible"power,
and .., throne,and greatauthority"(13:2).
When Johngoes on to describethe dragon'ssecond manifestation,his innovations areeven moreevident. For Johngoes on to say that"thenI saw anotherbeast
thatrose out of the earth;it had two hornslike a lamb, and it spoke like a dragon"
(13:11).Thusthis formof evil powerbearssome resemblanceto 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--butit speaks "like a
dragon."Whatthis beast does is promotethe authorityof the first,by makingthem
bow down to worship its image and by forcing everyone to bear the markof the
beast.AlthoughJohn,like mostof his contemporaries,does not definitivelyseparate
'" Adela YarbroCollins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia:
to wealthyor
Westminster,
1984),in herinfluential
studysuggeststhatthisimagerefersin particular
noble Asians who supportedthe imperialcult: Simon Price, Rituals and Power: TheRomanImperial
Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. 1984) 10lff: LeonardL. Thompson,
The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford University Press. 1990); see
also the fine discussion in Steven J. Friesen. ImnperialCults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading
Revelation Among the Ruins (New York:Oxford University Press. 2001) 25-131.
494
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
militaryand 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,"images, symbols of submission, and its secret identifying number.'4
No wonder,then, thatas John's narrativeproceedsto the final battle-the Word
of God leading his armies into battle against the combined forces of the evil powers-he calls this beast from the land "the false prophet."So, althoughJohn says
thatthe "beastfrom the land"is actually a second manifestationof the dragon,he
wields powers traditionallyassociated with Satan-inverting the powers of God's
messiah, and deceiving people into worshippingthat which is evil. Thus John's
portraitof this multiformdiabolicalusurperis meantto demonstratehow "intimate
enemies"are now secretlycollaboratingwith openly hostile outsiders.Christiansin
latergenerations,sensing these connections, would conflateJohn's accountof this
"beast"and "false prophet"with warningsfound in the Johannineletters against
the coming "antichrist."
Intricateas is John's narrative,what he conveys by conflatingthis powerful imageryspeaks clearly to many readers.One message it communicatesis that,evil as
arethepowersthatrulethe earth,"intimateenemies"areeven moredangerous,since
some of them, like the beastfrom the earth,areactuallyundercoveragents working
for "thedragon."As Paul Duff has shown from a somewhatdifferent perspective,
one of John's primaryconcerns is to unmaskthese intimateenemies."
ELAINE H. PAGELS
495
promotingthe imperialcult." Second, and more ambiguously,Johngoes on to implicatecertaingroupsof Jesus'followers, suggestingthatthese, althoughostensibly
worshippingGod and his Messiah, actuallydeceive people into worshippingthat
which is evil-which means for John that covertly they lend their supportto the
demonic powers that lurkbehind Rome's gods and rulers.
Can we understandwhom John has in mind when he castigates insiders?We
recall that afteropening his "revelation"with a stunningvision of "one like a son
of man,"Johnsays thatthis radiantbeing entrustedhim with messages directedto
"the seven assemblies
of Asia" ( 1:1-11 ). John addresses the members
(iKKh?cGiat)
of these tiny Asian assemblies as "kings and priests of God" paut?0iav irpcit t~o
is "the group that representsJohn's primaryaudience." Who Rides the Beast, 48.
182-84; Price. Rituals and PoweI; 133-48; Friesen, Inperial
'" See Aune, Revelation 1-5.
52A,
Cults and the Revelation of John, 27-32. 107-29.
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL
496
REVIEW
22
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
FerdinandC. Baur and other membersof the Tubingen School suggested over a
hundredyears ago,24has arguedthat these, like the other insiders John censures,
are predominantlyGentile followers of Jesus who angerJohn by claiming Israel's
legacy while neglecting religious practices incumbentupon devout Jews.25Paul
Duff, while rightly rejecting often restated tropes about Jewish persecution of
Christians,which are based on anachronisticassumptions,recently has offered
instead a detailedtextual analysis for taking these as Jewish outsiders.26
How we assess their views has much to do with how we envision the first
centurygroups John has in mind. During past decades, most commentatorshave
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 Smyrnaand Philadelphiaon the other.Many take this as indicating"the
partingof the ways;" most have sharedthe assumption,restatedby Paul Duff in
his book, that "Judaismand Christianitywould probablyhave been separatedby
this time."27 David Aune speaks for many, too, when he characterizesJohn as a
"Jewish-Christianprophetwho had moved from Judaismto Christianityat some
Both Aune and Collins have expressed the widely shared
point in his career.""28
view thatJohn"deniesthe termJew to actualJews of the local synagogues,"most
likely because they participatedin hostile acts against Christians.Both conclude
thatJohn,consequently,denies them the name "Jews,"because he holds that"followers of Jesus are . .. the trueJews," whichAune characterizesas "a widespread
Christianview."29Aune's view of John'sevolutionfrom"Jew"to "Christian"gives
rise to his theory of two editions of the Apocalypse that account for what Aune
interpretsas the author'spsychological and theological "development,"one that
conveniently recapitulateswhat Christianstypically have seen as a progression
from Judaismto Christianity.30
Yet this kind of interpretationprojects onto John's autobiography,as onto
the first centuryAsian groups he addresses, what Christiansin later generations
came to see as the course of salvation history.But when we step back from this
"a widespreadChristianview"-as evidence for which he cites passages from Pauline and Petrine
letters, along with the gospel of John. Revelation 1-5, 175.
24See FerdinandC. Baur, Vorlesungeniiber neutestamentlicheTheologie (Leipzig: Fues, 1864)
207-30; Gustav Volkmar,Commentarzur OffenbarungJohannes (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).
498
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
interpretationand attemptto read what John says in the context of first century
history- before the inventionof "Christianity,"so to speak- we can see thatwhat
John writes does not supportthis view. Instead, as Aune acknowledges, "one of
the striking features of Revelation is the virtual absence 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 prophethimself
stands firmly within the "Christian"camp-and goes so far as to conclude that
the absence of warnings against "Judaising"indicates 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
researchhas led to a very differentconclusion: that far from "espousing a kind of
'Pauline'inclusivism,"Johnhere again excoriatesthe groupsthatdo- groupsthat
apparentlyconsist largelyof Gentile convertswho follow Paulineand neo-Pauline
teaching.Especially duringthe past ten years, many of us have recognized thatthe
traditionaldiscussionoften has turneduponanachronisticuse of the terms"Jew"and
"Christian."For if, indeed,Johnknows the term"Christian,"he never uses it- and
certainly never applies it to himself or those of whom he
approves--apparently
because,as PhilippaTownsendhas persuasivelyhas shown, the
term,adaptedfrom
a self-designationcurrentamong groups of Paul's Gentile converts who followed
Paul's lead and called themselves o6tto6 Xptoroi-, probablywas coined by Roman
magistratesto refer in particularto Gentile converts."3While we can only sketch
her argumenthere, we note thatthe authorof Luke-Acts associates the firstuse of
the termwith Pauland Barnabas'smission to Gentiles in Antioch (Acts 11:26) and
that governor Pliny also uses it apparentlyto designate Gentiles who have made
themselves conspicuous by joining those who "prayto Jesus as a God."34 Perhaps
it is no accident that Ignatius,himself a Syrian convert writing perhapsten 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"over 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 purityof God's
people impels him to advocatecertainpracticesandabominateothers.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 laterHippolytus,following his lead) associates those whom the seer
31Ibid, 165.
32 Ibid.
31 Philippa Townsend, "Who Were the Christianioi?" Paper submitted to Princeton Seminar,
2004; forthcoming publication; used by author's permission.
ELAINE H. PAGELS
499
500
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
While we may not be able to solve entirelythe problemof whom John addresses
in Rev 2:9 and 3:9, for our presentpurpose,we need not do so. In any case, Frankfurtermakes a perceptivepoint when he says that for observantJewish followers
of Jesus like John, "the term 'Christian,'of course, is the least useful label, either
for denotingseparationfromJews as a taxonomiccategory,or for denotingancient
religious self-definition."39
In regard to John of Patmos, we agree. Yet this comment raises another question 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 Revelation 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
Cul.7 See the incisivediscussionby DanielBoyarinin CarnalIsrael:ReadingSex in Talmudic
ture(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1993);andnotethe"politicallycorrected"
translation
nowfoundin the NRSVtranslation
of thispassage.See also the important
discussionby Schiissler
Fiorenza,TheBookof Revelation,114-34.
' "Jews or Not?" 408.
3, Ibid.
ELAINE H. PAGELS
501
first, so far as we know, not only to insist on calling himself "Christian,"but also
to define whathe calls "Christianity"to separatehis own standfrom what he calls
"Judaism."At the same time, Ignatiusinsists on separatinghimself and his fellow
"Christians"from Jesus followers who, like John, both apparentlyare Jews and
proudlyclaim the name. Like John, of course, Ignatiuswrote seven extant letters
to groups of Jesus followers in Asia Minor,includinggroups in threeof the same
Asian towns thatJohnhad addressed,directingthem to those whom he, of course,
does call Christians-and, as noted above, the term as he uses it specifically denotes Gentile converts.
SeekingtheSeeds,"VC43 (1989)
bridgeUniversityPress,1995);"Apocalypse,
Ignatius,Montanism:
313-38. See also HenningPaulson.StudienZurTheologiedes Ignatius ion Antiochien(G6ttingen:
Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht,1978);WilliamR. Schoedel.Ignatiusof Antioch(Philadelphia:
Fortress,
1985).On Ignatius'sview of apostles,see also CharlesE. Hill. "Ignatiusandthe Apostolate:The
inStudiaPatristica:Paperspresented
Witnessof Ignatiusto theEmergence
of Christian
Scripture,"
at the ThirteenthInternationalConference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford,1999 (ed. MauriceF.
MilesandEdwardJ. Yarnold;
StPatr36:Leuven:Peeters,2001)226-48. Hillobserves,forexample,
that Ignatius's letters "place the apostles beyond the merely exemplary. The apostles are a definite
and closed group which participatesin an astonishing triumviratewith Jesus Christ and the Father
representingdivine authority"(233).
502
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
ELAINE H. PAGELS
503
iKKX-qoia
(Xa6g;,
KXi?pog,
the "people").4
After admonishingJesus' 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 anticipatedthe gospel in their preaching,and
hoped for and awaitedhim, and were saved by believing on him."'5WhatJohnof
Patmoshad implied aboutapostles- thatthe only authoritativeones are people of
the past-Ignatius now implies aboutprophets:those who are genuine are, above
all, the classical prophets,long dead and sanctionedby tradition.
Yet Ignatiusseems to have known thatmany prophetshad been active in Philadelphia, including the four daughtersof the apostle Philip, all of them prophets,
and the famous woman prophetAmmia, who was active therefrom aroundJohn's
time to his own. Apparentlybecause he recognizes Philadelphia'sstrongtradition
of propheticteaching, when he writes to believers there, Ignatius refrainsfrom
challenging their authority.Instead, far from deprecatingpresent day prophets,
Ignatius claims that while in Philadelphiahe himself proved that he, too, could
43 Trall.3.1. For a
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
ELAINE H. PAGELS
505
Corinthians
is, "his cross, his death,his resurrection."This, apparently,
2:2)--that
is what he means
when he repeatedlyinsists thatJesus' followers are to "eat only
Christianfood." (Are we to infer, here, the eucharist,the "gospel"preaching,or
both?) The bishop continues, "I plead with you, do nothing in strife, but according to Christ'steaching."What this means, and what mattersmost, is to focus on
Christianity,not Judaism:"if anyone interpretsJudaismto you, do not listen to
him."49As we might expect of one who helped coin and contrastthese two terms,
Ignatiusdoes not claim for himself or for those with whom he identifiesthe term
"Jew."Althoughhe regardshimself as a participantin Israel- the "newIsrael"- he
insistson the clearsuperiorityof "Christianity."
Againstany like John,who is proud
to understandhimself a Jew, Ignatiusdeclares that "whoeveris not called by this
name [Christian]is not of God!" As Townsend points out, Ignatius argues for a
complete reversalof the historicalrelationshipbetween Jewish traditionand the
emergingsects of Jesus' followers. "Not only must the Christianoino longer orbit
'Judaism,'Jews who believe in Jesus must now adopt 'Christianism';they must
become Christians.""'
ThusIgnatiusradicallyshifts the boundaries.UnlikeJohnof
Patmosor Matthew,who sought to demonstratethe truthaboutJesus Christfrom
the HebrewBible, Ignatiusgoes so faras to accuse those who introduce
'Iou8acto6
of introducinga'cpeatg.
Yet even having repudiated"Judaism,"Ignatiusgoes on to claim that he and
his fellow Christianshave taken over the Jews' identity as God's people. Thus
this Syrianconvertcan enjoin Jesus' followers to "give no occasion to the iOvEotv
[that is, to the 'nations,' to Gentiles]"to slanderGod's people. Thus he seems to
assume thatGod has disenfranchisedthe Jews, and thathe and his fellow Gentiles
have become, in effect, Israel.
Let us state, then, our conclusion. First,we agree with the perspectiveof many
colleagues who see John,thatferventlyJewishfollower of Jesus, attacking,as rival
prophets and teachers, followers of Jesus in Asia who follow Pauline teaching.
Second, in light of recent discussion of usages of the term Xptoztavoi, we agree
that the latterprobablyconsist primarilyof Gentile converts. Third, we want to
indicatehow this picturefits into currentdiscussionof the emergenceof boundaries
between "Jews"and"Christians,"and,in Ignatius'swords,between"Judaism"and
"Christianity."
Finally,we wantto show how John,by conflatingtwo distinctbiblical
traditionscharacterizingevil powers-one involving "thatold serpent,"the chaos
dragonandhis beastly allies, the other"thesatan"andhis angelic armies- intends
to "out"those "insiders"whom he detests as, in effect, secretallies of the "outside"
enemies who threatenand persecuteGod's people.
discussion in