jews or not? reconstructing the "other" in rev 2:9 and 3:9

5/27/2018 Jews or Not? Reconstructing the "Other" in Rev 2:9 and 3:9

1/24

Harvard ivinity School

Jews or Not? Reconstructing the "Other" in Rev 2:9 and 3:9Author(s): David FrankfurterSource: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 403-425Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of the Harvard Divinity SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3657415.

Accessed: 27/03/2014 12:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University PressandHarvard Divinity Schoolare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.49.198.5 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:41:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hdshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3657415?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3657415?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hdshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/24

Jews orNot?Reconstructinghe"Other"in Rev 2:9 and3:9*David FrankfurterUniversityof New HampshireJohn of Patmos describes his opponents in both Smyrna and Philadelphia as"those who say that they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan"(Rev 2:9; 3:9). But when the historianof early Christianitytries to give somehistorical dimension to these opponents, there unravels one of the signatureco-nundrums of ancient labelling: are the opponents Jews? Non-Jews? Whichinterpretation s simplest, according to the criterion of Ockham's Razor? Andwhat could these termshave meant for John? Most critically, what termscan weourselves use to designate these parties without resortingto anachronisticdefi-nitions of "Jew"or "Christian"?

In this paperI will identifythese "so-called Jews" not with the Smyman andPhiladelphian ewsoutside he Jesusmovementbutratherwith aconstituencywithintheJesus movementwho wereclaimingthelabel "Jew" n a manner hatJohnfindsillegitimate.Thisconstituency, will argue,embracesPaulineandneo-Paulinepros-elytes to the Jesusmovementwhowerenot, inJohn'seyes (andmanyothers'in thefirstcentury),halakhicallypureenoughto meritthis termin its practical ense.' In

*For criticisms and discussion of this paper in previous forms, and for sharing unpublishedmaterials, I am grateful to Daniel Boyarin, John Collins, Paul Duff, Pamela Eisenbaum, JohnGager, MartinGoodman, MarthaHimmelfarb, John Marshall, Ann Merideth, and Adela YarbroCollins. A version of this paper was presented to the Society of Biblical Literature Section onEarly Jewish/Christian Relations, Annual Meeting, November 20, 2000.'Cf. John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan andChristian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983) 132; and Lloyd Gaston, "Ju-daism of the Uncircumcised in Ignatius and Related Writers," in Separation and Polemic (vol.2 of Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity;ed. Stephen G. Wilson; Waterloo, Ont.:Wilfrid Laurier

HTR 94:4 (2001) 403-425

This content downloaded from 130.49.198.5 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:41:26 PM

All use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/24

404 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

layingout thisargument, will firstdiscussthe traditionaldentificationof the"so-calledJews," ollowingwhich I will discusstheapocalyptic ewishcontextof John'sJesusbelief, the variouscircles and boundariesof conflictthatoccupyJohn in thesevenlettersand hatsuggesta more ntimateenemyin the"so-calledJews,"andtherelationshipbetweenJohn'sopponentsand the broader irst-century onflictsoverGentileproselytesandJewish observanceamongJesusbelievers.2* The Scenarioof the PersecutingJewsAlthoughJohn describes threatsfrom "so-calledJews"in two cities, commenta-torshave focused on Smyrnato explain who theseopponentsmightrepresent.Sowhile in Philadelphia he "so-calledJews"aresimply cursedwith eschatologicalhumiliation "Iwill makethem come and bow downbeforeyourfeet,"3:9), thosein Smyrnaseem to be "slandering" ohn'srecipients.Indeed,he says thathis audi-ence is aboutto suffer, some of them alreadyhavingbeen throwninto prisonbythe devil.

Commentatorshave assembled an elaboratehistorical scenario out of theseobscuresectarianrants.The "synagogueof Satan" s takento be the local Jewishmajority,whomJohnrejectsas Satanicandfalse forseveral reasons:a) they rejectJesus and thusare no longerproper"Jews"accordingto the new Pauline schemeof replacement;b) they hate Christiansas minim-"heretics"--in the post-70 pe-riod of alleged Jewish orthodoxy;c) they compete with Christians for GentileGod-fearers;3 ndd) they have incited,out of competitionandhatred, he Romanauthoritiesto persecutethe Christians.In the wordsof R. H. Charles:

The bitterhostility of the Jews to the Christians s unmistakableromthe context.The Jews were strongat Smyrna,and had maintained npracticetheir position as a distinct people apartfrom the rest of the

University Press, 1986) 42-43. Both Gager and Gaston locate these opponents similarly, al-though without discussion. Marcel Simon came close to the same conclusion in "De l'observancerituelle a l'ascese: recherches sur le decret apostolique," RHR 193 (1978) 73, before rejectingit for the received interpretation.2Onemight quarrel with the substitute category "Jesus believer" (replacing "Christian")asgiving too much classificatory weight to belief in a cultural world in which practice and custommost often distinguished religious groups. However, the data for the Jesus movement in AsiaMinor seem to point to distinctive Christological concerns arising as a speculative feature ofapocalyptic Judaism placed in the realm of interpretation and intellection. Such speculationmight, of course, translate into such distinctive practices as hymns to Christ and propheticperformances.3JohnSweet, Revelation (Philadelphia:TPI, 1979) 28; Adela Yarbro Collins "Vilification andSelf-Definition in the Book of Revelation," in Christians among Jews and Gentiles: Essays inHonor of KristerStendahl on His Sixty-FifthBirthday (ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg and GeorgeW. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 313-14.




4/24

DAVID FRANKFURTER 405

citizens till the reign of Hadrian .... The persecution with which theChurch s here threatened hows that the Jews were acting in concertwith the heathen authorities.4Butis thereevidence foranyof this scenario?We know nothingabout heJewsof Smyrnaexcept thatthere weresome, thattheyendowedbuildingsfor worship,and that some may have been immigrantsfrom Judea.5And the documents forJews in Asia Minorshow a highly diversified ethnic population, manyof whosecommunitieshad assimilatedthemselves to landscapeand culture andcould notbe said to be uniformly embracingor opposing any subsect.6Indeed,as MartinGoodmanhas argued,the archaeologyof Asia MinorJudaismby itself offers al-most no sense of Jewishbeliefs, texts, or distinctive doctrines:

None of the archaeological and epigraphic evidence gives any hint ofthe really distinctive traits of Judaism as it appears in late-antiqueJewish and Christian sources: the centrality of a written scripture, andits proclamation and explanation in public assemblies. To deduce that,we would need more inscriptions affirming the status of liturgical read-ers, which are curiously rare. Nothing in the iconography would give aclue to the main Jewish identity markers as we know them from else-where: shabbat, kashrut(dietary laws), and circumcision.7

4R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentaryon the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.;Edinburgh:T&TClark, 1920) 1:56,58; cf. Sweet, Revelation, 28-30; Elisabeth SchusslerFiorenza,The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 118-19, 194-95;Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities n Asia Minor (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versity Press, 1991) 27; and Claudia Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History andPolemics, 30-150 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 101.5See Emil Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. anded. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman; 3 vols.; Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1973-87) 3:19-20. On Judean immigrants, hoi pote ioudaioi ("those formerly Judeans," not "thoseformerly Jews"), mentioned in a second-century Smyrnan inscription (I.Smyrna II.1, #697 =CIG 3148 = CIJ II, #742), see A. T. Kraabel, "The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable As-sumptions," in Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with, A.ThomasKraabel(ed. J. AndrewOvermanandRobertS. MacLennan; outh FloridaStudiesin the History of Judaism 41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 11.6Forexample, Sib. Orac. 1.196-98, 261-82 and inscriptions discussed by Schiirer, Historyof the Jewish People, 1:17-36; Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 2:31-37; and IrinaLevinskaya, TheBook of Acts in its Diaspora Setting (vol. 5 of The Book of Actsin its FirstCenturySetting;GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 996) 137-52. Firstandsecond-centurymaterials promoting Christ should also be included in the documentation for the Jews of AsiaMinor, including the Revelation of John, the Colossian and Ephesian letters, Ezra 5 and 6, andthe Ascension of Isaiah.7MartinGoodman, "Jews and Judaism in the Mediterranean Diaspora in the Late-RomanPeriod: The Limitations of Evidence," Journal of Mediterranean Studies 4 (1994) 219. Trebilcogives a much more positive and monolithic image of Jewish culture, Jewish Communities inAsia Minor, 33-36.




5/24


Evidence for Jewish persecutionof believers in Jesus-whether we see thesebelievers as Jewish or not-is similarly sparseand must be reconstructedmoreonthe basis of what is historically likely than on what the texts actuallyclaim. Al-thoughthegospels of Matthewand Johnmay reflect some isolatedharassmentofJesus sects, this harassmentwas intra-Jewishanddoes not assume the hegemonyof any particular ewishgroup.Furthermore,he harassment s interpretedn thesedocuments withthepeculiarbitternessof schismaticsects, not persecutedoutsid-ers.8Jews werenot,as was once believed, rituallycursingJesusbelieving hereticsin synagogues in the late firstcentury;9ndeed,as mostcommentatorsnow admit,little externalevidence exists for systematicor widespreadpersecutionof Jesusbelievers in Asia Minorat all.'0 Aficionados of the Smyrnapersecutionscenariomoved quickly to second-centurymartyracts, especially Polycarp's,which caststhe Jews of Smyrnaas particularlyhatefulandaggressivetowardChristians." t isthe Polycarpstory,in fact, thatprovidestheputative ink betweentheevil Jews ofSmyrna-who are nowhereelse mentionedin the Apocalypse-and the evil Ro-manauthorities,whocarrythebruntof John'sdemonizingfor therestof thebook.But is it appropriateo use thissecond-century ext as theprimary nterpretivekeyto theApocalypse?' Anddoes thepictureof Jews in theMartyrdom f Polycarp-a stock evil mob thatgoads theauthoritiesandstokesthefires-have anyhistoricalreliability?At the very least, generallytheMartyrdom f Polycarpcannotsustainthe claims thatcommentatorswant to makefor the situationof the Apocalypse.'3

8David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and SocialSetting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998) 151-63. Cf. Douglas R. A.Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew(SNTSMS 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); and Setzer, Jewish Responsesto Early Christians, 182-90.9ReuvenKimelman, "Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jew-ish Prayer in Late Antiquity," in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (vol. 2 of Aspects ofJudaism in the Greco-Roman Period; ed. E. P. Sanders;Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 226-44, 391-403; and Douglas R. A. Hare,"How Jewish is the Gospel of Matthew?" CBQ62 (2000)267-69, pace Alan Segal, "Matthew's Jewish Voice," in Social History of the Matthean Com-munity:Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (ed. David L. Balch; Minneapolis:Fortress, 1991) 32-37.'?See Sweet, Revelation, 24-25; LeonardL. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypseand Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) 104-15, 129-32; and David E. Aune,Revelation (3 vols.; WBC 52; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997-98) l:lxiv-lxvii."Mart. Pol. 12-13, 17-18; cf. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, 3:19.

'2P. Prigent, "L'h6r6sie asiate et l'tglise confessante de l'Apocalypse a Ignace," VigChr 31(1977) 10; Wolfgang Schrage, "Meditation zu Offenbarung 2, 8-11," EvT48 (1988) 394; JohnW. Marshall, "Parables of the War: Reading the Apocalypse Within Judaism and During theJudaean War" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1997) 83, 88.'3See Gaston, "Judaism of the Uncircumcised," 40-41; Judith M. Lieu, "Accusations ofJewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr andthe Martyrdom of Polycarp," in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity(ed. GrahamN. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)




6/24


If there is no reliable externalevidence for thepersecutionof John'schurch atthehandsof local Jews, canwe dependon the Apocalypsealone for thisscenario?Here also we mustplaceJohn'swarningsaboutimminentsufferingandimprison-ment within the overall contextof tribulation mageryin the Book of Revelationratherthan simply taking it as historically reliable testimony. This imagery, asLeonardThompsonhas shown, permeatesthe symbolic world of the authorandoffers his audienceidentity,boundary,and a sense of enthusiasticsolidarityevenwithout actual threats from the outside.'4Tribulationand persecutionlanguagebelongs to a categoryof motifs thatcharacterizeapocalypticismanddo notneces-sarilybespeakhistorical xperience.'5 husJohn'sreferences o"slander,"mminentsuffering,andimprisonment hould notnecessarilybe taken as accurate ndicatorsof historicalevents but rather spartof anoverall"tribulationcenario" ntowhichhis opponentsarealso woven.'6But thereis a morepervasiveproblemin the identificationof the "so-calledJews" (in their"synagogueof Satan")as "Jews"who were persecuting"Chris-tians."Thatis, such anidentification elies on overlymonolithic-indeed, entirelyanachronistic-conceptions of "Jew" and "Christian"or first-centuryAsia Mi-nor,and this is especially truefor the peculiarform of Jesus worshipthatJohnispromoting.The wordIoudaios is as slipperyin its usage outside early Christianliteratureas it is in texts such as John 5:15-16 and Matthew 28:15.'7As RossKraemer,Shaye Cohen, andothers have demonstrated, he term can meansome-one fromJudea,a member of an ethnic groupby birth,a convert into thatethnicgroup,an adherentto the Jewish religion in practiceand devotion to its god, orsome combinationof the latter.'8Thus,not only does loudaios seem to embrace

279-95; and idem, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the SecondCentury(Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1996) 62-70, 86-94.'4Leonard L. Thompson, "A Sociological Analysis of Tribulation in the Apocalypse ofJohn," Semeia 36 (1986) 147-74.'5RobertHodgson,"Paulthe Apostleand FirstCenturyTribulationLists,"ZNW74 (1983) 59-80.'6Notethat some scholars have a tendency to appropriateRevelation's "tribulation"as a theo-logical template for contemporary politics: see Adela Yarbro Collins, "Vilification andSelf-Definition," 318-20.'70n the meaning of loudaios in these gospels see Wayne A. Meeks, "BreakingAway: ThreeNew Testament Pictures of Christianity's Separation from the Jewish Communities," in "To SeeOurselves as OthersSee Us ":Christians,Jews, "Others"in LateAntiquity(ed. Jacob NeusnerandErnestS. Frerichs; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985) 93-115; Sean Freyne "Vilifying the OtherandDefining the Self: Matthew's andJohn's Anti-Jewish Polemic in Focus," in "ToSee Ourselvesas Others See Us," 117-43; and Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 149-50."Ross S. Kraemer, "On the Meaning of the Term 'Jew' in Greco-Roman Inscriptions,"HTR82 (1989) 32-53, reprinted in Diaspora Jews and Judaism, 311-29; Shaye J. D. Cohen, TheBeginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press, 1999) 25-139.




7/24


Johnof Patmosandhis conceptionof Jesusbelief, but it mayalso representa labelto which others-even Gentiles -might lay claim, thoughin John'seyes illegiti-mately. Shaye Cohen cites, among other examples of Gentiles labelled "Jews"regardlessof theirbirthordegreeof halakhicobservance,adiscourseby Epictetusthattouches on the parametersof the label:

Whydo you act the partof a Jewwhenyou are Greek?Do you not seein whatsense men are severallycalled Jew, Syrian,or Egyptian?Forexample,whenever we see a manfacing two ways at once, we are inthe habitof saying, "He is not a Jew, he is only actingthe part."Butwhen he adoptsthe attitudeof mindof the manwho has beenbaptizedand has made his choice, then he both is a Jew in fact and is alsocalledone.19

This is also thecase with the termsynagogos which could mean eithera meet-inghouse, a meetinghousefor Jews, a collectivity of Jews of uncertainboundary,or a collectivity in general.2 It could also mean(as atQumran)a " 'congregation'[edah]of opponentsorenemies,conceivedandvilifiedas aninversionof the 'insid-ers' "congregationof truth 1QS 5.1-2, 10-20; CD 1.12; 1QM 1.1);this seems tobe themeaningJohnof Patmosintendswhen he uses the wordekklesia.So, ratherthansimply implying a monolithic andhegemonic "Jewishcommunity"with itsown house of prayer, ynagogos mayrefer,ironically,to a collectivity presentingitself or appearingas Jewish. The term"Christian," f course, is the least usefullabel, either for denoting separationfrom Jews as a taxonomic category or fordenotingancientreligiousself-definition.2In his 1997Princetondissertation,JohnMarshallshowed that scholars who have cast Johnof Patmos as a Christian,asopposed to a Jew, distort his text andobscurea properunderstanding f his rela-tionshiptoJewswho werenotdevotedto Jesus.22 Christian"wouldimplythathisJesus devotion somehow displaces or preemptshis Jewishness, a thesis derivednot from the text but frompriortheologicalassumptions.One notes that the samerealizations aboutterminologyhas also affected studyof theGospel of Matthew:

'9Arrian,Epict. diss., 2.19-21(ed. Oldfather;LCL); see also the translation by Shaye Cohen,Beginnings of Jewishness, 60-61 (further examples and discussion, 25-68).2'See Schirer, History of the Jewish People, 2:429-31. Usually translating the Hebrew'edah, synagogos can cover a group or consortium of sorts, especially for Jews, as seen in AsiaMinor inscriptions, CIRB 70-71, 73: see Irina Levinskaya, Book of Acts in Its DiasporaSetting 74,232-38. CIJII, #766 (Phrygia, mid-first century C.E.) mentions a Roman priestess'sdonation of an oikos (i.e., meetinghouse) to a Jewish synagoge (i.e., organization or commu-nity): see SchUrer,History of the Jewish People, 3:30-31.21SeeAdela YarbroCollins, "Insidersand Outsiders in the Book of Revelation and Its SocialContext," in "ToSee Ourselves as OthersSee Us," 196-99, whose otherwise excellent discussionis hampered by such monolithic terms.22Marshall,"Parables of the War,"passim.




8/24


Though Christians usually understand Matthew's program as distinctfrom Judaism, what Matthew teaches and promotes is thoroughly con-sistent with the variety of belief in first-century Judaism, both beforeand after the destruction of the Temple. The later sharply defined cat-egories of Christian and Jew are inaccurate for the late first centuryamong Jewish groups in Syria and Israel and do not fit Matthew'ssituation....To say that Matthew is Christian, meaning a member of a clearly sepa-ratereligion which is not Jewish, contradicts the complex and overlappingrelationships among varieties of Jews, including some groups who be-lieved in Jesus.23

Unfortunately, the category "Jewish-Christian" achieves no greater clarity despiteclassic attempts to define the term rigorously; for, does it describe Jews who be-lieve in Jesus, or Gentiles who follow Jewish laws scrupulously and believe inJesus, or Gentiles who imagine themselves to be a new Israel but have no histori-cal connection with Jews?24 A much more precise historical perspective emergeswhen one examines John's Jesus worship within a diverse Jewish spectrum, asscholars have already begun to do in the case of the gospel of Matthew.2Given the ambiguity of the term "Jew," with its historical ability to embracerather than oppose belief in Jesus, the ambiguity of "synagogue," and the generaluselessness of "Christian" for describing self-definition or historical difference,the classic scenario behind the Satanic "so-called Jews" begins to fall apart.As faras we can tell from reliable evidence, Jews do not seem to have been persecuting"Christians." "Christians," moreover, might well be Jews, and a "synagogue ofSatan" wouldn't necessarily be in hegemony. Then who are the "so-called Jews"?The most useful approach is to ask who are the "so-called Jews"from the perspec-tive of John of Patmos. Thus one must have an accurate gauge of that perspective.

"AnthonyJ. Saldarini,Matthew'sChristian-JewishCommunityChicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1994) 8, 11.24SeeRobertA. Kraft,"TheMultiform ewishHeritageof Early Christianity,"n Chris-tianity,Judaismand OtherGreco-RomanCults: Studies or MortonSmithat Sixty(ed.JacobNeusner;4 vols.; SJLA12;Leiden:Brill, 1975)3: 174-99; RobertMurray,"Jews,HebrewsandChristians:Some NeededDistinctions,"NovT24 (1982) 194-208; andAlanSegal,"Jew-ish Christianity,"n Eusebius,Christianity, nd Judaism ed. HarryAttridgeandGoheiHata;Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,1992) 326-51.25See,orexample,EduardSchweizer,"Christianityf theCircumcised ndJudaism f theUncircumcised: heBackgroundf Matthew ndColossians,"nJews,Greeks nd Christians:ReligiousCultures n LateAntiquityed.RobertHamerton-Kelleynd RobinScroggs;Leiden:Brill, 1976)245-60; Segal, "Matthew's ewishVoice,"as well as otheressaysby Overman,White,and Saldarini n Social Historyof the MattheanCommunity:Cross-DisciplinaryAp-proaches (ed. David L. Balch; Minneapolis:Fortress, 1991); and Saldarini,Matthew'sJewish-ChristianCommunity.




9/24


* The Judaismof Johnof PatmosWhateverone might say aboutJohn's interestin Christ,the passages in questionhere show thathe embracesthe label loudaios andresentsthatcertainotherstakeit illegitimately.Furthermore, e composes a book basedon Jewish traditionsofapocalyptic mediation that is steeped in Jewish scriptureand that promotes hisself-definition as an Israelite tribe member,a suffering Jewish prophet,and anangel/priestof theheavenlycult,whilealsolayingoutaperspective ixedonJerusa-lem. For such reasons,most commentatorshave viewed Johnof Patmosas beingan ethnic Jew himself.26

He is also, we find, a Jew scrupulouslyconcernedwithpurity.In the firstcen-tury,as we learnfromQumran andassociatedearlyJewishtexts suchasJubilees,1 Enoch, and the Testamentof Levi), there was a sense of puritythat relatedtoone's self-conception as angel, priest, holy warrior,and blessed remnantof theend-times-a purity hat was rootedinbiblicalrules forpriestsandholy war com-portment,buttaken o curiousextremes.Purity, n thisextremeperspective,broughtcommunionwith angels; puritybroughtproximityto the heavenly sanctuary;pu-ritybroughta kindof priestly statusthatwould carryone through he eschaton.27Such elaborateextensions of Jewish purity aws have been generallyobserved inthe Apocalypse as well.28It is in this sense of purity, for example, that AdelaYarbroCollinsandRichardBauckhamhaveexplainedJohn'snotethat he 144,000sealed and redeemedones "have not defiled themselves withwomen, for they arevirgins" 14:4). This detaildirectlyrecallsholy warrules aboutsexualpurity, romDeuteronomy hrough heQumranMilhamah croll, andit illustratesJohn'srigor-ous concern forcontrollingall conceivable sources of pollution.29 o also, John'sinsistencethat"nothingkoinonwill enter" he New Jerusalem 21:27) clearly im-

26Charles,Revelation of St. John, l:xliv; Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: ThePower of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 46-48; Aune, Revelation,l:l.2See Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Priester fur Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts undPriestermotiv in der Apokalypse (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1972).28For xample, Rev 5:10. See Schissler Fiorenza, Book of Revelation, 123-24, and RichardBauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1993) 210-37.9See Bauckham,Climaxof Prophecy, 230-32; YarbroCollins, Crisis and Catharsis, 127-31;Daniel C. Olson," 'Those Who Have Not Defiled Themselves with Women': Revelation 14:4 andthe Book of Enoch," CBQ 59 (1997) 492-510; and in general, Steven D. Fraade, "AsceticalAspects of Ancient Judaism,"in Jewish Spirituality 1: From the Bible through the Middle Ages(ed. ArthurGreen;New York:Crossroad, 1987) 261-63,266-69, with sources 281 nn. 31,33; 283nn. 57, 59. Eyal Regev proposes a kind of lay purity cultivation popular in early PalestinianJudaism, but not one based on the imitation of the priesthood: "PureIndividualism:The Idea ofNon-Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism," JSJ 31 (2000) 176-202. P. Oxy 5.840 indicates thecontinuation of disputes over ritual purity within the Jesus movement at least throughthe secondcentury: see Francois Bovon, "Fragment Oxyrhynchus840, Fragmentof a Lost Gospel, Witnessof an Early ChristianControversy over Purity,"JBL 119 (2000) 705-28.




10/24


plies the type of impuritythatmightpollute a sanctuary:a physical uncleanness,much like what the Essenes proscribed rom theirholy war camp and their ownideal Jerusalem.30 ohn clarifies that this uncleanness indicates "anyone doingbdelygmaorpseudos,"but these termsdo not construethe meaninginto a moralabstraction; ather, hey suggestthatone who does anykindof abomination ausesrealpollution.3'John's languageof purityandimpurity, ndeed, is quitevivid: headmonishesthe Sardis believers thatonly a few of them remain "who have notsoiled theirclothes; they will walkwith me, dressedin white, for they areworthy.If you conquer,you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blotyour namefromthe Book of Life"(3:4-5).If John'ssense of thepurityof theredeemedapproaches hat of theEssenes,wemight expect that he would consider mattersof halakhic purityessential to thequotidianpracticeof the "saints,"who are the insiders(for example, regulationssurrounding ood and normativesexuality). This realmof Jewish practiceseemsto lie behindJohn'stwice-repeatedadmonition o "keepthe entolas of God"alongwith maintainingdevotion to Jesus(12:17; 14:12).To be sure,commentators ikeDavid Aune have struggledto de-Judaizethe meaningof entole here, suggestingethical rather han concretecommandments.32 ut in the largercontext of John'spurityinterests,this abstraction eems strained.33

Sectarianmovements,such as the one that John of Patmospromoted, endbynature o have an overriding earof pollution,especially with respectto the body,and a concernfor the separation f the purefrom the impure.The networkof sectsled by prophets hattheApocalypseassumes seem to bedefined moreby their ead-ers' charisma, he strictboundaries f allegiancethese leadersrequire,andby theirmutualanticipation f theeschaton hanbyinternalhierarchies ndestablishedead-ership roles. This antiworldlyyet internally oose structure-a "highgroup,lowgrid"religiousgroup nMaryDouglas'sterms-characterizespropheticmovementsandleadstypicallyto a certainobsessionwithmaintainingnnerpurity:

The groupboundarys the maindefinerof roles:individuals lass them-selves eitheras membersor strangers.Here the cosmos . . . is dividedbetweengoodandbad, nsideandoutside.There s magicaldanger ssoci-ated withemblemsof boundary.Groupmembers ccusedeviants n their30Themajorcomparandaonsistof 11QT'and 1QM.See discussions of this transplantedtemple/holywarcamp deologyin JosephA. Fitzmyer,"A Feature f QumranAngelologyandthe Angelsof I Cor 11:10,"Essayson the SemiticBackgroundf the New TestamentChico,Calif.:ScholarsPress) 187-204;also Olson," 'ThoseWhoHaveNotDefiledThemselves.'"3"Pace Aune, Revelation, 3:1175."Ibid., 2:709-12; also Charles,Revelationof St. John, 1:331.33Marshall,Parables f theWar,"91-93; cf. CD V.20-21. Forlater halakhicobservanceamongJesus believers, see MarcelSimon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations betweenChristians ndJews in the RomanEmpire,AD135-425 (trans.H.McKeating;London:LittmanLibraryof JewishCivilization, 1986)325-28.




11/24


midst of allowingthe outsideevil to infiltrate.The accusations ead tofission of the group. ... It is preoccupiedwith ritualsof cleansing,expulsionand redrawing f boundaries... It is an irrational osmossincein it evil is taken o be a foreigndanger,ntroducedy perverted rdefectivehumans.34Such sociological principlesgo far in explainingJohn's interest n purity,espe-cially relatedto sexuality and food, that involves a breachof bodily boundariesand orifices. However,John's view of properritualobservancefor the Jesus be-liever stems ideologically andsymbolicallyfrom ideas of the Jewish temple andits priesthood,which were the models for the holy conventicle.These ideas were

developed in Jewish apocalyptic literature,where observanceof priestly puritybecame a sine qua non for communionwith angels and redemption n the end-times.35In this sense John is not only Jewish butJewish in a sectarian,rigoroussense. His visions of theheavenlyChristand his Jesusdevotionseem indeedto beextensions, or consequences, of his Jewish hyperpurity.36t is useful to considerthis link whentryingto decipherhis opponents.* Circlesof ConflictaroundJohn of PatmosLet us thenmove to John'sopponents.Earlierscholarssoughttocast those figuresexcoriated in theletters-"Jezebel," the"Nicolaitans,"andtheneo-Balaamians-as being theologicallydistantto anextremedegreefrom "orthodox"Christianity.Indeed, n theeyes of scholars heseopponentsall hadatendency obecomeGnosticlibertines.37Morerecently,Adela YarbroCollins and PaulDuff have shown thatJohn's harshlypolemicalcharacterization f these opponents'teachingsprobablymasksa less extremestance on the partof his opponents,even if Johnviews themas beyondthepale.3 I will shortly arguethatthe "Jezebel"/"Nicolaitan"eachingswere essentiallyPauline;butfor now it is useful to outline theworldof opponentsand insiders as Johnperceives themin his letters.

"Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Pantheon, 1982)103-04, 107-24; Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social Worldof the ApostlePaul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 84-107, argues that the social structurepromoted by Paul for his conventicles had somewhat more "grid," or hierarchy, and conse-quently less concern for boundaries.35Paulhimself views holiness and purity according to the same traditions, although withsomewhat looser practical applications: see Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumranand in the Lettersof Paul (SNTSMS 53; Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1985) 98-114."See MarthaHimmelfarb, " 'A Kingdom of Priests': The Democratization of the Priesthoodin the Literature of Second Temple Judaism," Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6(1997) 98-101.3See Schussler Fiorenza, Book of Revelation, 116-17.38YarbroCollins, "Vilification and Self-Definition," 316-18; Paul Duff, "The Synagogue ofSatan:Crisis Mongering and the Apocalypse of John"(unpublished paperdelivered at the Annual




12/24


Johndrawsa fairlydistinctboundarybetween thosehe perceivesas insidersandthosewho areoutsiders-"the dogs andsorcerers ndfornicators ndmurderersndidolaters,andeveryonewho loves andpractices alsehood" 22:15).But the insider/outsiderboundary resentednthe letters s somewhatmorecomplicated.Thecongre-gationsatSmyrna,Ephesus, ndPhiladelphia,owhomhe writescomplimentaryetters,areclearlyon the inside.Then herearecongregationsorwhomhe feels somesympa-thyyet fearsfortheiradherenceo his ideology: Pergamum,Thyatira,Laodicea,andSardis.By encouraginghemto resist the subversionposed by "Jezebel" ndothers,Johndemonstrates tentative inshipwiththem-much more,atleast, hanPaulwiththeGalatians3:1) And thentherearetheoutsiders, ubversive eachers f evil whoareclearlyoutside herealmofacceptable ifference"Jezebel," "Nicolaitans,"neo-Balaamians," s well as the "so-calledJews" and the parallel"so-calledapostles"currently fflicting heEphesians2:2).Johnassociates hesefigureswithSatan, huscastingthem well beyond anykindof ideologicalconversation.39ndyet it is clearthata good numberof these satanic eachersare, n fact,Jesusbelieversof somesort;that s, theyare not so distantdeologically.4In thus demonizing the intimatecompetitor,John of Patmoswould hardlybealone in the literatureof the earliestJesus movement.Paul, for example,accuseshis competitors n Corinthof being "falseapostles"andSatanicagentsin disguise(2 Cor 11:13-15). And theauthorof the firstJohannineepistle views a schismaticoffshoot from his congregationas being motivatedby the spiritof "antichrist"1John 2:18-19, 22; 4:1-6). So also in the gospel literature he variouswarningsaboutfalse prophetsanddeceivers,and themost vicious diatribes,are reserved orthose enemies who are at the shortestremove fromthe writer.4'

Indeed,t is aprinciplewell-observednthehistory freligionshat,o useGeorgSim-mel's formulation,thedegenerationf adifferencenconvictionsntohatred ndfightordinarilyccursonlywhen herewereessential,riginalimilaritiesetweenheparties."42

Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Orlando, Fla., November 1998); and idem, "Sur-rounded by Enemies: Others in the Apocalypse" (unpublished paper delivered at the AnnualMeeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, Mass., November 1999).39Rev2:9,24; 3:9. I owe much to Duffs observations in "The Synagogue of Satan";see alsoSchrage, "Meditation zu Offenbarung 2,8-11," 394-96.4See Heinrich Kraft, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 16a; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck,1974) 61.

4See, for example, Robert G. Hall, "The Ascension of Isaiah: Community, Situation, Date,and Place in Early Christianity," JBL 109 (1990) 289-306; and L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, TheAntecedents of Antichrist. A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views onEschatological Opponents (Supplements to JSJ 49; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 217-20, both on vili-fication cast in eschatological terms.

42GeorgSimmel, Conflict and the Web of Group-Affiliations (trans. Kurt H. Wolff andReinhard Bendix; New York: Free Press, 1955) 48, emphasis mine. Cf. JonathanZ. Smith,"What a Difference a Difference Makes," in "To See Ourselves as Others See Us," 44-48.




13/24


In hiscommentarynSimmel,LewisCosercomparedhereligious ect'svilification fan "apostate"o that evelledagainsta "heretic"n a way that s consistentwith thestructuralositionof John'smainopponents:Whereasthe [apostate]desertsthe group in orderto go over to theenemy, the hereticpresentsa moreinsidiousdanger:by upholding hegroup'scentralvalues andgoals,he threatenso splitit intofactions hatwill differ as to the means for implementingts goal. Unlike the apos-tate, the hereticclaimsto uphold he group'svalues andinterests,onlyproposingdifferentmeans to this end or variant nterpretationsf theofficialcreed.43

Hereticscompete for proselytes,Coser continues, andcreate confusion aboutlargergroupboundaries.For these reasons"thereaction of the groupagainsttheheretic is [often] even more hostile thanagainstthe apostate."44Suchprinciplesareobviouslyrelevant o theearlyJesusmovement,whichdem-onstrated all the "fissiparity" n leadershipand group identitythat millennialistmovements throughouthistoryhave typically shown.45 ndeed,it is reasonabletoinferthatany case of vilification in sectarian iteraturemasks a situationof ideo-logical proximity.46n the cases of "Jezebel," he"Nicolaitans,"and the "so-calledapostles,"most scholars now take the opponentsas promotersof Jesus who dif-feredfromJohnon someissues of practiceandpurity.Thesemightbe minorpointsto an Atargatisdevotee or a rabbinicJew, but were fundamental o John, whoseprimaryconcern was with the boundariesof the Jesus sect. I thinkit is equallyappropriateo infer the same forthe"so-calledJews" in SmyrnaandPhiladelphia:these opponentsmust be particularly lose to Johnin a way thatothersof Jewishpractice ndJewish dentitywouldnotbe;that s, close ina wayparallel to"Jezebel,"the Nicolaitans, and the "so-called apostles."47Thus far,I have argued hat the "so-calledJews"must be intimatemembersoftheJesusmovementrather han"Jews n general,"who wouldnecessarilybe totaloutsidersaccordingto John's primarilysectarian identity.48 am arguingfurtherthat hissectarian dentity nvolves anapocalypticJewishperspective ocusedupon

43Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1956) 70.44Ibid.450n fissiparity in millennialist and prophetic movements, see Yonina Talmon, "Pursuit ofthe Millennium: The Relation Between Religious and Social Change," Archives europeennesde sociologie 3 (1962) 134, 141.4This principle has been cogently applied to Matthew by Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Chris-

tian Judaism, 121-23."Cf. Helmut Koester, "GNOMAIDIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversificationin the History of Early Christianity," in Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1971) 148; Kraft, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 61.48Incontrast, the Gospel of Matthew reflects a sect of Jesus believers whose primaryidentity is construed in such a way as to provoke intra-Jewish polemic and accusation: Saldarini,




14/24


Jesus as the immanent form of God49That is, Jesus is the axis.of that sectarianidentity-its centralfeature-while apocalypticJudaism s the framework orun-derstanding esus,mediatinghim,andanticipatinghim.Consequently, amarguingthat John's greatconcern with the degree of halakhicobservance of people whowere also focused upon Jesus, thatis, who claimed the same sectarian dentity,typifies internecineconflict, both from a sociological (intra-sectarian) nd fromanhistorical(intra-Jewish)perspective.Furthermore, arguethat t is entirelyconsis-tentwiththisscenariothatJohn, nencounteringnsufficientdegreesof observanceamongsome of those who were devoted to Jesus, woulddenigrate heirauthentic-ity as observers of Jewishpurity, ust as he denigrates he authenticityof some ofthose who were "apostles" n Ephesus(2:2).John's concerns about "Jezebel"and the "Nicolaitans"certainlyhave to dowith halakhic observance, even if John does not impugn their Jewish identity.Eatingmeatdedicatedto idols, which he accuses his opponentsof teaching(2:14,20), is an abrogationof no law but the Torah's;s5 ndLuke-Actsand theDidacheremember heobservanceof thislaw as bindingon Jesusdevotees (Acts 15:20,29;Did 6:3).51But the fact thatJohnaccuses his opponentsof teachingthepracticeofsuchoutrageous mpuritydoes notmeanthattheopponentswereactuallyteachingit; theremay be a simplerreason forhis hyperbole,as I will shortlypropose.

John's accusationthathis opponentsteachporneia is somewhat moredifficultto interpretas an abrogationof a particularhalakhicpoint;butthis is neverthelessthe general sense in which Johnmeans the accusation.Some commentatorshavetaken the wordto symbolize idolatry;but recent workon the Hebrewequivalent,zenut, suggests thatporneia may indeed indicate some aspect of sexual impurity,theinterpretation f whichmayhavebeenquitediverse overthebroadJesusmove-ment.52n Jewishtextsof theearlyRomanperiod,zenutoftenrefers ointermarriagebetween Jews andGentilesand its moral mpurity.53 ut theconceptof "intermar-riage"could also extend to much finer boundarycrossings, such as priests andnonpriestlywomen.4 Inessence, zenut/porneiabecamein sectarianJewishcircles

Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 112-13. Cf. John P. Meier, "Antioch," in Antioch &Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 11-86, who proposeseven finerpointsof dispute amongfactions of Matthaean esus believers.49Bauckhmaniscussesthechristologyof John'sApocalypsen Climax f Prophecy, 18-49.5?Ex 4:15;cf. 4 Mace5:2;m. CAbod. ar. 2:3. On therelationshipbetweenproscriptionsagainstmeat sacrificedto idols andhalakhicpurity,see Aune,Revelation,1:193.51See urtherSimon, VerusIsrael, 334-36.52For xample,YarbroCollins,"Insiders ndOutsiders," 14; Aune,Revelation,1:188.5See ChristineHayes,"IntermarriagendImpurityn AncientJewishSources,"HTR92(1999) 3-36. 1amalso indebted o Hayes's"PalestinianRabbinicAttitudes o Intermarriagein HistoricalandCulturalContext," paperpresentedat "JewishCultureandSociety underChristianRome,"JewishTheologicalSeminary,New York,March2000).S4SeeMarthaHimmelfarb, SexualRelationsandPurity n theTempleScroll andtheBook




15/24


a common, sexualizing characterization f what lay outside andmightdefile theintegralpurityof the sect.55 n the case of Revelation, John's adulationof those"whohavenotdefiledthemselveswithwomen"(14:4) suggeststhatwhathemeansby porneia could be sexual activity itself.56And just as these accusationsof impropriety n Jewish practice are levelledagainst"Jezebel," he "Nicolaitans,"andthe"neo-Balaamians,"o it maywell bethat John's rejection of the "so-called Jews" is on similar grounds:while theyparticipate n a movement thatrests entirely on properJewish observance,andeven havethe arrogance o call themselves (orotherwiseappearas) Jews, theyare"so-calledJews" becausetheyarenot following Jewishpractice.57ndeed,in con-fusing the clear boundary lines and purity requirements of the Jewish Jesusmovement,they are "Satanic."58* Pauline Practicesand the "So-CalledJews"Is there awider context forunderstanding ohn'sdisputesoverJewish observancewithintheJesus movement?Who would have been promotingsuch a gross abro-gationof Torah as eatingmeatdedicatedto othergods or loose sexuality?Who intheJesusmovementmightJohnof Patmosplausiblyaccuseof "callingthemselvesJews" while not being so?

The resemblance between"Jezebel's"sins andPaul's liberalinterpretation fhalakhah n 1Corinthians and10hasnotgone unnoticedby scholars.59heliberalpositionPaultakes withregard o eatingheathenofferingsis, to be sure,meant toelevate sectarianconcordover strictobservance;butfroma moreobservantJew-ishperspective tcouldeasilybeunderstoodaspromoting heacceptanceof heathenfood. Thatis, Johnof Patmos s not rejectingalleged "Gnostic ibertine"practices

of Jubilees," DSD 6 (1999) 11-36; and "Levi, Phinehas, and the Problem of Intermarriage atthe Time of the Maccabean Revolt," JSQ 6 (1999) 1-24."See esp. Himmelfarb, "Sexual Relations and Purity"; also John Kampen, "4QMMT andNew Testament Studies," in Reading 4QMMT:New Perspectives on QumranLaw and History(ed. John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 135-38.56Inhis forthcoming "Who Rides the Beast?" (n.p.), Duff points out that John projects hisfear of polluting porneia both upon "Jezebel" and "Babylon," which are described as the"motherof whores and of the earth's abominations" who holds a cup "of abominations and theimpurities of her porneia" (17:6, 5; cf. 17:1-2), respectively.

"Prigent, "L'her6sie asiate et l'lglise confessante," 9.58Cf.Philip A. Harland, "Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation inCivic Life among Associations (Jewish, Christian, Other) in Asia Minor and the Apocalypseof John," JSNT 77 (2000) 99-121, esp. 118-20, who likewise shows different degrees of"world participation" among the Asia Minor Christians surrounding John, but without refer-ence to halakhah as the principle of separatism.59Cf.1 Cor 10:14-33. See Simon, "De l'observance rituelle a l'ascese," 74-75; SchiisslerFiorenza,Book of Revelation, 119-20; LeonardL. Thompson, "Social Location of EarlyChristian




16/24


buttheveryhalakhicpronotmcementsf theApostlehimself-perhaps as interpretedby a prot6g6.60

The allegations of promotingporneia also seem to be related to Paul's pro-nouncements.If the word shouldbe taken,with zenut, in its early Roman Jewishsense of cross-boundarymarriage,one can imagine that Paul's openness to Gen-tiles andGod-fearersmayhaveextended o allowingtheir ntermarriagewithJews.Inthis admittedlyhypotheticalscenario,a morerigorouslypurity-oriented ewishbeliever in Jesus likeJohn of Patmos wouldcertainlyhavetakenexceptionto suchweak purityboundaries,especially given that these boundarieswere supposedtopreserve intimacywith the heavenly courtand the angels.61ButI would suggestanotherreasonfor JohnconsideringPaul's advice as tanta-mount to a promotionof porneia. In the same Corinthian etter Paul himself isquiteconcernedwithporneia as thesexualityof those who areof theworld,whichis to be rejectedin sectarianpractice,and he uses the languageof puritytojustifyhis rules about sexuality.62Yet when Paul makes a "concession"(syggnome) tomaritalsexuality (1 Cor7:6), he does not do so on the traditionalJewish groundsof procreation-obviously not a pressingissue in the last days (cf. 1 Cor 7:26-31)-but ratheron the groundsof "burning" assion (7:9), on "whatis owed"to

Apocalyptic,"ANRW2.26.3 1996) 2645-46; andRevelation(ANTC;Nashville:Abingdon,1998) 77; Duff, "Surrounded y Enemies: Others n the Apocalypse."60Gerd heissenasserts hat"fora comparableliberal'positionon meatsacrificed o idols[that s, to theCorinthian strong"],heonly analogieswithinChristianityome fromGnosticgroups,"anassertion hatheproceeds o illustratewith a series of second-, third-,andfourth-century heresiographical allegations: see idem, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity:Essays on Corinth(trans.JohnH. SchUitz; hiladelphia:Fortress,1982) 132-33. But theseexamplesareclearlyanachronistic o thefirst-centuryettingand arehardlyobjectivereportson "Gnostic"attitudes.Primary ources for Gnosticgroups n fact offer little basisfor schol-arly fantasiesof "libertinism";ee MichaelAllen Williams,Rethinking"Gnosticism":AnArgumentfor Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996)163-88; cf. Aune,Revelation,1:148-49. Scholarswho postulate"Gnostic ibertines"behindthe sins of Jezebeland the neo-Balaamians endto inflate the importanceof the Corinthian"strong" ndoverlookPaul's owninnovations sbeing potentiallyobjectionable: .g., YarbroCollins, "InsidersandOutsiders," 1-23, and "VilificationandSelf-Definition,"316-17.61SeeSimon,"De l'observancerituellea I'ascese,"62-65. The preservation f sectarianboundaries n marriageswas still a subjectof deepconcern n somesecond-centuryChristiangroups;Tertullian,Ux.2, even designatesunbelieversas "Gentiles"ncondemningntermar-riage,Indeed, ntermarriagend tssexuality ignifyakindofhorribleeak nthevitalboundariesof the Jesus sect, eliciting the specterof porneia:"it is certainthatbelievers contractingmarriageswith Gentiles are guilty of fornication stupri],and are to be excludedfromallcommunicationwith the brotherhood"Ux., 2.3, PL 1:1292;trans.Coxe,ANF4:45).621Cor5, see Meeks,First UrbanChristians,100-01; O. LarryYarbrough,NotLiketheGentiles:MarriageRulesin theLettersof Paul(SBLDS 80; Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1986);andKampen,"4QMMT ndNew TestamentStudies,"137.




17/24


one's spouse (7:3), andon not denyingone's spouse pleasure(7:5).63To be sure,Paulhopesthat hroughcontrolledsexuality,"lackof self control" akrasia),whichcould cause one to become susceptibleto Satan (7:5), might be avoided. But inadmittingthe tendency towardakrasia, Paul at the same time rejectsthe procre-ative function and offers instead an unusual plan: sex for both pleasure andself-control.64As muchas Paulhimselfmayhave thought hat hisadvicewas sen-sitive and moderate,to someone like Johnof Patmos,who believed in a stricterreligiousperspective orto thoseinPaul'scirclewho wouldargue hat"it is well fora mannotto toucha woman,"1Cor7:1),thisadvicewouldeasilyhaveappeared obe the promotionof porneia itself-sexual activity basedsolely on physicalneedand pleasure.65Here againone mustrememberJohn's descriptionof the 144,000redeemedas "those who have not defiledthemselveswith women"(14:4): he wasnotone to valuesexualityin the life of the Elector in the time of theirpreparation.6Johnof Patmos'sopponents n PergamumandThyatira hus seem to have beenpromotingPauline practicesamong theircommunities. We might choose to say"neo-Pauline,"but I would insist that"Jezebel"and the "Nicolaitans"were notdistortingPaul's words substantially.It was Johnof Patmos who distortedPaul'sposition in his polemic.67Couldthe "so-called Jews"of SmyrnaandPhiladelphiaalso have been partofa Paulineversion of the Jesus movement?We might begin with the question ofwhetherthe judgment and vilification of others' Jewish observanceand Jewishidentitywere characteristicpartsof internecinepolemic in the earlyJesus move-ment. The answer s certainlyyes. Paulcomplainsabout suchaccusations evelledagainst his followers, and he, in turn,levels some of his own accusationsin re-counting his argumentwith Peter at Antioch. But, none of the "Jews by birth"

63HansConzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians(ed. George W. MacRae; trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975)114-18; and Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles, 97-101.6This plan, Daniel Boyarin points out, Paul would elsewhere eschew because of the intrin-sic immorality of sex: "Body Politic among the Brides of Christ: Paul and the Origins ofChristianSexual Renunciation," in Asceticism (ed. Vincent L. Wimbush andRichardValantasis;New York: Oxford, 1995) 495-78.65See Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles, 93-96, 119-21, for the context of Corinthianarguments for celibacy, and Simon, "De l'observance rituelle a l'ascese," 42-47, 57-65, forvarious meanings of porneia in the early Jesus movement. Such disputes over the relativeholiness of celibacy and procreative sexuality continued among Jews and Syriac Jesus believ-ers into the fourthcentury:see Naomi Koltun-Fromm,"Sexuality and Holiness: Semitic Christianand Jewish Conceptualizations of Sexual Behavior," VC 54 (2000) 375-95.66Cf.CD 5.6-7; 11QT' 45-46.67Walter Bauer suggests that Revelation actually suppresses Paul's memory: Orthodoxyand Heresy in Earliest Christianity (ed. Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel; trans. PhiladelphiaSeminar on Christian Origins; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 83.




18/24


impugneach others'Jewishness(Gal 2:11-15).68Who, then,amongthe followersof Paulmighthave appearedo Johnof Patmosas ones "whosay theyare Jews butare [in fact] not"?The answerseems to be Gentile"God-fearers"whohadjoined the Jesus move-ment and, in anticipationof theparousia, sought to consolidate theiraffiliationwith Jewish religion througha) greaterritual observanceand b) the claim to thedesignation"Jew"as the broad"insider-identity" equired or eschatological re-demption. As Lloyd Gaston and John Gager have argued, most of Paul's ownconcernsabout he worthof JewishobservanceandJewish dentityrevolvedaroundtheaccess of these GentileGod-fearers o biblical models of salvation"apart romworks of the Law" (Rom 3:28).69 t is for these believers that Paul concocts theuniquenotion of the "inwardJew"(2:28-29)-one who does not follow entirelyhalakhah,butratherhas suchthingsas circumcision"writtenon his heart" 2:14-15). Indeed,this internalJew (i.e., the Gentile God-fearerwho eschews halakhahbutembracesa spiritualizedTorah) s the true"Jew" 2:29). One can well imaginehow negatively a Gentile God-fearerwho followed such ideas wouldbe regardedby a Jew like Johnof Patmos,who viewed strict adherence o priestlypurityregu-lationsas requisitefor the Elect.70And yet Paul, too, would preferthathis Roman audience not considerthem-selves "Jews," or"ifyou call yourselfa Jew [suloudaios eponomaze]andrely onthe Law and boast of yourrelationto God"(Rom 2:17), then you must conformyourlives to theTorah n all respects.The languageis quitesimilar to thatof Johnof Patmosin 2:9 and3:9: in both cases there are Jesus believers who are"callingthemselves" Jews. We might well ask, who "calls oneself' a Jew anyway?Cer-tainlynot someone whois recognizedasJewishby birthorby community.Rather,thissuggestionof self-chosen Jewishness would denoteaGentilewho hastakentopracticingcertainelements of Jewish observanceandtherebyhas come to claimthatself-definition-as a constituentpartof Jesus devotion.71This is a phenom-

"On the social locationof theopponents n the Antiochdisputeand on what s not criti-cized,seeJamesD. G.Dunn,"Echoes f Intra-Jewish olemic nPaul'sLetter o the Galatians,"JBL112(1993) 462,465.69LloydGaston,Paul and the Torah(Vancouver:Universityof British ColumbiaPress,1987) andGager, Originsof Antisemitism,197-264; see also JohnGager,ReinventingPaul(New York: OxfordUniversityPress,2000).7?Indeed,ewish leaders n generalwere not uniformlyappreciativeof the God-fearers'flirtationwithJudaism, ftenpreferringull conversion,as GaryGilbertarguedn a paperpre-sented o theSocietyof BiblicalLiteratureectiononEarlyJewish/Christianelations,AnnualMeeting,November 0,2000:"God-FearersndContesteddentitywithinJewishCommunities."O70nherelationshipof thispassageto parodiesof pretentiouself-representationesp, asphilosopher)n the Greco-Romanworld,see StanleyStowers,ARereadingof Romans New




19/24


enon for which we actuallyhave muchevidence.72Paul and Johnof Patmosillus-tratethe diversityof Gentile self-definitionwithin the Jesus movement:GentileslabellingthemselvesJews becauseof adherence o some degreeof halakhicprac-tices; Gentiles consideringthemselves "inward"Jews accordingto Paul's dicta;andGentiles in variousstages of conversionto Judaism.Such Gentile "Judaizers" eem to have been a significant force in the Jesusmovement throughout he second century;thusIgnatiusof Antioch instructsthePhiladelphians hat"it is betterto hearChristianity roma circumcisedmanthanJudaismfrom a man uncircumcised" 6.1).73Paul himself, so Lloyd Gaston andJohnGagerhaveproposed,wasespecially angeredby some Gentile"Judaizers""those underthe law" (1 Cor 9:20b) as opposed to ethnic Jews (9:20a)-whenthey promotedcertain formsof Jewish observance, suchas circumcision,amongother Gentile Jesus believers ("those not under the law," 9:21). Jesus believ-ers, in Paul's mind, ought to interpret Jewish scripture, follow a version ofJewish halakhic purity (1 Cor 7-8; 10; 11:4-15; Rom 2:12-15), and definethemselves according to Jewish models of quasi-angelic sainthood, but notidentify themselves as Jews. Thus the question arises, if Pauline Gentile Jesusbelievers tended to reject the label "Jew," would John view them as "thosewho call themselves Jews"?

The fact that Paul at one time admonished Gentiles who "call themselvesJews" (Rom 2:17) does not mean that his Gentile partisans in subsequentde-cades would avoid the label "Jew"; t may have seemed increasinglyvaluable inapologetic situations.But the actualself-labelling of GentileJesus believers maynot have matteredat all to someone like Johnof Patmos, for they were "actingthe part of Jews" as mere members of the Jesus movement: observing somehalakhicrequirements,as Paul had instructed,and intrinsicallyparticipating nJewish practice and scriptureto the extent that the Jesus movement assumed

Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 144-49, who unfortunately never considers the possibil-ity that one "calling himself' a Jew might actually not be a Jew at all.2Gaston,"Judaism of the Uncircumcised"; Gager, Origins of Antisemitism, 117-33; and ingeneral on those "calling themselves Jews," Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 58-62, 149-54.7Cf. Titus 1:10; CIJ II, #754, in Schurer, History of the Jewish People, 3:22: a theosebespays for a synagogue near Philadelphia. William Schoedel asserts that the Judaizers to whichIgnatius refers in his letters to the Philadelphians and Magnesians (9.1) "may have been moreinterested in the idea of Judaism than the practice of it": idem, Ignatius of Antioch: A Com-mentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (ed. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia:Fortress, 1985) 123,200-03,209-10). Schoedel, however, seems to draw on modem Christiannotions of religious identity rather than on ancient evidence for the attraction of Jewish prac-tices in antiquity, even among Jesus believers; see Simon, Verus Israel, and Cohen, Originsof Jewishness, 140-74. Cohen (175-97) also points out that Judaizing does not imply influ-ence from an outside Jewish community but ratherthe promotion of ritual traditions within theJesus movement itself.




20/24


such participation.74 hey may simply have been "saying"they were Jews inso-far as they participatedin a religious sect that was essentially Jewish. But toJohn of Patmosthey were most definitely not Jews; indeed, taking a wordtypi-cally used at the time for some kind of Jewish assembly, he relabels them a"synagogue of Satan." He viewed Pauline Gentile Jesus believers as insuffi-ciently Jewish in practice and thus failing to maintain the purityof the sect-apuritythat was crucial for him-in its anticipationof the parousia.75To be sure,Jewishness wasrelative n antiquity;but in this case we areviewingJewishness throughthe eyes of John of Patmos,for whom halakhicobservance,priestly purity,and even celibacy were the standards or those who claimed tounderstandChrist."Being"aJew involvedmuchmore than whathis opponents nthe Paulinecamp were doing andpromoting.76Would John have made the sameaccusationof being "so-calledJews"againstJewish-born ndividualspracticingalesserdegreeof purityregulations,whetheras PaulineJesus believers orsimplyas"apostateJews"? Probablynot; intra-Jewishpolemics on issues of purityelse-where in the Mediterraneanworld, as reflected in writings such as Jubilees, 1Enoch,and theCairo Damascusdocument,containextremelyhostile languagebutnever impugn their opponents'Jewishness.77 ewish excoriationsof "apostates"focus on themes of desertion rather han on the false pretenseof "calling them-selves Jews."78John's concern with his opponents' false Jewishness seems torevolve around he issue of the ritual ncorporationof Gentiles into an essentiallyJewish Jesusmovementandmaywell hearkenback to the circumcisiondebates n

7See Cohen, Origins of Jewishness, 194-96. Note that in his letters to Trajan (ca. 112C.E.), Pliny the Younger refers to some "Christian"practices in Bithynia during his time, buthe never associates this sect with the Jews; see Pliny, Ep. Tra. 10.96. Whatever was left ofJohn's partisans by this time, their strife would certainly have been internecine and no moreobservable to a Roman governor than the conflicts between Branch Davidian and DavidianAdventist conflicts were observable to U.S. authorities in the late twentieth century; seeWilliam L. Pitts, Jr., "Davidians and Branch Davidians, 1929-1987," and David G. Bromleyand Edward D. Silver, "The Davidian Tradition: From Patronal Clan to Prophetic Movement,"in Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict (ed. StuartA.Wright; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995) 20-42 and 43-72, respectively."For important discussions of conflicts within the Jesus movement over the adherenceto Jewish halakhah, see Gager, Origins of Antisemitism, 117-59, which focuses on polemi-cal character. See also Meier, "Antioch," which offers a useful model for halakhic "positions"within the movement.

76Cohen notes that Gentiles who "converted" to Judaism might still not be accepted bynatural Jews, except as proselytes with a lower status; see Origins of Jewishness, 160-62.77Jubilees :36-38; 50:5,8,13; CD V-VI, etpassim; andI Enoch6-13, with David Suter,"FallenAngel, Fallen Priest:The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6-16," HUCA 50 (1979) 115-35.78JohnM. G. Barclay, "Who Was Considered an Apostate in the Jewish Diaspora?" inTolerance and Intolerance, 80-98.




21/24


the time of Paul.7 It also places Revelation within the alreadywell-documentedliteratureopposingPaulinist deas, suchas James,Matthew,and the later Pseudo-Clementineand Elchasaitetraditions.8As an interpretation f the opponents inRev 2:9 and3:9, therefore, his"PaulineGentile believer"hypothesishas theben-efit of historicalantecedentsandparallels,while previoushypothesesof an"angryJewish community"arederivedfrom Christian heological tradition.Thus,the"so-calledJews" wouldhave been Gentiles who wereobservingsomedegreeof Jewishpracticeaccordingto Pauline nstruction;hence"actingthe Jew."Like "Jezebel"andthe"Nicolaitans," heseopponentswerepartof the Paulineorneo-Pauline wing of the Jesus movement. But while the formeropponents areobjectionableto Johnbecause of theirteachings,the "so-called Jews"areobjec-tionable because they are Gentiles who are insufficiently observantof Jewishpractice.Both of John'sobjectionsrevolvearound ssuesof purity-purity inprepa-ration for the parousia, purityfor intimacywith the heavenly world, and puritynecessary for receiving visions of Christ.The impurityof the "so-called Jews"threatened he cohesion of the Elect in the end-times.8'* ConclusionsOne of thepitfalls of modem New Testamentresearch s the tendencyto look atthe literatureof the earlyJesus movementas the first voices of a nascentreligionemergingfrom a "Jewish-paganbackground."But countless studiesof thepolem-ics andcategoriesused to constructself-definitionin this movementhave shownus, time andtime again,that this literature eflectsthe micro-disputesandschisms

79Johnof Patmos's objection to indiscriminate admission and participation of Gentiles inthe Jewish Jesus movement carries forward the issue that motivated the mission to Gentilesin the middle of the first century; see Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytiz-ing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 168-73.80See Gager, Origins of Antisemitism, 186-89; Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul inJewish Christianity (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); and Sim, Gospelof Matthew and Christian Judaism, 165-213.8'It is thus curious that circumcision is not (or is no longer) an issue in John's dispute withthe neo-Paulinists, for Paul himself suggests that this was the main issue surroundingthe admis-sion of Gentiles in the Jesus movement of his time (Gal 2:3,7-8, 12;5:2-6). John,however, doesnot find opposition to circumcision among the many horrorsthathis opponents are teaching. Wemay deduce from this paradox that circumcision may not have been the focal issue throughoutthe Gentile Jesus movement; it may, rather, have been Paul's own peculiar obsession (cf. Gal

5:12). Perhaps the neo-Pauline leaders (Jezebel and the neo-Balaamians) and their followers("so-called Jews") were all, in fact, circumcised and yet still cleaved to a lower standard ofhalakhic purity in other matters. While acknowledging the problem posed by John's silence oncircumcision (for which I thank Paul Duff, personal communication), I do not see this silenceas weakening the overall argumentproposed here, but rather as impelling furtherresearch on thediversity of attitudes and halakhic observance within the Jesus movement of Asia Minor.




22/24


of a sectarianmovementwithinwhatwe mighttentativelycall Judaism.There wasno "Christianity," or was therea monolithicJudaismbenton persecuting ts ownhybrid orms.Wecan,however,observeaspectrum f related ectsof a millennialistorientationthatmay be generalizedas a "Jesusmovement,"and it is within thisspectrum hatwe oughtto locate both Johnof Patmosandhis opponents.As is typicalin such sectarianmovements,then,the battlesthatJohnof Patmoswages aremost likely amongJesus believers themselves rather handisputeswithoutsideauthoritiesor whichwe haveno evidence.Sociologically, tis the internecineconflict,therejectionof the"intimate nemy,"the"heretic,"hatproduces hemosthostile vilification;andJohn'sattitude owardopponents n Smyrna,Philadelphia,Ephesus,andThyatiras certainlyhostile.So, whowouldbe an"absolutensider"nJohn's polarizedworldview,that is, within the world of Jesus believers?Such apersonwould be, like him, not just any Jesus devotee but a rigorousadherent oJewishlaw, andeven to priestlypurityregulations, hat would allow for visionsofand participationn the heavenlycourt and that would prepare he saints for theparousia.So strict s John'ssense of purity hatsexuality tself is viewedas inappro-priate ortheElect.Fromthis perspective,I have argued,John of Patmos would have viewed ad-herents oPaul'sfar oosersenseof Jewish observanceas incomplete, nappropriate,andeven threatening o the purityand cohesion of the saints. Johnwould not, ofcourse, have been alone in this opinionof Paulineideology, for Paulcites similarcriticisms in his letterto the Romans:"Somepeople slanderus by saying that wesay, 'Let us do evil thatgood maycome' "(3:8;cf. 6:1, 15). But he is the primarywitness to anopinionthatwas probably armorepervasive n the Jesus movementthanthe New Testamentcanonsuggests:Paul's Gentile followers, whetheror notthey embracedthe label"Jew,"were in fact nothingbut "so-calledJews."82Thispaperhas neitheraddressednor assumedany particular ate fortheBook ofRevelation. Evidence for the late, Domitianicdate has become quite shaky sinceLeonardThompson'sandChristianWilson's demonstrationsf thisemperor's atherbenignreign.83f John'sopponents-or to him "persecutors"-arePaulinebeliev-ers,thentheApocalypsemight ndicate he currenthegemonyof Pauline deologyinthe Jesus movementof Asia Minor. Wouldthis hegemonybe more likely to havetakenplace in the mid-firstcenturyor the late-firstcentury?Ignatiusoffers little

82Cf.Gal 2:2-4, 12; Acts 15:1, 5, 24; and see Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and ChristianJudaism, on Matthew's analogous view of Paulinism.83Thompson,Book of Revelation, 95-115, and "Social Location of Early Christian Apoca-

lyptic," 2630-31; J. Christian Wilson, "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation,"NTS 39 (1993) 587-605. The Domitianic date is, however, still affirmed by Thompson, Bookof Revelation, 16-17, and Aune, Revelation, 1:lxiii-lxx.




23/24


certaintyas to which forms of Christworship predominatedn the cities of AsiaMinorduringhis time, but the Ascensionof Isaiah, a second-century pocalypse,reflects a Jewish self-definition much like thatof John of Patmos:a Jesus sectrevolvingaroundprophetswho likewise present hemselves as neo-biblicalneviimand whose provenance was most likely Asia Minor.84Probablyboth forms ofJesus belief-Pauline andthe stricterpriestly/halakhic- continuedin these cit-ies throughoutlate antiquity.So the conclusions drawn in this paperdo not inthemselves indicate a moreprecise date than the second half of the firstcentury.Norhave I addressed herelationshipbetweenJohn'svilificationof his intimateenemies andhis demonization f theRomanempire,whichdominates hapters12-13 and 17-18. Theletters otheseven churches ch. 2-3) also demonizewhatmightbe identifiedas Roman authorities nasmuchas John describesa majorPergamumtempleas "the hroneof Satan"2:13a)and ocalprosecutingauthoritieswhetherornot there were real incarcerations) s "thedevil" (2:10).85An importantquestionthenarises,how could the greaterRomanempirebe an "intimate nemy"like thePaulineJesusbelievers?Perhapswe shouldsee inbothpolemicsalarger oncern orseparation rom theseductionsandimpurityof thisworldin order ojoin the heav-enly saints.Certainly hecharacterizationf Babylon/Romeasa whore(17-18) andthesecondBeast as a deceptiveprophet 13) reflectsuchsentiments, uchboundaryformation.Fromthis perspective, he Pauline believers who wereGentile(despiteJewishappearances) ndadopted"assimilationist"ractices,wouldbeonlythemostintimate ormof the dangerunclearboundariesposedto thecommunity.

Finally, throughout his paperI have made a point of avoiding any use of thewords "Christian" r "Christianity" ndhave used "Judaism" nly in a tentativesense. By criticallysuspendinguse of theterm"Christian," havehopefullydem-onstratedhow anachronistic his term s as anhistorical ategoryandhowconfusingits use can be whenone is tacklingthe perspectiveof a figurelike Johnof Patmos.If he is "Christian"-a taxonomy that says little about his overall ideology as aJew-then so are his opponents;hence we have neithersaid muchaboutJohnnorexplainedthe characterof his conflicts. When we cast these questions n termsof"Christians" nd"Jews"we exaggerateboundariesand inventself-definitionsthat

84SeeRobert G. Hall, "The Ascension of Isaiah: Community, Situation, Date, and Placein Early Christianity," JBL 109 (1990) 289-306; and David Frankfurter, "The Legacy ofJewish Apocalypses in Early Christianity: Regional Trajectories," in The Jewish Apocalyp-tic Heritage in Early Christianity (ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler; CRINT 3.4;Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 132-42; and "Early Christian Apocalypticism: Literature andSocial World," in Jewish and Christian Origins of Apocalypticism (vol. 1 of Encyclopediaof Apocalypticism; ed. John J. Collins; New York: Continuum, 1998) 426-30.85For2:13a I am dependent on Adela Yarbro Collins, "Satan's Throne at Pergamum andJohn's Conflict with Culture," paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Society of Bib-lical Literature, November 1999 (? S119). Cf. Aune, Revelation, 1:182-84.




24/24


simplydidnot exist at the time.8 We alsoprejudgehe motivationsorallegedpersecutions,ince"Christian"mpliesavisible,definable roup necouldperse-cute.But f webeginwith heassumptionhat heJesusmovementwas anentirelyintra-Jewishectarianmovement,nd f wequalify"Jewish"o indicate range fpractices, then the outlines of conflict around John of Patmos begin to emergewithmoreprecision.

"6Seeesp. Marshall, "Parables of the War," and Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyr-dom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999).


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

jews or not? reconstructing the "other" in rev 2:9 and 3:9

Documents