Who Rides the Beast?: Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse

Who Rides the Beast?

This page intentionally left blank

Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse

Paul B. Duff

OXJORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

2001

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Copyright © 2001 by Paul B. Duff Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Duff, Paul Brooks, 1952Who rides the beast? : prophetic rivalry and the rhetoric of crisis in the churches of the apocalypse / Paul B. Duff p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBNO-19-513835-X 1. Bible. NT. Revelation—Socio-rhetorical criticism. I. Title. BS2825.2 .D792000 228'.06—dc21 00-025179

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

E\)%apicrc(B TCQ Geco ^ov eni Ttdari rfi (a,veia t)|j.rov For Ann, Justin, Andy, and Sally

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

I began my investigation of the book of Revelation only relatively recently. I had started my professional career as a Pauline scholar and so I arrived at the doorstep of the Apocalypse in a rather roundabout way. Perhaps my greatest motivation for studying this work arose from the sense of ignorance that I experienced whenever I turned to it in my introductory courses. Somehow, I felt that this was a document that I could not "get a handle on." The fact that undergraduate students have typically shown great interest in the work further exacerbated my sense of distance from the text. They always wanted to talk about it, whereas I rarely did. Ultimately I decided that I had no choice but to look further into the work. In a sense then, I began studying the Apocalypse out of self-defense. I am very glad that I did. In the course of my time with this piece of literature, I have come to realize that it is not only a work of great rhetorical power but also a work of stark and sometimes chilling beauty. It portrays, on the one hand, a world gone terribly awry. On the other hand, it also offers the hope of a cosmos made whole. The breadth of the vision offers a depiction of humanity both at its best and worst. Perhaps it is this that makes the Apocalypse such a fascinating topic of study. Many people have helped me on this project. I would like to thank the members of the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar on Reading the Apocalypse who warmly welcomed me, a newcomer to their field, into their community of learning. They critiqued earlier versions of several of the chapters with great care and enthusiasm. I would especially

viii

Preface

like to thank David L. Barr, who chaired the seminar. I am also indebted to the members of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion, particularly Diana Culbertson and James G. Williams, who heard and commented on an earlier version of chapter 9. Other colleagues who assisted me in various ways include Jeffrey Carlson, Carolyn Dexter, Joseph Hallman, Alf Hiltebeitel, Margaret Mitchell, Richard Rosengarten, Dewey Wallace, and Harry Yeide. Ann Osborn offered valuable stylistic suggestions along the way. Heather Kauffman, Denise Mix, and Shiri Weinbaum helped me with the preparation of the manuscript. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the George Washington University for a summer grant that enabled me to begin research on this book. Most of the biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version. I have sometimes used my own translations, though, for the sake for clarity or in order to make a particular point. Classical quotations are from the Loeb Classical Library translations. Translations of the church fathers are from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950).

Contents

Abbreviations

xi

1.

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation? An Introduction to the Problem 3

2.

Setting the Stage: Urban Christianity in Western Asia Minor 17

3.

The Issues: Evidence from the Letters to the Seven Churches 31

4.

The Actors: People and Parties behind the Book of Revelation 48

5.

Wealth, Commerce, and the Merchant Class

6.

The Rhetoric of Innuendo: Opposition, Equivalence, and Indirect Accusation 71

7.

The Women of Revelation: Binding "Jezebel" to "Babylon" 83

8.

The Out-of-Control Female: John's Use of Gender Stereotypes 97

9.

True and False Prophets: Binding "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth 113

10.

Conclusion: The Rhetoric of Exclusion Notes

135

Bibliography

169

Index of Biblical Passages Index of Subjects

181

111

126

61

This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations

'Abod. Zar ABD ANRW Arist. Eth. Me. Arist. Gen. An. Arist. Pol. Arist. Rh. [Arist.J Rh. Al. Ascen. Is. Ath. BAG

BDF

BTB CBQ [Cic.] Ad. Her. Cic. Att. Cic. Cluent.

'Abodah Zarah Anchor Bible Dictionary Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea Aristotle, De Generations Animalium Aristotle, Politica Aristotle, Rhetorica [Aritotle], Rhetorica ad Alexandrum Ascension of Isaiah Athenaeus Walter Bauer, William Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) Friedrich Blass, Albert Debruner, and Robert Walter Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) Biblical Theology Bulletin Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Cicero], Ad Herennium Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum Cicero, Pro Cluentio xi

xii

Abbreviations Cic. Fam. Cic. Inv. Rhet. Cic. Off. Cic. Paradox. Stoic. CIL Clem. Al. Paed. Did. Dig. Dio. Cass. Ed.Diod. Bus. Hist. Eccl. HDR Hes. Op. Hes. Theog. Hippol. Haer. HNTC Horn. //. Hor. Sat. HTS HUT ICC IDE

1C Ign. Phld. Ign. Pol. ILS Iren. Adv. Haer. JBL Jer. Adv. Jov. Jos. AJ Jos. BJ JR JRS JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup Jub. Luc. Peregr. LXX NovTSup

Cicero, Epistulae adfamiliares Cicero, De Inventions Rhetorica Cicero, De Officiis Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus Didache Digesta Dio Cassius Edict of Diocletian Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hesiod, Opera et Dies Hesiod, Theogonia Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium Harper's New Testament Commentaries Homer, Iliad Horace, Satirae Harvard Theological Studies Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. and supplementary volume, ed. George Buttrick and Keith Grim (New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1962-76) Inscriptions Graecae Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols. ed. Hermann Dessau (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892-1916) Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses Journal of Biblical Literature Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae Josephus, Bellum Judaicum Journal of Religion Journal of Roman Studies JSNT Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT Supplement Series Jubilees Lucian, De Morte Peregrini Septuagint Version Novum Testamentum, Supplements

Abbreviations

NTS Philo Vit. Mas. Philo Spec. Leg. Philostrat, VA Pliny Ep. Pliny NH POxy. Plut. Ant. Plut. Coning. Praec. Plut. Demetr. Plut. De Is. et Os. Plut. Suav. Viv. Epic.

New Testament Studies Philo, De Vita Moses Philo, De Spetialibus Legibus Philostratus, Vita Apollonii Pliny the Younger, Epistulae Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia Oxyrhynchus Papyri Plutarch, Antony Plutarch, Coniugalia Praecepta Plutarch, Demetrius Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride Plutarch, Non Posse Suaviter Vivi Secundum Epicurum Plut. Quest. Con. Plutarch, Quaestionum Convivialium Tert. Praescr. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum Quint. Inst. Quintilian, Instuitutio oratoria RB Revue biblique SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series SBT Studies in Biblical Theology Sen. Ben. Seneca, De Beneficiis Sen. Ep. Seneca, Epistulae Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Strab. Strabo Suet. lul. Suetonius, Divus lulius Suet. Ner. Suetonius, Nero Tac. Ann. Tacitus, Annals Tac. Hist. Tacitus, Historiae Test. Lev. Testament of Levi Test. Reub. Testament of Reuben Tert. De Praescr. Haeret. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964-76) Xen. An. Xenophon, Anabasis Xen. Oec. Xenophon, Oeconomicus

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

Who Rides the Beast?

This page intentionally left blank

1 Was There a Crisis behind Revelation? An Introduction to the Problem

The book of Revelation, in a series of powerful visions, presents the reader with a frightening narrative world in which the people of God are tormented, threatened, and sometimes killed by various agents of Satan.1 Throughout the work, the Apocalypse points to Rome as the predominant demonic agent. 2 The following vision (quoted in an abbreviated form) can serve as an example of one such scene: 17:1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great whore who is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the inhabitants of the earth have become drunk." 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; 5 and on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth's abominations." 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. . . . And [the angel] said to me . . . 18 "The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

In recent years, serious questions have been raised about the assumption that Rome persecuted Christians at the time the Apocalypse was written. Consequently, the relationship between the narrative world of 3

4

Who Rides the Beast?

the book of Revelation and the real world in which Christians of the western Asian cities lived at the time has been called into question. In this chapter, I will examine briefly the traditional understanding of the Apocalypse and the academic tradition that grew out of it. I will then turn to the problems that have arisen with the traditional point of view in recent years, and I will look at several attempts to come to terms with these problems. Finally, building on these various theories, I will suggest a path that will lead to a historically responsible understanding of the circumstances behind the book of Revelation.

The Tradition According to the second-century church father Irenaeus, the book of Revelation was composed in the final years of Domitian's reign.3 About a century and a half after Irenaeus, the Christian historian Eusebius painted a portrait of Domitian as a tyrant so cruel and brutal in his persecution of Christians that he proved himself the true successor to Nero. 4 The tradition of the origin of the Apocalypse during Domitian's persecutions was taken for granted by subsequent Christian writers.5 As time passed, few found sufficient reason to doubt the tradition articulated by Eusebius. 6 Consequently, until recent times, most scholars interpreted the book of Revelation against the background of Domitianic persecution.7 The longstanding dominance of this portrait in academic circles is exemplified in the writings of the great historian William Ramsay. Ramsay, in the early years of the twentieth century, not only wrote about the so-called Flavian persecution (under Domitian) but went so far as to give us a behind-the-scenes look at Domitian's policy of persecution: [Domitian's persecution was] not a temporary flaming forth of cruelty; it was a steady uniform application of a deliberately chosen and unvarying policy, a policy arrived at after careful consideration, and settled for the permanent future conduct of the entire administration. It was to be independent of circumstances and the inclination of individuals. The Christians were to be annihilated, as the Druids had been. 8

What is truly startling about this and other such opinions is the fact that virtually no reliable external evidence supports them. 9 In the middle of the twentieth century this picture finally came under attack. Rigorous historical studies had by then shown that there was little or no substantial evidence for the belief that Domitian persecuted Christians for their religious beliefs. 10 Ultimately, New Testament scholars found themselves in an uncomfortable position. On the one hand, John's narrative—especially as regards persecution—is so strikingly vivid that it is hard to ignore. On the other hand, the findings of historians had to be taken into account. The famous English bishop John A. T. Robinson went so far as to intimate (tongue-in-cheek, of

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation?

5

course) that perhaps John was crazy and therefore we could dismiss his testimony.11 Short of that conclusion, though, scholars needed to reconcile the apparent tension between the history and the literature.

Some Attempts to Solve the Problem There have been various attempts to come to terms with the tension between the narrative and what we know of the history behind the text, some more imaginative than others. Although the survey in the next few pages is by no means exhaustive, it will serve to highlight the work of those who have, in one way or another, contributed to my thinking about a solution to the problem of the text's origin. Option One: Persecution Did Exist Even Though There Is No Evidence to Demonstrate It Some scholars have attempted to reduce the tension between the narrative world of the text and historical evidence by insisting that persecution was a problem, even if sufficient external evidence cannot be produced to prove it. In the introduction to a collection of essays published in 1985, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza 12 argued that the experience of persecution articulated in the book of Revelation should be taken seriously despite our lack of evidence for religious persecution at the time. 13 In fact, she argues that, given the perspective of ancient Roman historians, we should not expect to find any evidence. Schtissler Fiorenza draws a powerful analogy from twentieth-century American life to illustrate her point. One could argue from the point of view of well-to-do white Americans that no harassment, denigration, discrimination, or oppression of blacks existed at the time of Martin Luther King, Jr., although King was assassinated. The perspective of blacks would be quite different! Similarly, the author of [Revelation] has adopted the "perspective from below" and expressed the experiences of those who were powerless, poor, and in constant fear of denunciation. 14

Hence, according to Schiissler Fiorenza, the perspective of persecution presented by the text is just too strong to be ignored. 15 In a brief commentary on the Apocalypse published several years later (1991), Schiissler Fiorenza modified her position to some extent. In the later work—reflecting the scholarly debates of the late 1980s— she says, "Whether Revelation's theological world of vision was engendered by a situation of persecution and conflict or is the outcome of psychological resentment and of wishful projection by the author remains a debated question." 16 In addition, in this more recent publication, she tends to speak more in terms of "conflict" between Christians and the state rather than "full-fledged, legally sanctioned persecution."17

6

Who Rides the Beast?

Schiissler Fiorenza's change of stance is symptomatic of recent scholarship on the Apocalypse. The majority of scholars are less and less inclined to point to full-fledged persecution as the impetus for the production of the book of Revelation. Option Two: The Book of Revelation Has Been Improperly Dated John A. T. Robinson, in the 1960s, tried to reconcile the apparent contradiction between external historical evidence and the persecution implied in the Apocalypse by suggesting an earlier date for the book of Revelation. He argued that the document was written not during the time of Domitian but in the years shortly following Nero's brutal assault on Christians in Rome (68-70 CE). I S Robinson buttressed his proposition with various elements, including some church traditions, some past voices in the academic tradition, and evidence from the text of Revelation itself. The advantage of Robinson's earlier date for the book of Revelation is obvious. By redating the text, he is able to overcome the apparent discrepancy between the picture of the Christian communities of Asia Minor implied in the text and the historical evidence. The background of persecution can be maintained by the suggestion that Christians living shortly after Nero's persecution would certainly have experienced the kind of trauma that John intimates in his work. Robinson begins his exposition by showing that not all early Christian traditions attributed the apocalypse to the time of Domitian. For example, one tradition (preserved in Tertullian and known to Jerome) 19 points to a Neronic date for John's banishment. Robinson also points to a tradition in Epiphanius, which certainly does not point to Domitian and might point to Nero.20 In addition, he cites several Syriac sources that suggest that the book of Revelation originated before Domitian's time. 21 In addition to church traditions, Robinson also appeals to earlier scholarly opinions, especially those of the nineteenth century; for instance, such distinguished biblical scholars as J. B. Lightfoot, B. F. Westcott, and F. J. A. Hort all favored a date between 68-70. Robinson also appeals to such noted twentieth-century classicists as A. Momigliano and B. W. Henderson. Finally, Robinson looks to the text of Revelation itself for support. His rather straightforward reading of 17:9-11 (the seven heads of the beast)—which he sees as suggesting a Neronic milieu for the Apocalypse—is most noteworthy, especially in light of the fact that 17:9-11 has caused severe problems for those who favor a Domitianic date for the Apocalypse.22 Robinson's argument has failed to convince many scholars, nevertheless it was revisited some thirty years later by J. Christian Wilson. In a series of papers and articles, Wilson once again suggested a pre-70 CE date for the book.23

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation?

7

In his magisterial three-volume commentary on the book of Revelation, David Aune has also weighed in on the question of redating the Apocalypse,24 suggesting that it was written in two different editions. The first edition (which consisted, for the most part, of the book of Revelation minus the letters of chapters 2 and 3) was produced by the author around 70 CE and articulated the trauma experienced by the author following the disastrous Roman-Jewish war (66-73 CE). The second edition was probably turned out in the last decade of the first century (or perhaps as late as the end of Trajan's reign in 117 CE). Aune argues that there are substantial stylistic and theological differences between the two editions. Option Three: The Community Perceived Great Hostility against Itself In an important work published in 1984, Adela Yarbro Collins tried to reconcile a Domitianic date for the Apocalypse while, at the same time, acknowledging the lack of persuasive historical evidence for persecution by that emperor. She maintains that John, when he alludes to persecution, does not, for the most part, refer to past persecutions. Rather, he anticipates future Roman action against the church. Hence the text of the Apocalypse does not depict history but portrays a vision of the future. 25 Despite the fact that she does not see persecution as the catalyst for the document, Yarbro Collins, like most other scholars, assumes the existence of some kind of trauma behind the work. But on the basis of her reading of the text, she concludes that the crisis that precipitated the writing of John's Apocalypse was a not an objectively observable crisis; instead it was a perceived crisis. The lack of supporting evidence for a Domitianic persecution has led at least one interpreter [i.e., Robinson] to revive the theory of an earlier date. Most interpreters seem to assume that the occasion of the book must have been an objectively intense and extensive crisis of which the author had personal experience. This axiom can be questioned from the perspective of recent psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies. Relative, not absolute or objective, deprivation is a common precondition of millenarian movements. In other words, the crucial element is not so much whether one is actually oppressed as whether one feels oppressed. 26

Yarbro Collins is certainly correct in her assumption that relative rather than absolute deprivation is the precondition for apocalyptic movements. Christians only had to feel oppressed in their communities. She contends that the cumulative weight of various past and present elements all contributed to the author's perception of a crisis situation. These elements include (1) the ostracism of the Christian communities by neighboring Jews and Gentiles, (2) poverty, (3) the social instability of Asia Minor, and (4) the lingering trauma resulting from both Nero's

8

Who Rides the Beast?

persecution of Christians and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Yarbro Collins assumes that John's apocalypse, by clarifying the Christian society's heretofore unfocused anxiety, could provide some psychological aid to the community by projecting the perceived threat from Rome onto a "cosmic screen." Such a projection, she argues, "is cathartic in the sense that it clarifies and objectifies the conflict. Fearful feelings are vented by the very act of expressing them, especially in this larger-than-life and exaggerated way."27 In short, Yarbro Collins suggests that the author did not depict an objective portrait of the relations between Rome (or Greco-Roman society) and the churches; rather, he distorted the picture in order to provide a focus for the communities' fears. The very act of focusing them could provide some relief from the cumulative trauma the communities had experienced.

Option Four: There Was No Crisis, Perceived or Otherwise Leonard Thompson, in his 1990 work The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, proposed another solution. Thompson, unlike virtually everyone before him, argues that no crisis lay beneath John's apocalypse, not even a perceived crisis.28 He even goes so far as to dismiss the traditional view that John was banished to Patmos for his Christian preaching activities.29 Thompson contends that Christians were not singled out for harassment or persecution by civic or imperial authorities. He also suggests that the alleged pressures on Christians resulting from the imperial cult have been grossly overstated and that the picture of Domitian that history has preserved is by no means a fair or balanced portrait. Most important and in direct contrast to Yarbro Collins, Thompson further argues that the communities of the Apocalypse likely lived in harmony with their neighbors. We can rule out any portrait of Asian Christians as a beleaguered, oppressed minority living as separatists in an isolated ghetto. Christians, for the most part, lived alongside their non-Christian neighbors, sharing peacefully in urban Asian life. There is not even much evidence in the Book of Revelation itself for persistent hostilities towards Christians by Roman officials or non-Christian neighbors. At the same time John is unequivocal in his negative attitude toward Asian society and the empire. This negative attitude is expressed through topics commonplace to the apocalyptic genre such as conflict, crisis, assurances of hope, and exhortations to steadfastness. As generic topoi they do not necessarily indicate anything about the circumstances in which the Book of Revelation arose. They are not, therefore appropriate clues to the social location of the Book of Revelation in the empire. 30

Thompson's conclusions concerning late-first-century Christians in urban Asia are striking. Just as earlier scholars have shown that no un-

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation?

9

equivocal evidence exists for persecution, Thompson suggests that there is no compelling reason to believe that Christians were singled out and harassed by their non-Christian neighbors. What then gave rise to the negative portrayal of Rome and GrecoRoman society in Revelation? Thompson argues that the book of Revelation represents the received knowledge or the "mythology" of a "cognitive minority" (i.e., a subculture with a different set of values from the larger society). This received knowledge (drawn from apocalyptic Judaism) was defiantly set against the "mythology" of the larger culture (the "cognitive majority"). 31 Hence, according to Thompson, suggestions of harassment and persecution in the book of Revelation appear because they are part and parcel of the genre "apocalypse." The seer used that genre, according to Thompson, to aid his communities in the "'laborious adjustment' by ... which humans adapt to their environment." 32 Thompson maintained that the seer could be best described as a kind of critic of the public order. As such, he "can be compared to philosophical aristocrats and to magicians, diviners, astrologers, and prophets who disturbed the public mind through private transmission of values and ideals that went against the order of the empire."33 In order to bolster his proposal, Thompson downplays what virtually all scholars have seen as dualism in Revelation. "If there was irreconcilable contradiction among religious, social, biological, and cultural dimensions of Christian existence, the seer would be affirming that at its most fundamental level of reality there is an eternal, fixed metaphysical dualism. Such a view is antithetical to John's." 34 Rather, he argues, [an] examination of the seer's vision of the world suggests that it does not contain fundamental conflicts. One element or dimension of the vision is not pitted against another; and terms such as conflict, tension, and crisis do not characterize his vision. . . . At all levels, signifiers, signifieds, deep structures, and surface structures form homologies, not contradictory oppositions. 35

As I understand his work, Thompson has argued that the absence of any kind of absolute dualism within Revelation would suggest to us that Revelation is not crisis literature. In crisis literature, we should expect a contradiction between "what ought to be" (or in apocalyptic terms, "what will be") and "what is." The boundaries in the book of Revelation, on the contrary, are not hard and fast but porous and soft. That which is central to Revelation, Thompson contends, is the theme not of opposition but of transformation. Thus, what he sees as the nondualistic world of Revelation (where transformation takes the place of that which is usually read as opposition) suggests to Thompson that the text resulted not from a crisis or even a perceived crisis within the communities. Instead, we should read

10

Who Rides the Beast?

it as a kind of definitive mythological "charter" or map for late-firstcentury Asia Minor Christians. Option Five: The Crisis Resulted from Conflict within the Church In his recent book The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John, Robert Royalty suggested that the only crisis in the communities behind the book of Revelation lay within the churches. In his words, "the actual conflict that precipitated the 'crisis of the Apocalpypse' was not conflict with the Romans or the Jews. Rather, it was conflict within the Christian churches over the authority of John and his circle of prophets against the authority of other Christian teachers, apostles, and prophets."36 Royalty goes on to suggest that John wrote the book of Revelation to amplify the sense of crisis within the churches. He intended to enhance his own authority by intensifying the tension within the churches. Royalty is not the first to suggest that the "crisis" within the church was an internal one.37 Nevertheless, he has explored this line of inquiry more thoroughly than any previous scholar. Throughout his work, Royalty focuses on the language and ideology of wealth found throughout the Apocalypse. According to his analysis of the document, John appeals to a significant portion of those in the churches; specifically those concerned with their economic and social status.38 Royalty asserts that John portrays God and Christ as wealthy patrons of the Christian communities who could provide those communities with more status and power than could Caesar or Rome. John, according to Royalty, tells his communities that the wealth of Rome—characterized as low-status wealth because it derives from commerce—could not compete with the high-status wealth available to the Christian community in the New Jerusalem. Royalty's book draws on a number of important methodological sources. First, it is readily apparent that Yarbro Collins's work has strongly influenced his thinking. Second, he has drawn on the expanding field of early Christian social history.39 By focusing on the interplay of the social and economic aspects of the Apocalypse, he has helped to open a new line of inquiry into the communities behind the book of Revelation. Third, he has taken advantage of the burgeoning interest in the study of New Testament rhetoric. Ultimately, he sees the book of Revelation as a rhetorical document intended to persuade the churches to abandon their worldview and accept his. Strengths and Weaknesses of Recent Scholarship What is remarkable about all of these opinions, in their great diversity, is the fact that they each have something valuable to offer. Elements from each of the positions need to be taken seriously, even though, in my opinion, none of the arguments can stand on its own.

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation?

11

For instance, Schiissler Fiorenza reminds us that any rigorous theory about the situation behind the book of Revelation needs to take into account the experience articulated in Revelation. Despite what we may (or may not) find in external evidence, the experience articulated in the text suggests serious tension if not conflict of some kind. Nevertheless, as I will show later (and as Schiissler Fiorenza herself points out in her more recent work), a careful look at the early chapters of the Apocalypse does not necessarily point to persecution or harassment as the cause of the crisis. The positions of Robinson and Wilson are also important despite the ultimate failings of their scenario. I do not believe that their suggestion of a pre-70 date for the Apocalypse can be maintained in the face of the book of Revelation's internal evidence. For instance, within the book there are a number of elements that suggest a later date. These include the author's knowledge of Jerusalem's destruction40 and his familiarity with a legend that arose after Nero's death (68 CE)—a legend that narrated Nero's triumphant return to Rome at the head of the Parthian armies.41 Unfortunately, because Robinson and Wilson's suggestion for a pre-70 date for the Apocalypse has such serious problems, all of their points are frequently rejected out of hand by most scholars. Their work, nevertheless, stands as a reminder that we should not assume a Domitianic date for Revelation simply because we cannot come up with a better one. We must constantly keep in mind that the evidence for the Domitianic date is, as one scholar has put it, "far from overwhelming."42 Instead it is far more prudent to postulate a time somewhere in the last several decades of the first century. 43 Aune's solution to the problem of dating, if credible, would brilliantly solve many of the problems raised in dating the document. Since some portions of the Apocalypse recommend a date from around the time of Nero—as Wilson and Robinson point out—and others could fit a later date, Aune satisfies both by positing two separate editions. Unlike earlier intricate attempts to break down the document into its earlier components, the simplicity of Aune's suggestion also recommends it. Nevertheless, as I will show, many passages in the "first edition" as identified by Aune show the same concerns that dominate the letters of chapters 2 and 3, Aune's "second edition." Consequently, Aune's theory, unless it is altered somewhat, does not provide the panacea he might have hoped for. Yarbro Collins's work is extremely important because she attempts to face, without equivocation, the contradictory scenarios presented by the text and by recent historical research. Nevertheless, her suggestions are not without their problems. For instance, if there was no objective "crisis" such as persecution, was there a specific catalyst for Revelation or did the author just decide to sit down and write it? If there was a catalyst, should we not label that some kind of "crisis" and try to identify it, if possible?

12

Who Rides the Beast?

In addition, her position rests on assumptions that have not been thoroughly examined. These include her assumption of (1) significant external harassment of John's communities by neighboring Jews and pagans, (2) precarious relations between Roman officials and Christians, and (3) a lingering trauma resulting from the persecutions of Nero in the sixties and the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70. A third problem with Yarbro Collins's position has to do with cathartic intentions that she attributes to the author of Revelation. She maintains that "his purpose was to create tension [between what was and what ought to have been] for readers unaware of it, to heighten it for those who felt it already, and then to overcome it in an act of literary imagination."44 Here Yarbro Collins has made a very astute suggestion—that the seer created (or heightened) anxiety in his readership— and I will return to this idea. Nevertheless, her proposal that the reason that John created (or even heightened) terror was ultimately to alleviate it strikes me as unlikely. Nonetheless, the strength of Yarbro Collins's position remains despite any objections to the details that I might make. Her proposal that the crisis might be a perceived crisis rather than an objectively observable event and that the perceived crisis might have been exaggerated by John is a provocative idea that deserves further attention. I will build on this suggestion later. Thompson's examination of the historical background of the book of Revelation has certainly forced scholars to rethink their assumptions about the circumstances from which the text arose. In my view, his most important contribution to the study of the Apocalypse is his suggestion that Christians in the communities of the Apocalypse lived in relative harmony with their neighbors. He has shown that many of the assumptions that scholars have made about persecution, the obligations to the emperor cult, or even informal harassment of Christians have little, if any, historical credence. But, although he has tried to pull the rug out from under Yarbro Collins and her perceived crisis theory, nevertheless, ultimately he has not succeeded. Although Thompson argues that there was no real "crisis" behind the book of Revelation, he does—in a very roundabout way—come back to the notion of community crisis. [SJocial location as cognitive minority is itself a powerful cause for distress, for encouraging steadfastness in the faith, and for comforting the faithful. I suppose that one could describe a cognitive minority as perpetually in a state of crisis because of its social/cognitive location. If so, it should be noted that the crisis stems from deviant knowledge, rather than vice-versa; that is, because of the character of revealed knowledge, those committed to that knowledge are located socially in a cognitive minority, and, therefore, in crisis.45

Hence, according to Thompson, there was a "crisis," but deviant knowledge was its sole cause. Extreme ill will by a minority toward the

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation?

13

majority, Thompson argues, can arise simply because the majority refuses to believe the "knowledge" of the minority. So at the same time that he argues that there is no crisis underlying the Apocalypse, Thompson is also forced to admit that the cognitive minority of Christians in Asia Minor might perceive a crisis between itself and the cognitive majority. As a result, I think Thompson's model is much closer to Yarbro Collins's than he might like to admit.46 There are other problems with Thompson's perspective. For instance, regarding his view that there is no absolute dualism in the book of Revelation, it should be pointed out that virtually no Jewish or Christian Apocalypse maintains an absolute dualism. 47 Furthermore, the doubles found throughout Revelation, which Thompson claims are "split images of some more fundamental wholeness," are, in fact, usually ironic doubles. Hence, instead of attenuating any potential opposition between the figures as Thompson suggests, the text—by employing irony—reinforces it. I explore this idea in more detail later. Perhaps, however, the most important problem with Thompson's model is the fact that he pays too little attention to the factionalism that underlies the Apocalypse. John's bitter antipathy toward Rome is only matched (and perhaps even surpassed) by his enmity toward "Jezebel" and her followers. Royalty, on the other hand, sees factionalism as the major determinant in the production of the Apocalypse. In this regard, he has significantly advanced the study of this work. Likewise his focus on social, economic, and rhetorical issues points us toward a productive avenue of exploration to further determine the situation behind the document. Despite all of this, his conclusions are unconvincing. Royalty suggests that John's audience would be swayed by the argument that God and Christ offer them high-status wealth (the heavenly Jerusalem) that is better than the low-status wealth offered them by Rome, a nation of merchants (a low-status occupation). But, as I will argue later, John's audience—or at least a substantial portion of them—are themselves striving for the "low status wealth" of merchants.48 Who does Royalty think that John is trying to sway? If it is the merchants, it is hard to believe that John would be naive enough to think that they would be swayed by a "pie-in-the-sky" promise of "high-status" wealth in the future when money from commerce is within their grasp. If, on the other hand, John is trying to convince those not involved in commerce, I also find it hard to believe that this argument would persuade them. From their perspective, at the bottom of the economic ladder, even the "lowclass" status of merchant wealth would represent a significant increase in their own status in society. Such people would hardly look down their noses at the "low-class" wealth of commerce. In sum, although these scholars have all made significant and valiant attempts to address the situation behind the book of Revelation in light of our current understanding of the historical evidence, none has

14

Who Rides the Beast?

been fully successful. Yarbro Collins, Thompson, and Royalty have each succeeded in persuading us to look for something other than a crisis of persecution to explain the circumstances behind the book of Revelation. However, none has provided a fully adequate alternative explanation for the text's creation.

An Alternate Suggestion Although perhaps it is unwise to speak of a "crisis" lying behind the Apocalypse of John, it seems reasonable, on the basis of the evidence found in the book of Revelation and the preceding discussion, to assume that some kind of disturbance or conflict functioned as the catalyst for the book of Revelation. However, if we eliminate persecution (as many have suggested) and serious external harassment (as Thompson and Royalty recommend), we are left with the perplexing question: What was the specific issue to which John reacted? When we turn to the letters to the seven churches found in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation, one particularly interesting fact emerges: virtually all of the issues raised by the seer in these letters are internal issues.49 The focus on internal matters in the letters is frequently overlooked because of the blatant anti-Roman polemic of the visions section (chs. 4-21). 50 But it is a fact to which we need to pay particular attention. Scholars can (and certainly will) continue to argue over the Domitianic dating of the book of Revelation. They will also undoubtedly persist in debating whether or not Domitian persecuted Christians. I suggest that, to a great extent, such arguments are beside the point. More important than the information that we could gain from answering either or both of these questions is the information that the texts of the letters (Revelation 2 and 3) themselves provide. And, as I will show in detail, the letters suggest that the focus of the book of Revelation lay on events inside the communities. If we couple this fact with recent advances in our understanding of the social world of early Christianity, as well as the social dynamics of groups in conflict, a very different picture of the situation behind the Apocalypse begins to emerge. In the remainder of this book, I will argue (to some extent along with Royalty) that the "crisis" facing the communities of the Apocalypse can be more accurately defined as a social conflict within the churches. This conflict was as much tied up with social position and economic mobility as with theological difference. One faction in the church (associated with the Christian prophet whom John names "Jezebel") took a more liberal stance toward the larger pagan society than did John and his followers. The popularity of this faction's view not only threatened John's worldview but also provided a significant challenge to his authority within the churches. In response to this conflict, John arranged the book of Revelation rhetorically so as to convince his readers that the church was in crisis. From John's perspective, this con-

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation?

15

flict represented a distinct threat both to the integrity of the church and to his own leadership. This study is divided into ten chapters. The second chapter begins with a social survey of the Roman city. In the second part of the chapter, I will show how early Christianity fits into that social world. I argue that following Paul's time, many Christians advanced both economically and socially within the larger pagan society. Not all Christians advanced, however, and some advanced more slowly than others. I further suggest that the increased economic stratification that resulted gave rise to tension within the communities that resembled the friction that appeared in the socially and economically stratified Corinthian church of Paul's time. The third chapter examines the evidence from the letters to the seven churches (found in chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Revelation). These letters give us a window (albeit a clouded one) into the life of the churches at John's time, and they give us our only source of information about the people and parties in the communities. Curiously, all of these letters deal almost exclusively with internal Christian issues. They provide no reliable evidence of pressure on the churches originating outside of the community. A common structure (with some variation) underlies the seven letters to the churches, and the variations in the structure of the letters enable them to be classified into different types. These types correspond to different situations in the churches to which the letters are addressed. For the purposes of this study, the letters to three churches stand out—Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira—and indicate, among other things, that these three churches are internally split. These churches represent the focal point of John's attention. In chapter 4, I examine the various people and parties mentioned or implied in the letters, with specific attention to those in the churches that are split into factions. I argue that the accusations made by John against rivals in the three factionalized churches point to activities that have social and economic ramifications. John exaggerates the accusations in order to strengthen the argument against his major (and probably only) rival "Jezebel." Evidence in the letters suggests that John's rhetorical efforts are directed not at the core following of "Jezebel" but that he lobbies the moderates in the churches, a group I call the invisible majority. Chapter 5 focuses more closely on the economic background of the dispute. Wealth is an issue that looms large in the Apocalypse, and it typically appears in a negative context. Despite this, John's overall attitude toward wealth is ambiguous. We see, for instance, that the seer does not argue against wealth per se. Nor does he mount a social justice argument, condemning Rome for unfairly exploiting her subjects economically. Instead, he argues primarily against commercial activity, suggesting that participation in the commerce of the empire ultimately supports Satan. Oddly enough, though, he does not directly condemn merchants. Since it is likely that many in the invisible majority are

16

Who Rides the Beast?

themselves involved in commerce, he is unwilling to take a chance on alienating them. In chapters 6 through 9,1 examine John's rhetorical strategy of indirect accusation, what we can also call the rhetoric of innuendo. John had little substantive ammunition to use against his rival "Jezebel"; there is evidence that the communities tolerated her and her followers. As a result, John resorted to a less direct approach, indirectly accusing his rival. In chapter 6,1 explore the indirect rhetorical techniques of homology and irony that John employs throughout the Apocalypse to construct his dualistic narrative world. In chapter 7, I demonstrate how John, using these techniques, effectively binds his rival "Jezebel" to the evil character "Babylon" and contrasts her with the positive female figures (the unnamed woman "clothed with the sun" and "Jerusalem"). By doing this, John can attack and condemn "Babylon" ("Jezebel's" double) for crimes similar to those that he has previously accused "Jezebel" of committing. This strategy provides cover for John and effectively allows him to accuse "Jezebel" without doing so directly. Chapter 8 continues the investigation begun in chapter 7. In this chapter, I examine how John uses gender stereotypes in order to denigrate his opponent, tying her alleged "crimes" to the behavior of the cliched out-of-control female. The actions for which the seer condemns "Jezebel" concern food and sex. As I will show, in the Mediterranean world at John's time, women—according to the stereotype—were thought unable to control their appetites, particularly with regard to these two activities. Chapter 9, on the other hand, looks at the connections the author makes between his rival and another character in the Apocalypse, the Beast from the Earth (Rev. 13:11-18), a character John also identifies as the False Prophet in the later chapters of the text. By making these connections, John sets up a subtle yet significant contrast between himself, the true prophet of God, and his rival "Jezebel," the paradigmatic false prophet. In the final chapter, I briefly examine the viability of John's rhetorical strategy. Although some may find it difficult to imagine that John's strategy would have any chance of success in gaining adherents to his point of view, comparisons with some of the recent propaganda strategies in the Balkans indicate that strategies such as his can be quite successful. Finally, I try to make some judgments about the results of John's rhetorical tactics. Although we have no clear-cut evidence of the results of the disputes in the churches, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch allow us to make an educated guess. Ultimately, I suggest that John's rhetoric contributed to the demise of anything resembling mainstream Christianity in several of the Asian communities.

2 Setting the Stage Urban Christianity in Western Asia Minor

The origins of Christianity in the western cities of Asia Minor are obscure. Although we know that Christians lived in this area by Paul's time, it is likely that they were there even earlier.' Acts tells us that when Paul arrived at Ephesus, he found "disciples" (naGtyrcd). 19:2 [Paul] said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?" They replied, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3 Then he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They answered, "Into John's Baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied—7 altogether there were about twelve of them.

The fact that Luke calls the group "disciples" and "believers" in this passage tells us that he considered these predecessors of Paul in Ephesus to be bona fide Christians. The added detail that they were ignorant of a baptism other than John's prevents them from upstaging Paul, Luke's hero in the book of Acts. Unfortunately, virtually all of our first-century evidence about Christianity in western Asia Minor is sketchy and indirect. We have only the name of a community here or an individual there. 2 Does this mean that we have nothing against which to set the communities of the Apocalypse? Fortunately, because of other material, found both in17

18

Who Rides the Beast?

side and outside the canon, we can reconstruct a picture of late-firstcentury Christianity in the region from which the Apocalypse originated. It is important to note that virtually all of our sources tell us that first-century Christianity in western Asia was an urban phenomena. As such, it took place against a previously established urban society. In this chapter, I will first look at the social world in which urban Christianity eventually took root and then at Christianity against that larger social background. This will make it possible to contextualize the information from the book of Revelation in the chapters that follow.

The Social World of the Eastern Roman Empire In the urban world of the first century, as in our contemporary urban society, wealth and status were bound together. Generally speaking, the more wealth one had, the more status one enjoyed. This was not an absolute rule, however, for the Greco-Roman status system was two tiered.3 It was virtually impossible for the self-made individual from the lower tier to break into the upper social ranks of the empire, regardless of the amount of wealth such a person had accumulated. The well-loved American saga of the individual born in poverty, self-educated, and finally achieving the presidency would have sounded strange indeed to first-century ears. Probably an accurate rule of thumb for that time would go something like: old money is better than new money, but of course new money is better than no money. The two tiers of Roman society were made up of the following two groups, the honestiores and the humiliores.4 For my purposes, it is sufficient to describe the honestiores as the landed gentry (or the "nobility") of the society, whereas the humiliores would constitute the working class of the empire. In western Asia Minor, the honestiores consisted of respected individuals from the old, moneyed families of Asia or the descendants of early Latin colonists.

Honestiores: The Orders The honestiores more or less corresponded to what was known as the orders of the empire, social groups strictly defined by the state. 5 The first group, the senatorial order, consisted of senators and their families as well as their descendants to the third generation.6 There was a property requirement that demanded each be worth of at least one million sesterces. Besides wealth, senators were expected to be high-born, of excellent moral character, and, of course, Roman citizens. Since the size of the senate was about six hundred, and since the population of the empire can be estimated at approximately fifty million, the senatorial

Setting the Stage

19

order comprised no more than a few thousandths of one percent of the population of the empire. Equestrians constituted the second order of the empire. Dio Cassius (52.19.4) tells us that they needed the same qualities as senators but to a somewhat lesser degree. Equestrians had to be of reputable birth (neither their parents nor grandparents could have been born in slavery), they had to be Roman citizens, and they had to possess a personal wealth of at least four hundred thousand sesterces. Although there were many more equestrians than senators, this order still made up no more than one tenth of one percent of the population of the empire. The third and lowest rank of the orders, the curial order, consisted, for the most part, of local government officials known as decurions. Although there were a number of requirements to qualify, including an age requirement and a property requirement, there was considerable flexibility in the application of these regulations. The age requirement of twenty-five was often waived, for instance, so that minors from wealthy families could serve. The property requirement seemed to vary from city to city, but it was considerably less than that required of equestrians. 7 Decurions were usually recruited from the leisure class. In some smaller towns and villages, this was not always possible. Depending on the size of the pool from which they could be recruited, the social and economic level of the various decurions could be quite diverse.8 Certain restrictions, however, could not be waived. For instance, freedpersons could not serve, nor could those of less respectable employment, such as undertakers. 9 But merchants or traders (negotiatores) could do in a pinch (see Dig. 50.2.12). In fact, in the smaller and younger cities merchants might, by necessity, make up the majority of the curial order.10 Despite their small numbers, the honestiores, or "nobility," of the empire controlled a great deal of its wealth. 11 There was one cardinal rule for honestiores: Do not work! In Cicero's words, opifices omnes in sordita arts versantur, "all workers are engaged in sordid professions" (Off. 1.42). Labor was only performed by those who were not respectable.12 The upper crust came by its wealth in other ways. Typically, members of the aristocracy owned vast tracts of land that provided them with lavish incomes. Pliny the Younger, for instance, was the son of a landowner in Comum, Italy, who only considered himself moderately wealthy.13 He was worth approximately twenty million sesterces, virtually all of it the result of income derived from land holdings.

Humiliores: Those Who Worked for a Living Among the majority of the empire's inhabitants, those who worked for a living, there was a great disparity of wealth. Some were astonishingly wealthy, whereas others dwelt in absolute poverty. In order to get some

20

Who Rides the Beast?

sense of these working peoples' lives, we need to conceive of a great range of professions. Besides those in the orders who inherited money or made their living off vast land holdings, there were also those who accumulated a great deal of wealth from manufacturing and commercial enterprises.14 Although such folks could be worth as much (if not more) than those in the orders, they were not accorded the status and respect that attended the aristocracy. While successful capitalists could try to buy their way into the higher echelons of society, in most quarters, a wealthy merchant's or manufacturer's reputation would always remain tarnished by the stain of having once labored for a living.15 At times, though, a grudging respect was accorded to these successful capitalists.16 The early third century CE lawyer Callistratus, for instance, recommends that merchants not be dismissed as viles personae since they were not categorically excluded from the orders (Dig. 50.2. 12).17 However, lest we get the wrong idea, he later recommends that it is "unbecoming" (inhonestum) for such persons to be received into the decurionate in cities where there was an adequate supply of viri honesti (\. e., those who did not work for a living). Only where there were insufficient numbers of "honest men" should merchants have access to the council. There were a great number of commercial and manufacturing professions represented throughout the urban areas of western Asia Minor. Trading owed its existence to the great port cities of the coast (like Ephesus and Smyrna) and the road system that ran throughout western Asia.18 In addition, epigraphic and literary evidence of the area informs us that quite a number of manufacturing professions depended on the wool industry. For instance, in Thyatira and other parts of Lydia, there were wool-dealers, wool-workers, wool-washers, dyers, purple-dyers, fullers, makers of one-piece garments, and tapestry-makers. 19 Besides wool, other cloth was manufactured and worked in the cities of western Asia Minor. We know, for example of linen-workers in Thyatira, 20 tow-workers in Smyrna, and hemp-workers in Ephesus. The elder Pliny talks about Sardis in connection with its dyeing industry (NH 7.196), 21 and Athenaeus speaks of the "smooth-piled tapestries" of the same city (12.514c). Before the coming of Rome, the Pergamemes developed the technique of interweaving gold thread into cloth, and this industry continued in Pergamum during Roman times.22 Finally, the Edict of Diocletian mentions both woolen and linen garments named after the city of Laodicea (Ed. Diocl. 19; 20.3, 4, 13; 22.f 6-26; 26-28)." Several cities of western Asia Minor were also renowned for their leather work and for their work in precious metals. Pergamum was a notable center of leather-working. Since that city was credited with the invention of parchment (Pliny, NH 13.70), the product came to be known as Pergamena.24 Homer insists that the best workers of leather were from "Y5ri (i. e., Sardis), demonstrating the great age of the leather

Setting the Stage

21

industry in the area. 25 From inscriptional evidence, we have also learned of leather-working guilds in Thyatira, Ephesus, and Philadelphia.26 Although Phoenicia was the most important center for the manufacture of precious metal products, Asia Minor workers also excelled at this craft and exported their products throughout the Roman world. Inscriptions tell of gold and silversmiths at Smyrna. 27 And, of course, Acts informs us of a significant number of silversmiths in Ephesus in the late first century (Acts 19:24-41). Besides these craftspersons who exported their work from the cities of western Asia, obviously there had to have been many who produced products for their own cities and towns. These craftspersons can be lumped together with the small-time merchants who inhabited the ancient city. For instance, each town must have had scores of bakers and grocers of various sorts as well as wine dealers. Although by no means complete, a sample list of such workers drawn up by Ramsay MacMullen includes sailors, pilots, bargees, divers, longshoremen, caulkers, shipwrights, cordwainers; joiners, inlayers, ebonists, cabinetmakers, sawyers, millhands, coopers, carpenters; mosaicists, fresco-painters, floor-layers, plasterers; cleaners, weavers, dyers, clothiers, ragpickers, bag-makers, tailors, felterers; tanners, cobblers, bootmakers, hosiers; farriers, bronze-, silver-, gold, iron-, and nail-smiths; dancers, tragedians, comedians, singers, flutists, harpists, choristers and many, many other specialists quite untranslatably named according to what they did for a living.28

Besides merchants and craftspersons, the cities of western Asia Minor produced a substantial number of professionals such as physicians, lawyers, and academics.29 The Museum at Ephesus, for instance, produced physicians, as did the Asclepium in Pergamum. A medical school in Smyrna (perhaps attached to the Museum or perhaps connected with the temple of Asclepius) also turned out physicians.30 These three cities also attracted and produced many famous teachers, including some notable sophists.31 Furthermore, ancient records mention lawyers (at Smyrna, Sardis and Thyatira), entertainers, performers (in Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Thyatira, and Pergamum), and architects (at Pergamum). 32 The Life of a Worker What was the life of a merchant, tradesperson, or professional like? How difficult was it for such individuals to support themselves and their families? Before we try to answer that question, we need to recognize that merchants, craftspersons, and professionals could fit virtually anywhere in the economic and social spectrum. A highly successful merchant, for instance, could live a life that easily rivaled those of the orders even though he could never attain their social status. On the other hand, a neighborhood vendor or craftsperson might make no more

22

Who Rides the Beast?

than an unskilled laborer. What about someone who fit in between these extremes, the "average" craftsperson, for instance? Information from the papyri can give us some insight into the life of a first-century skilled laborer. A series of first-century papyri tell us about a certain weaver named Tryphon from the Egyptian town of Oxyrhynchus. 33 These papyri relate, among other things, that Tryphon began weaving—probably full-time—before he reached the age of fourteen. 34 He probably learned his profession at home from his father, and he himself passed it to his own son (who began his career at around the same age). Tryphon's wife, Saraeus, also worked, probably out of necessity (POxy. 37). Although he was by no means rich, Tryphon and his family were able to accumulate a bit of capital, for in 54 CE he bought a new loom—costing twenty silver drachmae (equivalent to eighty sesterces; POxy. 264)—probably for his son Apion. The next year he bought one-half of a three-storied house from his mother's cousin for 426 silver drachmae (1,708 sesterces; POxy. 99). If Tryphon represents a typical case, it would seem that skilled laborers or craftspersons could make a living that was relatively comfortable. They could—with the help of family members—feed and clothe their families and even, as in the case of Tryphon, provide better than adequate shelter for them. 35 But there were many in the cities whose lot did not match that of the weaver Trypho. There were many families that would never be able to afford even a modest home. Such folk typically lived in insulae, which were comparable to modern tenements. These insulae were usually jammed together in order to maximize space.36 The poet Martial sarcastically writes about his own room on one such block of crowded insulae in Rome: "Novius is my neighbor and can be touched by hand from my windows. Who would not envy me and think me happy as the day is long, when I can enjoy my chum at such close quarters?" (1.86) In the insulae, the lower stories had large rooms that served wealthier tenants, whereas rooms in the higher stories were less spacious. The top stories were divided into tiny rooms, often no more than ten meters square. Each room was usually occupied by three or more people, so that the tenants could afford the high (sometimes astronomical) rent that the landlords in the large cities demanded. 37 As bad as the conditions of the insulae might have been, there were many of the poor who could not afford even these lodgings. These, as in our time, lived on the streets.38 Slaves and Freedpersons One other class of people needs to be considered here: slaves, as well as former slaves, or "freedpersons." Slavery was a widespread phenomenon throughout the Roman world, and its impact can hardly be imagined by those living in our times. Based on a passage in Galen (5.49), it

Setting the Stage

23

has been estimated that there were as many as forty thousand slaves in the city of Pergamum alone.39 Nevertheless, besides noting its ubiquitous presence in GrecoRoman society, few statements can be made unequivocally about slavery in the Roman Empire.40 This is because the phenomenon displayed extraordinary variety. On one end of the spectrum were slaves who worked in mines (usually gold and silver) and whose life expectancy was consequently very short (see Strabo 12.3.40). On the other end were the domestic slaves of the very wealthy and the imperial slaves, some of whom were able to accumulate money of their own and even hold their own slaves.41 Domestic slavery existed on a huge scale in the empire; in fact, it is possible that this type of slavery accounted for the majority of slaves in this period.42 Cooking, cleaning, waiting at table, or watching the children of one's master occupied the domestic slave's time. Slaves in a wellto-do household could live decent lives and possibly even buy their own freedom eventually. On the other hand, many slaves belonged to members of the lower economic strata and, as a result, it is difficult to believe that their lives were anything but marginal. Imperial slaves, conversely, provide an entirely different picture of the institution of slavery. Imperial slaves often wielded great power, amassed considerable wealth, and, as noted, could even own slaves. An inscription from the reign of Tiberius tells us of an imperial slave named Musicus Scurranus who himself owned at least fifteen male slaves and one female slave (ILS 1514). Many slaves did not remain in bondage all of their lives, though. Some bought and some were given their freedom. These liberated slaves were known as libertini (freedpersons). To a great extent, a freedperson's status and economic position depended on the status of his or her former master. For instance, the freedperson of a Roman citizen would receive citizenship upon manumission, whereas the freedperson of a peregrinus ("resident alien") entered the free community with that status. 43 However, even though the status of a citizen libertinus might exceed that of a poor ingenuus ("freeborn person"), the latter still possessed a greater degree of actual liberty than the former, because the libertinus remained obliged to his or her former owner throughout the entirety of his or her life. The freed slave owed his or her former master both obsequium ("respect") 44 and operae (a set amount of labor to be performed each year). 45 Despite such hindrances, many freedpersons were quite successful upon manumission. According to Pliny the Elder (NH 33.134-35), C. Caecilius Isidorus, a freedperson who died in 8 BCE, left in his will 4,116 slaves, 3,600 yoke of oxen, 257,000 other cattle, and sixty million sesterces in cash. In addition, he requested that 1,100,000 sesterces be spent on his funeral. If this is not impressive enough, Pliny tells us that this particular individual had lost much of his fortune in the

24

Who Rides the Beast?

civil wars!46 Although such was the exception rather than the rule, there is good evidence that quite a number of freedpersons amassed considerable fortunes during their lifetimes. 47 In the late first and early second centuries, freedpersons constituted the most economically upwardly mobile group of people in the empire. The reasons for this are not hard to imagine. Slaves were often well educated or schooled in a particular task that could be easily converted into a career upon manumission. Imperial slaves, who were really what we could call civil servants or bureaucrats, had a ready-made network to draw on when embarking on a business venture, and many had often accumulated a cache of cash while still enslaved. Nonetheless, as mentioned earlier, those freedpersons who did gain wealth did not usually gain status. It is difficult to imagine, for instance, that the wealthy freedperson mentioned by Pliny would have been able to socialize with any of his economic peers. Most people who had his kind of money would have been senators or equestrians. By and large, such "nobles" would have refused to associate with freedpersons (see Hor. Sat. 1.6); in fact, their financial success typically inspired resentment rather than respect among the aristocracy.48 Many Romans viewed libertini much as they viewed slaves, despite the fact that the status of the former had been legally changed. 49 Even though social respectability lay out of the reach of wealthy libertini, the successful freedperson could arrange things so that his or her children were accepted into polite society. A good example of such an arrangement can be seen in a Latin inscription from Pompeii (CIL 10.846) that tells of a child of six who was elected to the town council. The father was legally ineligible for the social position because he had once been a slave, but a bit of negotiating enabled him to have his young son elected to the decurionate. Such an arrangement benefited the town because it allowed the community to tap into the father's resources. At the same time, the father was able to buy his son the status that was denied to him.

The Social World of Early Christianity in Western Asia Minor Where did the early urban Christians fit into the larger society socially and economically? In recent years a number of studies have attempted to cull from Paul's letters (as well as Acts) information about the social location of the earliest Pauline churches. 50 Prior to these recent works, the conventional wisdom held that the earliest Christian communities were composed of individuals drawn from the lowest strata of society.51 Such an idea appears in the New Testament itself; for instance, 1 Corinthians 1:26 states, "for consider your call brothers; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were well-born."

Setting the Stage

25

Typically, readers of 1 Corinthians have understood this pericope to mean that virtually all early Christians were from the lowest social and economic ranks. However, the text itself—by saying that "not many" were wise, powerful, or well born—implies that some were. Recently, Wayne Meeks has suggested that the majority of Christians in the Pauline churches were at the social and economic level of what Mikhail Rostovtzeff called the petty bourgeoisie of the ancient world. Rostovtzeff defines this petty bourgeoisie as [t]he shopowners, the retail-traders, the money-changers, the artisans, the representatives of liberal professions, such as teachers, doctors, and the like . . . [as well as] the salaried clerks of the government and the minor municipal officers, a large and influential class, mostly slaves and [freedpersons] of the emperor—that is, of the state—and of the cities.52

Meeks points to several examples from Paul's letters that imply this economic level for the majority of Christians in Paul's communities. For instance, the apostle encourages those in Thessolonica each "to strive to lead a quiet life, to mind [one's] own business, and to work with [one's] own hands" (1 Thess. 4:11). This instruction suggests that Paul directs his comments to manual laborers ("working with [one's] own hands"), not unlike Paul himself. 53 In his first Corinthian missive, Paul suggests that each community member set aside, at the beginning of the week, whatever he or she can (1 Cor. 16:1-4). In the words of Meeks, "this bespeaks the economy of small people, not destitute, but not commanding capital either." 54 From these and other such examples it is reasonable to assume that the typical Christian community was made up primarily of artisans and tradespeople. But if artisans and tradespeople made up the majority of Christians in the first century, they were not the only Christians. 55 There were also those on the high and low ends of the economic spectrum. 56 But those on the high end of the spectrum typically carried what we might call a status liability.57 For instance, a wealthy Christian from an established family might be a single woman, as was probably the case with Phoebe, who appears in Romans 16.58 An extremely wealthy individual might be a freedperson like Erastus of Corinth (Rom. 16:23). 59 If, however, we concentrate on the typical Pauline Christian rather than the cases that lie at the extremes of the status scale, we find that [t]he "typical" [urban] Christian . . . the one who most often signals his presence in the letters by one or another small clue, is a free artisan or trader. Some even in those categories had houses, slaves, the ability to travel, and other signs of wealth. Some of the wealthy provided housing, meeting places, and other services for the individual Christians and for whole groups. 60

As already mentioned, though, most of the evidence for the studies done on the social world of the urban churches draw evidence from Paul's letters to Corinth, a city on the Greek peninsula. We would be

26

Who Rides the Beast?

better off if we had some information from churches in western Asia, but unfortunately, specific evidence about first-century Christianity in that area is quite scarce, although it is not totally lacking. For instance, we at least get several names of Asian Christians from Paul's correspondence. The first is Epaenatus, who Paul describes as "the first convert in Asia for Christ" (Rom. 16:5). 61 Can we tell anything about this individual from his name alone? Meeks points out that "his name . . . suggests but does not prove servile origins."62 The other name identified with Asia is Luke. "Doctors were often slaves; we might speculate that Luke had been a medicus in some Roman familia, receiving the name of his master (Lucius, of which Luke is a hypocorism) on his manumission."63 Paul's letter to Philemon (probably addressed to the Asian city of Colossae) and the letter to the Colossians reveal a bit more helpful information about the social world of urban Asia Minor Christianity. Both letters tell of a certain Onesimus (Col. 4:9; Philem. 10), a slave who belonged to Philemon; the latter was clearly a leader of the church at Colossae. From the two letters we learn that Philemon was wealthy enough to own slaves and that he could afford a home large enough to accommodate the Colossian church. We also learn that his house had at least one guest room (Philem. 22).M So Philemon was probably at least as well off as the Egyptian weaver Tryphon. We also learn a bit about the social world of the Christian communities in Asia Minor from the Acts of the Apostles. The Christian convert Lydia, a native of Thyatira (Acts 16:11-15), 65 was a merchant of purple cloth and was obviously fairly well-to-do. Despite the fact that she was a resident of Philippi at the time of her conversion, it is likely that Lydia's business contacts in her home town would have been exploited to further the Christian mission there.66 And, of course, we can infer that Lydia's business associates in Thyatira would have been of the prosperous merchant class like she was.67 In short, what we see in the stories of Philemon and Lydia is what we might expect on the basis of what we know about Corinth. By the time of the Pastoral Epistles, the social world of Asian Christianity still bore some resemblance to the social world of Paul's time.68 For instance, the church still covered "the spectrum of urban social strata." 69 However, in the Pastoral Epistles we can begin to detect an upward shift in the economic (and probably social) composition of the urban churches. Although, as already shown, some wealthy individuals were members of the original Pauline churches, their numbers were small. The number of prosperous individuals in the Pastoral communities, on the other hand, appears to have increased significantly.70 Consider, for instance, 1 Timothy 6:17: "as for those in the present age who are rich, command them not to be haughty, or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but rather on God who richly provides us with

Setting the Stage

27

everything for our enjoyment." The text of the same letter reads elsewhere, "I desire that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God" (2:8-10). The reference to those who are rich and the desire for nonextravagant dress articulated suggest that the churches of the Pastoral Epistles were peopled by more than a few well-off individuals. In an earlier time, the percentage of wealthy Christians who would have been able to adorn themselves with gold, pearls, and expensive clothing would probably have been quite small. By the time of the Pastoral Epistles, it seems to have grown considerably enough to provoke the concern of the leadership. Besides the wealthy, there were some (perhaps many) in the community who aspired to great wealth. In 1 Timothy 6, the author warns: 6:6 Of course, there is great gain in godliness combined with contentment; 7 for we brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it; 8 but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. 9 But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.

Such warnings about haughtiness, ostentatious dress, and the dangers involved in the pursuit of wealth all suggest that a significant portion of the community had these things within its grasp.71 Who were these wealthy Christians? In all likelihood, these folks would have been the descendants of successful freedpersons. The economic rise of individual Christians from slavery to wealth and finally to social prominence in the second century typifies a pattern common throughout the Roman cities of the empire at that time. Tacitus, writing at the beginning of the second century, asserted that most equestrians and senators descended from families of freedpersons (Ann. 13.27). Was he accurately reporting the state of affairs of the empire at his time, or was he exaggerating the facts? In a well-known article from the earlier part of this century, Mary Gordon tested Tacitus's statement by investigating the names of the decurions of Italy.72 Of the names that are known, she found that between 15 and 33 percent suggest that those decurions were descended from slave families in the not-too-distant past. 73 Since many had obviously tried to cover up their lowly origins, the percentages cited by Gordon are obviously low (as she herself points out). 74 What we see in the churches of the Pastoral Epistles, then, is a pattern consistent with what we see in the larger society at the time. Slaves achieve their freedom. They then pursue careers in business and many amass considerable

28

Who Rides the Beast?

wealth. The next generation is financially well off and socially more acceptable to the higher levels of the community, and the following generation even more so. Although Christians seemed to have made significant economic strides by the time of the Pastoral Epistles, not all Christians in the community of the Pastoral Epistles were necessarily well off. For instance, there are—as we would expect—references to slaves (1 Tim. 6:1, Titus 2:9-10). But the nature of these references, especially the latter, shows that the author has little understanding or concern for the position of the slave.75 So, despite the fact that there were still persons of lower economic strata in the community, it is evident that the Pastoral Epistles were written from the perspective of the top of the community's economic ladder. This conclusion is supported by the fact that there are no signs of freedpersons in the community.76 Obviously, this by itself does not mean that freedpersons no longer participated in the churches, but it does suggest that their presence was less significant than in earlier generations. The church of these letters was firmly in the hands of persons who were financially (and probably socially) well-to-do, the children or grandchildren of Christian freedpersons. Since Paul wrote in the middle of the first century, and the author of the Pastoral Epistles penned those documents in the early or middle second century, the Apocalypse falls roughly midway between those other writings. As a result, at the time of the Apocalypse, we can imagine a Christian population that was economically positioned somewhere between the populations of Paul's time and that of the Pastoral Epistles. Whereas Paul found no cause to warn his churches about the dangers of excessive wealth, extravagant living had become an issue by the time of the Pastoral Epistles. There are indications that wealth was a divisive issue in the churches of the Apocalypse. It is quite possible that traders and artisans (whether of servile or free birth) were accumulating significant amounts of wealth. Possibly, as a result of their social and economic aspirations, they were less interested in fellowship with those at the lower end of the economic scale. 77 If this were the case, it is easy to imagine that those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder could have become embittered toward and alienated from the more upwardly mobile members of the community. An interesting passage in Ignatius's letter to Polycarp may help shed some more light on the situation of the Apocalypse, since both documents were written in temporal and spatial proximity. In that letter, Ignatius advises: Do not despise slaves, male or female, but neither let them be puffed up; rather let them serve all the more to the glory of God, that they may attain a greater freedom from God; let them not desire to be set free out of the common fund, that they may not be found slaves of lust. (Ign. Pol. 4.3)

Setting the Stage

29

This passage indicates that there were still slaves in Ignatius's community and possibly freedpersons as well. Yet, the attitude exhibited in Ignatius's letter belongs to someone who has a status far above that of the slave. The fact that the bishop instructs Polycarp not to despise slaves suggests that this is a great temptation for those in the leadership of the Asian churches at his time. Here we can see how Ignatius attempts to lessen the tensions between the higher and lower strata of the Christian community. In his mediating attempts he is more disposed to the wealthy than the poor, for he ultimately strikes a patronizing stance toward the slave. Slaves should not only remain slaves, says Ignatius, they should act like slaves; they should not be "uppity" (dAlti (rnSe amen i>aioi)a6(Qaav).78 Do we see a similar set of community dynamics in the churches of the Apocalypse at John's time? Is this the reason for John's words of consolation to the poor and his admonitions to the wealthy? I will return to these questions in the next chapters.

Summary In this chapter we have briefly looked at the social world of the Roman Empire as well as the social world of early Christianity in the urban areas of the East, with particular attention to western Asia Minor. At the top of the social ladder in the empire were the honestiores, consisting of the senators, equestrians, and decurions. Beneath this group lay the working folk of the empire. Although the empire was rigidly stratified, it was possible to work one's way up over time (although it might have taken several generations). One could advance economically and one could also pave the way for one's children or grandchildren into the higher levels of society. This was an especially likely option for very successful merchants (or even craftsmen) many of whom were probably ex-slaves who had achieved manumission with a saleable skill or profession. First-century Christians were, for the most part, merchants and craftspersons, many of whom were probably ex-slaves. Paul's letters indicate that there were some, if not many, individuals who achieved considerable success (like Erastus of Corinth). By later times, as the Pastoral Epistles suggest, there were apparently many more of these well-off people. If the letters of Ignatius are any guide, by the turn of the century the leadership of the communities began to reflect the attitudes of the upper levels of Christian society. It is likely that the Asian churches at John's time witnessed a significant social and economic improvement of their members. Of course, there were many in the communities who did not share in this prosperity. The poor and the destitute still existed in the churches.79 Perhaps, in some cases, their poverty resulted from a determination to

30

Who Rides the Beast?

resist assimilation into the larger culture at all costs. Perhaps, in others, poverty gave them a motive for resistance. It is not hard to imagine that economic stratification could have given rise to friction within the churches. It is significant to note that the religious issues the seer addresses in his Apocalypse are also tied to important social and economic issues within the communities.

3 The Issues Evidence from the Letters to the Seven Churches

Any study of the book of Revelation is severely limited by the fact that we know so little about the specifics of the author's situation. For instance, as discussed in chapter 1, we cannot confidently assign a date to the work with any precision and so we must content ourselves with a date somewhere in the last quarter of the first century. Furthermore, we are uncertain about the policies of the imperial and civic authorities toward Christians in the cities of Asia at the end of the first century. Although there is no hard and fast evidence of first-century persecution by any of the emperors following Nero, that does not totally exclude the possibility of such. Even if we knew for a fact that Rome directed no persecution, sporadic local persecution could have occurred. Consequently, the surest way of proceeding in this study is to look carefully at Revelation's internal evidence. The best place to look for this internal evidence is in the so-called letters to the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3.' These provide one of our clearest windows into the historical situation behind the communities. This chapter examines the structure and content of the seven letters to the Christian churches, first looking at the common framework underlying all of the letters and then categorizing each of them by type. A brief overview of the letters of each type will follow and will allow a determination—as accurate as possible—of the situation of each of the individual communities addressed.

31

32

Who Rides the Beast?

Evidence from the Letters to the Seven Churches The Structure of the Letters The letters to the churches found in the book of Revelation are not actually letters per se but more closely resemble oracles or proclamations than Greco-Roman missives.2 This is especially apparent in light of the oracular formula (td5e ^eyev) found at the beginning of each of the seven documents. 3 Regardless of their precise genre, however, these "letters" give us our best picture of the situation of the various Christian communities. The seven letters show an overall similarity in structure. 4 However, within the confines of that similarity, some variations occur. The structural similarities in the letters, as well as the variations in detail, are illustrated in table 3.1.5 Not all of the components are found in every letter. In fact, only the letter to the church at Thyatira contains them all. Introductions. The introductions to each of the seven letters are virtually identical. Each has a fourfold organization that can be outlined as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Name of addressee: "To the angel of the church in . . . " Command to write: ypd\|/ov. Oracular formula: ra5e taiyet ("thus says"). Identification of the speaker (usually reflecting elements from the initial epiphany scene; 1:12-20).

Description of the Situation of the Community. After the introduction, each of the seven letters carries a brief description of the situation in the community (B: 2:2-3; 9; 13; 19; 3:lb; 8; 15,17). 6 All of these descriptions begin with the word ol5a ("I know"). Usually the formula is "I know your works" (ol8a id epya ooi)). However, in the letter to

Table 3.1. Components of the Letter Structure Found in the Seven Letters A B B(e) C D D(v) E F G

Introduction Description of the situation in the community Elaboration of the problems in the community Call for repentance Threat or Threat variation Exhortation and encouragement Traditional aphorism Eschatological promise

The Issues

33

Smyrna, we find the variant of the formula: "I know your tribulation and your poverty," and in the letter to Pergamum we find: "I know where you dwell." Elaboration on the Problems in the Community. In the letters to the churches at Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira, an elaboration of the specific problems of the churches (B[e]: 2:4; 2:14-15; 2:20) follows the initial description. The phrase dA,A,[a] e/ro Kcari oou ("But I have against you . . .") begins this section in all three of these letters. 7 In letters to other communities where John clearly perceives problems (Sardis and Laodicea), there is no elaboration on the problems; in these letters he is content to give a brief, albeit negative, judgment of the community. The letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia have no section elaborating the problems in these communities. This is not surprising in light of the fact that these letters show us that John was satisfied with the behavior of these two communities. Call for Repentance, Eschatological Threat, and Threat Variation. In the case of the five churches where John perceives difficulties (Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea), he follows the description of each church's situation (with or without the elaboration on the problems) with a call for repentance (C: 2:5a; 2:16a; 2:22b; 3:2-3a; 3:1820). The call for repentance in these letters is, in turn, followed by a threat (D) from the speaker (i.e., the risen Jesus), to be carried out if the call to repentance is ignored. 8 In the case of the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia, where there is no call for repentance, the threat is understandably absent. However, in these two letters there is a variation on the threat motif (D[v]). In the case of the letter to the Smyrnan church (2:10a), the risen Jesus announces a threat to the Christian community from evil forces (i.e., "[the church] will be tested and suffer affliction [TieipaaBfiTe Kai e^exe 9A,i\jnv]"). In the case of the Philadelphia church (3:11), the risen Jesus directs an eschatological threat to the church's opponents, the "synagogue of Satan." Exhortation and Encouragement. In the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia a statement of exhortation and encouragement follows the variation on the threat (E: 2:10b; 3:11). Similarly, in the letters to Thyatira and Sardis, this section follows the threat and is delivered to a portion of the community only (i. e., those who adhere to John's brand of Christianity). In the letter to the Ephesians, the statement of encouragement is a bit different. In this letter, it merely tells the community what they as a group have done correctly: "Yet this you have [in your favor] (aXka. TOIJTO e/etc;), that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans which I also hate" (2:6).

Table 3.2. Variations in the Structure of Each Letter

u>

Ephesus

Smyrna

Pergamum

Thyatira

A B

2:1 2:2-3

2:8 2:9

2:12 2:13

2:18 2:19

3:la 3:lb

B(e) C

2:4 2:5a

2:14-15 2:16a

2:20 2:22b

3:2-3a

D

2:5b

2:16b

2:2122a, 23

3:3b

D(v) E F G

2:6 2:7a 2:7b

2:24-25 2:29 2:26-28

3:4 3:6 3:5

Sardis

Philidelphia 3:7 3:8

2:17b 2:17a

3:14 3:15, 3:17 3:183:20 3:16

*>

2:10a 2:10b 2:lla 2:llb

Laodicea

3:9-10 3:11 3:13 3:12

3:22 3:21

35

The Issues

Traditional Aphorism and Eschatological Promise. All of the letters conclude with a traditional Christian aphorism: "let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches."9 This is accompanied by the promise of an eschatological reward to the one "who conquers" (G: 2:7b; 2:1 Ib; 2:17a; 2:26-28; 3:5; 3:12; 3:21). I0 As table 3.2 shows, sometimes the order of the aphorism and the eschatological promise is reversed.

A Typology of Letter Structures As we can easily see by looking at the breakdown of the letters in the preceding section and in table 3.2, there are two basic types of letters to the churches. Representing the first type (type 1) are the letters to five churches (Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea). This first type can be further divided into two subcategories. The first of these subcategories (type la) is characterized by an elaboration of the problems within the respective community (B[e]) while the second subcategory (type Ib) has no elaboration of problems (B[e]) and little, if any, encouragement. 11 The letters of type 2 differ significantly from those of type 1 because they contain no call for repentance (C). Nor do they carry a threat (D). The breakdown of the letters into these categories and subcategories appears in table 3.3. Those churches addressed by type la include the letters to the churches at Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira. These three communities seem to be the primary focus of John's rhetorical efforts throughout the Apocalypse. The populations of these churches are clearly split into factions, one faction siding with John and another (or possibly others) with another leader (or possibly other leaders). However, even among the type la letters we see distinctions. There is more hostility directed against the communities at Pergamum and Thyatira (especially in the threat sections) than Ephesus. The communities addressed by letter type Ib (Sardis and Laodicea), on the other hand, seem to be communities that John has, for all intents and purposes, given up on. There is virtually no encouragement (E) to these communities.12 The lack of an elaboration of problems (B[e]) also suggests that John sees little point in trying to persuade Table 3.3. Types of Letters in Revelation 2 and 3 Type 1 a b Ephesus Sardis Pergamum Laodicea Thyatira

Type 2 Smyrna Philadelphia

36

Who Rides the Beast?

these communities to his point of view, even though he acknowledges serious problems in the churches. The structure of the type 2 letters (written to Smyrna and Philadelphia), on the other hand, suggest that these two communities are sympathetic to John. The seer clearly views them as allies in his struggle against variant forms of Christianity. The simple fact that these letters contain no call for repentance (C) and no threat (D) demonstrates John's good opinion of these churches. An examination of the individual letters according to their types highlights the situation of these communities as perceived and articulated by John, as follows. The Letters of Type la: Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira The Letter to Ephesus. In the description of the community (B) and elaboration of the problems of the community (B[e]) in the Ephesian letter, John lists what appear to be a number of different issues. 2:2 I know your works, your toil, and your patient endurance. I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false. 3 I also know that you are enduring patiently and bearing up for the sake of my name, and that you have not grown weary. 4 But I have this against you, that you abandoned the love you had at first. . . . 6 Yet this is to your credit: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

It is important to note that none of these issues can be shown unequivocally to have anything to do with pressure on Christians by those outside the Christian community. The phrases that have been sometimes read as referring to persecution or external harassment are vague, and without other evidence we cannot assume that they are pointing to either harassment or persecution. Other causes could be responsible for John's remarks. 13 On the other hand, there are clear indications of intra-Christian problems in this letter. The individual problems concern: 1. "those who claim to be apostles but are . . . false" (2:2), 2. the charge that the Ephesians have abandoned the love that they had at first (2:4), and 3. the works of the Nicolaitans (2:6). Concerning the first issue, what does John mean by "false apostles"? By apostles, he probably means itinerant Christian missionaries like those mentioned in the Didache (11-13). However, he gives us no specifics about them. It is probable that these individuals were Christians who merely preached a different Christian message from the seer.14 We might compare his labeling such as "false apostles" with the passage in Paul's letter to the Galatians where Paul refers to those who disagree with him as "false brothers" (NRSV: "false believers").

The Issues

37

Some scholars have posited a link between the false apostles in Revelation 2:2 and the Nicolaitans mentioned in 2:6 and elsewhere in Revelation 2 and 3. 15 This is possible and perhaps even likely, although it is also conceivable that the "false apostles" represent a different group. Virtually all scholars read Revelation 2:2 as an indication that the Ephesian community rejected advances by an early Christian group known as Nicolaitans. We encounter this group again in other letters to the churches; I will discuss it later. Finally, the letter raises a third issue. The seer points out that the community has abandoned the love that it had at first. What could he mean by this? It could suggest that hostilities had erupted in the Ephesian church. Perhaps the community had fragmented into factions pitted against one another. 16 It could also indicate that the community was not as receptive to John as it had been previously, a suggestion supported by the fact that John elsewhere uses the word "love" (aya.m\) as a virtual synonym for nicnc, ("faith" or "faithfulness"). 17 A combination of the two suggestions points us to perhaps the most likely scenario: the phrase probably indicates that the community was no longer as receptive to John because it had fragmented into factions, not all of which were open to John's leadership. In sum, although the evidence from the letter to the Ephesian church gives us some information about the church, there is much that is—as yet—not entirely clear. Obviously, there is no evidence of persecution of Christians by those outside the community. There is also no clear indication of anything like harassment by external forces in this letter. There are, on the other hand, clear indications of internal problems with other Christians, specifically "false apostles" and "Nicolaitans." The Letter to Pergamum. The next type la letter, the letter to Pergamum, appears—on the surface at least—to imply a situation in which Christians were harassed and possibly even persecuted by hostile imperial or civic forces. 2: 13 I know where you are living, where Satan's throne is. Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you where Satan lives. f4 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols [((jayeiv ei5(oX68uTa) and practice fornication [Tiopve-Oaai]. 15 So [oikcoc;] you also have some who hold to the teaching [Kpaio-uviat;] of the Nicolaitans.

The description of the situation of the community (B) begins with the statement: "I know where you are living, where Satan's throne is." Scholars have made much of this short remark, typically seeing in it a reference to the imperial cult.18 Next comes John's positive assessment of the community's faithfulness (maiiq). Here John relates a story of an

38

Who Rides the Beast?

individual named Antipas, labeling him a "witness" ((icxp-cuc;).19 The text states that Antipas "was killed among you, where Satan lives." If one reads into the dwelling of Satan here and earlier a reference to the imperial cult, one can hardly help but get the impression that Antipas was martyred (n.b. his "title" (j.dpfuq)20 as a result of his refusal to participate in the imperial cult. What seems obvious is that the seer wants the reader to believe that Antipas was martyred, and he also wants the reader to see Antipas's death as symbolic of the relations between those in the church and those outside. 21 Nevertheless, on closer observation, it is striking that no specific information is given about Antipas's death; there is, for instance, no notice of who killed him. Consequently, some scholars— rejecting the notion that Antipas was a victim of violent persecution by the government—have suggested instead that Antipas might have been lynched by a mob because he was a Christian.22 But it is also important to consider other possibilities. Unfortunately, we will never know what Antipas did (if anything), nor will we know how he died. The text is too begrudging of details. But it is conceivable, for instance, that Antipas was executed by the state for reasons other than simply being a Christian. 23 Is it not possible that he was executed by the state for a crime such as defacing a local shrine or even robbing a pagan temple? Perhaps he was killed by a mob for a similar reason.24 Or perhaps he died under other circumstances— in a fight perhaps—and John blamed his death on his pagan adversary. It seems to me, given John's view of a hostile universe controlled by Satan, that any number of scenarios could be assumed as easily as the traditional view that Antipas was "martyred" for his refusal to denounce his faith. Possibly even more significant than the text's equivocation on the reasons behind Antipas's death is the fact that his demise occurred in the past and possibly the relatively distant past ("you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas"). 25 If we couple this fact with the preceding uncertainties, we can only conclude that there is nothing specific in this text that justifies the assumption of hostility or persecution in the Pergamum community at the time of Revelation. On the contrary, the details of the text suggest the opposite. If we turn to the section B(e) that usually elaborates the problems in the community (2:14-15), we are confronted with another surprise. The scenario presented here could cause us to wonder if John is addressing the same community as in the previous section. This section, unlike the section (B: 2:13) that heaps praise on the community, severely chastises it. This suggests that the description of the "situation" (i.e., the faithfulness of the Pergamum Christians) as just outlined is less a statement of fact than a declaration of hope. That is, John's praise

The Issues

39

for the faithfulness of the church could really be a call for faithfulness. And by "faithfulness" (TUOTK;), here as elsewhere, the seer clearly means adherence to his vision of Christianity. 26 In this section of the letter to the Pergamum community, John accuses the church of having "there [some] people who hold to the teaching of Balaam" (exevq EKEI KpaTO-uviai; Trvv 5i5axr|V BaXad)j,). It is interesting to note that John does not label the "some" who hold to the teaching more precisely. He does not say, for instance, "few" (compare 3:4). 27 As a result, it is conceivable that the "some" represents a sizeable group in Pergamum, maybe even the majority. What do these people believe? 28 Given what the text says about the crimes of Balaam, there can be little doubt that the teachings of the Nicolaitans are those that the seer connects with Balaam, specifically "eating eiScoXoG'UTa" (meat sacrificed to idols) and committing Tcopveia (usually translated "fornication"). 29 It is apparent from the threat section of the letter (D) that John considers these teachings to be a significant danger to the faithful. As opposed to the rather mild warning delivered in the Ephesian letter, here the Son of Man threatens violence.30 The blatant hostility of the threat might suggest that "those who hold the teachings of the Nicolaitan" comprise a significant number of Christians in Pergamum. Regardless, it certainly indicates that the controversy between the "faithful" and "those holding the teachings of the Nicolaitans" is particularly bitter in this community. This quick survey of the Pergamum letter has demonstrated a number of things. First, there is no compelling reason to view this document against a backdrop of severe external harassment or persecution. The seer's statement about Antipas is equivocal. In fact, his appeal to the past in the case of Antipas suggests that whatever the exact circumstances surrounding Antipas's death, they were matters of the past relationship between the community and the outside, not the present. Second, there is evidence of internal dissent that consists of a disagreement over eiSco^oSuia ("meat sacrificed to idols") and Ttopveia ("fornication"). Third, it is quite possible that the group John opposes constitutes a large number (possibly even the majority) of Christians in Pergamum. Fourth, the violence of the threat by the one "who has the sharp two-edged sword" suggests that the struggle within the Pergamum community is intense. The Letter to Thyatira. In the final letter of type la, the letter to Thyatira, as in the Pergamum letter, the description of the situation in the community (B) begins with strong praise for the Thyatiran church. Likewise, the elaboration of the situation (B[e]) suggests a less idyllic scenario than the initial description anticipates. 2:19 I know your works—your love, faith [TROTH;], service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater than the first. 20 But I

40

Who Rides the Beast? have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication [Tiopve-uoai] and to eat food sacrificed to idols [el5(oA,69\)Ta].

John's opponent "Jezebel" seems to be the leader of a faction in Thyatira connected with those John condemns in the Pergamum letter. We can reasonably infer this from the accusation leveled against her, for the charges that John brings against "Jezebel" in the Thyatira letter are identical to those leveled against those John disapproves of in the Pergamum letter. 31 The threat section in the Thyatira letter is striking because of its complexity. In fact, this threat is more complex than any of those in the other letters. 2:21 I gave ["Jezebel"] time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication [Tcopveia]. 22 Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who commit adultery [TOTJI; (IOIXEIJOVTCK;] with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; 23 and I will strike her children dead.

In this section, a number of warnings are directed against specific individuals or groups. First, "Jezebel," the leader of the opposition, is threatened with some type of wasting disease, a disease the reader expects will eventually end in death. 32 Second, her "children" are threatened with death. Third, those who "commit adultery with her" are warned of "great affliction" if they do not repent. As in the Pergamum letter, the threats articulated in this letter are particularly harsh, and that harshness suggests a struggle in Thyatira as bitter as that in Pergamum. I will return to this threat in the next chapter. Summary. This preliminary examination of the letters of type la to the churches of Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira shows, on the one hand, no definitive evidence of either persecution or harassment of the members of the churches by anyone outside the Christian communities at the time of John's writing. On the other hand, the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira give definite evidence of serious intra-Christian problems. The letter to the Ephesians also suggests factionalism, but John's tone recommends that he had a better footing in that community than in the other two. From these letters, we also learn that John has a major Christian rival in Thyatira, a prophet who differs from him on certain issues. It is likely that she also contributed to the factionalism in Pergamum, since the "crimes" of each community are the same. The implicit connection John suggests between "Jezebel" and the Nicolaitans suggests that she has played a part in the Ephesian problems as well. The violence that appears in the threats aimed against the communities of Pergamum and Thyatira suggests that the factional struggles in these two communities are fierce.

The Issues

41

The Letters of Type Ib: Sardis and Laodicea The Letter to Sardis. As has been the case with the other letters discussed thus far, there is nothing in the Sardis letter to suggest that Christians in that city were harassed or persecuted by outside forces. On the contrary, the letter indicates that there were internal problems in the Christian community. However, identifying the problems with any precision is difficult. In his description of the situation in the community (B), the seer merely says: "you have a name of being alive, but you are dead" (3:2b). Although he suggests that there are some loyal to him and to his version of Christianity, the number must be small in Sardis, since he specifically says that there are only a "few" fcdlci e^eit; oXiya 6v6|i(rua). Unlike the other letters, this letter does not give the church at Sardis any specific reasons for his condemnation. He only says: "I have not found your works perfect [7re7tA.r|pto(ieva] before my God." Although we cannot be sure, it is possible (and perhaps even likely) that the problems that John perceives in this church are related to those in Pergamum and Thyatira. Of all the letters, this one gives us the least information. What it does tell us suggests that the seer views the Sardis church as a community that he has little hope of influencing. The Letter to Laodicea. As with most of the other type 1 letters, there is no suggestion in the letter to the church at Laodicea of external harassment or persecution directed against the Laodicean Christians. Surprisingly, there is also no internal dissent suggested by the letter. The description of the community (B) simply begins: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot" (3:14). The description continues in 3:17, where John explains the cold/hot reference of verse 15: "For you say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.' You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." The meaning of verse 17 is critical for our understanding of this letter. Is the seer accusing the Laodiceans of relying on the security of their wealth, or he accusing them of flaunting a kind of spiritual wealth? Both options have been suggested by scholars. At first glance, either interpretation appears acceptable. On the one hand—as virtually all of the commentaries have pointed out—there are good reasons to understand the wealth of the Laodiceans literally. The city of Laodicea was well known as a prosperous trade center primarily because of its textile industry (Strab. 12.578) and its banks (Cic. Fam. 3.5; Cic. Att. 5.15). It demonstrated its prosperous self-sufficiency by its rapid recovery after it endured serious damage from an earthquake in 62 CE. In fact, the city even refused the aid of an imperial subsidy to help it rebuild (Tac. Ann. 14.29). On the other hand, as pointed out earlier, physical wealth need not be the issue. One scholar's comments may serve as an example.

42

Who Rides the Beast? It seems here that the issue is not so much material satisfaction as it is the proud boasting about an ostensible spiritual possession (cf. 2:9), for it corresponds to the manner of thinking of an enthusiasm influenced by Gnosticism (cf. 1 Cor 4:8); it is an enthusiasm that lives in the conviction that a final profound knowledge and perfection has already been achieved. 33

Faced with these two alternatives, we need to decide which is more likely. The second part of the seer's characterization of the community at first seems to support the metaphorical reading of the community's wealth (i.e., the text refers to spiritual wealth). This second phrase ("but you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked" [3:17b]) suggests a metaphorical meaning, because the passage—especially the last two attributes—can hardly be intended literally. One could argue that since the seer speaks metaphorically at the end of the verse, it follows that he is also speaking metaphorically at the beginning of the same verse. But is consistency a sufficient basis for a decision? One thing that argues against a consistently literal or metaphorical interpretation is the fact that such would be rather uninteresting (as well as rhetorically ineffective). It merely amounts to a denial of the original statement. A paraphrase of the seer's line so understood would read something like: "You say you have money but you do not" or "You say you are spiritually advanced but you are not." If John is intent on persuading the Laodiceans, then this would seem a fairly futile strategy, since it represents nothing more than a straight denial of their claims.34 Turning to the letter to Smyrna, it is apparent that the seer—in similar circumstances—speaks both literally and metaphorically in his description of the community: "I know your poverty (but you are rich!)." This passage can be best understood if the initial description of the community is taken literally while the second is understood metaphorically. In fact, it would be difficult to read it otherwise, unless the seer were to qualify the sentence something like: "I know your poverty (but you are rich compared to the people in Scythia)." Clearly, the text of the letter to Smyrna indicates that the members of that church are literally poor; John sympathetically acknowledges this fact and then consoles them with his appraisal of their spiritual wealth. If John is following the pattern of the Smyrnan letter (i.e., a literal statement followed by a metaphorical one), then we would expect him to refer to the literal wealth of the Laodiceans and to the spiritual poverty of the group in the latter part of the same verse. There are several other reasons to accept this suggestion. First, as just noted, the issue of wealth (or its lack) is raised in another letter in the book of Revelation (as well as the visions section of the Apocalypse, as I will show later). Second, since John frequently arranges scenes so that they reflect one another,35 it is reasonable to suppose that the seer consciously sets a community he admires (i.e., Smyrna, which seems poor but is actually rich) in contrast to a community he does not (i.e.,

The Issues

43

Laodicea, which seems rich but is actually poor). Third, there is no conclusive evidence from elsewhere in the Apocalypse that the seer is opposing any kind of Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism in the seven communities that he addresses. 36 Hence it seems likely that material wealth is the primary issue in Laodicea. John chastises the church members because they are lukewarm, and he blames their lukewarm attitude on their wealth. Summary. The letters to the churches of Sardis and Laodicea are each distinguished by a negative description of the communities (B). The community at Sardis is described as dead (despite its name of being alive) and the community at Laodicea is described as lukewarm, an intolerable condition. It is likely that John has some allies and potential allies in each of these churches, although their numbers are probably not significant. What is apparent from these letters is that these two communities are those where John has the least influence. Consequently, his tone is less conciliatory in these letters than in the other five. Type 2: The Letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia The Letter to Smyrna. In the first type 2 letter, to the church at Smyrna, John expresses his satisfaction with the Smyrnan church's "faithfulness." Translated into more value-neutral terminology, the Smyrnan church appears to share John's vision of Christianity and to revere him as a leader. As opposed to the letters to Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, this letter has no evidence of internal strife in the community. 37 Consequently, John includes no elaboration on problems within the community (B[e]>, and he calls for no repentance (C). Likewise, the Son of Man directs no threat (D) against the community. Instead of the type of threat that has appeared in the letters to the five communities already discussed, John substitutes a variation. The community in this case is threatened, but not by the risen Jesus. Rather, an outside force threatens it (D[v]). In the case of the Smyrna letter, the threat comes from either civic or imperial forces. 38 It is important to note that this is a future threat and, as such, does not necessarily indicate any previous or current harassment or persecution by governmental forces. Despite the fact that John is untroubled by the faithfulness of the church at Smyrna and despite the fact that there is no good reason to take his prediction as referring to anything happening during his time, the text does indicate that the community is not without problems. According to John, the members of the church suffer "affliction" (6A,i.\|m;), poverty (TiTco^eia), and slander (pXaa<)>rmia). It is tempting to associate the first term, 9M.v|nq, with external persecution or harassment, for, of course, the word can have this meaning. However, it need not; it can simply indicate unspecified suffering.

44

Who Rides the Beast?

In fact, John himself uses the word in this manner in the letter to Thyatira community (2:22). That the next word, Trum^eta ("poverty"), refers to actual poverty in the community is evident since it is followed by the parenthetical statement "But you are rich!" Unless he is intentionally contradicting himself, we should understand that here the author comforts the community for its actual poverty by reminding them that they are rich in other ways. Some have suggested that the poverty of the community must have been due to mob violence and looting. For instance, G. B. Caird cites Hebrews 10: 10:32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on the prisoners, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew you had a better possession and an abiding one.39

There is no compelling reason, however, to connect Hebrews with the cities of western Asia Minor at the time of Revelation, so it is unwise to jump to such a conclusion without further evidence. It seems more likely that a large number of the members of the church at Smyrna simply came from the lower socioeconomic strata of society. Finally, the community is described as enduring "slander" (pA.a(7(|>r||ua). The slander, according to John comes EK TOW ^eyovifflv 'louo'cdcnx; eivat eamo-uc; iced OIJK eicdv dAlci a-uvaycoyri iov> craiova ("from those who say that they are Jews but are not but [they are] a synagogue of Satan"). In the LXX and the New Testament literature, the word pXao<|)T||a.ta usually refers to language that is spoken against God.40 However, the word also carries a secular meaning in nonreligious texts. It can simply mean "to speak abusively," 41 and this is clearly the meaning in this letter. Who are those that John accuses of slandering the community? And what is the content of the pA,ac«t>r|nta he mentions? Is it language spoken against the beliefs of those in the community, or is it simply derogatory language aimed at the community?42 Concerning the identity of the blasphemers, John simply states that they are individuals who "call themselves Jews but are not." Such an identification is ambiguous. On the one hand, John might be referring to actual Jews whose claim to such a self-identification he disputes. On the other hand, he might be referring to some who call themselves Jews but in reality are what we would call Christians. I discuss these alternatives in the next chapter. What is the content of this p/\.aa<|>r|uici? A number of scholars have tied the term to persecution. For example, Colin Hemer says: "Probably, in Smyrna, the unbelieving Jews had become active in instigating persecution of the church or denouncing to the authorities those Jews who were also Christians." 43 There is absolutely nothing in the text,

The Issues

45

though, to support this suggestion. 44 Others have suggested harassment by Jews and possibly synagogue expulsion. Although this is possible, we need not infer these or any serious crisis from this text. The text could just as easily suggest two rival groups taking "pot shots" at each other. 45 To summarize, the letter to Smyrna gives no strong indication of any factionalism in that community, nor is there evidence of persecution or harassment by the imperial or local authorities, of Jews "turning in" Christians to the authorities, or of any regular or sporadic violence against Christians by Jews. The Letter to Philadelphia. The second type 2 letter, to the church at Philadelphia, as we would expect, has many similarities to the Smyrna letter. For instance, there is no suggestion of factionalism, nor is there any criticism of the faith of the community (apparently because the seer was satisfied that his version of Christianity was flourishing there). And there is no threat (D) in this letter. Here, as in the case of the Smyrna letter, the seer substitutes a variation on the threat (D[v]). In the Smyrna letter the variation took the form of a prediction of hostile action from government forces; in the Philadelphia letter, there is an eschatological threat and it is directed away from the community and against the synagogue of Satan. "I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but are lying—I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you" (3:9). Finally, the group the Son of Man threatens in the Philadelphia letter looks like the same group he refers to in the letter to Smyrna. 46 The description of the situation in the community (B) gives us some information about the social location of the Christians in the Philadelphia church. "I know your works. Look, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able [6\)vaiai, "is powerful enough"] to shut. I know that you have but little power [8\>va|iiv], and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name" (3:8). The phrase "but little power" probably indicates that the members of the Christian community in Philadelphia had little social or economic influence. 47 The word play on the root Suva- highlights the issue of power by implying that the eschatological action of the risen Jesus (i.e., setting before the community an open door) cannot be undone, even by those "with power." The text implies that some in the city of Philadelphia have asserted their power over the "faithful" in the church. Given the manner in which the letter is structured, it is reasonable to assume that those with power are the "false Jews." I will return to this point in the next chapter. In sum, there is no evidence in the Philadelphian church of any of the factionalism other letters reveal in the communities of Pergamum, Thyatira, and possibly Ephesus. Nor is there evidence of imperial or

46

Who Rides the Beast?

local persecution of the Philadelphia!! community, although the possibility of harassment is raised, perhaps originating with the group that John labels "false Jews." Summary: The Letters of Type 2. Neither of the letters of type 2, to the communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia, gives any evidence of current harassment or persecution of Christians by imperial or local authorities. In each case, a group of Jews (identified by John as "false Jews") is portrayed in tension with communities, but there is no evidence of any persecution by them. Nor do the texts necessarily suggest that Jews are turning Christians in to the authorities. Unlike some of the other communities, the Christian communities of Smyrna and Philadelphia appear to be devoid of factionalism. Both communities receive high praise from John, and he directs no criticism at these churches. This suggests that the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia are the most receptive to John's form of Christianity and the most receptive to his leadership. It is probably significant that these communities are described as "poor" (Smyrna) and "powerless" (Philadelphia). This might indicate that John's type of Christianity finds its strongest support among the economically and socially disenfranchised. I will return to this point in the chapters that follow. Conclusions In the seven letters to the churches in western Asia Minor, one rather surprising finding, given the traditional reading of the Apocalypse, is the fact that most of the issues enumerated (and certainly the most pressing ones) are internal, intra-Christian issues. There are a few exceptions. The first is the mention of Antipas in the letter to Pergamum. But this episode clearly comes from the community's past (and perhaps its distant past), so there is no reason to assume that it reflects anything like the contemporary situation of the church. The second exception is the imperial or civic threat mentioned in the letter to Smyrna. Again, though, this is a prediction, not a contemporary fact, and we are given no reason to suppose that there is any sound basis for that prediction. Third, the letters from Smyrna and Philadelphia attest to what looks like friction between the "false Jews" and the faithful in these two communities. It is possible that there is strong hostility between the Christians and the Jews in Philadelphia and Smyrna. Nevertheless, the text offers no compelling reason to assume that such hostility ever resulted in any physical harm to the members of the Christian communities. The internal, intra-Christian issues in the letters are as follows. There seem to be opposing factions in two of the churches, Pergamum and Thyatira, and probably in the Ephesian church as well. In all of these churches, one faction sides with John. In two of the churches,

The Issues

47

Pergamum and Thyatira, the opposing faction is tied to ei8o)A,69ma and Tcopveia. The issues of wealth and poverty also make themselves heard in two of the letters, Smyrna and Laodicea. As I will show in the next few chapters, it is likely that the factionalism in the churches is related to the wealth/poverty issue. First, however, the important players in the drama of the churches must be examined.

4 The Actors People and Parties behind the Book of Revelation

In this chapter, I examine the people and parties described in or implied by the letters to the churches: first, the group that John would consider the "faithful" in the churches, that is, those whose vision of Christianity most closely resembles his own; second, "those who call themselves Jews," mentioned in the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia; third, the faction that John connects with his rival "Jezebel" and the Nicolatians; finally, the group we might call "the invisible majority," the group that represents John's primary audience.

The "Faithful" in the Seven Churches Although John does not say much directly about those Christians most sympathetic to his position, we can glean a number of things about them from the text. First and foremost, the strongholds of the Johannine loyalists are the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia. In these churches, competing factions seem not to have taken root, so John's vision of Christianity is flourishing. 1 He also appears to have a significant following in Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira, although his influence in the latter two may be on the wane. Second, it is clear that John's followers shun the eating of ei5(oX66uta ("meat offered to idols") and Tiopvelcc ("fornication"). I explore the meaning of these actions when I consider John's rivals in a later section. 48

The Actors

49

Third, John's followers accept his leadership to the exclusion of any other person vying for that status in the community. For instance, he praises the Ephesian community for two specific reasons: (1) because they have "tested those calling themselves apostles but are not and have found them to be false" and (2) because they "hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which [John] also hates." At least the first of these statements concerns the leadership of the community and seems to indicate that, when confronted with rival leaders, the Ephesian community was faithful to John exclusively. Likewise, in the church at Thyatira, John praises the "faithful" for rejecting the teachings of "Jezebel," a rival Christian prophet. In the Pergamum church, he condemns those who adhere to "the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (2:15). Both of these churches clearly had factions in them loyal to John (2:13; 2:24). Nevertheless, as John's phrasing suggests, these factions were not as large or influential as John would have liked. What else can we know about the Johannine Christians? Concerning their social status, John describes the "faithful" Christians of Smyrna as both poor and powerless.2 We should probably understand the latter term as a reference to their lack of social standing or influence. 3 These descriptions, as well as other evidence, recommend that one of the important issues in these communities is the economic and social positions of the Christians in those communities. I will return to this issue later.

"Those Who Call Themselves Jews" The letter to Smyrna and the letter to Philadelphia both mention a group of antagonists who "call themselves Jews." In each case, John adds, "but [they] are not," and instead calls them a "synagogue of Satan." He thereby denies the label "Jew" to those claiming it. Who are these people who "call themselves Jews"? Although the seer gives us no other direct information about this group, it is most likely that this group represents non-Christian Jews of Smyrna and Philadelphia.4 The reason for what seems to be antagonism between the Jews and Christians of Smyrna and Philadelphia does not appear explicitly in the Apocalypse. Scholars have suggested various causes. Some have suggested that there was general Jewish hostility against Christians at the end of the first century—sufficient to explain the passages under consideration. Swete's comments on the situation in Smyrna can serve as an example of this approach. The Jews at Smyrna were both numerous and aggressively hostile. In the martyrdom of Polycarp they took a leading part, even surpassing the heathen in their zeal, and this, it is added, was their wont. At present they contented themselves with blaspheming, railing at Christ and Christians . . . as they had done from the first days of St. Paul's synagogue

50

Who Rides the Beast? preaching in Asia Minor (Acts 13:45). Against their sharp tongues the Christians are fortified by the [reflection] that these blasphemers are Jews in name only.5

How likely is the scenario envisioned by Swete (and others)? The suggestion that there was "aggressive hostility" on the part of Jews toward Christians has very little support based upon first- or even secondcentury evidence.6 Although it is possible that the Jews at Smyrna took an active role in the death of Polycarp later in the second century, it is more likely that the account of Polycarp's martyrdom was a highly stylized account and does not accurately reflect Jewish-Christian relations of the mid-second century.7 In fact, if we consider all of the evidence concerning Jewish-Christian relations in Asia Minor during the first few centuries of the common era, there is as much (and maybe more) historical support for cordial relations between Jews and Christians in the first few centuries as for hostility between the groups.8 A second option has been put forward by Colin Hemer. Hemer argues that Christians, and specifically gentile Christians of Asia, fled to the synagogue to avoid the obligations of the imperial cult (something from which Jews were exempt due to their traditional rights). 9 This, in turn, put Roman pressure on the synagogues; as a result, individual Jews may have informed on individual Christians, or perhaps synagogues provided lists of their bona fide members to the Romans.10 If Christians who had been trying to avoid the obligations of the cult of the emperor by claiming to be Jews were thereby exposed to Roman persecution, it would be easy for such people to feel betrayed by the Jews of the synagogues. Unfortunately, Hemer's scenario is built on several presuppositions, not the least of which is the assumption that many Christians of John's time were forced to participate in the imperial cult. This presupposition, however, lacks solid historical evidence.11 And even if we were to assume it, Hemer's solution would still be highly speculative. Yet another suggestion has been made by Thompson. He has argued that the issue surrounding "those who call themselves Jews" was one of self-identity. He asserts that the alleged friction between the groups arose from the desire of one group to define itself against the other. He surprisingly suggests that the impetus to draw a hard and fast distinction between the two groups came not from the Jews (as we might expect) but from John himself. Just as the various churches were encouraged to keep strong boundaries between the world and themselves, so too the seer encouraged the Smyrna and Philadelphia Christians to maintain high walls between the church and synagogue. Thompson's approach is clearly the most radical suggestion articulated thus far. It raises the possibility that there was no serious friction between Jews and Christians in the cities of Smyrna and Philadelphia. As he rightly points out, the letter to Philadelphia does not mention or

The Actors

51

even necessarily imply persecution, and even the letter to the church in Smyrna need not presuppose it. Consequently, I do not think that we should take the innuendoes of Jewish hostility that John makes all that seriously. It is noteworthy that the letters suggesting JewishChristian tension are those addressed to the communities where John seems to have the most sympathy. It is possible that the seer attempts to rally those heretofore sympathetic Christian communities by exaggerating tension between those in his community and "those who call themselves Jews." 12 Regardless of how we might reconstruct the circumstances around the Christians and the "false Jews" of Smyrna and Philadelphia, it is apparent that the "hostility" between the two is, at best, a minor issue in the Apocalypse. It is only mentioned in these two letters, and the seer avoids any direct language about a crisis between the groups. He is content merely to imply a crisis. Likewise, in the visions section of the Apocalypse, there are few unambiguously hostile polemics against Judaism. 13 On the basis of these findings, we cannot assume any serious hostility between the Christian communities of Smyrna and Philadelphia and the synagogues in those cities.

"Jezebel," Her Followers, and the Nicolaitans In the letter to Ephesus, John speaks of the "works of the Nicolaitans" and praises the Ephesian church for hating them.14 In the letter to Pergamum, he associates the Nicolaitans with two "crimes" that he also ties to the ancient figure of Balaam. He describes these acts as "eating eiScotaJema" and "committing nopveia" (Ttopve-uco). John also associates a woman whom he refers to as "Jezebel" with the same "crimes" (2:20). Although some scholars have assumed "Jezebel" to be the leader of a Nicolaitan faction because of the associations that the text makes, we need to remember that the text only implies the connection. As I will show hereafter, we need to be careful of the connections that John merely implies in his text.15 For the purposes of this inquiry, it matters little whether or not "Jezebel" is the leader of a group identified as Nicolaitans, since we have such a limited knowledge of this group otherwise.16 What is important is the set of actions John associates with this group and with "Jezebel." Eating ei5co^,66ma The first issue John raises concerns food, specifically food offered to gods other than YHWH. Like all those in the monotheistic tradition, he pejoratively refers to such food as ei5co>.60in:a ("meat sacrificed to an idol"). 17 The correct "pagan" terminology for such meat would be iepoGDTCI ("that which is offered in sacrifice;" see 1 Cor. 10:28) or, more rarely, 9e60ma ("that which is sacrificed to a god"). 18 The Christian ob-

52

Who Rides the Beast?

jection to eating such meat was the same objection as that of most of their Jewish contemporaries. Many Christians (and Jews) considered the eating of such sacrificial meat to be an idolatrous action. Ei8coA,66ma could have been encountered by the average person in a variety of contexts. One would find it in the temple of a deity or in the context of a public festival; one might encounter it in the home of a nonmonotheistic neighbor; or one might find it at the (j,ciiKeXXov (Latin mace Hum), the ancient meat market (see 1 Cor. 10:25). 19 The first occasion concerns either individual sacrifices at a shrine or a public festival, which might focus, for instance, on the patron deity of a city or area. In a public festival, prominent citizens were expected to participate in the banquet, and sometimes very elaborate feasts were given to the general population. For example, at the festival of the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) described by Kallixeinos of Rhodes,20 two thousand oxen were sacrificed. 21 This many animals could easily have fed tens of thousands of people, and the subsequent banquet must have included most of the members of the general populace of Alexandria.22 According to Greco-Roman authors, sacrificial meat was also distributed freely to all of the people in connection with such events as a significant military victory (Plut. Demetr, 11; Suet. lul. 38) or an important funeral (Liv. 8.22.2; 8.22.4; 39.4.2; 41.28.11). Sometimes a ruler who was trying to curry favor among the people would also make a large sacrifice in order to distribute such meat (Cic. Off. 2.52-58). Probably the most famous festival at which sacrificial meat was regularly distributed was the Athenian Panathenaia. 23 For a resident of Athens to ignore such a festival would seem at best unpatriotic and at worst impious.24 The closest Roman equivalent to the Greek Panathenaia was the lectisternium, a festival in which deities (represented by their images) were served as guests at a meal. The Roman historian Livy gives us a description of the original feast in the fourth century BCE: Unable to discover what caused the incurable ravages of [inclement weather] . . . the senate voted to consult the Sibylline Books. The Duumvirs in charge of the sacred rites then celebrated the first lectisternium ever held in Rome, and for the space of eight days sacrificed to Apollo, to Latona and Diana, to Hercules, to Mercury and to Neptune, spreading couches for them with all the splendor then attainable. They also observed the rite in their homes. All through the city, they say, doors stood wide open, all kinds of viands were set out for general consumption, all comers were welcomed, whether known or not, and men even exchanged kind and courteous words with personal enemies; there was a truce to quarreling and litigation. 25

If this account of the first lectisternium resembles, in even the faintest way, Livy's contemporary experience of the festival, one can easily imagine the kind of offense a Christian might give if he or she refused to participate. For instance, consider the following papyrus invitation to dine at a lectisternium: "Serapion, ex-gymnasiarch, requests you to

The Actors

53

dine at his house on the occasion of the lectisternium of the Lord Sarapis tomorrow, which is the 15th, at the 8th hour."26 This text indicates that Serapion was a man of some influence, specifically an ex-gymnasiarch. 27 A Jew or Christian receiving such an invitation would find him or herself in a difficult position. One might cause offense by turning down the invitation, and a refusal could hinder one's social, political, or business prospects. On the other hand, if one were to attend, one would almost certainly be faced with the prospect of eating ei^co^oGma. Since the occasion was in honor of the god Sarapis, the dinner would undoubtedly consist of animals sacrificed to the deity. Even at a private dinner (unconnected to a festival) at the home of a friend or acquaintance one could still encounter sacrificial meat. This would be meat that one's host had bought at the ndKeAAov,28 a market whose primary commodity was meat (although the ancient (idiceM-ov could also include among its wares fish, fruits, or grain). 29 Much of the meat sold at the |idKeA.A.ov was provided by local temples. These temples sold their sacrificial victims to local vendors at the ndiceAlov, and these vendors, in turn, sold the meat to the public.30 Hence when shopping for meat, one might well purchase iep60ina (or et5a)>.60ma, depending on one's perspective). 31 Other places one would encounter ei5(o^60\)ia would be in clubs or voluntary associations, 32 which served a number of purposes in the Greco-Roman world. For instance, they could exist for the common worship of a particular deity, especially a foreign deity. Or they could take the form of a trade or business association where, for example, carpenters could gather with other carpenters or merchants with other merchants. 33 Since there were many public festivals in each of the major cities of first-century Asia Minor,34 we can envision the bind economically successful Christians could often find themselves in. (We can also imagine the kind of stumbling block this could have raised in Christian efforts to convert pagans). A Jew in such circumstances would be better off because the Romans in Asia Minor had consistently guarded Jewish rights.35 Hence what would be seen as the peculiarity of Jewish practice vis-a-vis the state cults would have been known and (at least to some degree) accepted by the citizenry of the Asia Minor city.36 What could be construed as Christian animosity toward the state and civic cults would be more difficult for the average person to understand, since Judaism and Christianity (at least in most places) would probably have separated by this time. As a result, Christians faced the prospect of social isolation and perhaps even ostracism if they eschewed such events. At private dinners the situation could be even more precarious. Of course, such a situation would probably only affect the merchants and the traders in the churches, for only these groups would have had the

54

Who Rides the Beast?

resources at their disposal for such entertainment. Two Egyptian papyri illuminate the problem. The first reads: "Apollonius requests you to dine at the table of the Lord Sarapis on the occasion of the coming of age of his [brothers?]37 in the temple of Thoeris."38 The second is similar: "Diogenes invites you to dinner for the first birthday of his daughter in the Sarapeum tomorrow which is Pachon 26 from the eighth hour onward."39 In both of these dinner invitations, the occasion is social rather than specifically cultic. In the first instance, the host celebrates the coming of age of his brothers. In the second, the host observes the first birthday of his baby daughter. However, despite the social character of the occasion, the celebration in each case takes place in a temple.40 In such a setting, a sacrifice followed by a meal of the sacrificial victim would be the rule. Consequently, a Christian might wonder if he or she could attend. What was a Christian to do? As Paul's letters from the middle of the first century attest, different groups had different practices; it seems that there were no hard and fast answers.41 According to 1 Corinthians, some members of the Christian congregation in Corinth opted to avoid eiSroA.oG'uia at all costs.42 Others argued that "food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we [eat ei5coA,69uia] and no better of if we do [not]."43 Paul's opinion on the matter was balanced somewhere in between. He offers a compromise based less on the inherent Tightness or wrongness of the act itself than on how others might perceive that act.44 Ultimately, he advises the Christian dining at the home of a pagan neighbor to eat whatever is served (1 Cor. 10:27) unless someone points out that Iep69wa is being served. In that case, the Christian should not eat it (10:29). He says: "But take care that this liberty of yours [to eat ei5coX.60-UTa] does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (8:9). Hence he affirms in principle the "liberty" of Christians to eat ei5coA,60ma as their conscience allows,45 but in practice he significantly restricts the dining behavior of upwardly mobile Christians. Although Christian bureaucrats or business people could dine with clients or patrons, they could no longer participate in public festal meals. Nor could they participate in a guild banquet (of fellow carpenters, for instance) if there would be a possibility of being seen by other "weaker" Christians who would be scandalized. "For if anyone sees you, a person of knowledge, at table in an idol's temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols [eiSo)A,66ma]?" (8:11) The book of Revelation appears to portray a situation similar to that in the Corinthian correspondence, a situation in which there was no consensus on the issue.46 It is noteworthy that John does not accuse his opponents of any unambiguous idolatrous practices. He simply accuses them of eating sacrificial meat. It is quite possible that "Jezebel" was merely allowing Christians to eat sacrificial meats in certain circumstances (much as Paul had done several decades earlier). Such a move

The Actors

55

would be much more likely to benefit those who were socially and economically better off, since the poor rarely, if ever, had the opportunity to eat meat.47 Given the political or business aspirations of individual Christians like Erastus of Corinth (Rom. 16:23) or Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:1140), the issue of ei8coA.69ma could take on a level of importance it might not have had otherwise. For instance, a city official like Erastus could be under great pressure to attend an official city function, complete with its sacrifices and ei8coA.66\)i:a. Likewise, he would have a difficult time turning down an invitation to dine with other city bureaucrats. Such a refusal might be read as a snub and could have negative repercussions on his political career. A merchant like Lydia, on the other hand, could probably bypass public festivals, but she could hardly avoid dining with clients or potential suppliers. A refusal to share a meal could severely hinder such a person's livelihood. Committing rcopveia (nopveiJoat) The second charge that John levels against his rivals is the committing of Ttopveta. The Greek verbrcopve-uraand the associated noun nopveict (Rev. 2:21) are both related to the noun Tropvri, the Greek word for prostitute, which in turn comes from the verb Ttepvruii, "to sell." Hence, •q TtopvT) is literally a "harlot for sale," and Tiopve-uoo would literally mean "to visit a prostitute," while rcopveia would stand for whatever action one had hired a prostitute to perform. 48 In common parlance, however, Tcopveia stood for virtually any extramarital sexual activity. Of course, "Jezebel" might have been guilty of promoting or practicing promiscuous sexual behavior. Some scholars have suggested that since such libertinism characterized certain types of Gnosticism, then the group or groups that John opposed were Gnostic in their orientation. Neither of these suggestions is viable. If "Jezebel" were promoting sexual promiscuity, we should expect to see some other evidence of sexual libertinism within John's churches, but we do not. Similarly, we should expect to see strong evidence of Gnosticism elsewhere in the Apocalypse, but again we do not.49 How, then, do we explain the charge?50 In the Jewish tradition, the word Tiopveta covered a broad semantic range. In the LXX, the word group Tcopveia/Ttopvexjco is frequently used to translate the Hebrew root znh',5} it typically refers to a woman's unfaithfulness to her husband (Hos. 1:2, Ezek. 16:23). 52 On the basis of the metaphorical notion that the covenant represents a marriage between God and Israel, Tropveia/Tiopvexxn came to carry the metaphorical meaning "unfaithfulness to God." The classic expression of this metaphor is found in the early chapters of Hosea, where Israel is depicted as a promiscuous woman, unfaithful to her husband, YHWH. On the basis

56

Who Rides the Beast?

of this concept, later Jewish thinking came to assume the same about the Gentile nations, to a greater extreme.53 Curiously, in the Jewish apologetic material, the metaphorical Tiopveia of the Gentile peoples was eventually understood literally, and Gentiles came to be seen as sexually perverse. 54 By the Hellenistic period, the connection between idolatry (or idolaters) and Tiopveia (in this context meaning "sexual perversion") was a commonplace in the Jewish literature. For instance, the Wisdom of Solomon argues: "For the idea of making idols was the beginning of Tiopveia (14:12);" and the Letter of Aristeas says: "The majority of other men [i.e., gentiles] defile themselves in their relationships. . . . [TJhey not only procure the males, they also defile mothers and daughters (152)." The Testament of Reuben contends that "Tiopveia is the destruction of one's life [yu^il], drawing it away from God and toward the idols (4:6)," and Paul connects the fall into idolatry with the sexual perversion of the gentiles (Rom. 1:18-32). 55 Such a polemic continues into the Rabbinic period, as the legislation of the Mishna attests:, "Cattle may not be left in inns of idolaters because they are suspected [of using beasts] for carnal connection [7 hrby^h]; and a [Jewish] woman may not remain alone with them since they are suspected of lechery" (*Abod. Zar. 2:1). 56 Given such a metaphorical understanding of Tcopveia/Tiopve-ura in the Jewish (and early Christian) 57 milieu, we need to ask if the words Tiopvri, Tiopveia, or Tcopvexxo are meant similarly in John's Apocalypse. Since John does not attribute any specific sexual activity to "Jezebel" or her followers, and since he uses a similar sexual term, jj.oixe'ueiv ("to commit adultery"), metaphorically in the text (2:22), it is reasonable to assume that he speaks metaphorically when he refers to TiopvT|/7iopveia/Tiopve'U(o in connection with his rival.58 Accordingly, Tiopveia would be nothing more here than a metaphorical reiteration of eiSco/^oGma.59 There are two other possible options to consider, the first having to do with marriage practices and the second with symbols. According to rabbinic literature, the word znwt (the Hebrew counterpart to the Greek word Tiopveia) could apply to a marriage between a Jew and a gentile (as well as any marriage that ran counter to rabbinic pronouncement). 60 In Tobit 4:17, the Greek word rcopveia is used in the same way (see Test. Lev. 14:6; Jub. 25:1; 30:1-17). We could have an analogous situation here. In John's churches, the seer could be accusing "Jezebel" of Tiopveia for tolerating "mixed" marriages between Christians and pagans (see 1 Cor. 7:12 — 13). Finally, a third option is to posit the word nopveia as a symbol that refers to no specific act but rather the whole enterprise of assimilation into the pagan world. From John's vantage point, such assimilation involves the compromising of uncompromisable principles. Consequently, for John, the word Tcopveia would function as a kind of symbolic slur directed not only against pagans but also against any people who would tolerate non-Christians in their midst.

The Actors

57

Unfortunately, there is no way to decide which option is best. All we can say with any confidence is that Ttopveia should probably not be understood literally in the letters to the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira. It is much more likely that the charge is either a metaphorical reiteration of the idolatry charge implicit in the earlier accusation (of eating ei.5a)A,66in:a);61 that John has included something like "mixed marriages" in the list of offenses included under the rubric rtopveta; or that Tiopveia functions as a symbol representing the calamity of assimilation.

Did "Jezebel" Promote or Merely Tolerate ei5o)A.60\)Ta and Ttopveia? Whether "Jezebel" actually promoted or merely tolerated the eating of ei8G)A,69ma and the practice of Tropveta (whatever that involved) is an important distinction. A very different picture of John's rival emerges from each. In order to resolve the question, I will examine the language John uses when discussing these issues. Unfortunately, since we cannot be sure of what precisely John means when he refers to Tiopveia (other than the fact that his rival probably is not encouraging sexual promiscuity), we can only usefully examine the eating of eiS(jA69ma. In the accusations against John's rivals in the letters to the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira a situation is portrayed that, at first glance, looks similar to one that occurred in Corinth a generation earlier. In both cases, there is a dispute over the acceptability of eating of etScoXoOina. However, when we look more closely, the similarity fades somewhat. According to Paul's letter to the Corinthians, the Corinthian community was divided over the issue of ei6o)X69ma. The "strong" ate it, and the "weak" were offended by it.62 In contrast, neither of the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira in Revelation give any indication that eating ei8o)A,69-UTa disturbed anyone in those communities, although it clearly disturbed John. 63 In other words, his phrasing indicates that the issue probably did not provoke controversy within the community; rather, it seems he was the one interested in provoking the controversy. In the two letters that specifically mention the act (Pergamum and Thyatira), John's language is carefully phrased. He is quite cautious when he raises the matter, and he never directly accuses the addressees of the activity. For example, in the Pergamum letter, he says: But I have a few things against you. You have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat eiStoloGuia and practice Tiopveia. So you also have people there who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. (2:f4-15)

Notice that John does not say "some of you hold to the teaching of Balaam" but instead says "you have [some] there who hold to the teaching of Balaam." In addition, only the ancient Israelites in this text

58

Who Rides the Beast?

are specifically charged with eating et8co?i60ma (and practicing Tiopveia) and not the Christians of Pergamum, though it is obvious that some Christians there are eating it (since later in the letter they are admonished to repent). Why is John so judicious in his language?64 I suggest that John is afraid of alienating the community (or some portion of the community) from himself because the people of the community do not have strong feelings against the eating of eiSw^oGma. In short, his language suggests that the eating of el8co^60TJTa was tolerated by the majority in the communities of Pergamum and Thyatira (and perhaps some of the other churches as well). 65 As a result, it seems much more likely that "Jezebel" tolerated rather than encouraged the act (perhaps like Paul, only in certain circumstances). If she strongly encouraged it for its own sake, I would expect to see signs of controversy in the community. Her reasoning may have been similar to Paul's and may even have been directly based on his writings.66

The Invisible Majority Although this survey has addressed the various people and parties mentioned in the letters to the churches, it has not dealt with all of the Christians in the churches. It is probable that the visible characters and parties who appear in the letters represent not the mainstream of the churches but the liberal ("Jezebel" and her followers) and conservative (John and his followers) minority groups. Hence we must be careful not to assume that the churches were solely constituted by these two factions who were at odds with one another. The majority of the churches were probably composed of Christians who stood between these factions. Although they are not named specifically in any of the letters, I will refer to this group as the invisible majority.67 We can detect the presence of this group in the letter to the church at Thyatira, which presupposes two different leaders having influence in the community (John and "Jezebel") and three distinct groups of people. Two of the three groups are represented metaphorically. The first is the children of "Jezebel." According to the threat section in the Thyatira letter, the speaker, who is identified as the Son of God, "will strike them dead" (2:23). John describes the second group as those committing adultery with "Jezebel." According to the threat, the Son of God will throw these people (iSou paAAco . . . loiic, [ioi^evioviac, (iet' ca>Tf|<;) into "great distress" (eic; 0A.i\|/w (j.eytiA.r|v) unless they repent of her (i. e., "Jezebel's") works (2:22). The third group is described as "the rest of you in Thyatira." This group is also described as those "who do not hold this teaching [of 'Jezebel']." It is fairly obvious who the first and last groups mentioned are. The "children of Jezebel" clearly represent the people in the community over whom John no longer has any influence. They are what we would

The Actors

59

call the core of "Jezebel's" support. According to the threat section of this letter, this group is not given the opportunity to repent. Their judgment, as well as that of their leader "Jezebel," is certain. The last group ("those who do not hold this teaching"), on the other hand, obviously represents John's base of support within the community. The middle group, those "committing adultery with ['Jezebel']," is the invisible majority of the community, probably those who are either open to "Jezebel's" message or perhaps those who have not overtly condemned her. This might be a group that refuses to side with either but rather accepts both forms of Christianity and considers the prophetic calling of each individual (i.e., John and "Jezebel") to be legitimate. This is the group that John is trying so hard to persuade to see things as he does. The call for repentance in this letter is aimed only at this group, "those committing adultery" with "Jezebel," because only for this group does the possibility of reconciliation exist. John has given up trying to sway "Jezebel" to his point of view, though he did, at one time, try to "convert" her (2:21). Nor does he bother with her longtime followers (2:23). In sum, the Thyatira letter shows us that this church (and probably the Pergamum and Ephesian churches as well) separated into competing camps: "Jezebel's" and John's. At issue is the legitimacy of each prophet's credentials. In the middle, there is a group (most probably the majority) that John is trying to force into choosing sides. I will look at this group more closely in the next chapter.

Summary: People and Parties The last chapter showed that the letters of chapters 2 and 3 give no strong evidence for persecution of the churches or of their harassment by pagan neighbors. There is a suggestion of some aggression by "those who call themselves Jews," but this probably did not escalate beyond name-calling. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence for internal tensions within the churches; the letters suggest friction between John and a rival Christian prophet he labels "Jezebel." Two issues are mentioned by John as the points of contention between himself and "Jezebel": (1) eating ei5a>?i66ma and (2) committing Tiopveia. Concerning the first, there is little in the text that suggests that "Jezebel" encourages Christians to eat ei5col60i)Ta. She may, instead, have merely allowed them to do so in certain situations (as Paul did earlier). Concerning the second, "Jezebel" and her followers were clearly not engaged in any promiscuous sexual behavior. Hence we should probably understand this charge metaphorically as pointing to what some would see as the idolatry implicit in the eating of ei8o)X69'UTa. Or perhaps the accusation of rcopveia pointed to toleration of intermarriage with pagans or even the simple toleration of pagans.

60

Who Rides the Beast?

One thing that becomes increasingly clear as we investigate these issues is the fact that social concerns dominate the conversation in John's churches. That which constitutes proper or improper social intercourse functions as the focus of the issues articulated in the letters. I have suggested that there seems to be an economic dimension to at least some of these social concerns; in the next chapter I will further examine the economic dimensions of the conflict.

5 Wealth, Commerce, and the Merchant Class

The end of the last chapter concluded that the points of conflict between John's followers and those of "Jezebel" focused on concerns that had social ramifications. In fact, it might even be fair to say that the conflict between John and "Jezebel" centered as much on different social attitudes as on any fundamental theological distinctions.1 The contrast in their social attitudes was significant. While "Jezebel" advocated engagement with the larger society (probably with an eye to reforming it from within), John recommended withdrawal into the ghetto.2 In this chapter I will examine some of the texts in Revelation that give us clues to the economic dimensions of these social concerns in the communities of the Apocalypse. The Economic Background of the Social Issues Of course, any conversation about social issues in the Greco-Roman world must, by necessity, include a discussion on economic issues. Then, as now, economic concerns and social realities were closely interrelated. Unfortunately, there is virtually no direct economic information about the urban Christian communities of Asia Minor in the late first century. We have, however, considerable information about the economic (and social) conditions of Paul's urban communities a generation earlier. I will begin therefore with what we know about those earlier urban communities. 61

62

Who Rides the Beast?

As already discussed, Paul's communities contained individuals from a wide variety of economic levels. Some were no doubt well off, some were impoverished, and some were in between.3 In at least one of Paul's churches, the economic stratification of the Christian community gave rise to tensions (and possibly even open hostility) within the church.4 It is possible that John's Apocalypse bears witness to a similar set of circumstances.

The Issue of Wealth in the Apocalypse It is probably not accidental that those communities for which the seer has nothing but praise are labeled "poor" (Smyrna, 2:9) and "powerless" (Philadelphia, 3:8-9). Conversely, the only church for which John has virtually nothing but condemnation—the church in Laodicea—is described as wealthy, prosperous, and in need of nothing (3:17). This suggests that John's faithful allies were the poor of the communities and that "Jezebel's" were the more economically advantaged.5 Although there is little more direct economic data to be gleaned from the letters to the churches, other passages in the Apocalypse carry indirect information about financial matters. Perhaps the most notable such passage appears in Revelation 17:1-19:10, a text that highlights the wealth of "Babylon" and features laments by various parties engaged in commercial activities in the empire. A Polemic against Wealth? Revelation 17:1-19:10 Revelation 17:1-19:10 appears, on the surface, to be a polemic against riches. The portrait of the whore "Babylon" suggests her sumptuous wealth, a wealth for which she is subsequently condemned,6 "[She] was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold [xp-uoicp] and jewels [H9cp Ttpia)] and pearls [napyapiTcaq]" (17:4). The wealth of "Babylon" is further elaborated and denounced in the next chapter (18), which contains an angelic pronouncement of doom over the city (18:2-3), followed by an admonition that God's people leave the city before its imminent destruction (18:4-8). This admonition is followed by a series of laments or dirges that draw heavily from Ezekiel's oracles against Tyre (Ezek. 26-28) and Isaiah's judgment against Babylon (Isa. 23:1-12). The first lament, pronounced by the kings of the earth (18:9-10), is followed by two consecutive laments by the merchants of the earth (18:11-14, 15-17a) and a lament by the shipmasters, seafarers, and sailors (18:17b-20). The laments of the merchants emphasize the wealth of the doomed city by enumerating the products (many of which include luxury items) the merchants have sold to "Babylon." These four laments precede the final angelic curse (18:21-24) that

Wealth, Commerce, and the Merchant Class

63

completes the chapter and in turn gives way to the rejoicing of the heavenly host early in chapter 19. According to a common reading of the Apocalypse, Revelation 17:119:10 constitutes a polemic against an economic and political system that violated Christian standards of love and justice. . . . Revelation makes repeated allusions to the greed and selfish opulence of Rome and her merchants (18:3, 7, 11-16, 19). . . . Rome coopted and rewarded provincial elites who subdued the local population and directed regional economies toward the appetites of Italy.7

If we consider this reading in light of the passages in the letters about the poor faithful communities and the erring wealthy ones, we can easily conclude that wealth was anathema to the seer. All wealth represented ill-gotten gain, accumulated through the sweat of the downtrodden. If this were John's attitude toward wealth, clearly the poor of the communities would be drawn to him and the rich would look elsewhere for leadership. But there are serious problems with this way of reading the text. Revelation 17:1-19:10 does not present a simple polemic against wealth but rather a remarkably ambiguous vision, whose major focus is not at first readily apparent. How can we be sure that this text does not constitute a simple argument against riches? Although some have made much of what certainly looks like John's disdain for the wealth of "Babylon" in these chapters, a quick glance at the description of the new Jerusalem later in the Apocalypse presents us with an image of wealth just as extravagant—if not more so—than that found in connection with "Babylon": 21:18 The wall [of the new Jerusalem] is built of jasper, while the city is pure gold, clear as glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city are adorned with every jewel, the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates are twelve pearls, each of the gates is a single pearl, and the street of the city is pure gold, transparent as glass.

It is worth noting that the luxuriant attire of "Jerusalem" is not only as opulent as that of Babylon" but also quite similar (see 17:3). Both figures are described as adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. Of course, no voice of condemnation is directed against either "Jerusalem's" sumptuous attire or her wealth.8 When we look to the vision of the Son of Man in Revelation 1:1216, we are also confronted with wealth imagery.9 The association of Son of Man with wealth in the book of Revelation stands out in the Jewish and early Christian traditions, as Royalty has noted; nowhere else in the Jewish or early Christian apocalyptic visions is wealth associated with this figure. 10 Consequently, on the basis of the association

64

Who Rides the Beast?

of extravagant wealth with two of John's most important positive characters, it is difficult to maintain the view that he has anything against wealth itself. 11 What then is the issue he addresses?

A Call for Social Justice? As mentioned, some scholars have suggested that John's polemic, though not an attack on wealth in itself, is directed against those who live luxuriously at the expense of the common people (i.e., the poor). In other words, these scholars see in the Apocalypse, and especially in Revelation 17:1-19:10, a strong concern for social justice on John's part. The condemnation of wealth in these chapters then is not a condemnation of wealth per se but instead is an attack on wealth gained by exploiting the poor. Consider, for instance, Yarbro Collins's remarks. John probably had in mind here [chapter 18] citizens of the cities of western Asia Minor who had amassed great wealth from commerce and the transportation of goods. . . . In Revelation 18 their economic ruin is described and the heaven, saints, apostles, and prophets are called upon to rejoice . . . . The combination of hostility toward the local elite and toward the Roman authorities is not surprising, since they cooperated and supported one another; opposition to one could easily lead to or be associated with hostility to the other.12

Yarbro Collins, like others, views the author of the Apocalypse functioning as an advocate for the poor who were exploited by the elite of society. The elite would include not just the Roman leaders in the capital city ("Babylon") but also their native collaborators in the provinces. This is a fallacious conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, although there is evidence for significant tension between rich and poor in the late first and early second centuries, 13 there is virtually nothing to support the notion of resentment of Rome by the poor anywhere in the empire. On the contrary, as Ramsay MacMullen has pointed out, "only one doubtful instance is known of poverty and anti-Romanism conjoined, to be set against a mountain of indirect proof of the popularity of the empire among the lower classes."14 So if the lower classes felt exploited by Rome, they did not voice it.15 And, as we might expect, there is little or nothing in the ancient literature to support the idea of lower-class resentment of the provincial elite because of their cooperation with Rome in the exploitation of the poor.16 Certainly, the lower classes resented the elite, but not because they viewed the elite as collaborators with Rome in their oppression. The poor saw the elite lining their own pockets at their expense. They did not see the wealth passing from the hands of the native elite on to Rome. The book of Revelation fits this pattern. It, like the other literature of the time, does not directly condemn Rome for exploiting the poor. Those who argue for the social justice motif assume that this concern of justice provides the motivation for the author of the Apocalypse, but they cannot point to any particular passage in Revelation 17:1-19:10

Wealth, Commerce, and the Merchant Class

65

(or elsewhere in the book for that matter) that directly supports their position. Another problem with the anti-Roman social justice argument has to do with its proponents' assumptions about the composition of the provincial elite. The scholars who imagine a social justice argument in Revelation 17:1-19:10 typically argue that those offering the laments about the destruction of "Babylon" in chapter 18 (i. e., the kings of the earth, the merchants, and the seafarers) make up that elite. For example, Richard Bauckham writes: "John [gives] us the perspective of Rome's collaborators in evil: the ruling class, the mercantile magnates, the shipping industry." 17 Note that for Bauckham, "the merchants" have become the "mercantile magnates" and the seafarers have become "the shipping industry." But the collapse of the kings, merchants, and seafarers into the "provincial elite" by Bauckham and others is inaccurate. Of the three groups, only the first—the kings of the earth (presumably meaning local rulers or the decuriom)16 —would belong to the social stratum of the elite. As shown in chapter 2, the merchants and seafarers—both captain and crew—would belong among the humiliores,19 as would anyone who worked for a living.20 The elite would have despised such working individuals. Although some of them might have made as much (if not more) money as many honestiores, no one in ancient society would have put them in the higher social category. 21 What is noteworthy about Revelation 18 is not the emphasis placed on the elite but instead the accent that the author sets on the humiliores (i. e., workers), especially those engaged in trade who have lost their income following "Babylon's" fall. Although there is a brief lament by the elite (the kings of the earth) in this chapter (18:9-10), it is eclipsed by the two laments of the humiliores. It is significant that the lament by the merchants is three times as long as that by the kings of the earth and the lament by the seafarers is almost twice as long as the kings' lament. Not only are the laments by those engaged in trade considerably longer that the kings' lament; they are also much more detailed.22 The closer we look at John's seeming polemic against wealth, the more the focus of that polemic blurs. John does not seem to be particularly concerned with the exploitation of the poor, and he is hardly interested in condemning wealth. 23 A more complex conclusion is required. This is not to say that there are no social tensions in the churches that result from economic disparity.24 As John sees it, however, the tension does not seem to lie between the wealthy elite and the impoverished masses. Where, then, is the problem? The emphasis on the merchant class in chapter 18 provides a strong clue to the focus of the issue. This emphasis might suggest that tensions exist between the poor and the notso-poor or, to put it another way, between the unskilled laborer and the small businessperson.25 Before drawing any conclusions about this suggestion, however, it is necessary to examine two other passages in chapter 18 that also concern merchants.

66

Who Rides the Beast?

The Role of the Merchants in Revelation 18 Two similarly structured passages surround chapter 18 in the Apocalypse. The first begins the chapter. 18: 2 [An angel cried out:] "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! It has become a dwelling place of demons, a haunt of every foul spirit, a haunt of every foul bird, a haunt of every foul and hateful beast. 3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxury." Closing chapter 18 are corresponding verses. 18: 21 Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "With such violence Babylon the great city will be thrown down, and will be found no more; 22 and the sound of harpists and minstrels and of flutists and trumpeters will be heard in you no more . . . 23b for your merchants were the magnates of the earth, and all the nations were deceived by your sorcery. 24 And in you was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slaughtered on the earth." The angelic pronouncements in each of these texts run, more or less, in parallel. At the beginning of each pronouncement, the desolation of "Babylon" is described.26 Each pronouncement concludes with a threefold list of reasons for "Babylon's" fall. Although the reasons are different in the two lists, there is some significant overlap. According to the initial pronouncement (18:3), the reasons for "Babylon's" demise are: 1. "all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication (Tiopveia)," 2. "the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her," and 3. "the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxury." According to the final proclamation (18:23b-24), on the other hand, the three reasons for "Babylon's" fall are: 1. "[her] merchants were the magnates [oi neyicraxveq] of the earth," 2. "all of the nations were deceived by [her] sorcery," and 3. "in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slaughtered on earth."

Wealth, Commerce, and the Merchant Class

67

The issues articulated are rcopveia (18:3), sorcery (18:23), bloodshed (18:24), and the success of the merchants (18:3, 23). 27 It is striking that only the success of the merchants appears in both lists. This is particularly notable, especially since John does not oppose wealth per se elsewhere in the text, as I have already shown. We can easily understand why the issues of Tiopveia, sorcery, and bloodshed are cited as causes of "Babylon's" demise. They are stock accusations leveled at Israel's enemies throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and later Jewish literature. Hence their presence here would certainly fulfill readers' expectations. But the issue concerning the merchants is puzzling, for two reasons. First, neither list gives any specific indication of whether or not the activity of trading itself is evil (and if so, why); second, nowhere in this chapter does the text condemn the merchants themselves. The rest of chapter 18 simply points out that those who make their living on trade will soon lament the fact that they have lost their best customer.28 It is certainly clear from the structure of chapter 18 that John considers the success of those who have engaged in trade a significant contributing factor to the downfall of "Babylon." Although he does not specifically condemn the merchants themselves in chapter 18, he sets their success alongside ofrcopveict,sorcery, and bloodshed, all obviously heinous crimes. In order to find out precisely why the seer objects to the success of the merchants, we need to look to yet another passage in the Apocalypse. Merchants and the Beast from the Earth Chapter 13 contains a vision of two beasts, one beast that arises out of the sea (13:1) and another beast that comes out of the earth (13:11). Revelation 13:4 tells us that the Beast from the Sea is dependent on the Dragon (of chapter 12) for its "power, throne, and great authority" (13:2b). On the other hand, the Beast from the Earth—according to 13:12—"exercises all the authority of the first beast [i.e., the Beast from the Sea] on its behalf [EVCOTUOV amov]."29 This text presents us with a hierarchy of evil. The Dragon of chapter 12 represents Satan, as 12:9 makes clear. The Beast from the Sea obviously represents the Roman Empire.30 That beast, in turn, gives its authority to the Beast from the Earth. Unfortunately, who (or what) the Beast from the Earth represents is not immediately apparent. Scholars have entertained a number of different alternatives, which I will explore in more detail in chapter 9. For now it is sufficient to note that the best candidate is Greco-Roman culture in general, specifically its pagan substructure. What does this have to do with "the merchants of the earth?" The connection between commerce and the Beast from the Earth is found in 13:16-17. According to this passage,

68

Who Rides the Beast? 13:16 [the Beast from the Earth] causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

From the perspective of this passage, one can only conduct commerce if one has the mark of the beast. In other words, one must participate in the general culture, including the religious culture of the empire, to conduct commerce. 31 One cannot live in cultural and religious isolation and expect to reap the mercantile benefits of the larger culture. So the logic of this vision runs: if one participates in the larger culture (represented by the Beast from the Earth), under the political sway of the Roman Empire (represented by the Beast from the Sea), one needs to remember where the beasts' power and authority come from. Ultimately, that power and authority belong to the Dragon, who, of course, is Satan (13:2). Hence chapter 13 provides us with a somewhat indirect condemnation of those engaged in trade; it suggests that doing business in the empire requires the collaboration of Satan. However, this in itself is hardly an unambiguous condemnation. That comes a few verses later, in chapter 14. It is noteworthy that the mark of the beast received by the merchants contrasts with the mark that designates the elect at the beginning of the next vision (in 14:1). "Then I looked, and there was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion! And with him were one hundred forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." We are told later in the same chapter that these are "the redeemed from humankind." John obviously means to contrast those who are marked with the name of the Lamb and the name of the Father with the marked individuals of the former vision. Concerning the latter, the vision of chapter 14 contends: 14:9b Those who worship the beast and its image, and receive a mark on their foreheads or on their hands, 10 they will also drink the wine of God's wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and they will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name.

What the seer has done here is to set up a dualism between those marked with the mark of the beast and those marked with the name of the Lamb and his Father. From John's vantage point, one wears either one mark or the other. No one goes unmarked, and no one can carry the marks of both God and the beast. Only those marked with the Lamb and the Father's name will be saved. These are the ones who, among other things, "follow the Lamb wherever he goes" (14:4) and "are blameless" (14:5). Everyone else falls into the category of those marked by the beast, the condemned. It is notable that Revelation 13:16-17

Wealth, Commerce, and the Merchant Class

69

singles out commerce as the sole activity that requires the mark of the beast. Here, as is chapter 18, the negative emphasis on the merchant class is apparent. An Anticommerce Polemic in the Revelation of John As I pointed out earlier, John's negative emphasis on commerce in chapters 13 and 18 is odd. More unusual yet is the fact that—though he obviously does not like commerce—he does not condemn it in any forthright manner; his condemnation is indirect and subtle. Why? To answer this, I must return to the issue of community dynamics. John strenuously opposes "Jezebel" and her followers; consequently, he argues against her position. However, he addresses an audience that, for the most part it seems, is open to her particular message: the invisible majority. Since John's allies are characterized as "poor" and "powerless" and at least some of his rival's followers are described as "rich," a reasonable scenario might look something like the following. John's followers were day laborers, the unemployed (or unemployable), and the underemployed. 32 "Jezebel's" followers, like many first- and second-century urban Christians, were successful merchants and artisans,33 that is, people engaged in trade and commerce. John condemns "Jezebel" by strongly condemning the commerce of her followers. From John's perspective, "Jezebel" and her followers have gone too far in their attempt to blend into Greco-Roman society. But why is John's polemic so subtle? Why, for instance, are the merchants and seafarers not condemned outright in chapter 18 but merely warned away from putting too much confidence in their best customer? These questions can be answered by looking again at the primary audience to whom John directs his writing, the invisible majority, or the uncommitted group in the churches. This group was probably made up of some (and perhaps many) who made their living from commerce. The seer is apparently aware that his comments have the potential to offend and alienate a portion (perhaps the majority) of his audience, so he tones down his condemnation. He condemns the action (in this case, commerce) without too forthrightly condemning the actors (the merchants and consumers) in his audience. In short, he leaves room for the uncommitted Christians to join forces with him and to reject "Jezebel," even though many in that group may have had more in common (at least socially and economically) with her and her followers. Summary It is clear from this survey of the letters to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 that John envisions the less economically advantaged in the communities as his natural allies. One might conclude from this that

70

Who Rides the Beast?

John sees wealth as evil, but a closer look at the Apocalypse shows that this is decidedly not the case. John obviously does not take a stand against wealth itself; what he does is to mount a more subtle attack on commerce. As noted in chapter 2, for many of the members of the merchant class in Greco-Roman society, the best (if not only) way to advance socially was to amass wealth. If they were Christians, in order to advance, they needed to make what could be called "compromises," participating more fully in the life of the empire than John thought they should. For instance persons engaged in commerce could encounter et5a>A,60imx in any number of contexts; in fact, for many of them, it might have been very difficult to avoid it. John, not wishing to alienate the uncommitted in the churches, proceeds in a very shrewd manner. He attacks the practice of commerce, but he is careful not to attack the accumulation of wealth or to condemn merchants themselves too forthrightly. Rather, he subtly demonstrates how a merchant has to make a choice between what seem to be mutually exclusive alternatives. He pits the merchants, who have willingly accepted the mark of the beast, against the redeemed, who are branded with the mark of the Father and the Lamb.

6 The Rhetoric of Innuendo Opposition, Equivalence, and Indirect Accusation

I have already suggested that the matters on which John and "Jezebel" disagreed had as much to do with sociology and economics as with theology. "Jezebel," it seems, found an audience among those people within the urban churches who made their living by commerce. She exhibited a more sympathetic posture than John toward those who regularly mingled with pagans, and consequently she had a more liberal attitude toward sensitive social issues like the eating of eiScoXoSxna.1 As a result, "Jezebel's" followers had a freer hand in their commercial and social interactions with pagan society. Although John was scandalized by what he considered his rival's concessions to an idolatrous society, he seems to have had a difficult time opposing her position. In fact, it is possible and even likely that "Jezebel" had the theological advantage over John in this struggle, for she had theological precedent for her teaching. She merely had to appeal to Paul, the early Christian hero who had evangelized extensively in the very same area in past generations and who had exhibited a similar tolerance toward pagan society. Hence John probably found himself in a position where he had little substantive theological ammunition to use against his rival. That is not to say that he was afraid to oppose her; he did so enthusiastically, though he probably knew that his condemnation of her would fall on deaf ears. He roundly condemns her, for instance, in 2:20-23. He could not, however, simply continue to repeat his disapproval over and over or he might run the chance of being dismissed as a crank.2 So, in order 71

72

Who Rides the Beast?

to gain a hearing, he did not continue his polemic directly but turned to a less direct approach. John's overall goal was to unite the churches behind him. This task consisted primarily of winning those Christians in the communities who were committed to neither him nor "Jezebel." His strategy consisted of two specific rhetorical moves. The first involved developing (or exacerbating) a sense of crisis between his churches and the outside world (specifically Rome or "Babylon").3 He cultivated a crisis atmosphere most notably in the predictions and visions of persecution that appear in the Apocalypse (e. g., 2:10-11; 6:9-11; 12:17; 17:6, etc.). He further intensified the crisis atmosphere by depicting "Babylon" as one whose authority ultimately derives from Satan, so that the struggle was no longer simply a struggle between the churches and Rome but was a battle between the forces of God (the churches) and the forces of Satan. John's second rhetorical move consisted of connecting his rival "Jezebel" to the outside enemy "Babylon" (and by implication to Satan). In this second strategy, John proceeds subtly. In this chapter I will examine John's indirect rhetorical strategy. First, I will examine the phenomenon that I will call "indirect accusation" against the background of his milieu. Second, I will look at specific tools he used in his use of indirect accusation, most notably homology and irony. Finally, I will seek to explain how an indirect approach could be used effectively to win over an audience.

Indirect Accusation One of the great rhetorical challenges that speakers and writers of all time periods have to face involves the disposition of their audiences toward them. Every speaker or writer needs to anticipate carefully the reception the message might encounter and adjust his or her approach accordingly. And one of the greatest rhetorical problems that any speaker or writer can face is that of an unsympathetic audience.4 How does one win over an audience that had little interest in hearing what one had to say? In Greco-Roman times, when speechmaking played a significant role in every educated person's schooling, this problem was discussed in some detail. For instance, Quintilian addresses the issue of an unsympathetic audience it in his rhetorical handbook, speaking of the opening of a speech in court:5 [I]n scandalous cases, [the rhetoricians] would have the orator . . . insinuate himself little by little into the minds of his judges, especially when the features of the case which meet the eye are discreditable, or because the subject is disgraceful or such as to meet with popular disapproval, or again if the outward circumstances of the case are such as to handicap it or excite odium (as for instance when a patron appears against a client or a father against a son), or pity (as when our opponent is an old or blind man

The Rhetoric of Innuendo

73

or a child). . . . The line to be adopted will. . . depend on the individual nature of each case. As a general principle, however, I should advise the avoidance of points which tell against us and concentrate on those which are likely to be of service. If the case itself is weak, we may derive help from the character of our client; if his character is doubtful, we may find salvation in the nature of the case. If both are hopeless, we must look out for something that will damage our opponent. For though it is desirable to secure as much positive good will as possible, the next best thing is to incur the minimum of actual dislike. . . . The circumstances that call for insinuation arise also in cases where the pleading of our opponent has made a powerful impression on the minds of the judges. (Quint. Inst. 4.1.42-48) 6

Quintilian's advice concerns the defense of a client in a court of law, clearly a radically different situation than that in which John found himself; nevertheless, we can infer some general Greco-Roman rhetorical principles from his discussion.7 First and foremost, he advises one to avoid the direct route in instances where the audience is predisposed against one. He gives the example of the case where one's opponents have already "made a powerful impression on the minds of the judges." He also says that, if all else fails, one should try to find "something which will damage [one's] opponent." Both of these recommendations suggest that the speaker appeal to a less overt form of persuasion than would normally be applied. Could John, in his situation, possibly follow Quintilian's advice? How could he find something to damage his rival without hurting himself? As I mentioned earlier, to rant and rave continually against "Jezebel's" practices (practices that seemed to offend few in the communities) could simply undermine his own position in the churches. In order to avoid this outcome, he appeals to indirect accusation. The phenomenon of indirect accusation was well known in the ancient world. It appears in the Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks; nevertheless, an individual Christian need not have known the ins and outs of the rhetorical tradition in order to appreciate the strategy. We find instances of it everywhere, including the Hebrew Bible and early Christian writings. A fine example of a kind of indirect accusation within the Hebrew Scriptures appears in 1 Samuel 12. After David has taken Bathsheba and arranged for the death of her husband, the prophet Nathan tells the king the following story: 12:1 "There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; 3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat his meager fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. 4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was loathe to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him." 5 Then David's anger was greatly kindled

74

Who Rides the Beast? against the man. He said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; 6 he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." 7 Nathan said to David, "You are the man."

In this case, Nathan indirectly accuses David by telling a story of unnamed individuals. Had Nathan approached David directly about the king's handling of the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, it is unlikely that he would have gotten a hearing, much less the kind of reaction that he achieved by approaching the matter indirectly. Some of the parables in the New Testament also function in this way within their narrative context. Consider, for instance, the story told by Jesus in Luke 18. 18:10 Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, "God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even this tax collector. 121 fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income." 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, "God be merciful to me a sinner!" 141 tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other.

Although the pedagogical function of this parable for the reader is obvious, it functions differently within the confines of the story itself. The narrative context, given in Luke 18:9, tells us that Jesus told the story to "some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt." Hence, in the narrative, Luke has the story function as an indirect accusation against certain self-righteous characters. It was presumably meant to admonish those who—like David in the previous example—might otherwise have not listened to direct speech faulting their behavior.8 As I mentioned earlier, however, the rhetorical tradition also addresses the subject. The handbook Ilepi epur|veta<; (De Elocutione), ascribed to Demetrius, gives several examples of how and why such indirect accusations should be used. One of its most interesting examples has to do with making accusations against eminent individuals. Since great lords and ladies dislike to hear their own faults mentioned, we shall therefore, when counseling them to refrain from faults, not speak in direct terms; we shall, rather, blame some other persons who have acted in the same manner. For example, in addressing the tyrant Dionysius, we shall inveigh against the tyrant Phalaris and the cruelty of Phalaris. Or we shall praise individuals who have acted in the opposite way to Dionysius, saying of Gelo or Hiero that they were like fathers and educators of Sicily. (5.292)

This kind of indirect speech can be used, the text argues, when "addressing a despot or any other ungovernable person." In such a case, "we may often be driven to use veiled language if we wish to censure

The Rhetoric of Innuendo

75

him" (5.289). Likewise, the text later suggests: "Great and powerful democracies no less than despots often require these . . . forms of language" (5.294). In all of these cases, equivocal speech is recommended for the purpose of making accusations while protecting oneself from personal harm, as in the case of censuring a tyrant or a violent person. It can also, however, enable one to simply gain a hearing where one might otherwise be ignored.9 This text, like Quintilian, thus recommends that one be very careful when approaching a potentially hostile audience. The speaker should not, at any cost, alienate the audience. Where a speaker has a weak argument, Quintilian says, one might be best served by finding something with which to damage one's opponent. John, at least in part, draws on such advice. Having little that he can use against his rival's position, he undertakes to malign her (as Quintilian recommends). However, he argues indirectly, realizing the danger of employing a direct argument (i. e., that a direct argument would probably hurt him as much, if not more, than her). John employs his indirect accusations with considerable rhetorical sophistication. He begins by constructing a dualistic narrative world in which the faithful are threatened by the forces of Satan. This occurs in the context of the larger apocalyptic struggle between the forces of good and evil.10 In this narrative world, John presents one of his most unsavory characters in such a way as to resemble his real-life rival and then condemns that figure. In short, he indicts "Jezebel" with impunity by tarring her with the same brush he uses on the other figure. To put it simply, he says something about her without really saying it. He also follows the path advised by the handbook attributed to Demetrius; he praises "individuals who have acted in the opposite way" by setting up figures who contrast with his rival and her negative counterpart.

The Construction of Revelation's Narrative World: Opposition and Equivalence The narrative world of the Apocalypse, like the worlds created by many other apocalyptic communities, is a world sharply divided. Two realms exist side by side, the realm of God and the realm of Satan. All individuals align themselves with one camp or another. Although this is the way John viewed the world, we should be careful not to jump to the conclusion that all of the members of the Asia Minor churches shared his viewpoint. The fact that some Christians participated in the larger society, even to the point of consuming ei5coA.66uta, suggests that they did not view the universe as two realms absolutely divided by a hard and fast boundary; on the contrary, these Christians probably viewed the boundary between the godly and the satanic as soft. To put it another way, in John's world, good and evil are absolute, whereas "Jezebel's" world is fraught with ambiguity and relativity. To use a spatial

76

Who Rides the Beast?

Figure 6.1. John's Narrative World

metaphor, we could say that John and his followers conceived of the realms of God and Satan as two pieces of property separated by a high brick wall, whereas "Jezebel" and her followers envisioned the two realms as contiguous pieces of property divided by a wide no man's land. John, attempting to convince his readers that his was the proper way of perceiving reality, constructed his narrative world in such a way as to emphasize the mutual exclusivity of the two realms. He did this, in part, by populating his narrative world with literary types and antitypes." To graph John's narrative world, we begin by plotting type and antitype at opposite ends of a horizontal axis, as figure 6.1 shows. Along the vertical axis lie the various manifestations of the type or antitype.12 John viewed those characters in a vertical relationship on either side of the horizontal axis as more or less equivalent; that is, he saw characters A, B, and C as virtually equivalent to one another, and he considered characters X, Y, and Z to be similarly equivalent. 13 In the next section, I will explore the vertical correspondence among characters at either end of John's horizontal axis: the method by which he ties together the characters A, B, and C on the one hand and X, Y, and Z on the other. In order to achieve equivalence among characters A, B, and C or X, Y, and Z, John relied primarily on what Thompson has described as "homology."14

Homology The term "homology" is not found in any of the ancient rhetorical handbooks or, to the best of my knowledge, discussed explicitly in any ancient source. Nonetheless, John's use of this rhetorical technique— whatever we would like to call it—is unmistakable. As far as I know, Thompson is the first to discuss John's use of the rhetorical technique in any depth. He defines homology as "any correspondence of structure, position, or character in the different dimensions of John's world." 15 In short, homology consists of a literary relationship between or among various phenomena in the narrative. Thompson argues that the seer ties together the various levels of his three-storied universe by establishing literary relationships among the different phenomena within a specific level and between various levels. As an example of how John ties together figures on the same level, Thompson appeals to the seer's use of the color white, which John uses

The Rhetoric of Innuendo

77

to tie together the various characters and elements of the heavenly world. The color first appears in the work's opening epiphany, where the Son of Man's hair is "white as white wool, [and] white as snow" (1:14). The color white and its connection with forces of godliness is thereafter reiterated repeatedly. We find it, for instance, in the description of the twenty-four elders of 4:4, the avenging horses mentioned in 6:2, and the clothing of the divine warrior's army in 19:14. On the basis of the earlier association of this color with the Son of Man, the reader, Thompson suggests, is meant to identify these figures as having something to do with the Son of Man. 16 Hence, by appealing to the color white, John establishes a connection among the figures of the heavenly realm. Thompson suggests that John also uses the technique of homology to connect the color with certain characters and figures of the earthly realm. For example, in the eschatological promise to the "faithful" in Pergamum, God "will give [them] a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it" (2:17). 17 Likewise, the "faithful" at Sardis are promised white garments (3:3-4) and those Laodiceans who are presumably "unfaithful" are urged to buy white garments (i.e., become "faithful" again) in order to cover the shame of their nakedness (3:18). So the "faithful" of John's churches have some correspondence to the godly characters of the heavenly realm. 18 Thus, for Thompson, homology functions within one level of the cosmos (in this case the heavenly realm) and between two levels of the cosmos (in this instance between the heavenly and earthly realm). In the case of the color white, John uses homology to encourage his readers to remain faithful to his vision of Christianity. He does this by simply tying the white of the heavenly figures (e.g., the twenty-four elders, 4:4) as well as the white of the end time figures (e.g. the divine warrior's army) with the white in the Son of Man's eschatological promises (e.g. white garments, white stone). This functions to strengthen the convictions of the faithful by indirectly demonstrating to them that they are on the side of God and that their afflictions (whatever they may be) will ultimately pay off. Another example of homology is the collection of evil beasts in chapters 12, 13, and 17 of the Apocalypse. Chapter 12 opens with a vision of the Dragon, a great red serpent with seven heads, ten horns, and seven diadems upon the heads (12:3). This dragon is subsequently identified as Satan (12:9). The first verse of the next chapter introduces another creature that is identified as a wild beast rather than a dragon. This creature is sometimes referred to as the Beast from the Sea, and its attributes are remarkably similar to those of the Dragon. Like the Dragon, it has seven heads, ten horns, and diadems.19 Another attribute of the beast is the presence of blasphemous names upon its heads. This last characteristic ties the Beast from the Sea to the beast found in chapter

78

Who Rides the Beast?

17, for that beast, we are told, is "full of blasphemous names" (17:3). The beast of chapter 17 is scarlet, like the red dragon of chapter 12, and like the dragon and the Beast from the Sea, it has seven heads and ten horns.20 As is readily apparent, all of these figures tend to run together in the reader's mind. The Dragon of chapter 12 looks like the beast of the early verses of chapter 13, which in turn looks like the beast in chapter 17. In short, Thompson sees John tying together figures on one level as well as tying together several of the different levels of the universe. The Dragon, which the seer identifies as Satan, would be found in the demonic realm. The Beast from the Sea (in chapter 13), as well as the beast in chapter 17, on the other hand, all exist in the earthly realm. Hence John's homologies, in this case, tie together the demonic and the earthly realm. Thompson, nevertheless, wants to go farther than this. In the case of the beasts, he claims that a homologous relation not only exists between the demonic and the earthly realms but also extends into the realm of the divine. Thompson argues his claim by appealing to the image of the Lamb in chapter 5. At some points in the Book of Revelation, the Lamb and various beasts form dyadic relationships, that is, they become doubles, split images of some more fundamental wholeness. One of the heads of the beast is described "as slain" (13:3); the same expression is used of the Lamb in the throne scene (5:6). Further the beast is healed of his mortal wound so that he lives. By dying and yet living (13:14) he is comparable to Jesus who became a corpse and lived (2:8). A similar pattern is repeated in the description of the scarlet beast who was, is not, and is to come (17:8). 21

Partly on the basis of his understanding of the seer's use of homology, and especially the surprising homologies linking all three realms (the divine, the earthly, and the demonic), Thompson argues that the book of Revelation presents a vision of an unbroken world. He contends that John employs homologies to blur those boundaries normally considered hard and fast, including the fundamental boundaries separating the opposing forces of God and Satan.22 A chart of Thompson's understanding of John's narrative world would look something like

Figure 6.2. World

Thompson's Understanding of John's Narrative

The Rhetoric of Innuendo

Figure 6.3.

79

True and False Homologies

figure 6.2. From Thompson's perspective, the principle undergirding John's narrative world is not opposition (as we might expect from an apocalyptic viewpoint) but transformation. Thompson's picture, however, is unconvincing. Certainly he is correct in his assertion that John wants to tie various characters together by means of homology, but he fails to recognize the fact that John employs "sameness" at times to signify equivalence but at other times to demonstrate difference. 23 Figure 6.3 shows the difference between the true homologies and the false homologies. In this figure, although the characters A and B are homologous, the apparent homology between character B and character Y actually indicates an ironic relationship.24 In sum, not everything that looks like a homology functions as one. It is beyond dispute that the seer draws explicit and implicit ties between (or among) certain characters in his text. However, we cannot make blanket statements about these ties. We must remain cognizant of the fact that these ties sometimes compare the linked figures but at other times contrast them. When John is contrasting figures, he employs a number of different methods. Sometimes he uses sarcasm, for instance, sometimes parody, and sometimes satire. Here I will subsume all of these devices under the larger rubric of irony. 25 What do I mean by irony, how would the ancients have viewed it, and how did John use it? To these questions I now turn. Irony It might come as a surprise that, although ancient Greek tragedians, comedians, and philosophers used irony extensively, they did not define or discuss it.26 That was left to the rhetoricians. Around the time of Aristotle, irony begins to appear in the rhetorical handbooks as a figure of speech. To the best of my knowledge, the earliest definition of irony comes from Anaximenes, a contemporary of Aristotle: "Irony is saying something while pretending not to say it, or calling things the opposite of their real names" ([Arist.] Rh. Al. 21 [1434A]). 27 Similarly, the Hellenistic rhetorician Tiberius Rhetor 28 defines irony as something that is signified by its opposite (TO 8id Toti evaviiou TO EVOVTIOV envied, vov). 29 Latin rhetors, in their discussions of irony, also stress the difference between the literal meaning of a speech and its intended meaning. For

SO

Who Rides the Beast?

instance, the Roman orator Cicero speaks of what we would call irony— which he calls dissimulatio (lit. a "disguising" or "concealment")—in his De Oratore: Irony [dissimulatio] . . . gives pleasure when your words differ from your thoughts . . . when the whole tenor [genere] of your speech shows you to be solemnly jesting [severe ludas], what you think differing continuously from what you say. (De Or. 2.67.269-70) 30

We are fortunate in having not only Cicero's definition but also many examples of its use by him. For instance, in one of his speeches he talks of Gaius Verres, a man of questionable repute.31 "Since Gains Verres, the urban praetor, being a man of energy and blameless character [homo sanctus et diligens], had no record in his register of this substitution of this man for another on the p a n e l . . . " (Cic. Cluent. 33.91) 32 Of course, Cicero's audience knew very well that Verres was anything but a homo sanctus et diligens and that Cicero's words differed markedly from his intended meaning.33 In fact, they would know that in this case, Cicero meant exactly the opposite of what he said: that Gaius Verres was absolutely without integrity. Besides saying something without really saying it, using irony and other forms of indirect communication can carry another rhetorical advantage. Indirect communication has a strangely persuasive power because of its remarkable ability to bind together a community.

Building Community with Indirect Language Contemporary discussions of various forms of nonliteral language (such as humor, metaphor, and irony) describe how such indirect forms of language work to win over an audience. To a great extent these discussions reflect the ancients' implicit knowledge of the power of this kind of language. In relatively recent times, though, scholars have asked more specifically: Why does indirect language work to win over an audience? Ted Cohen, in a seminal article on the function of metaphor, has argued that metaphor and other kinds of indirect language can work to "cultivate intimacy." Such indirect language achieves intimacy between speaker (or writer) and listener in three steps. First, by using nonliteral language, the speaker issues a concealed invitation to his or her listener to go beyond the literal dimension of the language with which the listener is presented. Second, by making the effort to understand the nonliteral speech, the listener, in effect, accepts the invitation. Third, the transaction between the speaker and listener results in the acknowledgment of a bond between the two—the formation of a community.34 Cohen's discussion of the role of metaphor in establishing intimacy or forming community sounds surprisingly like Wayne Booth's understanding of the power of irony, another form of indirect speech.

The Rhetoric of Innuendo

81

Often the predominant emotion when reading [irony] is that of joining, of finding and communing with kindred spirits. The author I infer behind the false words is my kind of [person], because he enjoys playing with irony, because he assumes my capacity for dealing with it, and—most important—because he grants me a kind of wisdom. 35

However, as Cohen points out in his discussion of metaphor—and I would argue that it goes equally for any other type of nonliteral language—the sense of community comes about not just because the listener/reader has been extended an invitation and accepted it; community results also partly from the knowledge that others have not understood the invitation. 36 A bond results from the awareness that one has journeyed beyond the literal and as a result is part of an elite group. 37 Cohen gives the example of the "inside" joke, which, like other forms of nonliteral speech, also works to build community.38 It builds community in the way outlined: at the expense of the outsider. The power of the inside joke partly lies in the assumption on the part of the listener that many will not "get it." It seems to me that there results from this assumption a kind of urgency on the part of the listener to connect with the speaker and others who "get" the joke. The listener is pressured to explore the boundaries beyond the literal so as not to be left out of the elite group. In short, the inside joke appeals to the vanity of its listeners. The fact that many people are reluctant to admit that they do not understand a joke is proof enough of this phenomenon. It seems reasonable to apply what we know about the inside joke to different kinds of nonliteral language. It seems fair to say that in the case of homology, irony, allusion, and the like, the reader or listener is invited to enter another realm, that of the nonliteral. The reader or listener who refuses does so at his or her own risk. In other words, the invitation to the listener also includes a veiled threat: to stay on the level of the literal would push one outside of the elite community formed by those who "get" the nonliteral level of a text. Hence nonliteral language, which typically seems to lack gravity, can present the reader or listener with a deadly serious choice. It can create a "crisis of loyalties" in the reader or listener by issuing an invitation to see reality from a different perspective. 39 As a result, an author's use of nonliteral language can help a community define itself more specifically by presenting a narrative world that only "insiders" will accept and can pressure listeners or readers to join that elite community of insiders. In sum, it can be seen that nonliteral speech both has an attraction for the reader and endows the author with considerable power, which results from the author's ability to flatter and seduce the reader. In this way, indirect or nonliteral language serves to build community and cultivate intimacy. John takes advantage of the power and utility of indirect language (and specifically indirect accusation) in order to construct a sharply dualistic world and an image of his rival that his readers are under pressure to accept.

82

Who Rides the Beast?

Summary This chapter set the stage for exploring in more depth John's use of indirect language in his argument against his rival "Jezebel." He sets up a dualistic, apocalyptic narrative world and then peoples it with similar and contrasting characters, polarizing it so that no character can stand anywhere between the mutually exclusive realms. To a great extent, the effectiveness of John's dualistic narrative world results from his imaginative use of indirect language, primarily homology and irony. By means of such indirect communication, John subtly invites his readers to share his apocalyptic vision of a bifurcated universe in which good is pitted against evil. In the next chapter I will show more precisely how John tries to discredit his rival "Jezebel" by indirectly tying her—by means of homology and irony—to the satanic realm.

7 The Women of Revelation Binding "Jezebel" to "Babylon"

As discussed in the previous chapter, indirect communication can convey a significant amount of information from the author to the reader. Because this communication works from below the surface of the text, it is sometimes called the implicit commentary of the text. In this chapter I will show how John uses his implicit commentary, especially the many instances of homology and irony, to characterize the female figures in his narrative. By means of homology and irony, John sets up one pair of women in opposition to the other, the woman of chapter 12 and "Jerusalem" over against "Jezebel" and "Babylon." By linking "Jezebel" to "Babylon," John sets up "Babylon" as a target for his indirect accusations, accusations that are actually meant for "Jezebel." By contrasting "Jezebel" and "Babylon" with the unnamed woman and "Jerusalem," John further strengthens the link between the first pair.

The Women of Revelation Four female figures are mentioned in John's Apocalypse, "Jezebel" in 2:18-29, the unnamed woman "clothed with the sun" in chapter 12, the whore "Babylon" of chapter 17, and finally the "bride" of chapter 21:1-22:6.: These female figures—whether mythological, metaphorical, or flesh-and-blood women—are all comparable to some degree or another. In fact, the author has taken great pains to link the four passages that contain these women by similarities in imagery, words, phrases, or ideas found within them. 83

84

Who Rides the Beast?

The importance of these figures in the Apocalypse is attested by their placement within the work: John juxtaposes them symmetrically as well as linguistically. The (negative) historical person "Jezebel" and the (positive) metaphorical "bride" frame virtually the whole of the work (appearing in chapters 2 and 21-22, respectively), whereas the women of chapters 12 (positive) and 17 (negative) appear toward the center of the work. 2 Of the four women in the Apocalypse, the dominant figure is the woman of chapter 17, the whore "Babylon."3 The rest of the female figures in the work are designed to compare and contrast with her. "Babylon " the Harlot Queen Chapter 17 shows a great prostitute (f| nopvr\ rj ueyciXri) seated upon a scarlet beast that has seven heads and ten horns. The first part of the chapter describes the prostitute as arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her head was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations." . . . [The woman was] drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

An enigmatic interpretation of the various features of the beast follows (17:7-14), and in turn is succeeded by a narrative interpreting the significance of the "many waters" (over which "Babylon" sits in 17:1) and the woman. In a particularly striking passage (17:16), the ten horns— representing kings (according to 17:12)—and the beast "will make ["Babylon"] desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire." Finally, the chapter ends with what seems a clear identification of "Babylon": "the woman you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth." Chapter 18 continues with an angelic pronouncement of doom on "Babylon" (18:1-3) and an exhortation to the people of God to "come out of her" (18:4-8). This is followed by three dirges, sung by the kings of the earth (18:9-10), the merchants of the earth (18:ll-17a), and the mariners (18:17b-20), respectively. The whole scene concludes with two hymns of rejoicing, sung by the various inhabitants of heaven (19:1-9). It is indisputable that the figure "Babylon" is one of the paradigmatic symbols of evil in the Apocalypse. A cursory reading of the text of chapter 17 suggests that "Babylon" clearly and simply represents the city of Rome. This reading is supported by a number of elements in the text, including the name "Babylon"4 and what looks like an unmistakable identification of this figure with the city of Rome in 17:18. However, the identification of "Babylon" with Rome is neither as clear nor as simple as it initially appears.

The Women of Revelation

85

All of the other female characters in the Apocalypse are keyed to the figure of "Babylon." One of the figures (the unnamed woman of chapter 12) stands in primary opposition to "Babylon," one ("Jerusalem") stands in secondary opposition to "Babylon," and a third ("Jezebel") stands in a relationship of equivalence to "Babylon." A relationship of secondary opposition also exists between "Jezebel" ("Babylon's" double) and the positive female figures (the unnamed woman of chapter 12 and "Jerusalem"). All of these relationships, whether of opposition or equivalence, serve the interests of John's rhetoric of innuendo, that is, his strategy of indirectly accusing his rival of monstrous deeds.

Primary Opposition: The Woman "Clothed with the Sun" and the Whore "Babylon" Chapter 12 of Revelation describes a vision that consists of a number of scenes revolving around an unnamed woman "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." In the first scene (12:1-5), her about-to-be-born son is threatened by the waiting jaws of a red dragon with seven heads and ten horns. However, the danger is avoided, for when her son is born, he is "snatched away and taken to God." The woman then flees from the beast into the wilderness, where she is nourished (presumably by God). 5 This opening scene is followed by an account of a heavenly war in which Michael and his minions battle the Dragon and his forces (12:7-9). The Dragon—identified in this text with "the Devil" (6 Aitiftotax;) and Satan (6 Zcrravcic;)—is thrown to earth. A hymn celebrating the victory of God over Satan—here identified as "the accuser" (6 Kcmiycop) follows this second scene (10-13). The chapter ends with a scene depicting the Dragon, angered by his fall from heaven, pursuing the woman (12:1416). The woman initially escapes his clutches with the help of wings (presumably given to her by God), but she is endangered again when the Dragon pours out of his mouth a flood of water designed to engulf her (12:15). The woman, however, again escapes, this time with the aid of the Earth, who swallows up the flood sent by the beast. Finally, the Dragon abandons his pursuit of the woman and goes off to make war on "the rest of her offspring" identified as "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (12:17). Since "Babylon" and the unnamed woman of chapter 12 are the major female figures of Revelation—what we might call female archetypes—I will now undertake a rather detailed comparison of them in their respective contexts in Revelation. Regardless of how we might precisely identify these figures, 6 it is remarkable that the text portrays them in such similar ways. However, these similarities represent mere surface comparisons; they actually function ironically to stress the difference between "Babylon" and the unnamed woman.

86

Who Rides the Beast? Table 7.1 "Babylon" and the Unnamed Woman of Chapter 12 "Babylon"

Unnamed woman of chapter 12

Woman as mother (17:5) Woman in wildreness (eiq epr||iov, 17:3) Woman eating/drinking in wilderness (17:6) Eating/drinking connected with death (17:6) Woman clothed (rceppefiXrinevri) in splendid attire (17:4) Beast: scarlet beast (Qipiov KOKKIVOV) with seven heads and ten horns (17:3) Beast destroys the woman "BabyIon" (17:16) Reference to witnesses of Jesus (oi fiaprupoi' Iriaou, 17:6)

Woman as mother (12:2) Woman in wilderness (ei<; Trfv epT||iov, 12:6) Woman eating/drinking in wilderness (12:6) Eating/drinking connected with death (12:4) Woman "clothed [jieppe|3Xr||ievri] with the sun" (12:1) Beast: red dragon (SpdKcov nvppoc,) with seven heads and ten horns (12:3) Beast tries to destroy the unnamed woman (12:5-6, 13, 15) Reference to the "witnesses of Jesus" ([oi] exovoi tfrv |iapTuplav 'ITKKXU, 12:17)

As table 7.1 indicates, a significant number of literary connections tie the two texts together. First, in each of the texts the women are depicted as mothers. The woman in chapter 12, although not specifically called a "mother," is described in the process of giving birth, the maternal act par excellence. The woman of chapter 17, on the other hand, is labeled "mother" but only in a negative metaphorical sense: she is called a "mother of whores and of earth's abominations" (12:5). Second, both women are associated with a common location, the wilderness (eprpov). Third, and connected with the second point, each woman is tied to the act of eating and/or drinking in the wilderness (12:6 and 17:4-6). In chapter 12, after her escape from the beast, the woman receives food in the wilderness. The woman of chapter 17, on the other hand, consumes defiling food (the blood of the holy ones) in the wilderness. Fourth, the act of eating/drinking (whether by one of the women or by another character) is connected with death in both passages. In chapter 12 the unnamed woman's child (and presumably the woman herself) narrowly escape being eaten by the beast, while the woman of chapter 17 drinks the blood of the saints and witnesses of Jesus. Fifth, each passage highlights the splendid attire of its respective woman. The unnamed woman of chapter 12 is clothed with the sun (12:1), whereas "Babylon" wears purple and scarlet (as well as gold, pearls, and precious stones [17:4]). Furthermore, the same participle (TreppepAjmevn) is used in each text.

The Women of Revelation

87

Sixth, each passage depicts surprisingly similar beasts. Revelation 12:3 speaks of a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns that threatens the woman and her child. Revelation 17:3, on the other hand, describes a scarlet beast, with seven heads and ten horns, on which the woman is seated. Seventh, each beast tries to destroy the woman of its passage. In chapter 12 the beast pursues the woman (12:5-6; 13; 15), but after several failed attempts to destroy her, he goes off "to make war on ... her children." In chapter 17, the beast ultimately destroys the woman with whom it was initially allied (17:16). Finally, each passage concerns itself with the persecution of the witnesses of Jesus, although the English translation obscures the connection somewhat. Revelatin 12:17 refers to those holding to "the testimony of Jesus" (([oi] e/ovoi if|v naprupiav Ir|) and 17:6 mentions "the witnesses to Jesus" (oi uapTTjpoi'Iriao'u). Despite all of these points of comparison, it is readily apparent even to the most casual reader that the figures of these two passages are meant to be contrasted. In other words, the woman in the one text presents an intentionally distorted reflection of the woman in the other. The context also indicates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the woman of chapter 12 belongs to the realm of the godly, whereas the woman of chapter 17 belongs to the satanic domain. As already mentioned, these women of chapters 12 and 17 function for John as contrasting feminine paradigms. The two remaining female figures—the flesh and blood figure "Jezebel" and the metaphorical "bride"—each corresponds to one of these women and contrasts with the other. The contrast between these two female figures is not, however, the only contrast between feminine figures in the Apocalypse; there is also a secondary opposition between "Babylon" and "Jerusalem."

Secondary Opposition: "Babylon and "Jerusalem" Although the vision about "Jerusalem," the Bride of the Lamb (Rev. 21:1-22:5), has similarities to the visions of both chapter 12 and chapter 17, the vision of the bride has the most in common with the latter. Given the similarity of the language in the opening scene of each vision (17:1-3 and 21:1-6), any suggestion that the author did not intend the reader to consider the passages in conjunction would be difficult to accept. Each vision includes precisely the same commentary: "And one of the seven angels holding the seven vials spoke with me saying, 'Come, I will show you . . .' and he took me . . . in the spirit."7 Besides the similarities in the openings of the visions, the conclusions to the visions are also comparable. In each case, the angel who had introduced the vision reappears and affirms the validity of the vision. At the end of the "Babylon" vision, the angel announces: "These are

88

Who Rides the Beast? Table 7.2. "Babylon" and "Jerusalem" "Babylon"

"Jerusalem"

Opening passage: virtually the same as 21:1-6 Woman takes the name of the city "Babylon," the paradigmatic, historical enemy of Israel Woman is depicted as a whore Woman adorned in gold, precious stones, and pearls (17:4) Name "Babylon" written on woman's forehead Woman sits on (Ka0T]|iEVT|) beast (17:3) Woman sits over "many waters" (17:1) "Kings of the earth" come to woman for illicit sex (17:2), an act that brings shame (implied) Vision ends with angelic statement that the words of the vision are true

Opening passage: virtually the same as 17:1-3 Woman takes the name of the city "Jerusalem," the historical capital and spiritual center of Israel Woman is depicted as a bride "Jerusalem" adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls (21:18-21) Names of Twelve Tribes written on the gates of the city (21:12); names of the Twelve Apostles on the foundations of the walls (21:14) Deity sits on (Ka0T|tJ.evo<;) throne (21:5, 22:1) Deity sits over "water of life," which pours forth from beneath the throne "Kings of the earth" come to the "bride" to bring the glory and honor of the nations to her (21:24-26) Vision ends with angelic statement that the words of the vision are true

the true words of God" (19:9), and at the end of the "Jerusalem" vision, the angel proclaims: "These words are trustworthy and true" (22:6). In addition to these similarities, there are also other significant comparisons between the visions, as table 7.2 illustrates. Each of these texts names its respective woman with a significant name from Israel's past. "Babylon," of course, was the historical power that defeated the southern kingdom in the sixth century BCE and carried her people into captivity for half a century. "Jerusalem," on the other hand, was the capital and spiritual center of Israel until its destruction by the Romans in 70 CE. The opposition that dominates the juxtaposition of these two women focuses on their sexual character. "Babylon," the woman of chapter 17, is described as a whore. She is labeled thus in 17:1; she is accused of Ttopveia in 17:2; she is described as the "mother of whores" in 17:5; and the fact that she is depicted with her name on her forehead also probably refers to her status as a prostitute.8 The woman of chap-

The Women of Revelation

89

ters 21-22, on the other hand, is portrayed as a bride: "And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven as a bride adorned for her husband" (21:2). 9 Each text describes its respective woman adorned with the same objects, as noted earlier. In 17:4 the whore is adorned in gold (/puaiov), precious stones (AlGoq ti^tcx;), and pearls (udpyapttca). Likewise, the heavenly Jerusalem, metaphorically depicted as the Bride of the Lamb, is seen in the vision of 21:1-22:6 as a city of pure gold (xpwnov KaOapov, 21:18; see 21:21). The foundations of her walls were adorned with every precious stone (nac, HGoc, ti.ui.CK;, 21:19; see 21: 11) and gates of pearl (oi 86J8eKa nvkatvec, 5c65eKa uapyaptTca, 21:21). Other similarities between the two passages containing these two women include: 1. A description of the relationship between the respective woman and "the kings of the earth" in each passage (17:2 and 21:24) 2. The juxtaposition of the whore sitting (Ka6r|uevri) on a beast (17:3) with the deity sitting (KaGfpevoc;) on a throne (21:5, 22:1) 3. The juxtaposition of the "many waters" over which the woman sits with the river of "the water of life" which pours out from beneath the throne of God 4. "Babylon" is written on the forehead of the woman in 17:5 (as noted), and the names of the twelve tribes of Israel are inscribed on the gates of the heavenly city (i.e., the bride) Despite these similarities, the seer also clearly juxtaposes these two female figures ironically, the "whore" of chapter 17 being the distorted image of the "bride." John, however, does not simply contrast female figures; in the case of "Jezebel" he draws comparisons between her and "Babylon." I turn now to these.

Equivalence: "Babylon" and "Jezebel" Among the women mentioned in Revelation, "Jezebel" is unique because she is not a metaphorical (or mythological) figure, as are the three women who appear in the visions. Rather, she is a flesh-and-blood contemporary of the seer. "Jezebel" taught in the Christian community of Thyatira, and as a result she is mentioned in the letter to that church (2:18-29). In 2:20-23, the seer reports the words of the Son of God: 2:20 But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman "Jezebel," who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling [nXava] my servants to practice fornication [nopveuoai] and to eat food sacrificed to idols [^ayeiv eiSco^oG-u-ua] . 2 1 1 gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication [Ttopveia]. Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; 23 and I will strike her children dead.

90

Who Rides the Beast?

This passage presents us with several major points of contact between the texts of both chapters 2 and 17.10 But even without these textual connections, there are other reasons that the reader would connect "Babylon" and the figure "Jezebel." "Babylon," described as a harlot queen by John in chapter 17,11 would naturally call to mind Ahab's wife Jezebel for a number of reasons. First, Ahab's wife was a queen—of the kingdom of Israel in the ninth century BCE; the regal bearing of "Babylon" in chapter 17 would call the Israelite queen to mind. Second, she was associated with sexual promiscuity in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as in the later Jewish tradition, just as "Babylon" is accused of Tiopveia in this text.12 Third, in addition to the nopveia she was accused of, Queen Jezebel was also guilty of spilling the blood of the prophets of God (see 1 Kings 18:3-4; 13). In this she corresponds to the bloodthirsty whore of Revelation 17 who is drunk on "the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus." Fourth, the number of allusions to Elijah in other places in the Apocalypse would also point to the figure of Jezebel in this passage, since in the biblical narratives, Elijah was Queen Jezebel's nemesis.13 Fifth, the fact that the flesh of "Babylon" is devoured in 17:16 calls to mind the fate of the Israelite queen (1 Kings 21:23-24), whose body was eaten by scavengers. Of course, Queen Jezebel would also easily arise in the minds of John's readers because the author had already introduced that figure into the text by labeling his rival with the nickname "Jezebel."14 Consequently, it seems fairly obvious that the text invites the readers to consider "Jezebel" in connection with "Babylon" in the Apocalypse. More specific points of comparison between these figures appear in table 7.3. If the relationships between "Babylon" and the other two women (the unnamed woman and "Jerusalem") can be characterized as dissonant, the juxtaposition of "Babylon" and "Jezebel" is one of harmony. John describes both "Babylon" and "Jezebel" in remarkably similar ways. His disdain for both women is highlighted by his attribution to each of them of the names of evil figures from Israel's past. "Babylon" is portrayed as a mother—but, unlike the unnamed woman of chapter 12, as an inappropriate matriarch. She is called a "mother of whores (rcopvca) and of the abominations (p5eAA)y|ia) of the earth." As such she is comparable to "Jezebel," whom John also depicts maternally (Rev. 2:23 speaks of her children). Like "Babylon," "Jezebel" is a mother whose promiscuous sexual activity is highlighted. The verb TiXavcieo ("to lead astray") also connects the two women. The term is tied to the figure "Babylon" in 18:23 (a passage that clearly refers to the woman of chapter 17). In chapter 2, on the other hand, it is "Jezebel" who "leads astray" members of the community. As I will show in chapter 9, this verb also figures significantly throughout the rest of the Apocalypse. In terms of gender imagery, "Jezebel" resembles "Babylon" closely and (like "Babylon") contrasts with the portrait of the unnamed woman

91

The Women of Revelation

Table 7.3. "Babylon" and "Jezebel" "Babylon"

"Jezebel"

Woman is identified with a negative name from Israel's past: "Babylon" Woman is identified as an inappropriate mother, a "mother" of "whores and abominations" (17:5) "Babylon" "leads astray" (TtXavdco, 18:23) Aggressive Illicit sexual practices are highlighted (17:1-5) Consumes defiling food (human blood, 17:6) Passage predicts her destruction (17:16)

Woman is identified with a negative name from Israel's past: "Jezebel" Woman is identified as an inappropriate mother, a "mother" whose actions include Ttopveiot and (loi^eta (2:20, 21, 22) "Jezebel" "leads astray" (TtAxxvaw, 2:20) Aggressive Illicit sexual practices are highlighted (2:20, 21, 22) Consumes defiling food (eiSfflA-oGma, 2:20) Passage predicts her destruction (2:22)

of chapter 12. Both "Babylon" and "Jezebel" are active players in the dramas of their respective chapters. They are not passive figures like the unnamed woman. In chapter 17, "Babylon" rides the beast (17:3), drinks the blood of the holy ones (17:6), beds "the kings of the earth" (17:2), and provides the "wine of nopveia" that intoxicates the dwellers of the earth (17:2). 15 The only instance where "Babylon" is a passive agent occurs in verse 16 where she is stripped, devoured, and burned by the ten horns of the beast. However, this verse can hardly be used to indicate her passive nature; on the contrary, it represents a particularly ironic fate for one who, up until this point in the narrative, has been such an active agent. "Jezebel's" active demeanor is likewise emphasized. As the grammatical structure of verse 20 reveals, "Jezebel" teaches, "Jezebel" prophesies (literally "calls herself a prophet"), and "Jezebel" leads astray. John's consistent description of "Jezebel's" activities in the active voice is noteworthy. She functions as the subject (in the nominative case) of all the transitive verbs of 17:20, whereas those who follow her appear as the objects of the verb (in the accusative case), and their subsequent deeds are described with infinitives. "Jezebel [nominative case] . . . teaches [active, transitive verb] and beguiles [active, transitive verb] my servants [accusative case] so that they commit fornication [infinitive] and eat [infinitive] food sacrificed to idols." Notably, this grammatical structure shifts the burden of guilt for her followers' crimes onto "Jezebel" herself. In the same spirit, John speaks a few verses later (2:22) of the sins of her followers not as their own sins but as "Jezebel's" sins: "Beware, I am throwing ["Jezebel"] on a bed, and those who

92

Who Rides the Beast?

commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress unless they repent of her doings" (2:22). The blame for the transgressions of the Asia Minor Christians is laid, almost exclusively, at the feet of the active agent "Jezebel." Closely tied to "Babylon's" active nature is her sexual depravity; she is portrayed as unquestionably promiscuous.16 "Jezebel" is described similarly; she is associated with illicit sex, specifically fornication (Tropveia, 2:20 and 21) and adultery (|K>i%eia, 2:22). But she does not merely participate in these sexual acts; she promotes them (2:20, 22). Imagery of eating and drinking plays a large role in both of these passages. In chapter 17:6, "Babylon" guzzles the blood of the holy ones. The consumption of blood, of course, is taboo in the Jewish tradition (and possibly also in John's community). However, in this particular case the blood is doubly defiling because it is human blood. Of course, as I will explore in more detail in the next chapter, the consumption of this defiling food is comparable to "Jezebel's" action of encouraging Christians to eat ei5(ota)6ma (2:20). Finally—presumably as a result of their active demeanor as well as their sexual and alimentary practices—both women face destruction. "Jezebel" will be thrown onto a bed17 (KX.ivT|, surely a "sickbed"), 18 presumably to waste away until the time of her death. "Babylon," on the other hand, will be made desolate and naked, devoured, and burned with fire. From the preceding discussion, it should be abundantly clear that John ties "Babylon" and "Jezebel" closely together so that in the reader's mind they are virtually equivalent.19 But he also strengthens that comparison by contrasting "Jezebel" to the woman of chapter 12, a figure whom he clearly contrasts with "Babylon." I will now look at the instances of secondary opposition found between "Jezebel" and the positive female characters in the Apocalypse. I will begin with the literary ties the author establishes between "Jezebel" and the woman of chapter 12.

Secondary Opposition: "Jezebel" and the Positive Female Figures "Jezebel" and the Woman of Chapter 12 The points of comparison and contrast between "Jezebel" and the unnamed woman of chapter 12 appear in table 7.4. As already shown, both "Jezebel" and the woman of chapter 12 are depicted as mothers in the Apocalypse. Both are also described as mothers whose children are at risk. Despite these similarities, these two women are obviously contrasted. The woman of chapter 12 neither brings on the risk nor can lessen it by herself. In chapter 2, "Jezebel" herself is solely responsible for the danger facing her children. Furthermore, as 2:23 tells us, this

The Women of Revelation

93

Table 7.4. "Jezebel" and the Unnamed Woman "Jezebel"

Unnamed woman of chapter 12

Mother whose children are threatened by the Son of God (2:23) Reference to Ps. 2:8 in passage (2:27) "Jezebel" "leads astray" (nXavaw, 2:20) Aggressive Illicit sexual activity attributed to "Jezebel" (2:20, 22) Dangerous alimentary activity practiced by "Jezebel" and her followers (food sacrificed to idols; 2:20)

Mother whose children are threatened by Satan (12:4) Reference to Ps. 2:8 in passage (12:5) Opponent of woman "leads astray" (icXavdco, 12:9) Passive Proper sexual activity Dangerous alimentary activity directed against woman and child (12:4, 15)

risk could at any time in the past have been neutralized (by the repentance of the mother; 2:21). Another contrast between "Jezebel" and the woman of chapter 12 is in the seer's use of Psalm 2:8 in each passage. Revelation 2:27—the eschatological promise to the faithful of Thyatira—describes "the one who conquers" (here clearly identified as those members of the community who shun "Jezebel") as the one who will "rule [the nations] with a rod of iron." In 12:5, the child born to the unnamed woman is the one who will "rule all the nations with a rod of iron." Since the child clearly represents the Messiah, "Jezebel's" children are obviously set against the Christ. John's use of the verb Trlavdco ("to beguile," "to lead astray") also presents the reader with a contrasting point of contact between "Jezebel" and the unnamed woman of chapter 12. In chapter 12, it is the beast, the opponent of the woman—identified with the devil and Satan (12:9)—who is responsible for "leading astray" (7iA.avdo>) the whole earth. In 2:20 it is "Jezebel" herself who "leads [the community] astray" (Tulavdoo). The issue of gender provides an additional contrast between 2:1829 and chapter 12. In 2:20, as shown earlier, "Jezebel's" deportment is both active and aggressive. Conversely, John depicts the woman of chapter 12 as a passive feminine figure. Whereas "Jezebel" is the subject of virtually all of the active verbs in 2:20, the woman of chapter 12 stands as the subject only of the verbs connected with birthing and flight. It is perhaps fair to say that she does not act in this text but rather is acted upon. She is threatened by the beast and consequently she has to flee "into the wilderness, to a place which had been prepared for her by God" (12:6); the active roles here belong to the beast and the deity.

94

Who Rides the Beast?

The next part of the scene again emphasizes the passive nature of the woman:20 in the wilderness, she is fed and protected by God. Later in the text she is pursued, again by the beast, and again she is saved, this time by the earth (12:13-16). Even as "Jezebel's" promiscuous sexual behavior is highlighted, the unnamed woman's sexuality is downplayed. In fact, it appears only obliquely, for John makes no explicit mention of any sexual activity in connection with her. Rather, chapter 12 highlights birth, the fruit of what John would probably consider "proper" sexual activity (i.e., sex solely for the purpose of procreation; see 14:4).21 Besides gender issues, issues connected with eating and drinking also figure prominently in the two passages (as was also the case in chapter 17). In Revelation 2:20, activity related to eating (the eating of food sacrificed to idols) is characterized as dangerous activity. It is dangerous, of course, because it alienates those involved from the "Son of God" (2:18) and ultimately from salvation. However, in a more immediate sense, it also—at least when combined with rcopveia—carries the threat of bodily harm (2:22-23). 22 In chapter 12 as well, food imagery is closely tied with immediate physical danger. In that chapter, the child of the unnamed woman and, it seems, the woman herself are both depicted as potential food for the beast (12:4, 12:13). Interestingly enough, chapter 12 connects further danger (as well as salvation) with the mouth. In verse 15, the dragon spews forth a torrent of water that threatens to destroy the woman after God has rescued her child. It is noteworthy that the woman's salvation depends on the mouth of the earth, which opens and swallows the deadly flood. In sum, gender and food issues loom large in each of these passages. In fact, they make up the majority of the ironic similarities the two passages share. In the previous section, I showed that the same issues surface in the points of contact between the "Jezebel" passage and the section of Revelation depicting the whore "Babylon." I will investigate these two issues in the next chapter. Before I conclude this chapter, it is necessary to look briefly at one more pair of contrasting figures, "Jezebel" and "Jerusalem." "Jezebel"and "Jerusalem" The points of contrast that stand between John's rival "Jezebel" and the figure "Jerusalem" are charted in table 7.5. Although there are not a great number of points of contact between "Jezebel" and "Jerusalem," the ones that exist are significant. As mentioned, both characters (like "Babylon" as well) hold a name from Israelite history. In this pair, one of the names is negative ("Jezebel") and the other is positive ("Jerusalem"). Given what I have already shown, it should not come as a surprise to see that the eating activity and sexual character of each of these figures is highlighted and contrasted. Regarding the former, "Jezebel" is

95

The Women of Revelation

Table 7.5. "Jezebel" and "Jerusalem" "Jezebel"

"Jerusalem "

Woman is identified with a negative name from Israel's past: "Jezebel" Woman is depicted as sexually promiscuous (2:20-22) Aggressive (2:20) Woman is connected with defiling food, which causes death (ei8aX6ema) Death is connected with the woman (2:23)

Woman is identified with a positive name from Israelite history: "Jerusalem" Woman is depicted as a virgin (21:2,9) Passive Woman is connected with life-giving food (21:7; 22:1, 2) Death is abolished (21:4)

connected with the defiling food of ei8(oW>0ma, whereas "Jerusalem" is connected with life-giving food (22:2) and life-giving water (21:7, 22:1). These are very important contrasts, and I will explore them in depth in the next chapter. Regarding the sexual character of the figures, "Jezebel," as already shown, is depicted as a whore. Although the noun Tiopvri is not used, nevertheless the noun rcopveta (2:21) and various forms of the verbs 7iopve\)(o ("to practice Tropveia," 2:14, 20) and |ioixei)co ("to commit adultery," 2:22) are associated with her. "Jerusalem," conversely, is described as a "bride," a term that indicates her virginity. Of course, "Jezebel" is depicted as active and aggressive (both sexually and otherwise), whereas "Jerusalem" is passive. Finally, there is a mention of death connected with each figure. Because of "Jezebel's" activity, her "children" are condemned to death (2:23) and her death is also assumed. On the other hand, with the arrival of the bride "Jerusalem," "death will be no more" (21:4).

Summary In this chapter I have shown how John has constructed a dualistic, apocalyptic narrative world in which he features four female characters, two positive and two negative. He juxtaposes the two negative figures ("Babylon" and "Jezebel") with the two positive female characters in the narrative (the unnamed woman of chapter 12 and "Jerusalem"). The juxtapositions are charted in 7.1.

Figure 7.1.

Relationships among the Four Female Characters

96

Who Rides the Beast?

The language of opposition between the pairs of contrasting figures plus John's comparison of the similar ones has the effect of strengthening the comparative bond within each pair. This is especially the case with "Babylon" and "Jezebel." John's reason for the strong link between these two figures is obvious; by setting up a close comparison of "Jezebel" and "Babylon" he can indirectly attack the former by maligning the former. Food and gender issues loom large in the passages about the four women. Again, the reason is not surprising, for John has accused his rival of promoting ei5o)A,69ma (an issue concerning food) and as well as Ttopveta (a sexual activity obviously tied to gender roles). In the next chapter, I will examine more specifically how these issues contribute to John's overall polemic against his Christian rival "Jezebel."

8 The Out-of-Control Female John's Use of Gender Stereotypes

In the previous chapter, I showed that of the four women depicted in the Apocalypse, two are portrayed positively and two negatively, and that each female figure stands in a homologous relationship with another of the figures. In addition, one pair of the homologous figures contrasts ironically with the other: "Babylon" and "Jezebel" contrast with the unnamed woman and "Jerusalem." Furthermore, the primary points of comparison (homology) and contrast (irony) revolve around the issues of food and sex. In this chapter, I will explore John's use of these issues in the polemic against his rival "Jezebel."

Food and Sex in the Apocalypse Human beings are not born with "proper" attitudes toward food and sex; the control of these appetites is culturally conditioned. As the sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann have indicated, [w]hile both sexuality and nutrition are grounded in biological drives, these drives are extremely plastic in the human animal. Man is driven by his biological constitution to seek sexual release and nourishment. But his biological constitution does not tell him where he should seek sexual release and what he should eat. Left to himself, man may attach himself sexually to just about any object and is perfectly capable of eating things that will kill him. Sexuality and nutrition are channeled in specific directions socially rather than biologically, a channeling that not only imposes limits upon these activities, but directly affects organismic functions. Thus the 97

98

Who Rides the Beast? successfully socialized individual is incapable of functioning sexually with the "wrong" sexual object and may vomit when confronted with the "wrong" food. 1

Since food and sex are culturally conditioned, members of a given society who eat the wrong food and approach sex in a manner out of keeping with specific cultural norms (i. e., those individuals who, in the terms of Berger and Luckmann, have not been successfully socialized) are not tolerated. Since, as Mary Douglas has shown us, the individual human body typically functions as a "natural symbol" for the larger social organism, eating the wrong food or engaging in the wrong kind of sex constitutes nothing less than an attack on the social body.2 In other words, the issues of food and sex are boundary issues. The bodily orifices that allow for entry into the individual body—specifically, the mouth and, in the case of the female body, the vagina—symbolically articulate a community's (or subcommunity's) understanding of the points of vulnerability of its (i. e., society's) body. Hence the limits a society (or subsociety) places on the individual bodily orifices can tell us something significant about the boundaries of that society. For instance, if a community feels that its boundaries are in danger, we should not be surprised to find that group overly concerned with the issues of food and sex. If a group feels little or no external pressure on its boundaries, food and sex issues should correspondingly matter less, since the transgression of boundaries—societal or personal—is less important (or even unimportant). 3 Given what we know about the social situation of the Apocalypse, we would expect that John and his loyalists in the churches would be very concerned about the boundaries of the Christian community. This is because this particular group, no doubt, felt alienated from the larger society, was probably impoverished, worried about assimilation, and perhaps lived in fear of external harassment (whether or not that perception was warranted). 4 In response to their perception of reality (a perception he probably encouraged), John recommends a ghetto existence. From his perspective, each Christian should, in the words of another New Testament author, "keep oneself unstained by the world."5 Correspondingly, John emphasizes the protection of individual boundaries. Sexually, his ideal is virginity (14:4). Individual human beings, like his larger community, should resist the transgression of boundaries that the physical penetration of sex suggests. In terms of food, John strenuously resists ei6coA.66ina, for defiling food entering the individual body articulates the fear of corruption entering the social body. "Jezebel's" ei5o)A,60\)ia and her rcopvela (whatever the latter term means precisely in relation to John's rival) represented—from John's perspective—a serious threat to the integrity of the Christian communities. Those sympathetic to "Jezebel," though, apparently did not see things in the same way John did. From John's perspective (and ac-

The Out-of-Control Female

99

cording to Berger and Luckmann's terminology), they were not "successfully socialized." As I suggested earlier, John was not interested in resocializing "Jezebel" and her core constituency;6 instead he was concerned about those in the community who might have been open to her ideas (perhaps the majority), though not necessarily converted to her way of thinking. Consequently, he felt the need to convince these folks that the activity allowed by "Jezebel" and her followers (i.e., the eating of £i5coA,66i)Ta) constituted a serious offense. The Rhetoric of Food and Sex In this section I will look at the rhetoric surrounding food and sex that John employs to persuade those in the churches to come around to his way of thinking. Imagery Associated with Food, Drink, or the Mouth Alimentary Imagery and the Issue of Boundaries in Revelation. As we might expect, given the importance of the issue of ei5o)A,60w:a in the communities and John's concerns about the boundaries of those communities, a great number of images associated with food, drink, the process of eating and drinking, and even regurgitation appear in the book of Revelation. We should, in turn, not be surprised by the fact that the imagery focusing on nourishment or the mouth frequently highlights the life-giving power or the death-dealing force of that which goes into or comes out of the mouth. For instance, alimentary imagery explicitly associated with life and nourishment appears in the references to the fruit of the tree of life to which the elect will be given access (2:7; 22:2; 22:19) and in the references to the water of life (7:17; 21:6; 22:1-2; 22:17). The oppressed elect are also promised that they will neither hunger nor thirst (7:16) in the future. Various references to nourishment from God destined for his chosen appear as well (12:6 and 14). On the other hand, food and eating imagery that suggests death (sometimes at the hand of God) can be seen in the references to the consumption of the messianic child by the Dragon (12:4), the "cup of the wine of the wrath of God poured unmixed into the cup of his anger" (14:10), and the depiction of the harvesting of the earth. In the harvest scene, the "vintage" is thrown into "the great wine press of the wrath of God" from which blood flows "as high as a horse's bridle, for the distance of one thousand six hundred stadia [about two hundred miles]." Eating imagery connected with death also occurs in the references to the consumption of human blood (16:6 and 17:6) and the portrayal of the "great supper of God," where scavenging birds consume "the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders—the flesh of all, both slave and free, both great and small" (19:17-18). 7

100

Who Rides the Beast?

Elsewhere in the text, danger (physical or otherwise) is associated with the mouths of various characters in the Apocalypse, the mouth, of course, being a primary entry point to the body. In other words, in the context of social symbolism, the mouth represents a boundary of great consequence and there are dangers associated with crossing that boundary. We can see the danger associated with this boundary in the instances of the sword of the mouth of the Son of Man (1:16, 2:16, 19:15, 19:21), the locusts' mouths that have lions' teeth (9:8), the mouths of the horses of the avenging cavalry that pour forth fire and smoke (9:17; see 9:19), the mouths of the witnesses that also issue fire (11:5), the mouth of the Dragon, which pours forth a deadly flood of water (12:15), the mouth of the Beast of the Sea, which is like a lion's mouth (13:2) and utters arrogant and blasphemous things (13:5-6), and the mouths of the Dragon, the Beast from the Sea, and the False Prophet, from which issue foul spirits (16:13) .8 The sheer number of alimentary images in the document, especially those connected with danger and death, suggests the importance of the issue of social boundaries and the role that the issue of ei8Q)A,66\)Ta plays in constructing those boundaries. By emphasizing the role of food in the visions of the Apocalypse, John is able to advocate implicitly the importance of boundaries to his community. As the individual physical body is vulnerable to what enters it through the mouth, so the social body of Christians needs to be wary of its own points of vulnerability. Food, Drink, and the Women of Revelation. Besides using alimentary images as a way of talking implicitly about social boundaries, John uses the language of food to denounce his opponent in another way. As shown earlier, it is likely that the uncommitted group in the Asia Minor communities was more or less untroubled by "Jezebel's" position on ei5(QX69\na, so John needed to arouse in that group a sense of outrage about her teachings on this topic. He did this by highlighting the activities associated with eating and drinking among the four women, as discussed in the previous chapter. This had the effect of tying "Jezebel's" alimentary activity with that of "Babylon" and contrasting it with that of the positive figures. Having widened the gulf between the realms of the godly and the satanic by means of irony, John strengthened the links on each side of that chasm by emphasizing the homologous bonds that tie his rival and "Babylon." He also strengthened the homologous links between "Jezebel" and "Babylon" by highlighting the alimentary contrasts between the two pairs of women ("Babylon" and "Jezebel" versus the unnamed woman and "Jerusalem"). In 17:3 we read that "Babylon" holds a golden drinking cup that is "full of abominations and [these abominations are] the impurities of her Tiopveia."9 But she not only involves herself in this defiling alimentary activity but also entices others to partake of it. According to Reve-

The Out-of-Control Female

101

lation 17:2, the inhabitants of the earth have become intoxicated on the "wine" she offers them. It is significant that both "Babylon" and the "inhabitants of the earth" are drunk. Of course, their drunkenness raises the issue of self-control, or oco^pocrwri, an issue that I will address later. On the other hand, John accuses his rival "Jezebel" of promoting the eating of ei5co/\.60u-ca (2:20; see 2:14).'° The homologous connection between eiScoXoGDia and the cup "full of abominations" (ye|j.ov (35eA.t)Y(idTQ)v) is particularly striking because of the connotations of the word pSe^uYM-a ("abomination"). This word is connected with idolatry throughout the LXX; in fact, the idols themselves are frequently called pSeWiYiiaTct.11 In some biblical texts, the eating of forbidden animals is associated with this word or its corresponding verbal form. 12 The text that renders p8eA,t)YM.a in perhaps its most loathsome manifestation, however, is Daniel 9:27, which links the noun pSeJory^0 with the pagan sacrifices offered on the altar of YHWH by Antiochus IV. If these allusions are not enough to horrify his readers on their own, John adds to them in 17:6, where he links "Babylon's" cup—described in verse 4 as "full of abominations"—with the cup full of the blood of the saints and the witnesses to Jesus (17:6) that "Babylon" guzzles. By homologously lining up "Jezebel's" eating of eiSco^oGma with the alimentary crimes of "Babylon"—one of which suggests sacrilege, the other bloodshed and cannibalism—John has heightened the offensive character of "Jezebel's" attitude toward ei5
102

Who Rides the Beast?

sages from the Scriptures that Revelation 12:6 and 14 call to mind, the chosen of God—whether the individual Elijah or the nation of Israel— are rescued from certain death in the wilderness by the intervention of the deity. The life-giving character of food and drink is also highlighted in the section that describes the figure "Jerusalem." The importance of the alimentary imagery in this portion of the Apocalypse is highlighted by the description of the river filled with the water of life and the description of the tree of life. These pictures constitute nearly half of the closing scene of the visions section of the Apocalypse. 22:1 The [the angel] showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

The imagery of the heavenly city "Jerusalem" shows the fulfillment of the eschatological promises made in the earlier chapters of the Apocalypse, promises made by the Son of Man in the letters to the seven churches (2:17) and by the heavenly elder to the multitude of the elect (7:16-17). EtScoXoGma and the Eucharist. It is obvious that the life-giving food and drink promised in 22:1-2 is not ordinary food or drink. Both the "water of life" and the fruit from the tree of life seem to promise more than ordinary sustenance.14 The life that is promised here is clearly the eternal life that will arrive with the eschaton's abolition of death (see 20:14). The Apocalypse presents the fruit from the tree of life as available only to those who endure until the end (see 2:7; 22:2; 22:14). On the other hand, as David Barr has persuasively argued, the "water of life" (7:17; 21:6; 22:1; 22:17) indicates not only a future gift but one available in the present as well, for this "water of life" refers to the early Christian ritual of the eucharist. The opening [of the Apocalypse implies] a public assembly in which a reader presents a letter to the congregation (1:3-4); the experience takes place "on the Lord's day" (1:10) and contains extensive liturgical material (e.g. 1:5-6). The closing invites the hearer to "come" and "take the water of life" (22:19), makes a strict separation between insiders and outsiders (14-15), gives a curse on those who tamper with the words of the prophecy (18), and prays "Come, Lord Jesus" (20). These all seem to be eucharistic elements. . . . It thus seems reasonable to interpret the Apocalypse within the context of the public worship of the church, culminating with the eucharist.15

Barr's suggestion is supported by the findings of Thompson, who, in a 1969 article as well as in his 1990 book on Revelation, points to the ex-

The Out-of-Control Female

103

tensive amount of liturgical material found in the Apocalypse. Thompson, like Barr, argues that the book of Revelation was designed to be read in a worship service, and he further suggests that from the standpoint of the author, "worship realizes the kingship of God and his just judgement; through liturgical celebration eschatological expectations are experienced presently."16 Following the lead of Barr, perhaps we should expect to find other eucharistic allusions in the work. For instance, I propose that the food that is provided for the unnamed woman of chapter 12 also suggests the eucharist. In order to support that claim, we need to look closely at the references to such food in that chapter. The first passage of chapter 12 that mentions such food reads as follows: 12:5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne; 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred sixty days.

A second passage reads: 12:13 So when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of an eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to her place where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.

Since it is almost universally acknowledged among commentators that the unnamed woman in chapter 12 represents, in some way, the messianic community,17 the feeding of the woman in the wilderness should be understood as a reference to the feeding of the community. This community feeding would certainly call to mind the eucharist, in light of the fact that both texts suggest that the woman is nourished in the wilderness with food from God, a phrase that could certainly apply to the eucharistic meal. The length of time the woman is nourished in the wilderness also suggests that John alludes to the eucharist: this period of time corresponds to John's calculation for the amount of time remaining prior to the eschaton.18 During that time, the woman (or the people of God) can find refuge from the Dragon in the wilderness. Refuge from the Dragon would clearly mean retreat from Satan and his evil forces in the world. Where could one escape these demonic forces? What would the wilderness suggest to the reader? Obviously, John has in mind here the Exodus tradition that sees the wilderness as a place of refuge. 19 If the wilderness represents a refuge from Satan's minions, escape from these evil forces would clearly indicate the fellowship of the Christian community. If the Christian community represents the place of refuge, then the divinely provided food certainly would certainly describe the eucharistic ritual. 20

104

Who Rides the Beast?

We can see, then, that the Apocalypse ties eucharistic language with its positive female characters (the food from God in chapter 12 and the "water of life" and the fruit from the tree of life in chapter 22). Given the fact that John contrasts his female characters with antithetical figures, it should come as no surprise to learn that John contrasts the eucharistic language in the Apocalypse with ironic, or "antieucharistic," language. For example, in Revelation 12:4, the great red dragon waits before the unnamed woman to devour her about-to-be-born child. As most commentators have indicated, the child in this passage refers, at least on one level, to Christ.21 If this is the case, then the devouring of the body of the child (i.e., Christ) must ironically correspond to the Christian understanding of the eucharist, where the believer consumes the body of Christ.22 Other texts in the Apocalypse ironically reflect the drinking of the eucharistic cup. For instance, in Revelation 16, after the first three angels have poured their bowls of wrath, "the angel of the waters," who has turned the rivers and springs into blood, says: You are just, O Holy One, who are and were, for you have judged these things; because they shed the blood of saints and prophets, You have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve. Here the people of the earth are forced to drink blood, which of course echoes the eucharistic ceremony in which believers drink the blood of Christ. Another ironic parallel, of course, appears in Revelation 17:6, where "Babylon" drinks the blood of the holy ones.23 It is perhaps noteworthy here that Babylon drinks from a no-rripiov, the same vessel found in virtually all of the New Testament eucharistic accounts.24 Yet another distorted eucharistic reference in the Apocalypse occurs in chapter 12. This passage ironically reflects the imagery of the "water of life" I have already mentioned. In 12:15 and 16, as I have mentioned, the mouths of the Dragon and the earth respectively threaten and save the unnamed woman. The Dragon pours a flood of water from his mouth "like a river after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood." Nevertheless, "the earth came to the help of the woman; it opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the Dragon had poured from his mouth." In the case of the Dragon's action, we see that John has ironically alluded to the "water of life" in a number of ways. The Dragon disgorges water from his mouth to destroy the woman. In other words, the water that should go into the mouth to provide life instead comes out of it in order to cause death. Of course the river of the water of death that flows from the mouth of the Dragon (identified in 12:9 as Satan) ironically contrasts with what we see in chapter 22, the text—alluding to both the present eucharist and the future

The Out-of-Control Female

Figure 8.1.

105

The Eucharist and EiScoXoGma as Mutually Exclusive

messianic banquet—describes "the river of the water of life" that flows from the throne of God and the Lamb in 22:1-2. In sum, John has lined up the defiling food mentioned in chapters 2 and 17 homologously and associated them with the negative women "Jezebel" and "Babylon." The effect of lining up the ei6(oA.69uia of 2:20 with the defiling food of Revelation 17:1-6 serves to heighten the severity of the offense of consuming ei§a)A,69ma. However, this activity is also contrasted with the eating of life-giving food given to the unnamed woman in chapter 12. It seems evident that John's readers would have understood the reference to such food as pointing to the Christian eucharist. The contrast between the defiling food and the food from God (i.e., the eucharist) is further heightened by John's presentation of antieucharistic imagery. By associating negative food, which would include not just ei8(0^691)101 but also unequivocally defiling food (like human blood), John has forced the reader into a choice between the eating of ei8a)^.60UTa and the participation in the eucharist, as figure 8.1 indicates. The fact that John has, for instance, ironically juxtaposed the act of drinking human blood by the woman "Babylon" (alongside its homologous association with the eating of ei8co^66uT:a) with the Christian rite of the eucharist has heightened the gulf between the two. Given the uncompromising dualism of Revelation's narrative word, John wants to force the reader into seeing the eucharist and ei8co^69uTa as mutually exclusive. In other words, fellowship with pagans excludes the possibility of fellowship in the Christian community. Food and Self-Control. There is yet one more way that John uses the imagery of eating and drinking in the Apocalypse. This usage revolves around the issue of self-control. According to popular philosophy in John's time, one of the greatest dangers every person faced arose from his or her emotions or passions. As a result, those passions needed to be restrained. 25 Consequently, the theme of self-control (aa>(|>po(Tuvr|) served as a frequent subject in ancient discourse. 26 The Jewish philosopher Philo, for instance, writes: Every passion is blameworthy. . . . So if a man does not set bounds to his impulses and bridle them like horses which defy the reigns he is the victim of a wellnigh fatal passion, and that defiance will cause him to be car-

106

Who Rides the Beast? ried away before he knows it like a driver borne by his team into ravines or impassable abysses whence it is hardly possible to escape. (Spec. Leg. 4.79) 27

Philo ties the control of alimentary urges, something necessary for the proper philosophical life, to the Mosaic law. In his view, for instance, Moses forbade the eating of pig's flesh because it was the most delicious of all meats.28 If the Israelites had been allowed to eat it, they might have been tempted away from their life of virtue and self-control (Spec. Leg. 4.100-101). Of course, no philosopher would deny the necessary function of food, but from the popular philosophical standpoint, simple food should suffice. 29 Those who allowed themselves to be tempted by the sensual pleasures of eating would, the philosophers warned, pay a high price.30 Clement of Alexandria asks: "For those that are absorbed in pots, and exquisitely prepared niceties of condiments, are they not plainly abject, earth-born, leading an ephemeral kind of life?" (Clem. Al. Paed. 2.1.7) It should come as no surprise, then, that John ties "Babylon" to luxurious food such as cinnamon, spices, and the best flour (Rev. 18:13). All of these extravagant substances contribute to her lavish and frivolous way of life (Rev. 18:7; 14; 16, etc.) as well as her downfall. "Babylon" is not only tied to sumptuous food, though; she is also fond of wine and drunkenness (17:2; 6; 18:3). The issue of strong drink and drunkenness likewise figured prominently in philosophical discourses on self-control. Wine, Clement said, presented a great danger to the life of self-control and restraint, especially among the young. Boys and girls should keep as much as possible away from [wine]. For it is not right to pour into the burning season of life the hottest of all liquids— wine—adding, as it were, fire to fire. For hence wild impulses and burning lusts and fiery habits are kindled . . . . And we must, as far as possible, try to quench the impulses of youth by removing the Bacchic fuel of the threatened danger; and by pouring the antidote to them. (Clem. Al. Paed. 2.2.21)

Adults, like youth, should stick to water, at least until the day is over; then only a small amount of wine should be allowed. The elderly should be allowed a bit more leeway. Those who are already advanced in life may partake more cheerfully of the draught. . . . For [the passions of the elderly] are not, for the most part, stirred to such agitation as to drive them to the shipwreck of drunkenness. For being moored by reason and time, as by anchors, they stand with greater ease the storm of passions which rushes down from intemperance. (Paed. 2.2.21-22)

In short, since there is little danger from drink to the elderly, they should be allowed to enjoy it. In the Apocalypse, John reflects the opinion of the philosophers. Since food and drink were a great concern for those interested in living a life of self-control, John implicitly condemns "Babylon" for her lack

The Out-of-Control Female

107

of ooxttpoauvTi (17:2,6). Concerning his rival "Jezebel" though, John only hints at her imprudence in this area. He does this, of course, by linking "Jezebel" and "Babylon" and by homologously tying their abominable food. Hence, implicit in John's condemnation of "Babylon" for her lack of control vis-a-vis food is a critique of "Jezebel," who, like "Babylon," succumbs to her appetite regarding food. The implication, as I will show, is that "Jezebel," being a woman (who is naturally weakwilled), could not possibly exercise her self-control in order to shun ei8o)X69uTa. Like Philo's pagans, Clement's youth, and John's "Babylon," she does not have the discipline to control her appetite. The subject of self-control was, for the ancients, closely tied to issues of sexuality and gender. Before I explore it in more detail, I will look at the other ways John focuses on gender and sexuality in the Apocalypse. Sexual Imagery in Revelation As I have shown, there is little or no evidence that the issue of sexual promiscuity lay behind the charge of nopveia that John leveled at his rival "Jezebel." Regardless of what it referred to specifically, it is fair to say at least that Ttopveta, for John, stood for "Jezebel's" openness to the larger pagan society. Since I return to this topic in the following section, there is no need to address it further here beyond recognizing that John homologously ties the Ttopveia of "Jezebel" with the sexual activities of "Babylon" in order to set "Jezebel's" rcopveia (whatever it represented) in its worst possible light. Sexual Imagery and Boundaries in Revelation. The sexual imagery in the Apocalypse is not as widespread as the alimentary imagery; nevertheless, where it does occur, it is much more pointed.31 This is not surprising in light of the fact that the individual female body presents the best "natural" symbol of Greco-Roman society's vulnerability. On the one hand, every individual female body—to some degree or another—resists its own bounds. For instance, the female bodily boundaries are penetrated in the course of the sexual act. A woman consequently conceives (by the deposit of a foreign element) and then the boundaries of her body are stretched by pregnancy and penetrated a second time (this time from the inside) by the birthing process. As Anne Carson has graphically suggested, "[w]oman's boundaries are pliant, porous, mutable. Her power to control them is inadequate, her concern for them unreliable. Deformation attends her. She swells, she shrinks, she leaks, she is penetrated, she suffers metamorphoses."32 On the other hand, shifting from the perspective of the individual female body as the image of society to the relationship between women as a group and the social body, we can also see a pronounced threat by the former to the latter. John shares with his male contemporaries in Greco-Roman society the fear that each and every woman presented a danger to the integrity of society. Because of the patrilocal configura-

108

Who Rides the Beast?

tion of Mediterranean societies, women were forced to transgress social boundaries when they married. In Hellenistic society, for instance, when a woman married, she left one household (OIKO<;) and entered another. Of course, the household was the most basic unit of the city (noXiq). Hence a woman's unrestricted ability to pass through what seemed to be impervious boundaries of the most basic unit of society (the OIKOC;) suggested a serious threat to the integrity of the whole society.33 Perhaps as a result of the ever-present, implicit threat to boundaries that women represented, the female role in Hellenistic society was sharply limited. Her place was restricted, almost exclusively, to the otKoc,.34 Men—whether fathers, husbands, brothers, or sons—provided the necessary link between her private domain of the oiKoq and the public sphere. Female space or female things—the places where females are allowed, the things that females deal with exclusively, like kitchen utensils, drawing water, spinning and sewing, bread baking, sweeping out the house, etc.— all these female spaces and things are centripetal to the family dwelling or village of residence. That means that they face toward the inside, with a sort of invisible magnet of social pressure turning females inward, toward the space in the house or the village. All things taken from the inside to the outside are male; all things remaining of the inside are female. The places of contact between the inside and outside (the family courtyard, the village square, or the area by the city gate) are male when males are present, although females may sometimes enter either properly chaperoned or when males are present. 35

These gender roles are in evidence very early in Greek society, as early as the time of the Homeric epics.36 Centuries after the production of the epics, virtually the same understanding of the role of women was held throughout the Hellenistic East. 37 Women were considered fit for id evSov ("the things within") but not, like men, for wraiSpta epya e^co ("work outside in the open air"). 38 John plays on those cultural stereotypes that depict women as out of place in the public sphere. I will explore this now in more detail. Sexuality and Self-Control. Although John ties the issue of self-control (aox)>popocr6vr|).

The Out-of-Control Female

109

According to the thinking of the Greeks, women had stronger emotions and appetites and were less capable of controlling them than men. To a great extent, this reasoning corresponded to ancient medical speculation. Ancient medical theory postulated that the gender of an individual was determined in the mother's womb. The child that was able to amass enough "heat" and "vital spirit" (understood as "heaviness" and solidity) in utero was born a male.39 The child who failed to gather enough of these elements in the womb was born female. Because of their lack of "heat," females were softer and more liquid in their makeup than men.40 In short, females were understood as "failed males."41 Since they were more liquid in their composition, women were assumed to be more subject to their emotions and more susceptible to their appetites than men, since passions were also considered liquid in nature. 42 The irresistible pull on a woman of her appetites is well illustrated by Hesiod's story of the wicked gift Zeus gave to mankind in punishment for the trick of Prometheus (Hes. Theog. 570-612; Hes. Op. 5789), this "beautiful evil" that was woman, a being entirely driven by her yacnrrip ("belly"). 43 The "snare" sent by Zeus to men would, according to Hesiod, eat up the results of his labor and wear him out with her insatiable sexual yearnings. Since a woman was considered so susceptible to her appetites and especially her sexual desires, she was sometimes likened to a wild beast. Metaphorically speaking, the wild animal (that the woman was likened to) needed domestication. Since a man, it was assumed, was much more capable of controlling his passions, a woman was subjected to a man through marriage and he would control both his and her passions.44 Hence it stood to reason that many in Hellenistic society would have difficulty coming to terms with any woman operating in the public (i.e., male) realm. Any such woman (married or unmarried) would be treated with caution.45 The out-of-control woman, it was thought, could undermine the whole fabric of society by tempting married men away from their wives and children. Not only that, but also such women, according to the ancient opinion about gender difference and especially male physiology, presented an actual physical threat to men. The "heat" that was responsible for masculinity was something that needed to be carefully nurtured. An excess of passion—cold and liquid in nature—could threaten it, and so could sex. Each time a man engaged in sex, some of the heat—that which made him a man—trickled away. Consequently, those engaged in particularly "manly" activities (soldiers or athletes) were cautioned against sex.46 Any woman in the public sphere might be considered dangerous to society, for without the control exercised by her husband (or father and brothers, if unmarried), the passionate (and especially sexual) nature of a woman would inevitably come to the fore. Given the fact that some men were weaker (i.e., more prone to their passions than others),

110

Who Rides the Beast?

they could be enticed by these women, all of which could eventually lead to the erosion of society. Consequently, respectable women stayed at home. Any woman out in public, unescorted by a male guardian, was considered a temptress and so ran the risk of being taken for a prostitute. 47 The only acceptable way to be single, female, and "out of the house" in such a society was to outlive one's husband, but even a widow (who was viewed as a kind of surrogate male) could encounter difficulties. 48 An excellent Greco-Roman example of the danger that women acting in the public sphere were thought to present to men appears in the propaganda war waged between Octavian and Antony in the first century BCE, a struggle that began only months after the murder of Julius Caesar.49 This propaganda contest focused almost exclusively on sex and gender roles. Cleopatra, Antony's consort, was branded a woman who was a slave to her sexual appetites (see Jos. AJ 15.91). Propertius called her a harlot queen (meretrix regina, 3.11.39) and accused her of satisfying her appetite by forcing her slaves into sex with her (3.11.30). Josephus remarked that she had tried to seduce Herod (unsuccessfully) and that such behavior was typical of her (Jos. A/15.97). Horace called her mad (demens, 1.27.7), drunk (ebria, 1.27.12), and out-of-control (impotens, 1.27.10). On the other side of the coin was Antony, who, Octavian and his allies charged, was emasculated by Cleopatra. She used her feminine allure to arouse his passion, and of course his passion ultimately destroyed him. Plutarch, clearly influenced by the anti-Antony propaganda, tells us that "[h]is love for [Cleopatra] excited to the point of madness many passions which had hitherto lain concealed, or at least dormant, and it stifled or corrupted all those redeeming qualities in him" (Plut. Ant. 25). In ancient physiological terms, the liquid passion aroused by Cleopatra in Antony extinguished his heat. However, Plutarch does not lay all of the blame on Cleopatra. He tells us that Antony's wife Fulvia, a domineering woman who had much earlier established her mastery over him (Plut. Ant. 10), had already effectively destroyed him.50 In short, Antony capitulated to his emotions. Like a man who had been drugged or bewitched (Dio 50.5.3; Plut. Ant. 37, 60; Jos. AJ 15.93), he was enslaved to Cleopatra (Dio 50.4.1-2). [N]ow Antony revealed to all the world that he was no longer guided by the motives of a commander, nor of a brave man, nor indeed by his own judgment at all. He allowed himself to be dragged along after a woman, as if he had become part of her flesh and must go wherever she led him. . . . He hurried after the woman who had already ruined him and would soon complete his destruction. (Plut. Ant. 66)

The one who had once led armies and held high office now became a different person,51 little better than a woman in the eyes of his con-

The Out-of-Control Female

111

temporaries.52 What manliness Antony possessed before he met Cleopatra was no match for her unchecked passions. If we look at the Apocalypse in light of this Greco-Roman understanding of gender roles and especially the example of Antony and Cleopatra, we can see that John makes full use of all of these negative stereotypes of women in his depiction of "Babylon." She is portrayed as a woman who is out of control. She is a glutton and sexual predator, enslaving "the kings of the earth" with her lascivious power. 53 John's rival "Jezebel," as a public female, had probably already attracted some suspicion because of cultural stereotypes and prejudices. By closely linking "Jezebel" to "Babylon" and by emphasizing the latter's lack of oco^pocrwri, John intentionally and pointedly reinforced that cultural stereotype in such a way that people who were unoffended by her conciliatory stance toward the larger society might have been offended by the public role she took. John's references to "Jezebel's" nopveta and jj.oi%eta ("adultery"), as well as the references to her as a Tiopvri ("whore"), would have packed a strong rhetorical punch.

Conclusion In this chapter I have shown how John continues his strategy of obliquely indicting his rival by turning the attention of his readers to the issues of food and sex, issues that closed societies typically care very deeply about because they are boundary issues. By focusing on these issues of food and sex in the passages that feature female characters, John ties what he considers the objectionable activities of his rival to "Babylon's" horrible alimentary crimes (including cannibalism) and her promiscuous sexual behavior. Because of the strong homologous relationship John has established between "Jezebel" and "Babylon," he implicitly compares the eating of ei5coA,60UTa with "Babylon's" alimentary abominations. He also ties "Jezebel's" eiSm^oGma with the alimentary actions of the beast while contrasting it with the alimentary behavior of the woman of chapter 12 who is nourished by food provided directly by God. By so doing, John links "Jezebel's" eating of ei5coA,60ma with antieucharistic activity and contrasts it with the eucharistic imagery found in various places in Revelation. Once he has done this, he has laid before his readers the absolute incompatibility of eucharistic fellowship in the Christian community with the eating of ei8(o^69'UTa. John also connects "Jezebel's" nopvela (her openness to GrecoRoman society) with the sexual promiscuity practiced by "Babylon." It is worth noting here that "Babylon's" Ttopveia ultimately results in her destruction (17:16), a fate John also envisions for "Jezebel" as well as her followers. The nopveia of "Jezebel" and "Babylon" he then contrasts with the virginity of the bride "Jerusalem." Of course, the implication here is that the bride (representing the glorified saints as well as

112

Who Rides the Beast?

the faithful followers of Christ on earth) 54 has remained chaste for her husband,55 the Lamb, but "Jezebel" has shamed herself with her Ttopveia. John—given his vision of Christian society under siege—was clearly uncomfortable with a female prophet whose activities in the public sphere were apparently unmediated by a male (such as a husband) and whose teaching included the allowance, if not the encouragement, of boundary transgressions (through the eating of ei8(o>.60ma). Such a person seemed to John a dangerous traitor. He saw her openness to pagan society as nothing less than the attempt to convince the besieged community to throw open the fortress gates to the enemy. He then encouraged his communities to see "Jezebel" in light of the gender stereotypes of the time, using those stereotypes to condemn her (implicitly) for her lack of oco^poowri. By appealing to "Babylon's" weakness for wine and her sexual promiscuity, John implicitly paints "Jezebel" as an undisciplined woman, unfit to lead. Ultimately, he intimates that "Babylon," or any other woman acting like a male in the public sphere (like "Jezebel"), should be avoided at all costs. He reinforces this implicit condemnation by depicting his positive women as passive figures, shut away from the world (whether in the wilderness or in heaven).

9 True and False Prophets Binding "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth

In this chapter I will show that John continues his indirect polemic against his rival in Revelation by painting her with the same colors he uses to draw the character commonly known as the Beast from Earth (13:11-18). By comparing his rival to the Beast from the Earth, John ties her at the same time to the character known elsewhere in the Apocalypse as the False Prophet (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10), who, as I will show, is nothing more than a second incarnation of the Beast from the Earth in John's narrative world. Comparing his rival "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth results in a twofold rhetorical advantage for John. First, the comparison also implicitly associates her with the Beast from the Sea (who represents Rome) and the Dragon (who represents Satan). This connection effectively reinforces John's strategy of linking "Jezebel" to "Babylon." Second, and perhaps more important, by coupling "Jezebel" with the Beast from the Earth who is also the False Prophet, John focuses on the contrast between true and false prophecy, an issue of vital importance to the seer. Of course, if "Jezebel" is connected with false prophecy in the reader's mind, then the mantle of genuine eschatological prophecy descends, by default, onto John's shoulders.

Binding "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth Revelation 13:11-18 presents a vision depicting a strange, speaking beast. This beast serves the beast that had risen up from the sea in the passage immediately preceding (13:1-10). 173

114

Who Rides the Beast? 13:11 Then I saw another beast that rose out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed. 13 It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; 14 and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, it deceives the inhabitants of earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet lived; 15 and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.

This so-called Beast from the Earth is the third monster that has appeared in the series of visions beginning in chapter 12. In that chapter John identifies the first monster, the Dragon (12:3), as the Devil and Satan (12:9). The second monster (13:1), whose attributes consist of the combined traits of the four beasts of Daniel 7:1-8, clearly points to Rome (as virtually all commentators have noted). 1 The third monster, the Beast from the Earth, labors on behalf of the second monster (Rev. 13:12). But who or what does this third monster represent? The key to answering this question seems to lie in 13:12: "It [i. e., the Beast from the Earth] exercises all the authority of the first beast [i. e., the Beast from the Sea] on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast." Interpreters have attempted to solve this problem in a variety of ways. The best suggestions are that the beast in 13:11-18 represents (1) the state officials of the province;2 (2) the imperial cult;3 or (3) the overall pagan religious milieu of the empire.4 Of these options, the first is the least credible, given the obvious references to cultic practices in 12:13-15. Many scholars have favored the second option, the identification of the beast with the imperial cult, and this suggestion has much to recommend it. However, the particular signs and wonders described in 12:13-15 are not specifically attested in connection with the imperial cult (although it is quite likely that they could have been performed in this connection). 5 We know, however, that these particular phenomena were associated with some pagan shrines of the time and are also found in the magical literature. Overall, the third option seems to be the strongest, since it would include, but not limit itself to, the imperial cult. As a result, the Beast from the Earth on the most obvious level stands for Greco-Roman culture and, more specifically, the pagan substructure supporting that culture. John binds "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth, in brief, in three specific ways. First, he focuses on the verb TiXavdo), a term he associates

True and False Prophets

115

with both characters. Second, he emphasizes the prophetic (or, from his vantage point, pseudoprophetic) abilities of each. He strengthens this second link by highlighting the ironic nature of one of the beast's magical acts (13:13), the calling down of fire from heaven. Third, having connected these figures in these two ways, John reinforces that connection by describing the appearance of the beast in a manner that calls to mind John's rival (13:11). I will explore these connections in the sections that follow. Connecting the Activities of "Jezebel" with the Activities of the Beast from the Earth In Revelation 2:20, John introduces "Jezebel" as follows. "I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman 'Jezebel/ who calls herself a prophet and is teaching (5i5daKEi) and beguiling (nKava.) my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols." In this verse, John highlights three specific activities of his rival "Jezebel." First, she claims prophetic status (falsely, according to John), an activity I will discuss later in this chapter. Second, she "teaches" (5i8daKei), an act that also subtly ties her to false prophecy, given the associations this verb carries elsewhere in the document.6 Third, she "beguiles" or "leads astray" (Tilavd), with the result that Christians commit abominable acts (from John's vantage point). In this section, I will examine how John connects the third of these activities—leading astray—with the activities of all of the evil figures but most especially with the Beast from the Earth. He does this by describing the activities of each with the verb 7iA,avd(fl ("to lead astray"). nXavda). The verb 7iA.avdo) (usually translated "to deceive," to beguile," or "to lead astray") appears in a number of places in the Apocalypse. It should come as no surprise to learn that in practically every place that it appears in the Apocalypse, the verb is unequivocally tied to the major forces of evil that appear in that work. In the vision of chapter 12, for instance, John connects TtXavdro with the Dragon, identified in the same passage as Satan (12:9). It is noteworthy that the participial form of the verb functions in this passage as the defining characteristic of Satan. He is the "deceiver."7 In the vision of the great whore "Babylon" of chapters 17 and 18, John connects the verb TuAavdw with that figure as well.8 The Beast from the Earth and the False Prophet (two manifestations of the same figure) are also joined to the verb Titaxvdw. In the case of the Beast from the Earth the connection is made in 13:14, whereas at the end of Revelation 19, the False Prophet is accused of having "deceived" those who had received the mark of the beast. From these four passages, it is clear that John views 7iA,avdo> as a term that describes the primary activity of most of the major evil forces in the Apocalypse: Satan, "Babylon," and the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet.9

116

Who Rides the Beast?

Of course, all of this raises questions about John's use of the term 7rA,avti(o in Revelation 2:20, where he applies it to his Christian rival "Jezebel's" activities. Since elsewhere in the Apocalypse, John consistently and exclusively uses the verb 7cA,avdo) to refer to the activities of the forces of evil, the fact that he employs the verb in connection with "Jezebel" suggests that he wants the readers to see "Jezebel" as they have viewed those outside figures. There is more, however, to John's use of TtA-avdco than simply the connection between the forces of evil and "Jezebel"; the verb itself suggests sorcery. In an important article that appeared in 1938, P. Samain presented what one scholar has called "an ironclad case" 10 that the charges involving the terms 7iWivr|c/7iXdvoc;/7iA,avd(fl are frequently accusations of sorcery.11 Is this what John is suggesting about his rival? Is he hinting that she is a sorceress? I suggest that he is implying just that. In order to bolster this suggestion, we can look at the way he uses the verb nhavaia elsewhere. Does he suggest sorcery in his other uses of the verb? In Revelation 13:13-14 John uses the verb in connection with the activities of the Beast from the Earth. 13:13 [The Beast from the Earth] performs great signs [crnneia p,eydXa], even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; 14 and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the [Beast from the Sea], it deceives [jiXavq] the inhabitants of earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet lived.

According to these verses, the activity of deceiving the inhabitants of the earth, an activity described with the verb TiXavdco, is the focus of the actions of Beast from the Earth. The Beast from the Earth deceives (rcXavg) the inhabitants of the earth by the great signs (cm|j.eta ueydla); in fact, the "great signs" the beast performs are mere tools in service of that deception. The way these wonders are described certainly suggests that they represent acts of sorcery. The two "great wonders" performed by the beast are the bringing down of fire from heaven to earth (13:13) and the animation of the image of the beast so that it could speak (13:15). The first act, bringing down fire from heaven, is attested in mainstream pagan cultic contexts (in connection with a particular deity's shrine, for instance). 12 But similar acts were also seen in subcultural magical settings. The Christian writer Hippolytus gives us an example of a trick performed by a sorcerer in which "fire [is] borne through the air." According to Hippolytus, the trick is set up beforehand and it works by means of a hidden accomplice. The [concealed] accomplice . . . when he hears the incantation [of the sorcerer] ceasing, holding a kite or hawk enveloped with tow, sets fire to it and releases it. The bird, however, frightened by the flame, is borne aloft, and makes a (proportionally) quicker flight, which these deluded persons

True and False Prophets

117

beholding, conceal themselves, as if they had seen something divine. The winged creature, however, being whirled round by the fire, is borne whithersoever chance may have it, and burns now the houses, and now the courtyards. (Hippol. Haer. 4. 36) The next phenomenon to which John refers is the animation of the image of a deity so that it could speak. Again, this practice appeared in mainstream pagan religious experience but was also associated with "magicians." In fact, it seems that the mechanical animation of statues was a relatively common occurrence in the Greco-Roman milieu, as was the practice of making them speak. 13 Probably our best example comes from Lucian, in his work on Alexander of Abonoteichus. In this essay, Lucian tells us how Alexander managed to make a serpent (representing the god Glycon) speak. Of course, from Lucian's perspective, Alexander's activities functioned solely to deceive the populace. [He] had long [before] prepared and fitted up a serpent's head of linen, which had something of a human look, was all painted up, and appeared very lifelike. It would open and close its mouth by means of horsehairs, and a forked black tongue like a snake's, also controlled by horsehairs, would dart out. (12) Alexander took this snake's head and combined it with the body of a living serpent to further the deception: Coiling [the live snake] about his neck, and letting the tail, which was long, stream over his lap and drag part of its length on the floor, he concealed only the head by holding it under his arm . . . and showed the linen head at the side of his own beard, as if it certainly belonged to the creature that was in view. (15) Finally, Alexander arranged for the serpent to speak: It was no difficult matter for him to fasten cranes' windpipes together and pass them through the head, which he had fastened to be so lifelike. Then he answered the questions through someone else, who spoke into the tube from the outside, so that the voice issued from his canvas Asclepius. (26) 14 Although the example of Alexander comes from the mid-second century, speaking oracles and speaking statues apparently existed long before. For instance, in a Corinthian temple from the fifth century BCE, a megaphone-like funnel was bored through a stone block. The hole, invisible from inside the temple, was presumably used to transmit sounds—most likely oracles—from a space below the temple. 15 Numerous speaking statues have also been found by archaeologists16 and discussed by early Christian writers.17 As I have already mentioned, these two "great signs" (arnieta u.eydtax) are attested in both the mainstream polytheistic culture as well as in countercultural magical contexts. Although the latter context certainly recommends sorcery, what about the former? Do we have to de-

118

Who Rides the Beast?

ride whether John specifically alludes to one or the other context in order to determine whether or not he would consider the acts of the beast to represent acts of sorcery? Clearly we do not, for John, like many of his contemporaries in the Jewish and Christian traditions, considered idolatry to be trafficking in the demonic (see Rev. 9:20). 18 To recap, John connects the activities of "Jezebel" with those of the Beast from the Earth in his readers' minds by describing the activity of each with the important term Titaxvdcfl. The fact that this verb can imply sorcery, coupled with the description of the magical acts of the Beast from the Earth, subtly recommends that "Jezebel" has bewitched her followers into commiting their "abominations."19 She has bewitched her followers, John implies, just as the Beast from the Earth has bewitched the people of the earth so that they will worship the Beast from the Sea. In the next section I will examine how the seer reinforces the connection between "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth by comparing another of their activities, false prophecy. False Prophecy, the Beast from the Earth, and "Jezebel" The idea of false prophecy provides a strong literary link between "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth. 20 On the one hand, John impugns "Jezebel's" prophetic calling when he introduces her in 2:20 (where he says that she "calls herself a prophet"). 21 On the other hand, he identifies the Beast from the Earth with a figure known only as the "false prophet" in a number of places in Revelation. It is clear that the False Prophet in the later chapters of Revelation is none other than the Beast from the Earth.22 For instance, in 19:19-20, John mentions both the Beast from the Sea as well as the False Prophet. 19:19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.

When he mentions the False Prophet here, it is beyond dispute that he uses language intended to recall Revelation 13:12-17 and that passage's discussion of the Beast from the Earth: 13:12 [The beast] exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast. . . . 13 It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, 14 it deceives the inhabitants of earth. . . . Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

True and False Prophets

119

Since in Revelation John only makes reference to illegitimate or false prophecy in connection with two characters, his rival "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet, it is hard to imagine that he does not intend the reader to compare the two.23 The End-Time Prophet and the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet. In the apocalyptic tradition of early Christianity, false prophets (especially those performing magical acts) were depicted as harbingers of the eschaton.24 Of course, it is significant that, in the early Christian texts that highlight these figures, the verb Titaxvaco (or words derived from it) is typically associated with their miraculous acts. For instance, in the "little Apocalypse" of Mark 13 (corresponding to Matthew 24, Luke 21), Jesus warns the disciples of false prophets immediately preceding the end. Note that Mark also uses the verb rcJiavdco in this passage, a verb that clearly suggests sorcery in this context. Early in the chapter, Jesus admonishes his disciples: "Beware that no one leads you astray [7tXavf)crr|]. Many will come in my name and say, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray [7iA.avfiooixnv]" (13:5-6). He continues later: And if anyone says to you at that time, "Look! Here is the Christ! "or "Look! There he is!"—do not believe it. False Christs and false prophets [\|/eu8oTipocjiTiTai] will appear and produce signs and omens [crrnieia KOI xepata], to lead astray [itpoc; TO cmoitAavav], if possible, the elect (13:21-22).

The use of the verb 7iA,avdco (as well as anon'kav6.8o7ipo<j>f|Tca] and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall change to hate; 4 for as lawlessness increaseth they shall hate one another and persecute and betray, and then shall appear the deceiver of the whole world (Koa|j,o7i/Uxvf|<;] as a Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders [cnmela KOI tepata] and the earth shall be given over into his hands and he shall commit iniquities which have never been since the world began.

Besides the false prophets, this text also suggests the appearance of a figure known only as the "world deceiver" (KoauxmXavTi!;). The author of 2 Thessalonians also predicts a single figure. 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. 4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. . . . 9 The coming of the lawless one is apparent in

120

Who Rides the Beast? the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders [ev TKZOTI 8-uvd|iei Kcd OTineioic; KOI Tepaow \|/ex>8ot><;], 10 and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12 so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.

This apocalyptic tradition of figures leading astray the elect with sorcery (whether or not they are specifically referred to as "false prophets") is clearly reflected in the Revelation. John consistently ties the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet to acts of sorcery (crnneta) in the Apocalypse. This connection appears in Revelation 13:13, 13:14, 16:14, and 19:20.25 I have already noted this connection with the Beast from the Earth in 13:13 and 13:14; in the later chapters, John ties the Beast's alter ego, the False Prophet, to such acts.26 The seer's focus on the sorcery of the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet (which, in turn, "leads astray" or "bewitches" humanity) alludes to the eschatological figures sometimes called "false prophets" in the early Christian traditions. One particular way John reinforces the allusion to such eschatological figures and specifically to eschatological false prophets appears in Revelation 13:13, where one of the "great signs" (arpeva ueyatai) performed by the Beast from the Earth involves calling fire down from heaven. Fire from Heaven and Elijah. The ability to bring down fire from heaven, which I discussed briefly in connection with Greco-Roman cultic practice and magic, is also important in the context of the early Christian idea of the eschatological prophet, 27 for it recalls two particular miracles of Elijah. The first miracle appears in 1 Kings 18. 21 Elijah then came near to all the people, and said, "How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. . . . 23 Let two bulls be given to us; let [the prophets of Baal] choose one bull for themselves, cut it in pieces, and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it; I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the LORD; the god who answers by fire is indeed God." All the people answered, "Well spoken!"

Of course, the prophets of Baal were unable to perform the miracle. Then Elijah built the altar to YHWH, prepared the sacrifice, drenched the wood and the sacrifice with water three times, and offered a prayer. 18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones, and the dust, and even licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, "The LORD indeed is God; the LORD indeed is God." 40 Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal; do not let one of them escape." Then they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Wadi Kishon, and killed them there.

True and False Prophets

121

The second miracle of Elijah provides another close parallel. While Ahaziah reigned in Israel, he suffered an accident and he sent a party to Ekron, to the temple of the Philistine deity Baal-zebub to find out if he would recover. Elijah met the group and condemned Ahaziah to death, asking, "Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron" (2 Kings 1:3)? When Ahaziah found out that Elijah had condemned him, he sent out a company of soldiers to arrest Elijah. 1:9 Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty with his fifty men. He went up to Elijah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and said to him, "O man of God, the king says, 'Come down.'" 10 But Elijah answered the captain of fifty, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty." Then fire came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

The king sent another company of soldiers with the same result. Finally, Ahaziah sent a third company, and the captain of this final group persuaded Elijah to spare his contingent. Elijah went with him to the king and repeated his condemnation to the king's face. Why is John interested in the figure of Elijah? Before answering that question, it is necessary to look at the traditions about Elijah in John's time. In Jewish and Christian apocalyptic circles, it was presumed that Elijah would come immediately prior to the end. The idea comes from the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically from the book of the prophet Malachi, in its very last verses. 4:5 Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse.

The gospel writers were obviously familiar with this tradition, and they subsequently identified John the Baptist with Elijah. For instance, in Matthew's gospel, following the transfiguration, the disciples ask Jesus about Elijah and Jesus points them to John. 17:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, "Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." 10 And the disciples asked him, "Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11 He replied, "Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; 12 but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.28

The expectation of Elijah's return at the end of time is presupposed in Revelation 13:13. By alluding to the Elijah tradition here (and elsewhere in the Apocalypse), John sets up a dualism between Elijah, the eschatological prophet par excellence and anti-Elijah, the false prophet par excellence.

122

Who Rides the Beast?

Figure 9.1. Allusions to Elijah miracles in the book of Revelation

By means of the episode narrated in Revelation 13:13 (the calling of fire from heaven by the Beast of the Earth), John takes advantage of the Jewish and early Christian Elijah tradition in order to paint an ironic portrait of the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet as this anti-Elijah figure. But there is still more to the irony introduced in Revelation 13:13. Fire from heaven appears not only here but also later in Revelation (20:9). The later text narrates how God miraculously rescues "the camp of the saints and the beloved city" that Gog and Magog have besieged. The rescue is effected by the divine act described thus: "Fire will come down from heaven and consume them [i.e., the besiegers]." Hence the bringing of heavenly fire to earth in 13:13 represents both an ironic reflection of the miracle performed by Elijah, the eschatological prophet, and is set off against the future avenging act of God, as figure 9.1 illustrates.29 As such, the "miracle" (OTpetov) of bringing fire from heaven in chapter 13 comes into focus not just as one act of sorcery among others. It clearly and strongly reinforces the identification of the Beast from the Earth as the False Prophet who will work such wonders in the time immediately preceding the end. Significantly (and ironically), those led astray (or "bewitched") by the wonders of the false eschatological prophet (including fire from heaven) will eventually perish as a result of the YHWH'S all-consuming fire from heaven.30 Who Is Anti-Elijah? I have shown how John has carefully orchestrated his text so as to depict the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet as an eschatological false prophet alluded to in various early Christian apocalyptic traditions. John, of course, appeals to Elijah traditions to portray this figure as anti-Elijah. I suggest that John does not want his readers to rest content with the identification of this anti-Elijah figure with the

True and False Prophets

Figure 9.2.

123

"Jezebel" as an Anti-Elijah figure

pagan substructure of the Roman Empire; there is another, rather subtle irony hidden in the text. If we look back at the Elijah stories in the Hebrew Scriptures, the one figure who stands out as the paradigmatic opponent of the prophet Elijah is Jezebel, the queen of Israel. For instance, when Elijah accomplished the first miracle of calling fire down from heaven found in 1 Kings 18, he defeated the priests of Baal, who, of course, answered to Queen Jezebel. I suggest that John wanted his original readers to make the connection between the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet figure and his rival "Jezebel."31 Ultimately, John wants his readers to understand Revelation 13:13 in the way it is charted in figure 9.2. In that passage, John alludes to the story in the Hebrew scriptures in which the true prophet Elijah miraculously called down fire from heaven to bring to a halt the pagan practices promoted by his nemesis, Queen Jezebel. On the basis of that allusion, John constructs the following scenario. An anti-Elijah figure uses sorcery to call down fire from heaven to promote pagan practices. On the surface, the anti-Elijah figure is the Beast from the Earth, but of course the allusions to the Elijah story (in which Queen Jezebel encourages pagan practices) suggest that John is also subtly suggesting his rival "Jezebel" as the anti-Elijah figure. Hence in Revelation 13:13, John's readers would have found a veiled, ironic reference to "Jezebel." The Description of the Beast from the Earth and "Jezebel" In Revelation 13:11, when John first introduces the character of the Beast from the Earth, the reader encounters a curious amalgam of various beastly components. Since this is not the first monster to appear in Revelation, the reader, at first glance, may find nothing particularly odd about this beast. Nevertheless, when one examines the form of this beast and considers it in comparison with the other monsters of the Apocalypse, one cannot help but be struck by a remarkably curious fact. While all of the other monsters look very much alike, this one is strikingly different. For instance, all of the other monsters are portrayed with seven heads and ten horns. Two of the three have diadems, either on the

124

Who Rides the Beast?

heads or the horns (the Dragon and the Beast from the Sea). Two of the three have blasphemous names on them (the Beast from the Sea and the beast from chapter 17), and two of the three are presented as colored in some variation of red (the Dragon and the beast in chapter 17). In contrast, the Beast from the Earth shares none of these characteristics. The Beast from the Earth is described as having "two horns like a lamb and [speaking] like a dragon." The only attribute of this beast that closely ties it to any of the others is its voice. We are told that it speaks "like a dragon" probably meaning that it sounds like the Dragon of chapter 12 (despite the fact that we hear nothing about the dragon's voice in that chapter). I will return to this attribute, but first I will look at the other elements of the description. The two horns of the beast call to mind the image of the ram in Daniel 8, where the seer Daniel has a vision while in Babylon. 8:1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after the one that had appeared to me at first. 2 In the vision I was looking and saw myself in Susa the capital, in the province of Elam, and I was by the river Ulai. 3 I looked up and saw a ram standing beside the river. It had two horns. Both horns were long, but one was longer than the other, and the longer one came up second. 4 I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. All beasts were powerless to withstand it, and no one could rescue from its power; it did as it pleased and became strong.

In Daniel 8, the ram almost certainly represents the Persian kingdom of Darius III. What is noteworthy about this allusion is the fact that the next few verses show the destruction of the two-horned ram by a goat representing Alexander the Great. Perhaps the two horns of the Beast from the Earth were supposed to suggest to John's readers an outside, dominant power representing or connected with the forces of evil, since the Persians held sway over the Jewish people for several centuries. Perhaps John meant the allusion to the horns to suggest that this seemingly dominant power did not have long to survive. It is hard to know for sure. What is certainly more significant than the specific reason John put two horns on the beast is the animal that he connects to the horns. The two horns belong not to a ram in Revelation but are found on a lamb (dpvtov). It is quite remarkable that this evil beast is compared to a lamb here, for elsewhere in the Apocalypse, the lamb is Christ. In fact, of the twenty-eight occurrences of the noun dpviov in Revelation, twentyseven point directly to Christ. This passage is the sole exception. The puzzle of this description is resolved, however, once we consider it in light of John's rhetorical agenda. The description of the beast in this manner is clearly intended to call to mind "Jezebel," who looks like Christ (i.e., she is a Christian) but

True and False Prophets

125

who from John's vantage point does not sound like Christ. Rather, she sounds like a dragon, more specifically, the Dragon, Satan. Clearly, what the seer disapproves of is her teaching (as is evident from 2:20). This is represented in the vision as the voice of Satan, that is, that which comes out of the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet's mouth. 32

Summary In this chapter I have shown that John has subtly compared his rival "Jezebel" to one of the primary forces of evil in Revelation, the Beast from the Earth, also known as the False Prophet in the later chapters of the Apocalypse. John establishes a link between "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet through his use of the verb TiXavdto ("to lead astray") in 13:14 and 19:20. This word frequently implies sorcery, an implication John reinforces by associating magical acts (crriM-^a) with the Beast from the Earth. John then has the Beast from the Earth mimic an Elijah miracle (Rev. 13:13) in order to sharpen the image of the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet as the eschatological false prophet. By depicting the act of the Beast from the Earth as a parody of an Elijah miracle, John further ties "Jezebel" with the eschatological false prophet, since "Jezebel's" namesake is the exemplary anti-Elijah figure of the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, John juxtaposes Elijah—the eschatological prophet who can bring fire from heaven—to a pseudo-Elijah figure. This figure, on the literal level of the Apocalypse, is the character of the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet who represents the pagan culture of Greco-Roman society. On another level, though, this figure looks like "Jezebel," whose nickname alludes to Elijah's nemesis, the historical Queen Jezebel. Hence by innuendo John links his rival to the eschatological false prophet. Finally, the seer reinforces the connection between the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet and his rival by means of the portrait he draws of the beast. The fact that the beast in some ways resembles a lamb (dpvtov) but speaks like a dragon suggests his rival once again. She is lamblike in that she is a Christian, but she also has the voice of the Dragon, Satan. This image of the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet is meant to sound a warning to John's readers: things are not what they appear. A Christian prophet can actually represent the eschatological false prophet, who, in turn, can even look like Elijah.

10 Conclusion The Rhetoric of Exclusion

Throughout this work, I have illuminated the social situation behind the book of Revelation, and I have examined John's rhetorical strategy in some detail. In this last chapter I have three aims: first to review and highlight the major points of my argument; second, to argue for the viability of John's strategy and, by implication, the credibility of my proposed scenario; finally, to make an educated guess about what happened in the seven churches addressed in Revelation after they received the document. In the first chapter, I showed how, in recent years, various scholars attempted to address the situation behind the Apocalypse in light of the discrepancy between John's narrative world and what we know about the historical circumstances at the time of its writing. Their conclusions suggest that a close look at the social and economic backdrop of the text might shed some light on the situation behind its creation. Hence in chapter 2,1 surveyed social and economic life in the Roman world and showed how first-century Christian communities fit into that larger social and economic picture. In chapters 3 and 4 an examination of the evidence from the letters to the churches in the early chapters of Revelation revealed two things. First, the letters make abundantly clear the fact that any "crisis" facing the churches originated within the churches. The letters do not support a scenario of persecution or even serious harassment of Christians by Rome, by the larger polytheistic society, or by the neighboring synagogues. Second, a common structure underlies the letters. 126

Conclusion

127

An analysis of this structure and its variations in turn suggests three different scenarios among the seven churches that John addressed: there were those in which (1) he had a strong following (Smyrna and Philadelphia); (2) those in which he no longer carried much, if any, influence (Sardis and Laodicea); (3) those in which he had a faction of loyalists (Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira). This last group was most likely the focus of his rhetorical efforts. Given the facts that the letter to the church in Thyatira is the longest and most detailed letter in the collection, that John mentions a specific rival in that letter ("Jezebel"), and that the Thyatira letter is the fourth of seven letters (i. e., in the middle of the collection), a reasonable hypothesis suggests that, of these three churches, the Thyatira community was the most significant battleground toward which John concentrated his efforts. We can achieve yet more precision in identifying John's audience. Throughout the letters, he shows little desire to convert "Jezebel" or her core of followers but is concerned instead with those in the churches that have not yet declared their allegiance to her. I identify this group as the invisible majority of the churches; "invisible" because they are never named in the letters (although their presence can be detected), "majority" because I suspect that John's faction in the split churches is relatively small and I presume that "Jezebel's" faction is not overly large. After all, the Thyatira church is chastised not for following "Jezebel" but for tolerating her. In chapter 5, I demonstrated that the issue that separated John's faction from "Jezebel's" had as much to do with social and economic realities as with theological principles. I based this finding on the fact that throughout Revelation, John mounts an anticommerce campaign. I suggest that this campaign probably arose because "Jezebel's" followers were intent on advancing in society both economically and socially, since her constituency was probably made up of freedpersons who were accumulating capital in order to improve the life of their children and grandchildren, a common situation at the time the Apocalypse was penned. Upon manumission, many freedpersons, especially former imperial slaves, went into business, particularly commerce, in order to work their way up in society. By the middle years of the second century, quite a few aristocratic families (including Christian ones) could—but never would—claim enslaved ancestors within their past few generations. In the next four chapters (6 through 9), I looked more closely at John's use of rhetoric in the Apocalypse. In chapter 6,1 pointed out that various rhetoricians of John's time addressed the problem of persuading an unsympathetic audience, a situation similar to that in which John found himself. He was writing to a group of relatively tolerant churches; they put up with him on one end of the religious spectrum, and they accepted "Jezebel" on the other. John, of course, characterized their tolerance not as a positive attribute but as complacency. Be-

128

Who Rides the Beast?

cause of this tolerance, he was in a difficult position: he needed to persuade his audience that such tolerance was counterproductive because his rival "Jezebel" was evil and dangerous, but he had to do so without alienating the invisible majority. He apparently had little that he could use against "Jezebel," since her teachings caused little or no consternation in the Thyatira church (and possibly the other communities as well). Consequently, he adopted a more subtle strategy, a strategy that attacked her from below the surface of the text. This tactic, which I call the rhethoric of innuendo, took particular advantage of the rhetorical figures of homology and irony. In chapter 7, I focused on John's literary handling of the four female figures that he wrote into his work, one of them being his rival. He constructed these women so that they each stand in relation to one another. Two of the female figures (an unnamed woman "clothed with the Sun" and "Jerusalem") appear as positive characters, whereas the other two ("Jezebel" and "Babylon") are negative. Using his rhetorical techniques, John juxtaposes the negative figures with the positive ones. Contrasting "Jezebel" to the positive figures and comparing her to the negative character "Babylon" allows John to move her out of the positive column of his dualistic universe and force her into the negative one. In chapter 8,1 continued my investigation of the four women focusing on the language of food and sex John uses in connection with them. I showed how John used prevailing gender stereotypes to depict his rival as a woman who was "out of control" and hence dangerous to the community. In chapter 9, I investigated another way John ties his rival to outside forces, connecting "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth (a symbol for the pagan substructure of the empire), a connection that by implication also links her to the False Prophet, a character found in the later chapters of Revelation. By binding his rival to the False Prophet, John denigrates "Jezebel's" prophetic calling. It is important to note that he does not merely dismiss her as a charlatan, that is, as one who is not truly endowed with prophetic gifts. His attack is much more pointed. By depicting the Beast from the Earth performing a distorted version of Elijah's miracle in Revelation 13, John connects that beast (and hence his rival) with the eschatological antiprophet, a figure expected to lead astray the chosen immediately prior to the end of time. Of course, once John has tied his rival to the antiprophet, John alone retains the role of prophet of God in the communities.

Could John's Rhetorical Strategy Have Succeeded? There is a strong disparity between the narrative world of the Apocalypse and the "real" world of the churches that I have described. If, as my evidence suggests, there was a great difference between them, how could John have thought that he could persuade his audience that the

Conclusion

129

dominant society was such a threat? If mainstream Christians were not "at war" with the society in which they lived, could John really have persuaded them with his gloom-and-doom strategy? Before we convince ourselves of the futility of John's strategy, it is important to remember that an individual's or group's identity and sense of position in the world is bound less tightly to "objective history" than we might initially imagine. As humans, we live by our stories, or, more precisely, our stories shape our understanding of our experience and ourselves.1 Throughout the Apocalypse, John paints the "faithful" Christians of the churches as victims. These Christians, he argues, are the victims of Rome's alliance with Satan. Throughout the book of Revelation, Rome (and the rest of the dominant society) is depicted as anxious to harass, imprison, torture, and murder innocent Christians [e.g. 2:10; 6:9-11; 12:17; 13:7; 16:6; 17:6; 18:20-24; 19:2; 20:4], just as it has murdered its founder. Although I am suggesting that John tried to engineer a crisis in the minds of his readers, I am not recommending that John created Rome as an enemy ex nihilo.2 On the one hand, from a literary perspective, Apocalyptic literature has always maintained a dualism between the present earthly powers and the chosen people of God. So those sympathetic to the apocalyptic worldview would naturally be suspicious of the dominant society. On the other hand, from a historical perspective, Christians were probably wise to be at least somewhat wary of Rome for, from a Christian point of view, Rome's past dealings with the people of God were not entirely beneficent. Rome was, after all, responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, and Rome's emperor Nero viciously murdered Christians.3 John, therefore, chose an enemy that was at least credible to his audience. But many in the churches could have easily said, "That was all in the past." They might have even turned the question around and asked John and his followers, "How can you actually believe in this day and age that Rome and the larger society is a threat?" Recent events in the Balkans, among other places, have shown us quite vividly that stories, and especially stories about persecution and victimization, need not be objectively verifiable (or even particularly credible) in order to persuade their hearers. For instance, Julie Mertus has pointed out in a recent study on the conflict in Kosovo that between 1981 and 1987 there were only a handful of interethnic murders in all of Kosovo. In a few of these incidents an Albanian killed a Serb, and in a few a Serb killed an Albanian. 4 Despite these facts, a story of a massive Albanian genocide against Kosovo Serbs began to grow dramatically at this time, a story constructed by Serb intellectuals and heartily embraced by the Serb public. A community that does not feel overly secure in its situation can be persuaded (in some cases quite easily) that it is (or is about to be) victimized. John's vilification of Rome and his visions of persecution were in-

130

Who Rides the Beast?

tended by the seer to produce a strong fear of Rome in the Apocalypse's readers. This is not to say that John was disingenuous when he wrote his apocalypse. Although from our perspective, it might be accurate to suggest that he tried to create a crisis, from his vantage point, he probably saw his actions as tantamount to warning Christians of imminent danger. Given John's rigidly dualistic vision of the cosmos, I am confident that he saw Rome as a very great threat, regardless of the way that others viewed their surroundings. John was not content to vilify Rome. He was as interested, if not more so, in disparaging his rival "Jezebel." From his perspective, she was just as bad as Rome, for she, like Rome, was in the employ of Satan. Ultimately, John painted his rival in colors that were almost identical to the colors he used to paint the dominant culture, whether in the guise of "Babylon" or the Beast from the Earth. In effect, John suggested that "Jezebel" was so much like "Babylon" and the Beast from the Earth that what applied to them applied to her as well. They were, for all intents and purposes, interchangeable, since they were all allies of Satan and enemies of God. It may seem difficult to grasp that John expected his communities to equate the woman he called "Jezebel," a fellow Christian, with "Babylon" or the Beast from the Earth. More recent history gives us an example of how this is entirely possible. The Balkan conflict in the late 1980s and 1990s again illustrates how credible John's type of argument can be to those feeling victimized. Prior to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Bosnian Serb leaders frequently told the Serb populace that their Muslim neighbors were fundamentalists, although this was hardly the case. Typical is a statement of the chief of police in Prijedor that accused the Bosnian Muslims of planning "to circumcise all Serb boys and kill all males over the age of three, and send the women between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five into a harem to produce janissaries [elite Ottoman soldiers]."5 As outrageous as such stories might appear to us, apparently they convinced many people and convinced Bosnian Serbs who should have known better. A similar piece of misinformation comes from Radovan Karadzic, who said in a 1993 interview: "We defended Europe from Islam six hundred years ago. . . . We are defending Europe again . . . from Islamic fundamentalism." Note the way Karadzic equates his Bosnian Muslim countrymen to the invading Muslims of yore. Karadzic also ties that fearsome historic specter with current radical Islamic fundamentalist groups. In doing so, he warns his countrymen of the secularized Bosnian Muslims living in their midst—Muslims who were hardly fundamentalists. 6 These Bosnian Muslims had been friends and neighbors of the Bosnian Serbs for years. One would have thought that the Serb audiences who heard these statements and others like them would have swiftly dismissed them as ridiculous propaganda. But sadly, as we all know, Serb leaders prevailed, and the people were thoroughly frightened and ultimately persuaded to believe their stories.

Conclusion

131

These two examples, of which there are many more, dramatically demonstrate that those caught up in their stories are often oblivious to evidence to the contrary even if that evidence lies right before their eyes. The result of Bosnian Serb adherence to their story was, of course, disastrous in Bosnia. I submit that the result of John's story in Asia Minor in the late first century was also disastrous but to a much lesser extent. Christians probably did not physically turn on one another, but in at least some of the communities, I will suggest, Christians probably distanced themselves from other Christians, with the result that the churches in those cities did not survive. Looking at the background of the Apocalypse with the advantage of almost two millennia of hindsight, we might want to say that the story John constructed was wrong, that his assessment of Christianity's place in the larger world was incorrect. We also might want to contend that "Jezebel" was right. After all, objective historical evidence does not suggest, as John believed, that "Babylon" was out to destroy Christianity at John's time. On the other hand, we could argue that John was essentially correct in his understanding of Christianity's vulnerability, for later Roman action against Christians affirmed his story (albeit belatedly) and demonstrated that "Jezebel's" program of assimilation was wrongheaded and futile. Although each one of us might personally prefer one or the other of these conclusions, it seems to me that trying to decide the correctness of either John or "Jezebel's" perspective is less productive than fully appreciating their mutually exclusive points of view. "Jezebel" and her followers did not see the world in the same fashion as John and his followers. The world, for this group, was not the frighteningly hostile place it was for John's faction, nor was it utterly corrupt. "Jezebel" and her followers probably perceived themselves as standing less against the larger culture than in it. They probably saw the Christian community as the voice of reform for the larger culture. They saw no reason to "escape" from the world; instead, they intended to transform it. From "Jezebel's" perspective, John's view of the world was small-minded, paranoid, and extreme. What was wrong, "Jezebel" and her followers might ask, with living in and converting the world? After all, did not Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, urge Christians to do as much a half-century earlier? For John, though, the world was irredeemable, fit only for destruction prior to a re-creation. It was "the dwelling place of demons" (18:1). Although his position may seem extreme to many of us, it represents the classic apocalyptic stance. Because of the world's absolute capitulation to evil, the Christian community needed to live in as close to total isolation from that world as possible. From John's vantage point, any sustained contact with the world would contaminate and destroy the unblemished remnant of the people of God. On that account, "Jezebel's" receptive stance toward the larger world was a direct

132

Who Rides the Beast?

threat to this remnant. Her program of assimilation represented nothing less than a threat of the Christian community's annihilation. Like that of other groups postulating a dualistic cosmos, John's radically dualistic world was dependent on visible external enemies; the community's identity depended on a "them" against which it could constitute itself. "Jezebel's" assimilationist strategy threatened the boundaries between John's "us" and "them." From John's perspective "Jezebel's" lack of interest in erecting a wall between Christianity and the enemy culture could only be understood if "Jezebel" was herself an agent of hostile outside forces. As such, she could not be tolerated. Consequently, John urged his communities to push "Jezebel" and her followers out of the churches for the good of the community as well as the good of the cosmos. What exactly happened in the seven churches after John penned the book of Revelation? Although no one is able to say for certain, some have speculated. Consider, for instance, the comments of Walter Bauer from the earlier part of the twentieth century. Bauer draws conclusions on the basis of which communities Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, wrote to early in the second century and which he ignored. Of the seven communities of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation, Ignatius addressed only three—Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia; he does not address those of Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea. Can it be a coincidence that the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia, to which Ignatius turns, are precisely those which fare best in the Apocalypse, appear also to be especially free of heresy, and later produced martyrs of the catholic church during the persecution connected with Polycarp (Martyrdom of'Polycarp 19.1-2)?7

Bauer implies that orthodox Christianity had disappeared in the communities of Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea. Although he incorrectly assumed that John's rival and her followers were Gnostic—a position that has little to recommend it—his comments are instructive. Perhaps by way of his "orthodox" ultimatum in Revelation John drove such a wedge between the factions of the churches (and especially the divided communities of Pergamum and Thyatira) that Christianity fragmented. The fragmentation was possibly so extensive that no form of Christianity—Johannine or otherwise—survived. John was probably unsuccessful in winning over the tolerant moderates of Pergamum and Thyatira, as the silence of Ignatius about these communities suggests. His rhetoric, however, was probably successful enough to ensure that the various factions could no longer exist as they had in the past in these churches. Although we cannot conclude a lot from Ignatius's silence, it does seem to suggest that there was no reconciliation between the competing factions in the divided churches, the community at Ephesus being the exception. Perhaps John had a larger core of constituents in Ephesus to begin with and, as a result, that church was able to weather the crisis in a way that the others could not.

Conclusion

133

Those churches in which John had few or no disciples pulled away from the "orthodox" communities in Smyrna, Philadelphia, and Ephesus and either went their own way or disappeared. On the other hand, the book of Revelation must have assured John of the continued support of the communities in Smyrna, Philadelphia, and Ephesus. Although this might represent the end of the story for a number of the churches of the Apocalypse, it is not the end of the story for the book of Revelation. On the contrary, it is probably fair to say that one Christian group or another has drawn its primary inspiration from this document in every generation since the time it was written. Because of its vivid imagery, its artful construction, and its extraordinary rhetorical power, the Apocalypse functioned as a wellspring of imagery that continued to shape both Christianity and Western culture for millennia in ways the seer could hardly have begun to imagine.

This page intentionally left blank

Notes

1. Was There a Crisis behind Revelation? 1. By narrative world I mean the world into which the text invites the reader. For a brief discussion, see R. Alan Culpepper, The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 3-7. 2. See, for example, Revelation 1:9; 2:13; 6:9; 16:6; 17:6. 3. Adv. Haer. 5.30.3. 4. Eus. Hist. Ecd. 3.17. Nero's savage treatment of the Christians of Rome in 64 CE appalled even pagan writers. See Tac. Ann. 15.44.20-25. 5. See the comments of the fifth-century Orosius, who called Domitian's persecution "the crudest persecution throughout the whole world" (Hist. adv. pag. 7.10.1, cited in John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 233). 6. Some nineteenth-century scholars, however, saw the persecution of Christians by Nero in the sixties as the background of the Apocalypse. See p. 6. 7. Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), has satirically characterized this position as follows: A particular portrait of crisis involving early Christians has been painted in both popular and scholarly literature along the following lines. . . . Christians have no part in non-Christian urban life, for that would require them to go against the faith and practice of Christianity. The civic and imperial machinery in the province of Asia works to persecute those Christians, bringing them into circuses and games to fight with wild animals and skilled gladiators. According to this portrait, mad Domitian is emperor, a

135

136

Notes to Pages 4-6 "second Nero," who exiles or kills anyone who does not fall down and worship him as "god and lord" (7).

8. W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, ed. Mark W. Wilson (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 91. 9. By external evidence, I mean unambiguously worded non-Christian texts from the late first or early second century. 10. For a listing of such literature, see Robinson, Redating, 233, n. 64. There have been scholars, however, who have continued to argue for a Domitianic persecution. See, for example, Marta Sordi, The Christians and the Roman Empire (London: Groom Helm, 1983), 43-54. 11. Robinson, Redating, 230-31. 12. Many scholars still hold to the idea of persecution as the backdrop to Revelation; I focus on Schiissler Fiorenza because of her originality and persuasiveness. 13. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgement (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). She contends that the suggestion that there was no persecution "is not borne out by the experience articulated in Revelation and other New Testament writings" (8). 14. Ibid., 9. 15. Also see the position of Colin Hemer, who tried to preserve the scenario of Domitianic persecution while at the same time acknowledging that "direct evidence is scanty." Following William Ramsay, Hemer speculates that the Domitianic persecution had its origin in the Christian attempt to avoid the demands of the imperial cult. He ingeniously connects the Jews with this persecution, thus explaining John's remarks about of the "synagogue of Satan" in the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia (Rev. 2:9, 3:9). According to Hemer, Christians avoided the obligations of the imperial cult by aligning themselves with the synagogues. Unfortunately, the rigorous collection of taxes from Jews—in light of the tax imposed on them following the Roman-Jewish war in 66-70—would have forced the synagogues to identify their members to the authorities (something that would have been understood as a betrayal by Christians: hence "synagogue of Satan"). Christians who were not claimed by the synagogues were then forced to participate in the imperial cult. See Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (JSNTSup 11; Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1986), 9-10. 16. Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, Proclamation Commentaries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 7. 17. For example, ibid., 54. 18. Robinson, Redating, 231-53. 19. De Praescr. Haeret. 36.3 and Adv. Jov. 1.26. 20. Robinson, Redating, 224. 21. The title of the Syriac version of Revelation and The History of John, the Son ofZebedee in Syriac. See Robinson, Redating, 224. 22. Robinson, Redating, 242-252. For the difficulties that others have had with this passage see, for example, Adela Yarbro Collins's section on this passage in Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 58-64. 23. J. Christian Wilson, "One Scholar's Hypothesis Becomes the Next

Notes to Pages 7-11

137

Generation's Fact: J. B. Lightfoot, the Alleged Persecution of Christians under Domitian, and the Date of Revelation," paper presented at the Southeastern regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, March 16, 1991; "The Problem of the Domitianic Dating of Revelation," NTS 39 (1993): 587605; and "An Historical Reading of the Apocalypse from a Pre-70 Perspective," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, November 24, 1996. 24. See David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentary 52a (Dallas: Word, 1997), cxvii-cxxxiv. 25. Yarbro Collins does not deny that some passages actually look back at actual persecution (e. g., 1:9, 2:13, 6:9-11). However, these probably represent scattered local incidents rather than any systematic persecution of Christians. See Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 70-71. 26. Ibid., 84. 27. Ibid., 153. 28. Although Thompson seems to be following a position like that of Yarbro Collins, he in fact breaks new ground by tackling secular Roman texts that older commentators (as well as ancient Christian apologists) used to support their understanding of the persecution that lay behind Revelation. 29. Thompson (Book, 173) argues that there is no evidence that Patmos was an island of banishment. He also notes that the seer's language in 1:9 is general enough to allow for the possibility that John was simply on Patmos as a missionary. 30. Thompson, Book, 191-92. 31. Thompson uses the term "mythology" to describe the presuppositions of a culture. The terms "cognitive minority" and "cognitive majority" come from the language of sociology. Each of these terms represents a group formed around a body of "knowledge." The "knowledge" is nothing less than a particular group's understanding of "what is." Consequently, it includes such vital elements as the meaning of life, death, evil, and so on. The "cognitive majority" is, of course, the larger society that forms itself around the body of public "knowledge," while a "cognitive minority" is any group that might form itself around deviant "knowledge." Of course, neither group accepts the other's "knowledge" or "mythology" as legitimate. See Thompson, Book, 193. 32. Ibid., 199. The phrase "laborious adjustment" comes from Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 214. 33. Ibid., 192. 34. Ibid., 91. 35. Ibid. 36. Robert J. Royalty, Jr., The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998), 241. 37. See, for instance, J. Ramsey Michaels, Interpreting the Book of Revelation, Guides to New Testament Exegesis 6 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992), 40. 38. Royalty's focus on the economic issues within the text is similar to the interests of J. Nelson Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John's Apocalypse (JSNTSup 132; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). 39. Exemplified by Wayne Meeks, his teacher at Yale. 40. See Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 57-58, 64-69, and Michaels, Interpreting, 45. 41. The story is told in Suet. Ner. 57 and Tac. Hist. 2.8-9, Sib. Or. 3, 4,

138

Notes to Pages 11-18

and 5, and Ascen. Is. 4.2-4. For a discussion of the Nero legend, see A. Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation, HDR 9 (Missoula: Scholars, 1976), 176-83. 42. Michaels, Interpreting, 44. 43. Ibid., 43-46. 44. Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 141. 45. Thompson, Book, 194. 46. Yarbro Collins says as much in her review of The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse andEmpire, by Leonard L. Thompson, JBL 110 (1990): 748-50. 47. On this issue, see especially the comments of Martin Rist, "Apocalypticism," IDB 1 (1962): 158. 48. See Kraybill, Imperial. 49. As I will show later, there are a few exceptions, though they are not particularly significant. 50. In light of that polemic, the internal focus of the letters is counterintuitive. According to the logic of the Apocalypse's narrative, we should expect Christian solidarity in response to the external threat articulated in the visions section of the work. What we find is the opposite.

2. Setting the Stage 1. For information about Christianity in Ephesus prior to Paul, see Gerd Liidemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 146 and 181-82, n. 16. 2. For instance, in the New Testament a letter ostensibly written by Paul and sent to a Christian community at Colossae, the author asks that the document be read to a nearby church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16), and he also suggests that there are Christians in the neighboring community of Hieropolis. The book of Revelation, of course, addresses additional Christian communities in Ephesus, Pergamum, Philadelphia, Sardis, Smyrna, and Thyatira. Ignatius of Antioch, who probably wrote his letters in the first decade of the second century, adds to this list the cities of Magnesia on the Maeander, and Tralles. When we turn to the Acts of the Apostles, we discover that the author of that document places Paul in Troas (16:8; 20:5-12), Assos (20:14), and Miletus (20:15). 3. Stratifying Greco-Roman society into these two tiers as is usually done only accounts for free individuals. When we add slaves to the pecking order, then we create a third level, which I discuss later in the chapter. 4. The distinction between these groups was originally a social distinction, but as time went on the distinction came to bear legal consequences. Punishment for criminal offenses, for instance, perpetrated by one of the honestiores was more lenient. An analogous situation from contemporary society would be the kind of punishment meted out for white-collar crime as opposed to other kinds. Here the distinction is not in the type of crime but the status of the perpetrator. See Geza Alfoldy, The Social History of Rome (London: Groom Helm, 1985), 106-10. Despite this fact, no legal definition of the two classes exists. 5. In early Rome, the principle distinction lay between the patricians and the plebeians. The former consisted of a relatively small group of wealthy families who claimed the right to virtually all political and sacred offices. These groups were distinguished in a document as early as the Twelve Tables, a midfifth-century-BCE body of Roman law, and common Roman opinion held that

Notes to Pages 18-19

139

the division between the two went back to the founding of the city. Although the division between the two groups at the time of the Twelve Tables seemed hard and fast (e.g., intermarriage between the two groups was forbidden), the distinctions between the patricians and the plebians ultimately broke down. For instance, within a few years the ban outlawing intermarriage was repealed by the Lex Canuleia, and by the late fourth century BCE, plebeians could hold many of the political and sacred offices previously denied them (Richard P. Sailer, "Roman Class Structures and Relations," in Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome, vol. 1., ed. Michael Grant and Rachel Kitzinger [New York: Scribner's, 1988], 549-73). By imperial times, the title "plebeian" had, for all intents and purposes, lost its technical meaning. It came to represent simply a member of the lower social order. See Arnaldo Momigliano, "Plebs," Oxford Clasical Dictionary, 2nd ed., ed. N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), 845. 6. For an overview of the orders, see Sailer, "Roman." 7. In the northern Italian town of Comum, as well as at Carthage, it was set at one hundred thousand sesterces. In smaller African municipalities it was only twenty thousand. See Alfoldy, Social, 113. 8. In the Asian city of Clazomenae (near Smyrna), for instance, a distinction was drawn among the decuriones between the primores viri and the inferiori (Dig. 50.75.5). 9. It seems that the curial order was the only order of the three that did not require Roman citizenship. Although evidence is scarce, it seems that most who were recruited for the order were citizens. In the late first and early second centuries, however, those who were not citizens at the time they assumed office probably were able to secure their citizenship, although there seems to have been no ex officio mechanism for such. See A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 310-11. 10. This was the case in Ostia, a relatively young commercial city not far from Rome. See Alfoldy, Social, 128. It was also probably the case in other commercial cities—like Thyatria, for instance. 11. During the early empire, senators, equestrians, and decurions combined numbered perhaps two hundred thousand adult males. Alfoldy has suggested that the "elite proper," specifically, those who held the most important senatorial offices and the highly placed equestrians, numbered only about 160 at the beginning of the first century and twice that by the mid-second century (Social, 147). Such numbers led A. H. M. Jones to remark that at the time of the principate and into the first century, "[o]n the whole the classes were hereditary" ("The Caste System in the Later Roman Empire," Eirene 8 [1970]: 89). 12. The taint of labor and the attempt to escape from it is attested in ancient inscriptions, especially those found on the tombs of the ancient captains of industry. For instance, the epitaph of a certain Marcus Vergilius Eurysaces refers to him as a pistor (baker) et redemptor (contractor in the public markets). Although the former term undoubtedly describes the profession of the man, it has no significance in the social hierarchy. It is the latter term, redemptor, that fills that role. Ironically, it was this man's success in the baking profession, or more precisely the money that resulted from that, that allowed him to climb the social ladder, though such financial success carried little weight in society. See J. P. Morel, "The Craftsman," in The Romans, ed. Andrea Giardina (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 214-44.

740

Notes to Pages 19-20

13. Cicero contrasts the income of "yonder landlord" with his own, pointing out that he lives the life of luxury on his rents of six hundred thousand sesterces, whereas Cicero's mere one hundred thousand provides him only with a "narrow income" (Cic. Paradox. Stoic. 49)! The greatest fortune that we know of belonged to a senator, Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus, who lived at the beginning of the empire; he was reportedly worth four hundred million sesterces (Sen. Ben. 2.27). 14. See Petronius's character Trimalchio in his Satyricon. 15. Besides being tainted with the stigma of working for a living, merchants were also suspected of dishonest behavior. The Romans were suspicious of merchants because they raised the price of goods without adding any labor value to the object. This made no sense, for according to the Roman view labor value was the only basis for the price of an object. See Andrea Giardina, "The Merchant," in Giardina, The Romans, 247-50. Plutarch indirectly informs us of the dishonor that his society attached to commerce when he narrates the story of Solon who, after his family had fallen on hard times, was forced to go into commerce. Plutarch is quick to point out, however, that this is not as disgraceful as it might seem at first glance, for "[i]n those earlier times, to use the words of Hesiod, 'work was no disgrace,' nor did trade bring with it social inferiority, and the calling of a merchant was actually held in honor" (Solon 1.3). In short, Solon could be forgiven because he lived in a different (and perhaps less enlightened?) time. To further justify Solon's respectability, Plutarch then goes on to list all the famous and honorable people who were merchants, such as Thales, Hippocrates, and even Plato. But in the end Plutarch is uneasy about including the great philosopher in the company of merchants, even highly respectable ones, so he points out that Plato was not really a merchant per se but only "defrayed the expenses of his sojourn in Egypt by the sale of oil there" (Solon 1.4). 16. Cicero, not surprisingly, drew a distinction between large-scale, wholesale commerce (magna mercatura) and retail commerce (tenuis mercatura). Of course, in Cicero's opinion, the latter was unacceptable, whereas the former deserved a certain amount of respect. It is apparent however, that Cicero is really only willing to give such an individual respect if he—having made his fortune—gets out of the business and converts his fortune to agriculture, like the rest of the aristocracy (Cic. Off. 1.151). 17. See G. E. M. De Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1981), 126. 18. See M. P. Charlesworth, Trade-Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. (1926; reprint, New York: Cooper Square, 1970),75-96. 19. We know of these groups because of inscriptional evidence mentioning their guilds. See T. R. S. Broughton, "Roman Asia," in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4, ed. Tenney Frank (Paterson, N.J.: Pageant Books, 1959), 817-20. 20. From the writings of Jerome (Adv. Jov. 2.21) as well as the Edict of Diocletian (301 CE), we know that a great variety of clothing was made in the area of Thyatira in the later imperial period, and on the basis of our other knowledge of the area it is reasonable to assume that such industry existed there in the first century as well. See Broughton, "Roman," 820. 21. This text probably refers to the red dye known to be made from the madder root.

Notes to Pages 20-22

141

22. Broughton, "Roman," 818. 23. A. H. M. Jones, "The Cloth Industry under the Roman Empire," in The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History, ed. P. A. Brunt (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1974), 350-64. 24. The name appears both in the writings of Jerome and in the Edict of Diocletian. See Broughton, "Roman," 823-24. 25. //. 7.221, quoted by Strabo 13.4.6. 26. See Broughton, "Roman" for citations. 27. Ibid., 827. 28. Ramsey MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 73. 29. Unlike those in our modern age, these professions were not granted high status. 30. All of these institutions were well known, and the Ephesian and Pergameme schools each could claim among their alumni a personal physician to one of the second-century Roman emperors. See Broughton, "Roman," 851-52. 31. Ibid., 853-54. 32. Ibid., 850-56. 33. These papyri are discussed in detail by J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 20-30. 34. He paid weaving taxes but not the poll tax, the latter being required of all who were fourteen years old and older. See Crossan, Historical, 25. 35. If a craftsperson like Tryphon, after many years of saving, could put together enough capital to buy part of a house in the city of Oxyrhynchus, then we should not be surprised to see many similar individuals doing as well in the smaller cities in the empire like Thyatira, Laodicea, Philadelphia, or even Sardis. Such a feat would have been much more difficult in the huge cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, where housing costs were substantially higher. 36. Although most of our information on insulae comes from Rome, there are compelling reasons to believe that many other large cities of the empire housed their large populations in similar quarters. Strabo, for instance (writing during the time of Augustus) tells of multiple-storied apartments in Babylon (14.1.5), Tyre (14.2.23), and Aradus (14.2.13). In addition, excavations in Ephesus have revealed two large insulae, similar to those in Rome and built in the first century CE. See A. G. McKay, Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World, Aspects of Greek and Roman Life (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975), 212-17. 37. Juvenal (3.223-25) tells us that one could afford a fine rural estate for the price of an apartment at Rome. See Jerome Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940), 43-44; Bruce Frier, Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 4243. Diodorus (31.18.2) relates a story in which the exiled monarch Ptolemy VI was forced to share cramped flats with artists in Rome because of the high cost of housing. 38. James E. Packer, "Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome," JRS 57 (1986), 86, asserts that many slept in the public monuments and grain warehouses. Alex Scobie, "Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World," Klio 68 (1986): 402-1 3, suggests that many slept in tombs, under the stairs of insulae (subscalaria), in cellars (crypta), or in vaults (fornices).

142

Notes to Pages 23-24

39. Broughton, "Roman," 840. 40. There are many studies on slavery in the ancient world. A few good examples are R. H. Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire (London: Methuen, 1928); K. R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Yvon Thebert, "The Slave," in Giardina, The Romans, 138-74; William L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955); Thomas Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (London: Routledge, 1981). 41. There were also slaves in industry. Toward the late first and early second century CE, there was a great demand for cheap, standardized products, and many of these were produced by slaves. Slave labor, however, was probably also used to produce quality goods such as the linen or the woolen articles manufactured in the cities of western Asia Minor. See Barrow, Slavery, 98-129. 42. Broughton, "Roman," 840-41. 43. On freedpersons, see Jean Andreau, "The Freedman," in Giardina, The Romans, 175-98; A. M. Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1928); Susan Treggiari, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969). 44. The word obsequium generally means something like "respect." In practical terms this meant, among other things, that a freedperson needed to defer to his or her former master. The freedperson, for instance, could not insult or sue his or her former master. See Andreau, "Freedman," 181. On obsequium in the Republican period, see Treggiari, Roman, 68-81. 45. Such an obligation would usually entail a number of days of labor per year. It could, however, present a more substantive economic obstacle to a freed slave. If both the slave and the master practiced the same profession—if they were both physicians, for instance—the master could, by law, prevent the freedperson from practicing in the same town. On the specifics of the operae, see Andreau, "Freedman," 181, and Treggiari, Roman, 75-81. There were methods of acquiring exemptions from the operae, especially during the time of the Empire. 46. The freedperson Narcissus, a secretary of Claudius (Dio. Cass. 61.34.4), was reportedly worth more than 400,000,000 sesterces. Prosperous liberti could easily be as wealthy as Roman senators, equestrians, or decurions. Because of the stigma of slavery, they could never attain to any of these orders, but they often formed their own body corresponding to the community ordo. They usually called themselves Augustales; they sometimes referred to their collective body as Ordo Augustalium (See ILS 6141; 6144; vis-a-vis Ostia). They were sometimes awarded the insignia of a decurion (ornamenta decurionalia). Such was understood to be merely titular, though, probably not unlike the honorary doctorates awarded by universities to distinguished citizens in contemporary times. Such honors were conferred on these individuals because they, like the decurions, contributed money for urban development. In fact, their contributions sometimes exceeded that of the decurions (see Alfoldy, Social, 131-32). 47. Compare the imaginary freedman Trimalchio of Petronius's Satyricon. 48. During the reign of Nero, the senate discussed the possibility of instituting a legal mechanism whereby a freedperson's liberty could be annulled (Tac. Ann. 13.26-27). The emperor himself, however, opposed such legislation, and no such mechanism emerged.

Notes to Pages 24-26

143

49. An illustration from the turbulent year following the death of Nero well illustrates this. After the defeat of Vitellius in 69, his freedman Asiaticus was executed, along with several aristocrats. Asiaticus, by law a libertinus, was crucified even though that punishment was reserved for slaves (Tac. Hist. 4.11.10). 50. See, for example, Edwin A. Judge, The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale, 1960); Wilhelm Wuellner, "The Sociological Implications of 1 Corinthians 1:26-28 Reconsidered," Studia Evangelica 4, vol 112 of Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (1973): 666-72; Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1977); Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). 51. There were some who disagreed with the conventional wisdom. See, for example, Ernst von Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church (New York: Putnam, 1904); Ernst Lohmeyer, Soziale Fragen im Urchristentum (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1973); Floyd V. Filson, "The Significance of the Early House Churches," JBL 58 (1939): 109-12. 52. Mihail Rostovtzeff, The Social History of the Roman Empire 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957), 190. 53. Meeks, First, 64. See also Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, Harper New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), 176. 54. Meeks, First, 65. 55. It is important to recognize that middle class is a woefully inadequate description of this group of people. Given the social and economic stratification of Greco-Roman society, this group might be better named the upper lower class. 56. See especially Theissen, Social, 69-119. 57. See Meeks, First, 73. 58. On the problems of a single woman in Greco-Roman society, see chapter 9. 59. See Theissen, Social, 75-83; Meeks, First, 58-59. 60. Meeks, First, 73. 61. Presumably, Paul is here referring to the province of Asia. 62. Meeks, First, 57. 63. Ibid., 57. 64. Ibid., 59-60; see Thompson, Revelation, 120-21. 65. This text suggests that Lydia might have originally been a Jew, for Luke tells us that she was "a worshipper of God." See Ben Witherington III, "Lydia," ABD4 (1992): 422-23. 66. Acts mentions that she and her household were baptized, as well as the fact that "she prevailed upon Paul" to stay at her home while he was in Macedonia (16:15). 67. On the other hand, if the story is not historically reliable, it is nevertheless likely that Luke is positing a situation that would be, at the very least, credible in his time. 68. It is likely that the Pastoral Epistles can be placed in Asia because Timothy is said to reside in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3; see 2 Tim. 4:12). The date is prob-

144

Notes to Pages 26-32

lematic, but most scholars place the letters in the early to middle second century. For recent studies on the social world of the Pastoral Epistles, see David C. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 71 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983); and Reggie M. Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 122 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). 69. Verner, Household, 180. 70. See, for example, the comments of Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2 (New York: Scribner's, 1955), 183; Helmut Koester, "Gnomai Diaphoroi," in Trajectories through Early Christianity, ed. James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress, 171), 154-55; Howard Clark Kee, Christian Origins in a Sociological Perspective (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 119; Lohmeyer, Soziale, 87; Malherbe, Social, 30-31, although as Kidd (Wealth, 34-109) has correctly pointed out, the understanding that these Christians were "middle class" by some of these authors is imprecise. For inscriptional evidence (third century) documenting the rise in Christians through the social strata, see A. R. R. Sheppard, "Jews, Christians, and Heretics in Acmonia and Eumenia," Anatolian Studies 29 (1970): 170. 71. See Verner, Household, 184. 72. Mary Gordon, "The Freedman's Son in Municipal Life," JRS 21 (1931): 65-77. 73. According to Gordon, "Freedman's," 70, this phenomenon is most pronounced during the second century. 74. For instance, as Gordon points out, a certain Q. Petillius Saturninus was a duumvir of Ostia whose theophoric name gives no hint of servile origins. However, we know from an inscription that the names of his grandparents betray the true servile origins of the family. 75. See Verner, Household, 183. 76. Ibid., 181. 77. We already have seen indications of this in Paul's churches (1 Cor. 11:17-22) in the middle of the first century. 78. See William R. Schoedel, Ignatius ofAntioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 270. 79. As Ignatius shows us, there are still slaves in the churches. 3. The Issues 1. Although R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1985), 44, raised the possibility that the letters to the churches were written at an earlier time than the visions of the Apocalypse, his suggestion has been universally rejected by recent scholars. See Hemer, Letters, 14-16, and Michaels, Interpreting, 39-43. Aune (Revelation, cxxxii-cxxxiv) has recently suggested that the letters are part of the second edition of the text. As I will show later, the issues in the letters and the rest of the text argue against Aune's suggestion 2. David Aune suggests that they follow the form of an imperial decree. See "The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2-3)," NTS 36 (1990): 182-204. E. Schiissler Fiorenza suggests that they follow the form of a prophetic proclamation. See Schiissler Fiornza, Revelation, 46.

Notes to Pages 32-3 7

145

3. Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation, 46. 4. See Schiissler Fiorenza, Book, 51; Revelation, 46; M. Hubert, "L'architecture des lettres aux sept eglises (Apoc., ch II-III)," RB 67 (1960): 349-53. 5. Aune, "Form," suggests a schema that includes a narratio, disputatio, and proclamation. His structure corresponds to mine, but he would include my AB(e) in his narratio, C-E in his dispositio, and F-G in his proclamation. I prefer my schema because it is more precise in the divisions and gives us the opportunity to explore the variations in more detail. 6. Of course, each description is given from the perspective of the seer who is primarily interested in the conformity of each community to his own spiritual ideal. 7. It is possible that the formula is omitted in the Laodicea letter because the adversative force of such a phrase is unnecessary. For instance, in the letter to Thyatira the text follows praise of the church with the formula introducing censure. "I know your works and your love, faith, service, and endurance . . . but I have this against you" (2:19-20). In the letter to Laodicea, on the other hand, the seer has nothing good to say. 8. In the case of the churches at Thyatira and Sardis, John follows the threat with a word of encouragement to those not implicated in the problems within their congregations (Rev. 2:24 and 3:4). 9. See John Dominic Crossan, In Fragments (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1983), 68-73. Crossan suspects that this aphorism originated with the historical Jesus. See also Crossan, Historical, 435. 10. Compare the letters to the churches at Ephesus and Pergamum where the aphorism comes first versus the other letters where the aphorism follows the eschatological promise. 11. Although the letter to Sardis does contain encouragement, the context indicates that there are very few in the community who are open to John or his vision of Christianity. 12. Although the letter to the community at Sardis contains an exhortation and encouragement section, it is quite different from that section in other letters. While this phrase is typically admonitory, the statement in the Sardis letter is a simple declarative statement suggesting that there are a few who are still faithful in that church. 13. For instance, anyone perceiving the universe in as radically dualistic a manner as the author could easily speak of Christian existence in this world as "enduring patiently" or "bearing up for the sake of [Jesus'] name." 14. It is also possible that they were charlatans, trying to take financial advantage of the Ephesian Christians, as we see elsewhere in early Christian literature. See, for instance, Luc. Peregr. 12-13. For a similar scenario in Paul's letters, see P. Duff, "Metaphor, Motif, and Meaning: The Rhetorical Strategy behind the Image 'Led in Triumph' in 2 Cor 2:14," CBQ 53 (1991): 80-81; and "Apostolic Suffering and the Language of Processions in 2 Cor 4:7-10," BTB 21 (1991): 158-65. 15. For example, Schiissler Fiorenza, Book, 116; Jiirgen Roloff, The Revelation of John, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 44. 16. This seems to be the case in some of the other communities, such as Pergamum, Thyatira, and Sardis. 17. See Ethelbert Stauffer, "aycmri, xiX." TDNT 1 (1964): 53.

146

Notes to Pages 3 7-43

18. For example, Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of John: The Greek Text with Introduction Notes and Indices 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954), 35. 19. It is important to note that the term had not yet (i.e., in the first century) gained the technical sense that it would acquire later. See Swete, Apocalypse, 36. 20. Charles, Revelation, 1:62, sees this as the first technical use of the term to describe a "martyr." 21. Note the repetition of the location of Satan, once in connection with the present church and once in connection with Antipas. 22. For example, G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, HNTC (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 38. 23. For example, Hemer, Letters, 86. 24. In other words, Antipas could have been guilty of a "fanatical" act that triggered past hostility (formal or otherwise) toward Christians. Note the recent popular hostility directed against the so-called patriot movement immediately after the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. 25. Note the tense change in this phrase from present to aorist from the first part of the verse to the second. See Thompson, Book, 173. 26. See Roloff, Revelation, 54. 27. The Greek of the passage simply has the participle (without a definite article) in the accusative case. Literally: "You have there [some] holding the teachings of the Nicolaitans." 28. Since the seer mentions that they hold to the teachings of Balaam, Yarbro Collins has suggested that John names one of the leaders of the Pergamum community "Balaam" in the same way that he labels the rival prophet in Thyatira "Jezebel." This reading is, in my opinion, untenable. We can no more infer an individual in the Pergamum community whom John nicknames "Balaam" than we can assume the existence of a figure named "Balak" in the Pergamum community at John's time. 29. That is, TiopveiJaai, 2:14. 30. Whereas the Ephesian threat warns the community that they stand to lose God's mark of favor, the Pergamum threat intimates that they will become God's enemy and the divine warrior will consequently go to battle against them and kill them. See Revelation 19. 31. For example, Schtissler Fiorenza, Book, 116. 32. The phrase pa/Uxo amf|v eig KXivnv (lit. "I will throw her on a bed") is an idiom: "casting someone on a bed of illness." See Aune, Revelation, 205. It is hard to believe that "Jezebel's" punishment would be less severe than the death threat directed against her "children." Hence, her imminent death must be presupposed. On this threat, see P. Duff, "'I Will Give to Each of You as Your Works Deserve': Witchcraft Accusations and the Fiery-Eyed Son of God in Rev 2.1823," NTS 43 (1997): 116-33. 33. Roloff, Revelation, 65. 34. The passage to which this text is often compared, 1 Corinthians 4:8, makes its point much more forcefully. 35. I explore this in more detail in the chapters that follow. 36. See especially Aune, "Social," 29. 37. It is possible that the "false Jews" mentioned in the letter are Chris-

Notes to Pages 43^9

147

tians, in which case there is factionalism. As shown in the next chapter, however, that is unlikely. 38. We know that the threat comes from civic or imperial forces because the threat involves the reference to prison. Although John ascribes this action to the SidtfJoXcx;, he clearly refers to some political entity capable of executing an individual. This entity, according to the seer, will be motivated by the 81tiftoXoQ. 39. Caird, Revelation, 35; see Hemer, Letters, 68; Swete, Apocalypse, 31. 40. It can also be addressed to God indirectly by language spoken against the name of God, the word of God, or the bearers of God's message. Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, "pXao^rmeco, K-cX," TDNT (1964) 1:622-23. 41. Beyer, "P^ao()>r|]iecQ, KiV 621. 42. For instance, John could easily consider any language denigrating or mocking a given aspect of Christianity as blasphemous. 43. Hemer, Letters, 67; see Swete, Apocalypse, 32; Caird, Revelation, 35; Roloff, Revelation, 48; Aune, Revelation, 175-76. 44. He seems to base his speculation on later Asia Minor texts such as the Martyrdom ofPolycarp or the Martyrdom ofPionius. 45. Thompson, Book, 126. 46. John's description of the group in the Philadelphia letter matches the description of the group in the letter to Smyrna except for the fact that he calls them "liars" in the later letter and omits that charge in the earlier one. 47. Aune, Revelation, 236, suggests that the church has little power because it is very small.

4. The Actors 1. This assumes, of course, that the "false Jews" mentioned in the letters to these communities were not Christians. There is, for instance, some evidence that questions the identification of "those who call themselves Jews but are not" with actual Jews. If we turn to the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, and specifically Ignatius's letter to Philadelphia—a letter written to the church in that city possibly not much more than a decade after Revelation—we find the following admonition: "If anyone expounds Judaism to you, do not listen to him; for it is better to hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from a man who is uncircumcised" (Ign. Phld. 6:1). As this reference suggests, there were some gentile (i. e., uncircumcised) Christians in the Philadelphia community at the beginning of the second century who were interested in promulgating some aspect of Judaism. It is possible that such a group is the party to whom John refers. 2. They also suffer tribulation (9A,iyi<;), but this is probably on account of their poverty, as discussed earlier. 3. A number of scholars have used 1 Corinthians 1:26 to illuminate this passage. For example, Swete says: "The church had little influence in Philadelphia; her members were probably drawn from the servile and commercial classes; cf. 1 Cor 1:26" (Apocalypse, 54-55). Theissen maintains that Paul's description of the Corinthian Christians as "without power" refers to the fact that they are not socially influential people (Social, 72). 4. See, for instance, Yarbro Collins, whose conclusions are typical. She

148

Notes to Pages 49-51

writes: "The name 'Jews' is denied them because the followers of Jesus are held to be the true Jews" (Crisis, 85). It has also been suggested that this group represents a faction of judaizing gentiles but this is hardly likely given the context. 5. Swete, Apocalypse, 31; see Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 85; Charles, Revelation, 1:56-58; Robinson, Redating, 273-74. 6. It is possible that the "Key of David" and the "open door" mentioned in the letter to Philadelphia refer to synagogue expulsion (e.g., Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 85-86), though there is no solid evidence for it. 7. See Thompson, Book, 126, and Aune, Revelation, 162. 8. The familiarity of Christians with Jewish practices in Asia Minor is striking. For instance: (1) the quartodeciman movement was found in Asia Minor; (2) Melito of Sardis—despite his anti-Jewish polemic in the Peri Pascha—traveled to the Holy Land to procure an accurate canon of the Scriptures and seems to have been familiar with Jewish exegetical traditions (see Robert L. Wilken, "Melito, the Jewish Community at Sardis, and the Sacrifice of Isaac," Theological Studies 37 [1976]: 3), (3) the Martyrdom ofPionius, although, like that of Polycarp, it lays much blame at the feet of the Jews, also states that Christians worshiped with Jews in the synagogues of Asia (13.1); and (4) the canons from the Synod of Laodicea in the fourth century suggests that gifts were exchanged between Christians and Jews at the time of festivals. 9. Concerning Jewish rights, see Jos. AJ 16.162-65 (esp. 163). For the context and history of this decree, see Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, SJLA20 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 141-43. 10. Roman officials may have demanded such lists because they were interested in collecting the tax that was levied specifically on the Jews after the destruction of the Temple (Jos. BJ 7.6.6; Dio. Cass. 65.7.2). 11. See S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 221, and Thompson, Book, 164, 173. 12. There are many examples of such "crisis-mongering" in contemporary apocalyptic communities. On "crisis-mongering" and group cohesion, see Georg Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliation (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1955), 106; Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1956), 104-10; James Aho, This Thing of Darkness: A Sociology of the Enemy (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994), 14-17, 85-87. On "crisis-mongering" and contemporary apocalyptic movements, see Thomas Robbins and Susan Palmer, introduction to Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements, ed. Thomas Robbins and Susan Palmer (New York: Routledge, 1997), 21; James Aho, "The Apocalypse of Modernity," in Robbins and Palmer, Millennium, 68-69; Frederick B. Bird, "Charisma and Leadership in New Religious Movements," in Religion and the Social Order, ed. David Bromley and Jeffrey Haddon, Handbook of Cults and Sects in America 3A (Greenwich, Conn.: JAL 1993), 79-80. 13. The visions of Revelation display a relatively positive attitude toward the Jews. On the one hand, the seer frequently appeals throughout his text to the Hebrew Scriptures, something that other Christians of the time might not readily have done. He also points to the heavenly Jerusalem as the locus of eschatological hope (Rev. 21-22). On the other hand, he pejoratively refers to the earthly Jerusalem as "Sodom" and "Egypt" in 11:8 (see Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 86). Even in this instance, though, the inhabitants of the city repent, some-

Notes to Pages 51-52

149

thing that is not typical in the Apocalypse. See Adela Yarbro Collins, "Insiders and Outsiders in the Book of Revelation," in "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985), 207. 14. According to some church fathers, the "Nicolaitans" traced their origin back to Nicolaus, one of the seven chosen by the disciples in Acts 6:5 (Iren. Adv. Haer. 1.26.3; 3.11.1). Unfortunately, this information is of very little assistance for the reconstruction of this group in the first-century context of the Revelation of John. For instance, Irenaeus's comments contrast with the testimony of Tertullian, who insisted that the Nicolaitans of the second century were not the same group that appears in John's Apocalypse (Tert. De Praescr. Haeret. 33). 15. We need to acknowledge the possibility that there were no Nicolaitans in Ephesus, Pergamum, or Thyatira. John's careful use of language concerning the Nicolaitans is striking; nowhere does he indisputably indicate the presence of these people. In both the letter to Ephesus and Pergamum, John refers to the "works" and the "teachings" of the Nicolaitans rather than the presence of the people themselves. As a result, it is conceivable that the Nicolaitans were a gnosticoid fringe group who boldly ate ei5(oX66uTa and committed Ttopveia in order to prove their gnosis. Perhaps John is trying to connect his rivals with this disreputable group. Such a rhetorical move could discredit his rivals. 16. On the identity of the Nicolaitans, see Duane F. Watson, "Nicolaitans," ABD4 (1992): 1106-7, and Aune, Revelation, 148-49. 17. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 139, correctly ties this term to Hellenistic Judaism. Ben Witherington III, "Not So Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton," Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 23754, has attempted, unsuccessfully, in my opinion, to argue that this term originated in Christianity. In order to make his argument, however, he has to make the assumption that the appearance of the term in 4 Maccabees is a result of Christian influence on that document. 18. Friedrich Buchsel, "e'i5toXov, KT!.," TDNT2 (1964): 378. 19. For a description of the (idiKeXXov at Corinth, see Henry Cadbury, "The Macellum in Corinth," JBL 53 (1934): 140-41. 20. The text is preserved in Ath. 97C-203B. 21. See E. E. Rice, The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 33. 22. Another example comes from the time of Xenophon. He instituted a feast at Scillum for "all the citizens and neighboring men and women" (Xen. An. 5.3.7-10). An inscription from the second century CE tells of a public festal meal (including sacrificial meat) that was given to all "citizens, sojourners, strangers, Romans, and women" (IG 12.515). Both of these examples are cited inTheissen, Social, 127-128. 23. Virtually every festival included a sacrifice that was immediately followed by a dinner in which the participants consumed the flesh of the victims. For a discussion about sacrifice and the sacrificial meal, see Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: the Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); andM. Detienne and J.P. Vernant, The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 1-20. 24. See the charges of Atheism attributed to ancient Jews and Christians.

150

Notes to Pages 52-53

25. Livy 5.13.5-7. 26. See the papyrus P. Oslo 157, cited in W. L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, SBLDS 68 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985), 41. 27. The duties of a gymnasiarch included not only overseeing the gymnasium but also overseeing a variety of public works. See J. G. Milne, "Gymnasiarchos," in Hammond and Scullard, Oxford Classical Dictionary, 484, and Theissen, Social, 74. 28. Witherington has argued that eiSoAoGma specifically means meat consumed in the presence of an idol. Hence, any New Testament references to the term would imply eating sacrificial meat at a temple. However, Witherington's argument is not persuasive. The strongest conclusion that he can muster is: "There is nothing in any of [the early Christian] references to dispute the thesis that eiSoXoGma means meat consumed in the presence of an idol, or at least the temple precincts" ("Not," 242). This is a far cry from concluding that is a technical term for such. 29. The macellum at Pompei had fish scales as well as the charred remains of figs, plums, chestnuts, grapes, lentils, grain, bread loaves, and cakes. See Cadbury, "Macellum," 141. 30. Note the comments of Pliny the Younger to Trajan: "It can be safely said that the temples which had been almost abandoned by the people, are held in veneration once more; that divine services which had ceased since long have been resumed; and that the meat of the victims which for a long time rarely found a purchaser, is being sold again" (Ep. 10.96.10). 31. As Cadbury, "Macellum," 141 suggests, all meat sold in the iidtceAAov was not necessarily sacrificial. He points out that the discovery of entire sheep skeletons in one shop at Pompey suggests that sheep were available "on the hoof" and could be slaughtered on the premises. C. K. Barrett, "Things Sacrificed to Idols," in Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 48, also suggests that nonsacrificial meat was available in the naiceM-ov. He bases his conclusion on a passage in Plutarch about the eating habits of Pythagoreans (Plut. Quest. Con. 8.8.3). According to Barrett, since Plutarch's passage states that Pythagoreans would only eat iepoOvca whereas, others would eat nonsacrificial meat, the passage implies that such nonsacrificial meat was available. 32. For instance, Kraybill, sees this as the heart of the problem in the churches. In order to survive in the international marketplace it was essential to cooperate with—if not actually join—trade guilds and harbor institutions that supported the imperial cult. While financial forces pushed Christian merchants towards concessions to the cult, the monotheistic faith of Christians made cultic activities of the guilds and harbors anathema. (Imperial, 197-98) Although Kraybill is correct in showing the problem with monotheists in the guilds, he overplays the issue of the imperial cult. 33. John E. Stanbaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment, Library of Early Christianity 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 125-26. However, despite their stated raison d'etre, the primary function of such societies was often social contact and fellowship; see MacMullen, Social, 78, who cites inscriptions that betray the boisterous character of such meals.

Notes to Pages 53-55

151

See also Aristotle's comment in Eth. Nic. 8.9.5, cited in Willis, Idol, 51, that suggests that even the religious associations were formed for the sake of pleasure. 34. The temple of Artemis in Ephesus was famous throughout the ancient world and was certainly an occasion of civic pride for the people of that city. Note the hostility that Paul encounters in Ephesus in Acts 19. Although the historicity of the narrative can be doubted (including the financial motive of Paul's antagonists), certainly hostility would have been directed against those residents of Ephesus who shunned the cult of the patroness. 35. Smallwood, Jews, 120-43. 36. The assertion that such behavior was "accepted" is belied by the fact that the Romans had to keep intervening in Asia Minor cities on behalf of the Jews. However, it is fair to say that by the first-century CE pagans would, at least, not have been surprised at the Jewish response to civic or state cults. See Smallwood, Jews, 120-43. 37. The text is damaged at this point, but scholars have reconstructed cx5eX,oi. 38. POxy. 1484. 39. POxy. 2791. 40. It is interesting to note that the "table of the lord Sarapis" is to be found in the temple of another deity. Such a situation highlights the ancients' inability to understand the Jewish and Christian practice of worshiping one deity to the exclusion of others. This probably also accounts for the charge of "atheism" that was often directed against these groups. 41. This question was also discussed in Judaism. See Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 228-33. 42. This would be the "weak" party mentioned by Paul. See Theissen, Social, 14-43. 43. I suggest that Paul is twisting the words of the "strong" party here in 1 Corinthians 8:8 by saying, "We are no worse off if we do not eat and no better off if we do." 44. However, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul does not totally dismiss the arguments of "the weak" as superstitious beliefs of those with less knowledge (as he seems to have done in chapter 8). Here he suggests that "the weak" really have a point: "What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons" (10:19-20). 45. As 1 Corinthians 8:4 suggests, some in the community have no problem eating ei5coX69wa, since, as they say, "there is no God but one." 46. Although most scholars seem to think that the eating of ei5wX69wa was, by this time, a strictly heterodox practice, we have such an incomplete picture of late-first-century Christian attitudes toward it that we cannot make such a judgment with any degree of confidence. 47. See Theissen, Social, 125-29. 48. See Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, "Tcopvri, K-cX.," TDNT 6 (1968): 580-81. 49. Some have pointed to 2:24 as an example of the particular Gnostic teaching, or 5i5axf| (e.g., Schiissler Fiorenza, Book, 116-7; Roloff, Revelation, 55-56). But one need not resort to Gnostic thought to explain this passage. See, for example, Caird, Revelation, 44.

152

Notes to Pages 55-58

50. It is noteworthy that the noun jiopveia and the verb Ttopveiko are typically used in a figurative manner throughout the Apocalypse. This could point to a figurative sense here as well. 51. There is one exception, Deuteronomy 23:18, where Tiopveta stands for qds. 52. See Friedrich Hauck, '^OIXETJCO, iccA..," TDNT4 (1967): 729-35. 53. For a list of the occurrences of the metaphor in the Hebrew Scriptures, see Hauck and Schulz, "jiopvV 587. Not surprisingly, terms derived from the root noi/e-u- also carry a figurative meaning, especially in the prophetic literature: for example, Hos. 2:2; 4:13, 14; 7:4; Jer. 3:9; 13:27. 54. Of course, idolatrous Jews were understood in the same light. See Jeremiah 3:9 and Regina Schwartz's insightful comment on that passage: "Jeremiah's kinky confusion of idolatry and adultery condemns Israel for 'committing adultery with lumps of stone and pieces of wood'" (The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997], 18). 55. See 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8. 56. For a discussion and more detailed list of such passages, see Hauck and Schulz, "jiopvri," 587-88. 57. Such an idea can also be found in the New Testament, in Romans 1:18-32. 58. If we turn to the LXX, we find the crime of Ttopveta connected with Jezebel, the wife of Ahab and mother of Joram. In 2 Kings 9:22, the military commander Jehu confronts Joram, the king of Israel. The latter, thinking that the former has returned from the front with news of the war with Aram, asks: "Is it peace Jehu?" And Jehu answers, "What peace can there be while your mother's fornications [cti Ttopveiou] and her many sorceries continue?" (LXX). According to the Deuteronomic History, Jezebel's crime had nothing to do with sexual impropriety; her offense lay solely in her active propagation of the cult of the Tyrian Baal, and it was for this that she was accused of Ttopveta. 59. See Caird, Revelation, 39. 60. Hauck and Schulz, "Tcopvn," 598. 61. See Caird, Revelation, 39-40. 62. See Thiessen, Social, 121-43. 63. The Ephesian letter, on the other hand, suggests that at least some in the Ephesian community were offended by the practice (assuming that this is what the "works of the Nicolaitans" refers to) since the text says that the Ephesians hate those works. 64. In the Thyatira letter we see a similar strategy. When John introduces what he has against the community of Thyatira, he says: "you tolerate the woman "Jezebel." In the Thyatira letter, however, he is a bit more blunt in the call for repentance (C). Here the church is called to repent "of her deeds" (2:22). As in the Pergamum letter, the seer makes no direct accusations against the recipients of this letter. He does, however, say in the threat ( D ) : "Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed and those committing adultery with her into great affliction." Presumably, "those committing adultery with her" are the members of the Christian community at Thyatira with whom the seer is vexed. 65. A surprising element of the Pergamum letter is the manner in which the seer introduces the "crimes" of his opponents in the community. He describes the offense as "the teaching of Balaam." In this context, Balaam clearly functions as the false prophet par excellence from the distant past. This is a cu-

Notes to Pages 58-63

153

rious way to introduce the activity of his opponents. Why does he do it? Perhaps, as mentioned earlier, the offensive character of eating £18(0X661110 was not obvious to his readers. John consequently tries to convince them that it is not only wrong but grievously sinful by tying it to a paradigmatic enemy from the past. 66. We know that Paul's letters were probably collected and began circulating around the end of the first century. There is, for example, no doubt that Ignatius knew 1 Corinthians and probably others. 67. David Aune, in an article written roughly two decades ago, identified this group as a "centrist party." See David Aune, "The Social Matrix of the Apocalypse of John," Biblical Research 28 (f 981): 29.

5. Wealth, Commerce, and the Merchant Class 1. See, for instance, the comments of Shirley Jackson Case: Heresy was fundamentally a social phenomenon rather than an intellectual problem. Differences of opinion, that were always present even in the most peaceful community, never resulted in heresies until rival social attitudes crystallized around specific centers of interest and this gave real vitality to the opinions in question. The Social Origins of Early Christianity [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923], 199) 2. I discuss this difference in more detail in the next chapter. 3. Probably, however, because of their origins and occupations, those who were economically successful were unable to advance far in the social hierarchy. Meeks, First, 22-23, has shown that the wealthier members of the Christian community in the mid-first century could be characterized by what he calls "status inconsistency," that is, their economic and social levels were not compatible. The best example we have of such an individual is Erastus of Corinth. Erastus was a very wealthy civic official in Corinth during Paul's time. Nevertheless, he was probably a freedperson, so he had no social standing among those possessing similar wealth. Individuals like him, shunned by their economic peers of higher social status, sought fellowship elsewhere—sometimes, it seems, in the local Christian communities. On Erastus of Corinth, see especially Theissen, Social, 75-82. 4. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. See Theissen, Social, 145-74, and Stephen M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians, SBLDS 134 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). 5. This suggestion has been affirmed by the recent studies of Richard Bauckham, "The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18," in Images of Empire, ed.Loveday Alexander, JSOTSup 122 (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1991), 47-90; Kraybill, Imperial; and Royalty, Streets. 6. For instance, Roloff speaks of the "voluptuous, luxuriant image of the harlot," Revelation, 223. 7. Kraybill, Imperial, 200. 8. This, in and of itself, is notable. As Royalty has pointed out, a passage from Trito-Isaiah, Isaiah 60:1-22, supplies virtually all of the material for this passage. The Isaiah text though, includes a strong emphasis on social justice. That theme is conspicuous in its absence here. 9. In the words of Royalty, "[g]old is the first and most prominent aspect

154

Notes to Pages 63-65

of John's vision in Rev 1:12-16" (Streets, 43). The Son of Man appears in the midst of seven golden lampstands, "clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest." Note the similarity to the angels of Revelation 15:6, who also wear gold sashes. 10. Royalty, Streets, 40-45. This includes the visions in Daniel, the synoptic gospels, 4 Ezra, and the Similitudes of Enoch. 11. Although the text does not suggest that John opposes wealth per se, he certainly warns of its corrupting power. For instance, the word crtpfjvoc;, "luxury" (which appears in 18:3), and its verbal counterpart (18:7; 18:9) carry connotations of self-satisfaction, complacency, and arrogance (Swete, Apocalypse, 228). Consequently, "Babylon" is condemned not for her wealth but for her lack of self-control. This lack of self-control ultimately results in a kind of delusional arrogance, which Swete labels "insolent luxury." Verse 7b articulates this idea well: "[Babylon] says, 'I rule as a queen; I am no widow, and I will never see grief.'" Nevertheless, although John—like many of his time— sees wealth as something that can corrupt an individual, or make one "soft," this does not seem to be the primary emphasis of the text. The issue of self-control is addressed in more detail in chapter 9. 12. Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 123. See the comments of Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation, 99-100. 13. However, as Broughton points out ("Roman," 810-12), the evidence for serious conflict between rich and poor is far from conclusive. 14. Ramsey MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 189. 15. It could be argued that perhaps John—independent of the spirit of his time—opposes Rome because of her exploitation of the poor. Nevertheless, there seems to be no clear connection in Revelation between John's condemnation of Rome and Rome's alleged exploitation of the poor. 16. Of course, this is not to say that the poor were happy with the way the elite treated them. There are many examples of dissatisfaction. We do not see, however, the poor blaming the provincial elite for joining forces with Rome to exploit them. 17. Bauckham, "Economic," 84. 18. Charles, Revelation, 1:181. 19. Bauckham himself knows this ("Economic," 81-82) but seems not to take much note of it in his argument. For a portrait of sailors as lower-class individuals, see Philostr. VA 4.32. 20. Only in the relatively small cities of the empire—certainly not in cities the size of Ephesus, Smyrna, or Pergamum—could merchants even enter the curial ranks; in the cases where this did happen, it would be the exception rather than the rule. 21. A case in point is Petronius's character Trimalchio. 22. In fact, if we compare the lament by the kings of the earth to the other three laments, we see somewhat different reasons for the grief of the respective parties. In the lament of the kings, the reason for their grief is "because of the fear of her torment" (6ia TOV <|>6pov TOU Paaavianox) a-urfu;). According to this phrase, the kings are either afraid for their own safety (because of their involvement with "Babylon": see 17:2) or possibly they are simply stunned at the agony suffered by "Babylon" during the course of her judgment. Although this same reason for grief is attributed to the merchants of the earth in their second lament (18:15), it is obviously secondary.

Notes to Pages 65-74

155

23. The closest he comes is Revelation 18:7, where he condemns "Babylon" for her arrogance, which he connects to her wealth. 24. See Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation, 99-100. 25. In our urban society, a comparable analogy would be a tension that might exist between a beggar (who cannot find adequate work) and a street vendor, who may, in time, escape poverty. 26. The descriptions of "Babylon's" desolation echo texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in each case. 27. As I will show later, the issues of Ttopveta and sorcery are interrelated and so may function as comparable terms. See p. 166 n. 19. 28. We could possibly conclude that the merchants have knowingly contributed to the "insolent luxury" of Rome (e.g., Bauckham, "Economic," 84). In that case, they have provided the means whereby "Babylon," through her lack of self-control, has brought ruin on herself. But if this is the case, why are they not condemned and destroyed? 29. For the translation of EVWTUOV cmiou as "on its behalf," see BAG, 271. 30. Note its transparent allusions to Daniel 7 and its reference to the head with the deathblow, which virtually all scholars see as an allusion to the Nero redivivus myth. 31. See Kraybill, Imperial, especially 197-98, although I think that Kraybill greatly exaggerates the threat of the imperial cult facing Christians at John's time. 32. From the perspective of these people, at the lowest end of the economic ladder, "Jezebel's" followers were wealthy (although most were certainly not wealthy compared with others in the larger society). 33. Note the odd reference to artisans in Revelation 18:22.

6. The Rhetoric of Innuendo 1. As I mentioned earlier, it is also possible that there were other social concerns, such as marriage, between Christians and pagans. 2. He would also run the risk of undermining the credibility of the book of Revelation, which claims the status of a work of prophecy. If the viewpoint expressed in the Apocalypse were to appear too radical for its audience, it would also be dismissed. 3. Some individuals, like John himself, obviously saw Rome as a grave threat to the churches, but this seems to be a minority opinion. As Thompson has shown, most Christians were probably fairly comfortable in pagan society. 4. See, for example, George Kennedy's discussion of this rhetorical problem in New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 36 and 98-101. 5. In this instance, Quintilian is addressing the insinuatio, "subtle opening," of a speech. 6. See also [Cic] Ad. Her. 1.6.9; Cic. Inv. Rhet. 17.24-25. 7. The fact that this advice is found in several other handbooks (see note 6) demonstrates its ubiquity in Greco-Roman culture. 8. Similarly in Matthew 21:33-41, Jesus tells the parable of the tenants and the owner of the vineyard to "the chief priests and the elders of the people" (21:23) while teaching in the Temple. The narrative context of the parable makes it unmistakable that the story functions as a warning to those characters identified by the author as "the chief priests and the elders of the people." In

156

Notes to Pages 74-78

the context of Matthew's Gospel, the story is really a narrative about them and what Matthew's Jesus sees as their offenses against God, his prophets, and his son. In short, it is an accusation concerning the abuse of their authority. The success of the indirect accusation is also recorded in Matthew's narrative, for the gospel next reports: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard this parable, they realized that he was speaking about them." 9. Quint. Inst. 8.6.55 also speaks of irony in connection with censure (as well as praise). 10. Saying that John constructs a sharply divided narrative world is not to say that John's narrative world is, in any sense, arbitrary or artificial. John's narrative world most certainly reflects his vision of the real world. 11. Other ancient authors, particularly the novelists, also constructed their worlds using types and antitypes. See, for example, the comments of Niklas Holzberg on Apuleius in The Ancient Novel: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 1995), 77-83, and those of Froma Zeitlin on Longus in "The Poetics of Eros: Nature, Art, and Imitation in Longus' Daphnis and Chloe," in Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World, ed. David M. Halperin, John T. Winkler, and Froma I. Zeitlin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 455. 12. Of course, John would postulate a hierarchy in each realm, but for this discussion the distinctions posed by such hierarchies are unimportant. 13. John's understanding of his narrative world is similar to Paul's system of convictions as understood by Daniel Patte in Paul's Faith and the Power of the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 49. 14. Thompson claims to have borrowed the term from Mircea Eliade, who had used it to speak of the correspondences that traditional societies posit between the various levels of their universe. For instance, Eliade argues that such peoples tend to link together the phenomena body-house-cosmos. The human body is a microcosm of the communal edifice "house," and both present microcosms of the cosmos itself (Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion [San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1957], 162-84). In Eliade's words the traditional, religious human being homologizes his or her "life . . . to cosmic life; as a divine work, the cosmos becomes the paradigmatic image of human existence." It should be pointed out that Eliade, in turn, borrows the word homology from the natural sciences, where it refers to physiological similarities among various species. 15. Thompson, Book, 78. 16. Other references to the color white include the cloud under the Son of Man in 14:14 and the throne of judgment in 20:11. 17. By "faithful" here I simply mean those who are faithful to John's brand of Christianity. 18. As we can see, John's use of homology demonstrates to the reader that the different levels of the cosmos impact one another; they are not totally separate. Hence, that which happens on the mundane level of the individual churches has cosmic ramifications; conversely, that which happens in the heavenly realm affects the mundane level. It could be argued that this is a characteristic of all apocalypses: two levels reflecting each other. 19. There are ten diadems here, though, one for each horn instead of one for each head as in 12:3. 20. Note that there are no diadems associated with this beast.

Notes to Pages 78-80

157

21. Thompson, Book, 81. Another homology Thompson might have cited to buttress his suggestion that the three realms are tied together homologously is the description of the divine warrior in Revelation 19:3. In that passage, the divine warrior (obviously from the realm of the divine) is portrayed as having "many diadems" on his head, calling to mind the descriptions of the Dragon (12:3) and the Beast from the Sea (13:1). 22. Thompson, Book, 82. 23. Where Thompson sees the author's attempts to tie together characters in order to lessen the differences between them (hence explain away any apparent dualism the reader might perceive in his or her world) I suggest that the seer wants to emphasize the differences between these figures. He is interested not in blurring the boundary between good and evil, as Thompson suggests, but in bringing that boundary more sharply into focus. 24. How does the reader know whether comparison or ironic contrast is called for? The reader must make the distinction by viewing what initially looks like similarity within its context. For instance, the fact that John depicts the virtuous woman of chapter 12 and the whore "Babylon" in chapter 17 in the same location, "the wilderness," means, according to Thompson, that the seer intends to compare the figures (Books, 82). Nevertheless, the context of the passages in question indicates that the wilderness functions in chapter 12 as a place of refuge (12:6; 12:14) but in chapter 17 as a place of danger (17:3). John clearly intends not to draw a comparison in this case but to juxtapose the locations ironically in order to establish a contrast between the passages. 25. The taxonomy of the various ironic figures is an extremely difficult task, which—it could be argued—yields as much ambiguity as clarity. For a good example of this see, for instance, D. C. Muecke, The Compass of Irony (London: Methuen, 1969). I will not attempt such a task in this work. Rather than trying to decide if John, in a certain passage, is appealing to satire rather than parody (or vice versa), I will rest content with identifying John's strategy as being ironic in the larger sense. 26. See J. A. K. Thomson, Irony: A Historical Introduction (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927). Thomson, who has explored the use of irony from Homer to Lucian of Samosata, remarks: "It is at first sight curious that the Greeks, a people so apt to speculation, should be so trite and inarticulate concerning a thing so native to them" (Book, 4). 27. Aristotle, in his treatise on rhetoric, speaks of irony although he does not define it. See Rh. 2.2.25, 3.18.7. 28. Probably of the third or fourth century BCE. 29. Cited in G. G. Sedgwick, Of Irony, Especially in Drama (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948), 5. 30. See 3.53.203. 31. For a brief overview of Verres' offenses, see E. Badian, "Verres," in Hammond and Scullard, Oxford Classical Dictionary, 1114. 32. Also cited in Quint. Inst. 8.6.55. 33. Although this irony was easy to detect, an audience might sometimes be unsure whether or not the speaker was in earnest. According to Cicero, the listener should be able to discern the difference between the literal meaning of the words and their ironical meaning by the "tenor" of the speech. In Quintilian's opinion, one could discern the difference by examining one of three elements: the delivery of the words, the character of the speaker, or the nature of

158

Notes to Pages 80-84

the subject (Quint. 8.6.54; see Quint. 9.2.46). If any of these were inconsistent with the literal message, then the listener should suspect an ironic meaning to the words. 34. Ted Cohen, "Metaphor and the Cultivation of Intimacy," in On Metaphor, ed. Sheldon Sacks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 6. 35. Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 28. A fine illustration of the kind of intimacy that can be achieved from irony comes from Edith Wharton's comments about her friendship with Henry James: Perhaps it was our common sense of fun that first brought about our understanding. The real marriage of true minds is for any two people to possess a sense of humor or irony pitched in exactly the same key, so that their joint glances at any subject cross like interarching search-lights. I have had good friends between whom and myself that bond was lacking, but they were never really intimate friends; and in that sense Henry James was perhaps the most intimate friend I ever had, though in many ways we were so different. (A Backward Glance, cited in Booth, Rhetoric, 13). 36. Cohen, "Metaphor," 7. 37. It is important to note that there need not be an actual victim of nonliteral language. For instance, one can imagine a situation in which everyone understands a speaker's irony. The perception, however, that there might be victims is enough to generate a community that at least feels itself to be an elite group. 38. Inside jokes function as a kind of nonliteral speech because they usually rely on a type of metaphorical jargon that means one thing to an outsider and another to an insider. 39. Jeremy Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark's Gospel: Text and Subtext (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 33-34.

7. The Women of Revelation 1. It should be noted that the bride is also mentioned in 19:7, but this passage merely looks forward to her appearance later in the text. 2. For instance, in the forty-eight-page Nestle-Aland text of Revelation, "Jezebel" appears on pages 4-5; the vision of the unnamed woman of chapter 12 begins on page 22; the vision of the whore begins on the page 33; and the mention of the bride occurs on pages 43 - 44. See Schiissler Fiorenza, Book, 174. According to her, the book can be divided into four main parts and one of the women appears in each of them. 3. With this suggestion, I part company with many, if not most, scholars, who see the woman of chapter 12 as the focal point of the work. Others argue for the dominance of both the woman of chapter 12 and Jerusalem of chapter 21-22. See, for example, David L. Barr, "The Apocalypse as a Symbolic Transformation of the World: A Literary Analysis," Interpretation 38 (1984): 44, and Edith McEwan Humphrey, The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse and the Shepherd ofHermas, JSPSup 17 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1995), 103-9. 4. Rome is labeled "Babylon" in 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and Sibylline Oracle 5.

No to to Pages 84-92

159

5. The Greek text is not clear about who feeds the woman. The verb is third person plural, but there is no obvious antecedent. This is probably a variation of what is sometimes known as the "divine passive" (BDF 130.1). Since the place in the wilderness was "prepared by God," it is not unreasonable to assume that God (and possibly God's angelic host) provides her with nourishment. 6. According to John's view of the three-leveled universe, it is obvious that the woman of chapter 12 belongs to the heavenly realm. Likewise, the woman of chapter 17 belongs to the demonic realm. However, making a more precise identification of either presents problems, for each figure presents the reader with a certain amount of ambiguity. For instance, does the woman of chapter 12 represent the mother of the Messiah, that is, Mary the mother of Jesus, as some would argue? Does she represent Judaism, which gave birth to Christianity? Or—because of the portrait painted in the first verse—is she meant to call to mind a particular Greco-Roman deity such as Isis, Hekate (the moon goddess), or the magna mater? I have already mentioned the ambiguity connected with "Babylon." 7. The similarities in the introductions are even more pronounced in the Greek text. 8. See Charles, Revelation, 2:65. 9. She is also described as a bride in 21:9 (see 19:7-8). 10. In the first place, the preceding passage depicts the woman "Jezebel" as a mother (for 2:23 speaks of the fate of her children), just as chapters 12 and 17 portray their respective women as mothers. Second, the same three passages (Rev. 2:18-29; Rev. 12; and Rev. 17-18) are some of the few places in all of Revelation where alimentary and sexual imagery converge. Finally, the verb TtXavdco is used to describe the evil activity of "Jezebel" in the letter to Thyatira, the Dragon in chapter 12, and the beast of chapter 17. We should note that the verb does not occur in chapter 17 but rather in 18:23. It is, however, indisputable that the later passage's discussion of the beast looks back to and comments on chapter 17. 11. The royal attire of "Babylon" appears in 17:4, where she is described as dressed in purple (jtop(|rupow) and scarlet (KOKKWOV). The former color, as is well known, symbolizes royalty (see Mark 15:17). Perhaps the latter color may serve the same purpose (see Matt. 27:28-29). The fact that the figure is dressed in these colors suggests her royal sovereignty. 12. Although Queen Jezebel's Ttopveia (LXX 2 Kings 9:22) was certainly intended metaphorically—because of her devotion to YHWH'S rival Baal—the later tradition understood her Ttopveia literally. See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of theJews,vol. 4 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 189. 13. I will look at some of these allusions in chapter 9. Perhaps the reference to the woman's fornication with the kings of the earth would also suggest Queen Jezebel to John's readers, since her commercial connections allowed the Northern Kingdom to thrive under Ahab's rule. 14. Caird, Revelation, 212-13. 15. It is certainly not out of the question that the active role of the woman is the source of the seer's great amazement (17:6). 16. As already mentioned, the text labels her a "whore" (jiopvn, 17:1) and the "mother of whores" (17:5). Her actions are described with the noun

160

Notes to Pages 92-99

Tiopveia ("fornication") and the verb rcopvewo ("to engage in fornication," 17:2). "Babylon" also encourages others to commit Tiopveia (17:2). 17. It is possible, as some have suggested, that the fact that "Jezebel" is thrown onto a bed also suggests her sexual crimes. 18. Note the RSV translation. See Aune, Revelation, 205. 19. My experience in the classroom has confirmed this effect on the reader. Students, when asked to describe one of these figures (either "Babylon" or "Jezebel"), often describe the other. 20. See Schiissler Fiorenza's comment (Revelation, 13): "[In Revelation the] female desire for power is not accepted but punished. The positive female images in Revelation, the figure of the woman clothed with the sun and that of the Bride of the Lamb, are silent, passive, powerless, sexually controlled, and pure." 21. John, like many Jewish and pagan moralists of his time, seems to have regarded sex as legitimate only within the context of marriage and only for the purpose of procreation. For an overview of such opinions, see O. Larry Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul, SBLDS 80 (Decatur, 111.: Scholars Press, 1985), 7-63. 22. Note the fate of "Jezebel" and her children in Revelation 2:22-23.

8. The Out-Of-Control Female 1. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of'Knowledge, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967), 181. 2. See the works of Mary Douglas, especially Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966); Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Vintage, 1970); and, for a specific discussion of food, "Food as a System of Communication," in In the Active Voice (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982), 82-84, and "Deciphering a Meal," in Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), 249-75. 3. It is no accident of course that, in the present American political arena, the advocates of multiculturalism also typically have liberal views regarding contemporary sexual issues such as reproduction and homosexuality. On the other hand, many of the groups alarmed at the specter of multiculturalism (which is frequently regarded as an attack on American culture) are also dismayed by the liberal sexual attitudes of their opponents. 4. The perception of being under siege is not unlike the perception that Yarbro Collins assigns to the majority of the community. See Yarbro Collins, Crisis. 5. James 1:27. 6. It seems that John had been interested in bringing "Jezebel" around to his way of thinking at one time, but by the time that he wrote the Apocalypse he had given up this endeavor; see Revelation 2:21. 7. Besides the imagery of food directly connected with death, defiling food appears in a number of passages of the Apocalypse and is indirectly connected with death (in that it is associated with the characters who will soon perish). In 17:2 we see the inhabitants of the earth (who are destined to be destroyed shortly) drunk on "the wine of [Babylon's] fornication." Revelation 17:4 talks of the drinking cup of the doomed figure Babylon, which is filled with the

Notes to Pages 99-103

161

"abominations and impurities of her fornication." A similar verse in chapter f 8 speaks of the "wine of the wrath of [Babylon's] fornication" (18:3). In short, throughout the Apocalypse, food is depicted as extremely significant and often as dangerous. 8. The mouth is not only associated with danger in the Apocalypse; it sometimes mediates salvation. For instance, it is the mouth of the seer that eats the scroll and that subsequently prophesies (10:9-10). The mouth of the earth saves the unnamed woman of chapter 12 because it swallows the flood the mouth of the Dragon has sent forth. Alimentary imagery is also used to indicate the judgment of God in many passages (e.g., those passages that feature the sword of the mouth of the Son of Man). The connection between the judgment of God and alimentary imagery can also be illustrated in the threat to the Laodiceans by the Son of Man in 3:16 that he will "spit [them] out of [his] mouth" (3:16). Of course, most of the passages that concern the judgment of God simultaneously point to both the salvation of the elect as well as the destruction of their oppressors. 9. According to the NRSV translation, the cup is "full of the abominations and impurity of her fornication" (ye^ov j35eA,/uyp.dT(Dv KOI id aKdGapta rf\c, Ttopveia^ avriiq). As the Greek text makes clear, this translation is problematic: for it to be rendered thus, we would expect to see id aKdOapra ("the unclean things" rendered "impurity" by the NRSV) in concord with pSeXiiynata ("abominations"), but they are not. Consequently, the best way to render the text is to understand id dKdGapta ("the unclean things") as specifying the P8e>o>7|j,orca ("abominations"). See Charles, Revelation, 2:65; Swete, Apocalypse, 216. 10. Of course, as I have shown, the Greek term indicates idolatrous activity. 11. Especially in the prophetic texts (e.g., Jer. 13:27, 39:35, 51:22; Ezek. 5:9, 5:11, 6:9). 12. Werner, Foerster "(38eA,v>ooonm., KtX.," TDNT 1 (1964): 598-600. 13. The passive sense indicates the action of God. See chapter 7, note 5. 14. If that were not the case, no qualification would need to be appended to the "water" or the "fruit from the tree" since all water and all food can be said to give life (in that they provide sustenance). 15. Barr, "Apocalypse," 46. See also David L. Barr, Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1998), especially 171-72. 16. See Leonard L. Thompson, "Cult and Eschatology in the Apocalypse of John," JR 49 (1969): 330-50; Book, 53-73. Lucetta Mowry, in an earlier article, "Revelation 4-5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage," JBL 71 (1952): 75-84, suggests that Revelation 4-5 reflects an early Christian worship service that looks remarkably like a first-century synagogue service. 17. For example, Charles, Revelation, 1:315; Swete, Apocalypse, 148; Caird, Revelation, 149; Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation, 81. 18. The temporal reference in Revelation 12:14 (" a time, and times, and half a time") points to Daniel 7:25, which states that the ruler of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7:25 will "wear out the holy ones of the Most High . . . And they shall be given into his power for a time, two times [literally, "times"], and half a time" (see Dan. 12:6). The ruler of the fourth kingdom represents, of course, the final sovereign to govern before the end. So the period of time re-

; 62

Notes to Pages 103-107

maining until the eschaton is, according to John's way of reading Daniel, three and one-half years. In Revelation 12:6, John restates this length of time as 1260 days, which roughly equals three and a half years (each year being 360 days). This time also corresponds to the length of time mentioned in Revelation 11:2, where John mentions the time that the court of the temple will "be given over to the Gentiles." In other words, John understands that the time for which the people of God (symbolically depicted as the woman here) must endure the present evil age is to be three and a half years. 19. For example, Isaiah 40:3; Jeremiah 31:2. 20. The very act of fleeing the dragon/serpent into the wilderness tells the reader that refuge involves separation. Consequently, John ties the eucharist to a ghetto existence, which, of course, represents the very antithesis of "Jezebel's" program. 21. See, for example, Swete, Apocalypse, 151; Charles, Revelation, 1:320. It is important to keep in mind the fact that this symbol, like many others in the Apocalypse, is multivalent; it need not only represent the Christ. 22. Another interesting contrast between nourishing and defiling food occurs within chapter 12. As already shown, the unnamed woman is nourished in the wilderness with food from God. This nourishing (i.e., life-giving) food of 12:6 and 12:14 is contrasted with defiling food that is connected with death (i.e., the attempted consumption of a child) in the same chapter. The defiling character of the latter food is obvious, for it is human flesh. But it not only defiles, it brings about the death of God's chosen. So the food that gives life to God's chosen in 12:6 is contrasted with the food that results in the death of God's chosen (in the figure of the child) in 12:4. 23. John's penchant for the lex talionis can be seen in the context of antieucharistic imagery in 17:16, where "Babylon" is destroyed and eaten. 24. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Mark 14:22-24, and parallels. 25. In fact, women were considered especially vulnerable to the passions, a prejudice not lost on John. 26. See Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 40-64. 27. See Sen. Ep. 23.4-8. 28. According to Philo, the same holds for the forbidden sea animals. 29. It is no accident that, in the literature of the time, heroes usually ate simple food, whereas scoundrels sought out luxurious fare. See Veronica E. Grimm, From Feasting to Fasting, The Evolution of a Sin: Attitudes to Food in Late Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1996), 56. 30. See Plut. Suav. Viv. Epic. 1094C. See especially Grimm, Feasting, 14-59. 31. I suspect that the infrequency of sexual imagery results from the fact that the charge of itopveia John levels against his opponent is either a less important charge or represents nothing more than a metaphorical reiteration of the charge of eating ei8a$,68w;a. 32. Anne Carson, "Putting Her in Her Place: Women, Dirt, and Desire," in Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World, ed. David M. Halperin, John T. Winkler, and Froma I. Zeitlin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 154. Carson, in her essay, is concerned to detail the portrayal of the female in Greek mythology. As the ancients thought, and as I will show in detail hereafter, the constitution of women tended toward the liquid state. And as anyone who has lived near a river, lake, or sea knows, liquids

Notes to Pages 107-109

163

resist any limits placed upon them. Again, to quote Carson, "the sieve of the Danaidai [the women who, for the crime of murdering their bridegrooms, were condemned to spend eternity gathering water in sieves] sums up in a single hellish image all that is problematic in the relation between women and boundaries" (155). 33. Ibid., 136. 34. The sexual roles found in Greco-Roman society are typical of the sexual roles found in what anthropologists call "honor and shame" societies. On these societies, see J. G. Peristiany ed., Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), and Julian PittRivers, The Fate of Shechem or the Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1977). 35. Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1981), 43. 36. In those texts, a man's principal activities are depicted as taking place outside the home, in the company of other men. On the other hand, the woman's place—perhaps best reflected in the role of Penelope—is the home. This is not to say that women had no say in what went on in the world of men. It is important to note, however, that a woman needed to use traditionally "feminine" means to achieve her end. On this see John J. Winkler, "Penelope's Cunning and Homer's," in The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece, ed. John J. Winkler (New York: Routledge, 1990) 129-61. 37. In his comment on Phidias's statue of Aphrodite at Elis, Plutarch points to the tortoise next to the goddess and remarks that the tortoise is intended "to indicate that virgins need watching, and that for married women staying at home and silence are becoming" (Dels, et Os. 75 [381E]). Plutarch is presumably referring to the animal's shell, its house, which isolates and protects the tortoise and focuses it inward. See Carson, "Putting," 156. 38. The Greek quotations are from Xen. Oec. 7.20-30 and are cited in Carson, "Putting," 156. 39. See the opinion of Aretaeus, Causes and Symptoms of Chronic Diseases 2.5, cited in Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 10. For speculation on the reason that some but not all fetuses were able to amass this heat, see Arist. Gen. An. 4.1 (765b2), cited in Carson, "Putting," 137. 40. Despite their deficiencies of "heat" and "vital spirit," females had an important role to play in the propagation of the species. The female body, in its soft and liquid state, provided the optimum environment for the hot male seed. Without this environment, procreation would not be possible. See Brown, Body, 9-10. 41. The phrase is from Brown, Body, 10. 42. See Carson, "Putting," 138-39, for numerous examples from the ancient sources. 43. racrcrip, in this context, refers to sexual "hunger" as well. See the interpretation of Vernant in Detienne and Vernant, Cuisine, 21-86, especially 57-68. 44. See Arist. Eth. Nic. 7.7.6 for the idea that a man is better able to control his passions than a woman. Consequently, as Aristotle elsewhere points out, it is the man's place to rule his wife and it is the wife's place to be ruled by

164

Notes to Pages 109-110

her husband (Pol. 1.5.6, 3.2.10). Xenophon expresses this by means of the metaphor of a horse and rider. If the horse is vicious, he argues, it is usually the fault of the rider. Consequently, he asks, "If the husband does not instruct his wife in the right way of doing things . . . should he not bear the blame himself?" (Xen. Oec. 3.13) For the same horse/rider metaphor, see also Plut. Coniug. Praec. 139b. The opinion that a woman, left to herself, held little control over her passions was not limited to the pagan world; we encounter similar sentiments in Jewish writers. For instance, in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Reuben tells his children, "Indeed, the angel of the Lord told me and instructed me that women are more easily overcome by the spirit of promiscuity [Tiopveta] than are men" (Test. Reub. 5:3). At the same time, Reuben indicates that Tiopveta can be overcome by reason (4:11). Philo, in a remarkable passage, turns to the world of nature to make his point about self-restraint and the female sex. Philo tells us that the female crocodile sometimes desires repeated intercourse, even after she has already conceived. But the male of the species is able to ascertain whether or not successive copulation is needed to impregnate the female. If he discovers that the female is simply acting on her sexual desires (i.e., if she has already been impregnated), the sexually self-restrained male "claws her guts and consumes them" and then "he tears her flesh apart" (De Animalibus 23, in Alexander Terian, Philonis Alexandrini de animalibus. The Armenian Text, with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 1 [Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981]). Philo's example gives justification from the world of nature for the opinion that the male needs to control the female and check her appetites, even if it calls for drastic means. 45. For the ancients, marriage was a sword that cut both ways. On the one hand, marriage was the tool used by society for domesticating the savagery of women. It allowed for a woman to be placed under the control of a man. On the other hand, marriage also initiated a woman to the pleasures of sex, and the sexually initiated woman could be more dangerous than the uninitiated. See Carson, "Putting," 138-39. 46. In fact, the second-century physician Galen thought that an athlete could—in theory—be made stronger by castration, except for the fact that the operation itself would destroy the reserves of heat the athlete had stored in his body (De Semine 1.8). Even an orator who wished to preserve a strong voice was advised to refrain from sexual activity (Quint. 11.3.19.4). See Brown, Body, 18-19. 47. It is no accident that several of the women who encounter Jesus in the public sphere had lurid sexual histories (e.g., the Samaritan woman in John 4:1-42 and the woman in Luke 7:36-50), for only such women would be found unescorted in the public milieu and only such women would approach a man. In the case of the Samaritan woman, both the woman herself and Jesus' disciples show surprise that Jesus has anything to do with her. 48. We can see this happening, for instance, in a modern society with similar views on women, Andalusia. There the agricultural workers on the farms owned by widows constantly run the risk that their reputations will be damaged because they know that they will be suspected of having sexual relations with their employer. According to the conventional wisdom, such widows are, by their female nature, sexually promiscuous and sexually prey on their workers. See Pitt-Rivers, Fate, 80-83. 49. On this propaganda war see Lucy Hughes-Hallett, Cleopatra: Histories, Dreams, and Distortions (New York: Harper and Row, 1990), 36-69; Kenneth

Notes to Pages 110-116

165

Scott, "The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B. C.," Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 11 (1933): 7-49, and "Octavian's Propaganda and Antony's De Sua Ebrietate, " Classical Philology 24 (1929): 133-41; and Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988), 57-65. 50. In other words, Fulvia had already sufficiently eradicated most of Antony's heat. Appian adds his voice to Plutarch's, suggesting that Antony had long had a weakness for women (5.7). 51. Lucius Florus (2.21) calls him a monster. 52. In fact, in the literature and art of the time, Antony was sometimes depicted as Heracles, while Cleopatra was depicted beside him as Omphale, the queen of Lydia, who disarmed and humiliated the hero (see Plut. Ant. 3.3). See Zanker, Power, 57-61 and fig. 45. 53. See Revelation 2:22. Note the ironic use of icXtvri ("bed") here. For more on this passage, see Duff, "I Will." 54. For example, Caird, Revelation, 265-66; Charles, Revelation, 2:154. See especially Humphrey, Ladies, 114-18. 55. See the image of the virgins, Revelation 14:4.

9. True and False Prophets 1. For instance, note Revelation 13: 3b- 4: "In amazement the whole earth followed the beast. They worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, 'Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?'" See, for example, Charles, Revelation, 1:345. 2. For example, Charles, Revelation, 1:357. 3. For example, ibid; Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation, 86. 4. For example, Swete, Apocalypse, 169. 5. Steven Scherrer, "Signs and Wonders in the Imperial Cult: A New Look at Roman Religious Institution in the Light of Rev 13:13-15," JBL 103/4 (1984): 599-610, has argued that Revelation 13:13-15 does refer to miracles associated with the imperial cult. Despite his well-argued article, he has only succeeded in opening up a reasonable possibility that the practices of Revelation 13:13-15 refer to the imperial cult. 6. The first verb, 5i8doKco, appears only in one other place in the Apocalypse: in the letter to the church at Pergamum (2:14) John uses the verb to refer to the activities of Balaam, the figure from ancient Israelite history. Since, according to a tradition current in John's time, Balaam was considered the false prophet par excellence (Philo Vit.Mos. 1.263-304 and Jos. AJ 4.126-30), John clearly connects this term to both Balaam and "Jezebel" in order to highlight the pseudoprophetic character of "Jezebel's" pronouncements. 7. See Revelation 20:3, 20:8, and 20:10. 8. In addition, he ties sorcery to the verb in the same passage, describing "Babylon" as the one who has "deceived" (ejiXavii6r|0av) all the nations of the earth by [her] sorcery (18:23). 9. The verb is not connected with the Beast from the Sea, but virtually all commentators have noted the fact that the primary antecedent of both "Babylon" and the Beast from the Sea is Rome. 10. See David Aune, "Magic in Early Christianity," ANRW 2.32.2 (1980): 1540. 11. P. Samain, "L'accusation de magie centre le Christ dans les Evangiles,"

166

Notes to Pages 116-122

Ephemerides Theological Lovanienses 15 (1938): 449-90. In this article, Samain was primarily concerned with the charges against Jesus found in the New Testament. Herbert Braun also gives evidence that these words imply sorcery in his article "TAavaco, ictX.," TDNT6 (1968): 233. 12. This also recalls the miracle wrought by Elijah in 1 Kings 18:38. See chapter 9. 13. See, especially, Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (New York: Knopf, 1986), 133-41; Frederik Poulsen, "Talking, Weeping, and Bleeding Sculptures," Acta Archaeologica 16 (1945): 183; and Scherrer, "Signs," 602-3. 14. See Hippol. Haer. 4.28 for a very similar ruse. 15. Poulsen, "Talking," 183. 16. See Poulsen, "Talking." 17. Including Theodoret and Rufinus. 18. See also 1 Corinthians 10:20. 19. The connection between witchcraft and rcopveta in this passage is also noteworthy, since, as mentioned earlier, Cleopatra (the out-of-control female) was accused of "bewitching" Antony with her sexual promiscuity. 20. In some respects, the terms yet)5o7tpo<|>r|Tr|<; ("false prophet") and "sorcerer" could be used interchangeably in the ancient Mediterranean world (see also Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician [San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978], 79). For instance, in Acts 13:6, we are told of a certain Bar-Jesus in just such a manner. He is called a both a magician (ndryoi;) and a x|/et>8cmpo(|>T|TTi<; ("false prophet"). 21. Note that in the letters to Smyrna (Rev. 2:9) and Philadelphia (Rev. 3:9), the "false Jews" are, according to John, "those who call themselves Jews." 22. For example, Charles, Revelation, 1:357; Swete, Apocalypse, 206. 23. John specifically mentions legitimate prophecy in reference to his own proclamation and the two witnesses in chapter 11. It is possible that John intends to suggest the same kind of relationship among these prophetic figures as among the women characters (i.e., the two positive prophetic figures are homologous and in opposition to the two homologous negative figures). 24. On false prophets and the end time, see 2 John 7; Did. 16:4; See also Jos. BJ 2.258-63. John here combines this tradition about false prophecy and the end time with other apocalyptic traditions—including the one about the return of the chaos monsters Leviathan and Behemoth—to present his own version of the end time. 25. See Revelation 18:23, where "Babylon" is responsible for "leading astray" or "bewitching" humanity: "and all nations were deceived (ercXavfieriacKv) by your [i.e., "Babylon's"] sorcery [ev rf\ 0ctp(j.aKei,g]." 26. In Revelation 16:13-14, the three "foul spirits" come out of the mouths of the False Prophet (as well as the mouth of the Dragon and the beast—presumably the Beast from the Sea). These are, as verse 14 informs us, "the demonic spirits," who "perform signs" (TIOIOWTCI ormela). 27. This particular idea of the eschatological false prophet seems to have no parallel in the pagan religions of the time. 28. See also, for instance, Mark 9:11-13, Matthew 11:14, and Luke 1:17. 29. The future act of God especially resembles the second Elijah miracle already described. 30. Note especially the motif of lex talionis, which is found throughout the Apocalypse (e.g., Rev. 22:12).

Notes to Page 123

167

31. We can therefore see that John clearly did not nickname his rival "Jezebel" arbitrarily. 32. It is also noteworthy that "foul spirits" come out of the mouths of the beasts and the False Prophet in 16:13-14.

10. Conclusion 1. See Julie A. Mertus, Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 1. 2. On such crisis-creating, see Georg Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliation (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1955), 98; Coser, Functions, 104, 110. 3. Other apocalyptic writers also aimed their polemics at Rome. See, for instance, 4 Ezra and the Sibylline Oracles. 4. Mertus, Kosovo, 108. The actual number Mertus cites is five. 5. The quotation is from the police chief in Prijedor. It is cited in Norman Cigar, Genocide in Bosnia: The Policy of "Ethnic Cleansing" (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1995), 66. 6. Another example from Bosnia, also illustrates that, in such situations, those caught up in their stories are often totally oblivious to external evidence. Eyewitness accounts [to the contrary] did not shake the ideological structure underlying ethnic cleansing. In justifying the atrocities in Bosnia, Serb nationalists would point to atrocities by Croats. When it was pointed out that the Muslim population had nothing to do with the Croat army and, indeed, had been attacked by the Croat army in 1993, the Serb nationalists shifted to generic blame of all Muslims for the acts of those who fought with the Ustashe. When it was pointed out that many of the families who suffered had fought against the Ustashe, the Serb nationalists would shift to claims of Ottoman depravity and treat the Muslims as Turks. When it was pointed out that the Slavic Muslims are as indigenous to the region as Orthodox Christians or Catholics, the discussion would shift to allegations that the Bosnian Muslims were fundamentalists and that Serbia was defending the west against the fundamentalist threat of radical Islam. When it was pointed out that, in fact, most Bosnian Muslims were antifundamentalist by tradition and character, the Serb nationalists would insist that this was a civil war, in which all sides were guilty, there were no angels, and the world should allow the people involved to solve their own problems. (Michael Sells, "Religion, History, and Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina," in Religion and Justice in the War over Bosnia, ed. G. Scott Davis (New York: Routledge, 1996), 37 7. Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, ed. Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 79.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

Aho, James. "The Apocalypse of Modernity." In Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements, edited by Thomas Robbins and Susan Palmer, 61-72. New York: Routledge, 1997. . This Thing of Darkness: A Sociology of the Enemy. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994. Alfoldy, Geza. The Social History of Rome. London: Groom Helm, 1985. Andreau, Jean. "The Freedman/' in The Romans, edited by Andrea Giardina, 175-98. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Aune, David E. "The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2-3)." NTS 36 (1990): 182-204. . "Magic in Early Christianity." ANRW 2.23.2 (1980): 1507-57. . Revelation 1-5. Word Biblical Commentary 52a. Dallas: Word, 1997. . "The Social Matrix of the Apocalypse of John." Biblical Research 28 (1981): 5-26. Badian, E. "Verres." In Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed., edited by N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, 1114. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Barr, David L. "The Apocalypse as a Symbolic Transformation of the World: A Literary Analysis." Interpretation 38 (1984): 39-50. . Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1998. Barrett, C. K. "Things Sacrificed to Idols." In Essays on Paul, 40-59. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Barrow, R. H. Slavery in the Roman Empire. London: Methuen, 1928. Bauckham, Richard. "The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18." In Images of Empire, edited by Loveday Alexander, 47-90. JSOTSup 122. Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1991.

169

170

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, edited by Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967. Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. HNTC. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Beyer, Hermann Wolfgang. "|ftaa<|>Ti|ieco, KtX." TDNT 1 (1964): 621-25. Bird, Frederick B. "Charisma and Leadership in New Religious Movements." In Religion and the Social Order, edited by David Bromley and Heffrey Haddon, 75-92. Handbook of Cults and Sects in America 3A. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI, 1993. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Bradley, K. R. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Braun, Herbert. "7iA.avdco, KT?L" TDNT6 (1968): 228-52. Broughton, T. R. S. "Roman Asia." In An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4, edited by Tenney Frank. Paterson, N.J.: Pageant Books, 1959. Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Biichsel, Friedrich. "dScoXov, KiX." TDNT2 (1964): 375-80. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Vol 2. New York: Scribners', 1955. Burkert, Walter. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Cadbury, Henry. "The Macellum in Corinth." JBL 53 (1934): 140-44. Caird, G. B. The Revelation of St. John the Divine. HNTC. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Camery-Hoggatt, Jeremy. Irony in Mark's Gospel: Text and Subtext. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Carcopino, Jerome. Daily Life in Ancient Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940. Carson, Anne. "Putting Her in Her Place: Women, Dirt, and Desire." In Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World, edited by David M. Halperin, John T. Winkler, and Froma I. Zeitlin, 135-69. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Case, Shirley Jackson. The Social Origins of Early Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923. Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1920. Charlesworth, M. P. Trade-Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire. 2nd ed. 1926; reprint, New York: Cooper Square, 1970. Cigar, Norman. Genocide in Bosnia: The Policy of "Ethnic Cleansing." College Station: Texas A & M Press, 1995. Cohen, Ted. "Metaphor and the Cultivation of Intimacy." In On Metaphor, Edited by Sheldon Sacks, 1-10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians. Hermeneia. Phiadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Coser, Lewis. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press, 1956.

Bibliography

171

Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991. . In Fragments. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1983. Culpepper, R. Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Foundations and Facets, New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1981. Detienne, Marcel, and Jean-Pierre Vernant. The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Dobschiitz, Ernst von. Christian Life in the Primitive Church. New York: Putnam, 1904. Douglas, Mary. "Deciphering a Meal." In Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology, 249-75. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975. . Food as a System of Communication." In In the Active Voice, 82-84. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982. . Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Vintage, 1970. . Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966. Duff, A. M. Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon, 1928. Duff, Paul B. "Apostolic Suffering and the Language of Processions in 2 Cor 4:7-10." BTB 21 (1991): 158-65. . '"I Will Give to Each of You as Your Works Deserve': Witchcraft Accusations and the Fiery-Eyed Son of God in Rev 2.18-23." NTS 43 (1997): 116-33. . "Metaphor, Motif, and Meaning: The Rhetorical Strategy behind the Image'Led in Triumph'in 2 Cor 2:14." CBQ 53 (1991): 72-92. Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1957. Filson, Floyd V. "The Significance of the Early House Churches." JBL 58 (1939): 109-12. Foerster, Werner. "pSeMoaonai, KT?L" TDNT 1 (1964): 598-600. Frier, Bruce W. Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Giardina, Andrea. "The Merchant." In The Romans, edited by Andrea Giardina, 245-71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947. Gordon, Mary. "The Freedman's Son in Municipal Life." JRS 21 (1931): 65-77. Grimm, Veronica E. From Feasting to Fasting, The Evolution of a Sin: Attitudes to Food in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1996. Hauck, Friedrich. "nogceiko, KiX." TDNT4 (1967): 729-35. Hauck, Friedrich, and Siegfried Schulz. "nopvr\, KiX." TDNT6 (1968): 579-95. Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Settings. JSNTSup 11. Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1986. Holzberg, Niklas. The Ancient Novel: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1995. Hubert, M. "L'architecture des lettres aux sept eglises (Apoc., ch II-III)." RB 67 (1960): 349-53. Hughes-Hallett, Lucy. Cleopatra: Histories, Dreams, and Distortions. New York: Harper and Row, 1990.

172

Bibliography

Humphrey, Edith McEwan. The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse and the Shepherd of Hernias. JSPSup 17. Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1995. Jones, A. H. M. "The Caste System in the Later Roman Empire." Eirene 8 (1970): 79-96. . "The Cloth Industry under the Roman Empire." In The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History, edited by P. A. Brunt, 350-64. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1974. Judge, Edwin A. The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century. London: Tyndale, 1960. Kee, Howard Clark. Christian Origins in a Sociological Perspective. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kidd, Reggie M. Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles. SBLDS 122. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Koester, Helmut. "Gnomai Diaphoroi." In Trajectories through Early Christianity, edited by James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, 114-53. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Kraybill, J. Nelson. Imperial Cult and Commerce in John's Apocalypse. JSNTSup 132. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Lane Fox, Robin. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf, 1986. Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Soziale Fragen im Llrchristentum. 1921; reprint, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1973. Liidemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. McKay, A. G. Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World: Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975. MacMullen, Ramsay. Enemies of the Roman Order. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. . Roman Social Relations. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977. Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1981. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. . The Moral World of the First Christians. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Mertus, Julie A. Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Michaels, J. Ramsey. Interpreting the Book of Revelation. Guides to New Testament Exegesis 6. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992. Milne, J. G. "Gymnasiarchos." Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed., edited by N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, 484. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Plebs." Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed., edited by N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, 845. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Morel, Jean-Paul. "The Craftsman." In The Romans, edited by Andrea Giardina, 214-44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Bibliography

173

Mowry, Lucetta. "Revelation 4-5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage." JBL 71 (1952): 75-84. Muecke, D. C. The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen, 1969. Packer, James E. "Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome." JRS 57 (1967): 80-95. Patte, Daniel. Paul's Faith and the Power of the Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Peristiany, J. G., ed. Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Pitt-Rivers, Julian. The Fate of Shechem or the Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Pogoloff, Stephen M. Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians. SBLDS 134. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Poulsen, Frederik. "Talking, Weeping and Bleeding Sculptures." Acta Archaeologica 16 (1945): 178-211. Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Ramsay, W. M. The Letters to the Seven Churches, edited by Mark W. Wilson. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Rice, E. E. The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Rist, Martin. "Apocalypticism." IDE 1 (1962):157-61. Robbins, Thomas, and Susan Palmer. Introduction to Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements, edited by Thomas Robbins and Susan Palmer, 1-27. New York: Routledge, 1997. Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Roloff, Jiirgen. The Revelation of John. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Rostovtzeff, M. The Social History of the Roman Empire. 2 vols. 2nd ed., revised by P. M. Fraser. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957. Royalty, Robert J., Jr. The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998. Sailer, Richard P. "Roman Class Structures and Relations." In Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome, vol. 1., edited by Michael Grant and Rachel Kitzinger, 549-73. New York: Scribner's, 1988. Samain, P. "L'accusation de magie contre le Christ dans les Evangiles." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 15 (1938): 449-90. Scherrer, Steven. "Signs and Wonders in the Imperial Cult: A New Look at Roman Religious Institution in the Light of Rev 13:13-15." JBL 103/4 (1984): 599-610. Schoedel, William R. Ignatius ofAntioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Schiissler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgement. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. . Revelation: Vision of a Just World. Proclamation Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Schwartz, Regina M. The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

174

Bibliography

Scobie, Alex. "Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World." Klio 68 (1986): 399-433. Scott, Kenneth. "The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B. C." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 11 (1933): 7-49. . "Octavian's Propaganda and Antony's De Sua Ebrietate." Classical Philology 24 (1929): 133-41. Sedgwick, G. G. Of Irony, Especially in Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948. Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Sells, Michael. "Religion, History, and Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina." In Religion and Justice in the War over Bosnia, edited by G. Scott Davis. New York: Routledge, 1996. Sheppard, A. R. R. "Jews, Christians, and Heretics in Amonia and Eumenia." Anatolian Studies 29 (1970): 168-80. Sherwin-White, A. N. The Roman Citizenship. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973. Simmel, Georg. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliation. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1955. Smallwood, Mary. The Jews under Roman Rule. SJLA 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978. Sordi, Marta. The Christians and the Roman Empire. London: Groom Helm, 1983. Stanbaugh, John E., and David L. Balch. The New Testament in Its Social Environment. Library of Early Christianity 2. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Stauffer, Ethelbert. "dycmri, KiL" TDNT 1 (1964): 21-55. . Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches. London: SCM, 1955. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Apocalypse of John: The Greek Text with Introduction Notes and Indices. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954. Terian, Alexander, trans. Philonis Alexandrini de animalibus. The Armenian Text, with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 1. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981. Thebert, Yvon. "The Slave." In The Romans, edited by Andrea Giardina, 138-74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Thompson, Leonard L. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. . "Cult and Eschatology in the Apocalypse of John." JR 49 (1969): 33050. Thomson, J. A. K. Irony: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927. Treggiari, Susan. Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. Verner, David C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles. SBLDS 71. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983. Watson, Duane F. "Nicolaitans." ABD 4 (1992): 1106-7. Westermann, William L. The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955. Wiedemann, Thomas. Greek and Roman Slavery. London: Routledge, 1981. Wilken, Robert L. "Melito, the Jewish Community at Sardis, and the Sacrifice of Isaac." Theological Studies 37 (1976): 53-69.

Bibliography

175

Willis, Wendel Lee. Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in I Corinthians 8 and 10. SBLDS 68. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985. Wilson, J. Christian. "An Historical Reading of the Apocalypse from a Pre-70 Perspective." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, November 24, 1996. . "One Scholar's Hypothesis Becomes the Next Generation's Fact: J. B. Lightfoot, the Alleged Persecution of Christians under Domitian, and the Date of Revelation." Paper presented at the Southeastern regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, March 16, 1991. . "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation." NTS 39 (1993): 587-605. Winkler, John J. "Penelope's Cunning and Homer's." In The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece, edited by John J. Winkler, 129-61. New York: Routledge, 1990. Witherington, Ben, III. "Lydia." ABD 4 (1992): 422-23. . "Not So Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton." Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 237-54. Wuellner, Wilhelm. "The Sociological Implications of 1 Corinthians 1:26-28 Reconsidered." Studia Evangelica 4. Vol. 112 of TU (1973): 666-72. Yarbro Collins, Adela. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. HDR 9. Missoula: Scholars, 1976. . Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. . "Insiders and Outsiders in the Book of Revelation." In "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs, 187-218. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985. . Review of The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, by Leonard L. Thompson. JBL 110 (1990): 745-50. Yarbrough, O. Larry. Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul. SBLDS 80. Decatur, Ga.: Scholars, 1985. Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988. Zeitlin, Froma I. "The Poetics of Eros: Nature, Art, and Imitation in Longus' Daphnis and Chloe." In Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World, edited by David M. Halperin, John T. Winkler, and Froma I. Zeitlin, 417-64. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

This page intentionally left blank

Index of Biblical Passages

Exodus 16-17, 101 Numbers 11:7-9, 101 Deuteronomy 23:18, 152n. 51 1 Samuel 12:1-7, 73-74 1 Kings 17:4-6, 101 18, 122-23 18:3-4, 90 18:13, 90 18:21-24, 120 18:38, 166n. 12 18:38-40, 120 19:1-8, 101 21:23-24, 90 2 Kings 1:3, 121-22 1:9-10, 121-22 9:22, 152n. 58, 159n. 12 Psalms 2:8, 93

Isaiah 23:1-12, 62 40:3, 162n. 19 60:1-22, 153n. i Jeremiah 3:9, 152n. 54 13:27, 152n. 53, 161n. 11 39:35, 161n. 11 51:22, 161n. 11 Ezekiel 5:9, 161n. 11 5:11, 161n. 11 6:9, 161n. 11 16:23, 55 26-28, 62 Daniel 7:1-8, 114 7:25, 161n. 18 8:1-4, 124 9:27, 101 12:6, 161n. 18 Hosea 1:2, 55 2:2, 152n. 53

177

4:13, 152n. 53 4:14, 152n. 53 7:4, 152n. 53 Malachi 4:5-6, 121 Matthew 11:14, 166n. 28 17:9-13, 121 21:23, 155n. 8 21:23-34, 155n. 8 24, 119 27:28-29, 159n. 11 Mark 9:11-13, 166n. 28 13, 119 13:5-6, 119 13:21-22, 119 14: 22-24, 162n. 24 15:17, 159n. 11 Luke 1:17, 166n. 28 7:36-50, 164n. 47 18:9, 74 18:10-14, 74 21, 119

178

John 4:1-42, 164n. 47 Acts 13:6, 166n. 20 13:45,50 16:8, 138n. 2 16:11-15,26 16:11-40,55 19:2-7,17 19:24-41,21 20:5-12, 138n. 2 20:14, 138n. 2 20:15, 138n. 2 Romans 1:18-32, 56, 152n. 57 16, 25 16:23, 25, 55 1 Corinthians 1:26, 24, 147n. 3 4:8,42, 146n. 34 7:12-13,56 8:4, 151n. 45 8:8, 151n. 43 10:25, 52 11:17-22, 144n.77 11:17-34, 153n. 4 11:23-26, 162n. 24 16:1-4,25 Colossians 4:9,26 4:16, 138n. 2 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, 152n. 55 4:11,25 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12,119-20 1 Timothy 1:3, 143n. 68 2:8-10, 27 6:1,28 6:6-10,27 6:17, 26 2 Timothy 4:12, 143n. 68 Titus 2:9-10,28 Philemon 22, 26

Index of Biblical Passages

Hebrews 10:32-34, 44 James 1:27, 160n. 5 2 John 7, 166n. 24 Revelation 1:3-4,102 1:5-6,102 1:9, 135n. 2, 137nn. 25, 29 1:12-16, 63, 154n. 9 1:12-20, 32 1:14,77 1:16, 100 2, 84, 90, 92, 105 2-3, 11, 14, 15, 31-47, 59, 69 2:1-7, 36-37 2:2-3,32,33 2:2-6, 36 2:2,36,37 2:4,33,36 2:5, 33 2:6, 33, 36, 37 2:7,35,99,102 2:8,78 2:8-11,43-44,46 2:9,32,42,43,44, 62, 136n. 15, 166n. 21 2:10,33,129 2:10-11,72 2:11,35 2:12-17,37 2:13,32,38,49, 135n. 2, 137n. 25 2:13-15,37 2:14,95,101, 146n. 29, 165n. 6 2:14-15,33,38.57 2:15,49 2:16, 33, 100 2:17, 35, 77, 102 2:18,94 2:18-29,39-40,83, 89, 93, 159n. 10 2:19-20, 39-40, 145n.7

2:20,33,51,91-92, 93-94, 95, 101, 105,115-16,118, 125 2:20-22,95 2:20-23,71,89 2:21,55,91-92,93, 95, 160n. 6 2:21-23,40 2:22,33,44,58, 91-92,93,95, 165n. 53 2:22-23, 94, 160n. 22 2:23,90,92-93,95, 159n. 10 2:24, 49, 145n. 8, 15 In. 49 2:26-28, 35 2:27, 93 3:1,32 3:1-6, 41 3:2,41 3:3-4,77 3:4, 39, 145n. 8 3:5, 35 3:7-13,45-46 3:8,32,45 3:8-9,62 3:9, 45, 136n. 15, 166n. 21 3:11,33 3:12,35 3:14,41 3:14-22,41 3:15,32,41 3:16, 161n. 8 3:17,32,41-42,62 3:18-20,33 3:21,35 3:22, 56 4:4,77 5,78 5:6, 78 6:9, 135n. 2 6:9-11,72,129, 137n. 25 7:16,99 7:16-17, 102 7:17, 99, 102

Index of Biblical Passages

9:8, 100 9:17, 100 9:19, 100 10:9-10, 161n. 8 11, 166n. 23 11:2, 162n. 18 11:5, 100 11:8, 148n. 13 12, 67, 77-78, 83-87, 92-94, 101, 103-5, 111, 114, 115, 124, 157n. 24, 158n. 3, 159nn. 6, 10, 161n. 8 12:1, 86 12:1-5, 85 12:2, 86 12:3, 77, 86, 87, 114, 156n. 19, 157n. 21 12:4, 86, 93, 99, 104, 162n. 22 12:5, 86, 93 12:5-6, 86-87, 103 12:6, 86, 93, 99, 101-2, 157n. 24, 162nn. 18, 22 12:7-9, 85 12:9, 67, 77, 93, 104, 114, 115 12:10-13, 85 12:13, 87 12:13-14, 103 12:13-15, 114 12:13-16, 94 12:14, 101-2, 157n. 24, 161n. 18, 162n.22 12:14-16, 85 12:15, 85-87, 93, 100, 104 12:16, 104 12:17, 72, 85-87, 129 13, 67-69, 77 13:1, 67, 77-78, 114, 157n. 21 13:1-10, 113 13:2, 67-68, 100

13:3, 78 13:3-4, 165n. 1 13:4, 67 13:5-6, 100 13:7, 129 13:11, 67, 115, 123 13:11-18, 16, 113 13:12, 67, 114 13:12-17, 118 13:13, 115, 116, 120-23, 125 13:13-14, 116 13:14, 78, 115, 120, 125 13:15, 116 13:16-17, 67-68 14, 68-69 14:1, 68 14:4, 68, 94, 98, 165n. 55 14:5, 68 14:9-11, 68 14:10, 99 14:14, 156n. 16 15:6, 154n. 9 16, 104 16:5-6, 104 16:6, 99, 129, 135n. 2 16:13, 100, 113 16:13-14, 166n. 26, 167n. 32 16:14, 120 17, 77-78, 83-92, 105, 115, 124, 157n. 24, 159nn. 6, 10 17:1, 159n. 16 17:1-3, 87, 88 17:1-5, 91 17:1-6, 105 17:1-18, 3 17:1-19:10, 62-67 17:2, 88-89, 91, 101, 106-7, 154n. 22, 160n. 7 17:3, 63, 78, 86, 87-89, 91, 100, 157n.24

179 17:4, 62, 86, 88-89, 159n. 11, 160n. 7 17:4-6, 86 17:5, 86, 88-89, 91, 159n.16 17:6, 72, 86-87, 91, 92, 99, 101, 104, 107, 129, 135n. 2, 159n. 15, 162n. 23 17:7-14, 84 17:8, 78 17:9-11, 6 17:12, 84 17:16, 84, 86, 90-91, 111 17:18,84 17:20,91 18, 64-67, 69-70, 84, 115 18:1, 131 18:1-3, 84 18:2-3, 62, 66 18:3, 63, 66-67, 106, 154n. 11, 161n. 7 18:4-8, 62, 84 18:7, 106, 154n. 11, 155n.23 18:9, 154n. 11 18:9-10, 62, 84 18:11-14, 62 18:11-16, 63 18:11-17, 84 18:13, 106 18:14, 106 18:15, 154n. 22 18:15-17, 62 18:16, 106 18:17-20, 62, 84 18:19, 63 18:20-24, 129 18:21-24, 62, 66 18:22, 155n. 33 18:23, 66, 90-91, 159n. 10, 165n. 7, 166n.25 18:23-24, 66 18:24, 66 19:1-9, 84 19:2, 129

ISO

Revelation (continued) 19:3, 157n. 21 19:7, 158n. 1 19:7-8, 159n. 9 19:9, 88 19:14, 77 19:15, 100 19:17-18, 99 19:19-20, 118 19:20, 113, 120, 125 19:21, 100 20:3, 165n.7 20:4, 129 20:8, 165n. 7 20:9, 122 20:10, 113, 165n. 7

Index of Biblical Passages

20:11, 156n. 16 20:14, 102 21-22, 84 21:1-6, 87, 88 21:1-22:6, 83, 87-89 21:2, 89, 95 21:4, 95 21:5, 88 21:6, 99 21:7, 95 21:9, 95, 159n. 9 21:11, 89 21:12, 88 21:14, 88 21:18, 89 21:18-21, 63, 88

21:19, 89 21:21, 89 21:24, 89 21:24-26, 88 22, 104 22:1, 88, 95, 102 22:1-2, 99, 102, 105 22:2, 99, 102 22:6, 88, 102 22:12, 166n. 30 22:14, 102 22:14-15, 102 22:17, 99, 102 22:18, 102 22:19, 99, 102 22:20, 102

Index of Subjects

'Abodah Zarah, 56 Abomination (p5eA/uy|ia), 90, 100-101, 111, 161nn. 7, 9 Ahab, 90, 152n. 58, 159n. 13 Ahaziah, 121 Aho, James, 148n. 12 Alexander of Abonoteichus, 117 Alexander the Great, 124 Alfdldy, Geza, 138n. 4, 139nn. 7, 10, 11, 142n. 46 Andalusia, 164n. 48 Andreau, Jean, 142nn. 44, 45 Antieucharist, 104-5, 111, 162n. 23 Antiochus IV, 101 Antipas, 38, 39, 46, 146nn. 21, 24 Antony, 110-11, 165nn. 50-52, 166n. 19 Aphrodite, 163n. 37 Appian, 165n. 50 Apuleius, 156n. 11 Aretaeus, 163n. 39 Aristotle, 79, 151n. 33, 157n. 27, 163n. 44 Asiaticus, 143n. 49 Assos, 138n. 2 Athenaeus, 20

Aune, David E., 7,11, 137n. 24, 144nn. 1-2, 145n. 5, 146nn. 32, 36, 147nn. 43, 47, 148n. 7, 153n. 67, 160n. 18, 165n.10 Baal, 123, 152n. 58, 159n. 12 Baal-zebub, 121 Babylon, city of, 88, 124, 141n. 36 "Babylon," 3, 16, 62-63, 65-66, 72, 84-92, 101, 104, 106, 115, 158nn, 2,4, 159nn. 6, 11, 160nn.7, 16, 165nn. 8, 9, 166n. 25 as an active, aggressive woman, 90-92, 159n.l5 compared to "Jezebel," 83, 89-92, 95-96, 97, 100, 101, 105, 107, 111, 125, 130, 160n. 19 contrasted with "Jerusalem," 85, 87-89, 97, 100, 101, 105, 128, 159n. 6 contrasted with the unnamed woman "clothed with the sun," 83, 85-87, 97, 100, 101, 105, 128 181

182

Index of Subjects

"Babylon" (continued) judgment against, 16, 62-63, 65-66, 154nn. 11, 22, 155nn. 23, 26, 28, 160n. 7, 162n. 23 Badian, E, 157n. 31 Balaam, 39, 51, 57, 146n. 28, 152n. 65, 165n. 6 Balak, 146n. 28 Balch, David L., 150n. 33 Balkan conflict, 16, 129-31, 167nn. 4-6 Bar-Jesus, 166n.20 Barr, David L., 102-3, 158n.3, 161n. 15 Barrett, C. K., 150n. 31 Bathsheba, 73-74 Bauckham, Richard, 65, 153n. 5, 154nn. 17, 19, 155n. 28 Bauer, Walter, 132, 167n. 7 Beast from the Earth, 16, 67-68, 113-25 as False Prophet, 115, 118-23, 125, 130 Beast from the Sea, 67-68, 77-78, 113, 124, 157n. 21, 165nn. 1, 9, 166n.26 Beast of chapter 17, 77-78, 87-91, 156n. 20, 159n. 10 Berger, Peter, 97-98, 99, 160n, 1 Best, Ernest, 143n. 53 Beyer, Hermann Wolfgang, 147nn. 40, 41 Bird, Frederick B., 148n. 12 Blood of the holy ones and witnesses, 84, 86, 90, 104 Body, vulnerability of individual and social, 100, 107 Booth, Wayne C., 80-81, 158n. 35 Boundaries between good and evil, 75-76, 157n. 23 individual and societal, 98-100, 111, 163n. 32 Bradley, K. R., 142n. 40 Braun, Herbert, 166n. 11 Bride, 83-84, 87-89, 111, 1 59n. 9 Broughton, T. R S., 140nn. 19, 20, 141nn. 22, 26, 27, 30-32, 142nn. 39, 42

Brown, Peter, 163nn. 39-41, 164n. 46 Biichsel, Friedrich, 149n. 18 Bultmann, Rudolf, 144n. 70 Burkert, Walter, 149n. 23 Cadbury, Henry, 149n. 19, 150nn. 29, 31 Caecilius Isodorus, C., 23 Caesar, Julius, 110 Caird, G. B., 44, 146n. 22, 147nn. 39, 43, 151n. 49, 152nn. 59, 61, 159n. 14, 161n. 17, 165n. 54 Callistratus, 20 Camery-Hoggart, Jeremy, 158n. 39 Carcopino, Jerome, 141n. 37 Carson, Anne, 162n. 32, 163nn. 33, 37-39, 42, 164n. 45 Carthage, 139n. 7 Case, Shirley Jackson, 153n. 1 Charles, R. H., 144n. 1, 146n. 20, 148n. 5, 154n. 18, 159n. 8, 161nn. 9, 17, 162n. 21, 165nn. 2, 54, 166n. 22 Charlesworth, M. P., 140n. 18 Child born to the woman "clothed with the sun," 85, 94, 99, 104, 162n.22 Cicero, 19, 80, 140nn. 13, 16, 157n. 33 Cigar, Norman, 167n. 5 Citizenship, Roman, 18, 19, 23, 139n. 9 Claudius, 142n. 46 Clement of Alexandria, 106 Cleopatra, 110-11, 165n. 52, 166n.19 Cognitive majority, 9, 137n. 31 Cognitive minority, 9, 12, 137n. 31 Cohen, Ted, 80-81, 158nn. 34, 36 Colossae, 26, 138n. 2 Commerce activity, 10, 15, 16, 20, 61-70, 127 occupation, 13, 15, 19, 20, 25-29, 53-55, 61-70, 71, 84, 155n. 28 polemic against, 67-70, 127 Comum, 139n. 7 Conzelmann, Hans, 149n. 17 Corinth, 54, 57, 117, 153n. 3

Index of Subjects Cornelius Lentulus, Gnaeus, 140n.13 Coser, Lewis, 148n. 12, 167n. 2 Crossan, John Dominic, 145n.9 Culpepper, R. Alan, 135n. 1 Danaidai, 163n. 32 Daniel, 124 Darius III, 124 Date of Revelation, 6-7, 11, 31, 137n.23 David, 73-74 Decurions, 19, 20, 24, 27, 29, 65, 139nn. 8, 9, 154n. 20 De Ste. Croix, G. E. M., 140n.l7 Detienne, Marcel, 149n. 23 Didache, 36, 119 Dio Cassius, 19 Diocletian, Edict of, 20, 140n. 20, 141n. 24 Diodorus, 141n. 37 Dobschutz, Ernst von, 143n. 51 Domitian, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14,135nn. 5, 7, 136nn 10, 15, 137n. 23 Douglas, Mary, 98, 160n. 2 Dragon, 67-68, 77-78, 87, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 111, 113-14, 115, 124-25, 159n.lO, 161n. 8, 162n. 20, 165n. 1 Drunkenness, 90-91, 101, 106 Dualism, 9, 13 Dull, A. M., 142n. 43 Dull, PaulB., 145n. 14, 146n. 32 Egypt, 148n. 13 Eliade, Mircea, 156n. 14 Elijah, 90, 101-2, 120-23, 125, 128, 166nn. 12, 29 Elis, 163n. 37 Epaenatus, 26 Ephesus church of, 17, 36-37, 40, 46, 48, 49, 51, 59, 127, 132, 145nn. 10, 14, 149n. 15, 152n. 63 city of, 20, 21, 138nn. 1, 2, 141nn. 35, 36, 143n. 68, 151n. 34, 154n. 20 letter to church at, 15, 33, 35, 36-37, 39,40, 43,45, 51, 145n. 10, 146n. 30, 152n. 63

183

Epiphanius, 6 Equestrian, 19, 24, 27, 29 Erastus of Corinth, 25, 29, 55, 153n. 3 Eucharist, 102-5, 111, 162n. 20 Eurysaces, Marcus Vergilius, 139n.12 Eusebius, 4 Ezekiel, 62 Factions in churches, 10, 13, 14-16, 35, 37, 39-40, 45-47, 48-60, 147n. 37 Faithful (John's allies), 48-49, 61, 75, 156n. 17 False apostles, 36, 37, 49 False Prophet. See Prophet, False Filson, Floyd V., 143n. 51 Fire from heaven, 115-17, 120-23, 125 Florus, Lucius, 165n. 51 Foerster, Werner, 16In. 12 Food as boundary issue, 98-100 connected with death, 86, 90, 92, 93, 94, 99, 111, 160n. 7, 162n. 22 defiling, 98, 101, 104-5, 111, 160n. 7, 162n. 22 and eating, 16, 94, 97-107, 111-12, 128, 159n. 10 as life-giving, 95, 99, 101-2, 105 and passions, 105-7, 112, 162n.29 sacrificed to idols (eiSco^oGma), 39, 47, 48, 51-60, 71, 75, 89, 91-92, 94, 96, 98, 100-101, 102, 105, 111, 149nn. 15, 22, 23, 150nn. 28, 30, 31, 151nn. 43-46, 153n. 65, 162n. 31 in the wilderness, 86 Fornication (Ttopveta), 3, 39-40, 47, 48, 51, 57-60, 66-67, 89-91, 94, 96, 98, 100, 111-12, 146n. 29, 152nn. 50, 58, 155n. 27, 159n. 12, 160nn. 16, 17, 161nn, 7, 9, 162n. 31, 166n. 19 4 Ezra, 154n. 10, 158n. 4, 167n. 3

184

Index of Subjects

Freedperson, 22-24, 25, 27-29, 127, 142nn. 44-48, 143n. 49, 144nn. 71-74, 153n. 3 Frier, Bruce W., 141n. 37 Fulvia, 110, 165n. 50 Galatia, 36 Galen, 22, 164n. 46 Giardina, Andrea, 140n. 15 Ginzberg, Louis, 159n. 12 Glycon, 117 Gnosticism, 42-43, 55, 132, 149n. 15, 151n. 49 Gog, 122 Gold, pearls, and precious stones, 86, 89 Gordon, Mary, 27, 144nn. 72-74 Grimm, Veronica E., 162nn. 29, 30 Harlot. See Prostitute Hauck, Friedrich, 15In. 48, 152nn.52, 53, 56, 60 Hekate, 159n. 6 Hemer, Colin, 44, 50, 136n. 15, 144n. 1, 146n. 23, 147nn. 39, 43 Henderson, B. W., 6 Heracles, 165n. 52 Herod, 110 Hesiod, 109 Hieropolis, 138n. 2 Hippocrates, 140n. 15 Hippolytus, 116-7, 166n. 14 Holzberg, Niklas, 156n. 11 Homer, 20, 108, 157n. 26 Homology, 16, 76-79, 81, 82, 83, 97, 105, 107, 128, 156nn. 14, 18, 157n. 21, 166n. 23 Honestiores, 18, 19, 29, 65, 138n. 4 Horace, 24, 110 Hort, F. J. A., 6 Hubert, M. 145n. 4 Hughes-Hallett, Lucy, 164n. 49 Humiliores, 18, 19, 65 Humor, 80-81 Humphrey, Edith McEwan, 158n. 3, 165n. 54 Ignatius of Antioch, 16, 28, 29, 132, 144n. 79, 147n. 1, 153n. 66

Imperial cult, 8, 37-38, 50, 114, 136n. 15, 150n. 32, 155n. 31, 165n. 5 Indirect accusation, 72-75 "Invisible majority." See Majority in churches Irenaeus, 4 Irony, 16, 79-82, 83, 85, 97, 105, 115, 122, 128, 156n. 9, 157nn. 24-27, 33, 158nn. 35, 37 Isaiah, 62 Isis, 159n. 6 James, Henry, 158n. 35 Jehu, 152n. 58 Jerome, 6, 140n. 20, 141n. 24 Jerusalem (city), 8, 11, 12, 88, 129, 148n. 13 "Jerusalem," 16, 63, 101, 148n. 13, 158nn.1-3 compared to the woman "clothed with the sun," 83, 97, 100, 101, 105, 128 contrasted with "Babylon," 83, 87-89, 97, 100, 101, 105, 128 contrasted with "Jezebel," 83, 94-95, 97, 100, 101, 105, 128 as a passive woman, 95, 112, 160n. 20 Jesus, 74, 145n. 9, 156n. 8, 159n. 6, 164n.47 Jews, 44-45, 49-51, 59, 118, 143n. 65, 148nn. 6-10, 149n. 24, 15 Inn. 36, 40, 159n. 6, 160n. 21 "false," 33, 44-46, 48, 49-51, 146n. 37, 147n. 1, 148n. 4, 166n.21 food sacrificed to idols and, 52-53 harassment of Christians by, 7, 10, 12, 44-46, 49-51, 126, 136n. 15 literature of, 13, 50-51, 55-56, 67 Jezebel (queen of Israel), 90, 101, 123, 125, 152n. 58, 159nn. 12, 13 "Jezebel," 13, 15, 16, 40, 48, 49, 51, 54, 58-59, 61, 69, 71-72, 75, 82, 99, 108, 127-28, 130-31, 152n. 64, 158n. 2, 159n. 10, 160n. 6, 165n.6, 167n. 31

Index of Subjects as an active aggressive woman, 90-92, 93, 95, 111-12 and Beast from the Earth/False Prophet, 113-25, 128, 130 compared to "Babylon," 83, 89-92, 95-96, 97, 100, 101, 105, 107, 111-12, 128, 130, 160n.19 contrasted with "Jerusalem," 84, 94-95, 97, 100, 101, 105, 128 contrasted with the woman "clothed with the sun," 92-94, 97, 100, 101, 105, 128, 160n. 22, 162n. 20 death ol, 95, 146n. 32 followers of, 15, 40, 51, 58-59, 89, 92-93, 98-99, 127, 146n. 32, 155n. 32, 159n. 10, 160n. 22 and fornication (Ttopvela), 51, 55-57, 107, 111-12, 160n. 17 and sorcery, 116-18, 125 John the Baptist, 121 Jones, A. H. M., 139n. 11, 141n. 23 Joram, 152n. 58 Jubilees, 56 Judge, Edwin A. 143n. 50 Juvenal, 141n. 37 Kallixeinos of Rhodes, 52 Karadzic, Radovan, 130 Kee, Howard Clark, 144n. 70 Kennedy, George A., 155n. 4 Kidd, Reggie M., 144nn. 68, 70 Kings of the earth, 62, 65, 66, 84, 89, 91, 154n. 22, 159n. 13 Koester, Helmut, 144n. 70 Kraybill, J. Nelson, 137n. 38, 138n. 48, 150n. 32, 153nn. 5, 7, 155n. 31 Lamb, 68, 78, 112 Lane Fox, Robin, 166n. 13 Laodicea church, 41-43, 77, 127, 132, 138n. 2, 161n. 8 city, 20, 41, 141n. 35 letter to church at, 33, 35, 41-43, 145n. 7 Synod of, 148n. 8

185

Lead astray (jiXavdco), 90-91, 93, 114-18, 125, 159n. 10, 166nn. 11, 25 Lectisternium, 52 Letter of Aristeas, 56 Letters to seven churches, 31-47, 102, 126-27, 144n. 2, 145nn. 4, 5 Levi-Strauss, Claude, 137n. 32 Lex talionis, 162n. 23 Lightfoot, J. B., 6, 137n. 23 Livy, 52 Lohmeyer, Ernst, 143n. 51, 144n. 70 Longus, 156n. 11 Lucian of Samosata, 117, 157n. 26 Luckmann, Thomas, 97-98, 99, 160n. 1 Ludemann, Gerd, 138n. 1 Lydia (location in Asia Minor), 20, 165n. 52 Lydia of Thyatira, 26, 55, 143n. 65 Macedonia, 143n. 66 MacKay, A. G. 141n. 36 MacMullen, Ramsay, 21, 64, 141n. 28, 150n. 33, 154n. 14 Magic. See Sorcery Magna Mater, 159n. 6 Magnesia on the Maeander, 138n. 2 Magog, 122 Majority in churches, 48, 58-59, 69-70, 127-28, 153n. 67 Malherbe, Abraham J., 143n. 50, 144n. 70 Malina, Bruce J., 163n. 35 Manufacturing cloth, 20, 2 1 , 4 1 , 140n. 20, 142n. 41 leather, 20 occupation, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29 precious metals, 20, 21 Mark of the Beast, 68-70 of the Lamb and his Father, 68-70 Marriage, 56-57, 59, 155n. 1, 160n. 21, 164n. 45 Martial, 22 Martyrdom ofPionius, 147n. 44 Martyrdom ofPolycarp, 50, 132, 147n. 44

186

Index of Subjects

Mary, 159n. 6 Meat market, 52-53, 149n. 19, 150nn. 29, 31 Meeks, Wayne A., 25, 26, 137n. 39, 143nn.50, 53, 54, 57, 60, 62-64, 153n. 3 Melito of Sardis, 148n. 8 Merchants. See Commerce, occupation Mertus, Julie A., 167nn. 1, 4 Metaphor, 80, 84, 158n. 38, 164n. 44 Michael, 85 Michaels, J. Ramsey, 137nn. 37, 40, 138n. 42, 144n. 1 Miletus, 138n. 2 Milne, J. G., 150n. 27 Mishna, 56 Momigliano, Arnoldo, 6, 139n. 5 Morel, Jean-Paul, 139n. 12 Moses, 106 Mother, 86, 90, 92-93, 107, 108, 159nn. 6, 10, 16 Mount Zion, 68 Mowry, Lucetta, 161n. 16 Muecke, D. C., 157n. 25 Narcissus (secretary of Claudius), 142n. 146 Nathan, 73-74 Nero, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 31, 129, 135nn. 4, 6, 138n. 41, 143n. 49 Nicolaitans, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 48, 49, 51, 57, 146n. 27, 149nn. 14-16, 152n. 63 Nicolaus, 149n. 14 Octavian, 110 Oklahoma City, 146n. 24 Omphale, 165n. 52 Onesimus, 26 Orosius, 135n. 5 Ostia, 144n. 74 Oxyrhynchus, 22, 141n. 35 Packer, James E., 141n. 38 Palmer, Susan, 148n. 12 Panathenaia, 52 Pastoral Epistles, 26-29, 143n. 68 Patmos, 8

Patte, Daniel, 156n. 13 Paul collection of the letters of, 153n. 66 and dominant culture, 131, 151n. 34 and food sacrificed to idols, 54-58, 71 founder of churches, 17, 138n. 1, 143n. 66, 144n. 77, 145n. 14, 153n. 3 Jewish hostility toward, 49 social composition of his churches, 24, 26, 28-29, 15Inn. 43, 44 system of convictions, 156n. 13 Penelope, 163n. 36 Pergamum church of, 37-39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48,49, 57- 59, 77, 127, 132, 138n. 2, 145n. 16, 146n. 28, 149n. 15, 165n. 6 city of, 20, 21, 23, 141n. 35, 154n. 20 letter to church at, 15, 33, 35, 36, 37-39, 40, 43, 46, 51, 145n. 10, 152nn. 64, 65 Peristiany, J. G., 163n. 34 Persecution. See Rome, persecution of Christians and Petillius Saturninus, Q., 144n. 74 Petronius, 140n. 14, 142n. 47, 154n. 21 Phidias, 163n. 37 Philadelphia church of, 45-46, 48, 138n. 2, 147n. 1 city of, 21, 49-51, 141n. 35 letter to church at, 33, 45-46, 48, 136n. 15, 147n. 46, 148n. 6, 166n.21 Philemon, 26 Philippi, 26 Philo, 105, 162n. 28, 164n. 44 Phoebe, 25 Pitt-Rivers, Julian, 163n. 34, 164n. 48 Plato, 140n. 15 Pliny the Elder, 20, 23, 24 Pliny the Younger, 19, 150n. 30

Index of Subjects Plutarch, 52, 110, 140n. 15, 163n. 37, 164n. 44, 165n. 50 Pogoloff, Stephen M., 153n.4 Polycarp, 28, 29, 49, 50 Pompeii, 24 Poulsen, Frederik, 166nn. 13, 15, 16 Poverty, 7, 18, 19, 29, 30, 42, 43-44, 46, 47, 49, 62, 69, 98 Price, S. R. R, 148n. 11 Prophecy, 9, 161n 8, 166n. 23 early Christian, 10, 49, 155n. 2 false, 113-23, 125, 166nn. 20, 24, 27 Prophet as anti-Elijah figure, 121-23, 125, 128 eschatological, 120-21 False, 16, 115, 118-23, 125 Prophets, blood of, 66, 90 Prostitute, 55, 62, 83-85, 88-90, 110-111, 153n. 6, 159n. 16 Provincial elite, 64-65, 154n. 16 Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), 52 Ptolemy VI, 141n. 37 Pythagoreans, 150n. 31 Quintilian, 72-73, 75, 155n. 5, 156n. 9, 157nn. 32-33 Ramsay, W. M., 4, 136nn. 8, 15 Rice, E.E., 149n. 21 Rist, Martin, 138n. 47 Robbins, Thomas, 148n. 12 Robinson, John A. T., 4, 5, 11, 136nn. 10, 18-22, 148n. 5 Roloff, Jiirgen, 146nn. 26, 33, 151n. 49, 153n. 6 Roman-Jewish War, 7, 136n. 15 Rome Beast from the Sea as, 67-68, 113, 165n. 9 city of, 11, 22, 138n. 5, 141n. 36, 158n. 4 empire, 10 exploitation of the poor and, 64-65, 154nn. 13, 15, 16 great city as, 84 officials of, 12, 31, 141n. 30, 148n. 10 persecution of Christians and, 3-9,

187

11-12, 14-15, 31, 37-40,41, 43-45,46, 50, 59, 72, 98, 126, 135nn.4, 7, 136n. 15, 137n. 25, 155n. 3 polemic against, 14, 130, 167n. 2 society of, 15, 18-30 Rostovtzeff, M., 25, 143n. 52 Royalty, Robert J., 10, 13, 14, 63, 137n. 36, 153nn. 5, 8, 9, 154n. 10 Rufinus, 166n. 17 Sailors. See Seafarers Sailer, Richard P., 139nn. 5, 6 Samain, P., 116, 165n. 11 Sarapis, 53-54 Sardis church of, 41, 43, 77, 127, 132, 138n. 2, 145n. 16 city of, 141n. 35 letter to church at, 33, 35, 41, 43, 145nn. 8, 11, 12 Satan, 3, 15, 38, 72,75, 129, 147n. 38 Dragon as, 68, 78, 85, 93, 103-4, 113-15, 125 throne of, 37-38, 146n. 21 Scherrer, Steven, 165n. 5, 166n. 13 Schoedel, William R., 144n. 78 Schulz, Siegfried, 15In. 48, 152nn. 53, 56, 60 Schiissler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, 5, 6, 11, 136nn. 12, 13, 16, 144n. 2, 145nn. 3,4, 15, 146n. 31,

15In. 49, 154n. 12, 155n. 24, 158n. 2, 160n. 20, 161n. 17, 165n. 3

Schwartz, Regina M., 152n. 54 Scillum, 149n. 22 Scobie, Alex, 141n. 38 Scott, Kenneth, 164-65n. 49 Scurranus, Musicus, 23 Seafarers, 62, 65, 84 2 Baruch, 158n. 4 Sedgwick, G. G., 157n. 29 Segal, Alan F., 15In. 41 Self-control (ao><|>poawr|), 101, 154n. 11 and food, 105-7, 112 and sex, 106, 108-12

188

Index of Subjects

Sells, Michael, 167n. 6 Senator, 18, 19, 24, 27, 29 Sex, 16, 55, 56, 57, 59, 94, 97-99, 107-12, 128, 159n. 10, 160nn. 21, 3, 162n. 31 as boundary issue, 98-99, 107-8 and passions, 106, 108-12, 163nn. 43, 44, 164n. 44, 165nn. 50-52 promiscuous, 55-57, 88-89, 92, 93-94, 95, 110, 111-12 Sheppard, A. R. R., 144n. 70 Sherwin-White, A. N., 139n. 9 Sibylline Oracles 158n. 4, 167n. 3 Similitudes of Enoch, 154n. 10 Simmel, Georg, 148n. 12, 167n. 2 Slander, 43-44 Slave, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29 imperial, 23, 24, 25, 127 Slavery, institution of, 22-24, 27, 142nn. 40, 41 Smallwood, Mary, 148n. 9, 151nn. 35, 36 Smith, Morton, 166n. 20 Smyrna church of, 42, 43-45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 127, 132, 138n. 2 city of, 20, 21,49-51, 139n. 8, 141n. 35, 154n. 20 letter to the church at, 33, 43-45, 46, 47, 48, 136n. 15, 166n. 21 Sodom, 148n. 13 Solon, 140n. 15 Sorcery, 9, 66-67, 115-23, 165n.8, 166nn. 19, 20, 25, 26 Sordi, Marta, 136n. 10 Stanbaugh, John E., 150n. 33 Statues, speaking by and animation of, 117-18 Status, 10, 13, 18-30, 45, 49, 139nn. 5, 11, 12, 140n. 15, 142n. 46 Status liability, 25, 153n. 3 Stauffer, Ethelbert, 145n. 17 Stereotypes, of women, 108-12, 128, 162n. 25, 163nn. 43, 44, 164nn. 44, 45, 166n. 19 Strabo, 23, 141nn. 25, 36 Suetonius, 52

Swete, Henry Barclay, 49-50, 146nn. 18, 19, 147nn. 39, 43, 3, 148n. 5, 154n. 11, 161n. 17, 162n. 21, 165n. 4, 166n. 22 Synagogue of Satan, 33, 44-45, 49, 136n.15 Tacitus, 27 Temple (Jerusalem), 8, 12, 129, 148n. 10, 155n. 8 Tertullian, 6, 149n. 14 Testament of Levi, 56 Testament of Reuben, 56, 164n. 44 Thales, 140n. 15 Thebert, Yvon, 142n. 40 Theissen, Gerd, 143n. 50, 56, 59, 147n. 3, 149n. 22, 151n. 47, 152n. 62, 153nn. 3, 4 Theodoret, 166n. 17 Thessolonica, 25 Thompson, Leonard L., 8-9, 12-13, 14, 50, 76-79, 102-3, 135n. 7, 137nn. 29-31, 138n. 46, 143n. 64, 146n. 25, 147n. 45, 148nn. 7, 11, 155n. 3, 156nn. 14, 15, 157nn. 21-23, 161n. 16 Thomson, J. A. K., 157n. 26 Thyatira church of, 39-40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 58-59, 127-28, 132, 138n. 2, 145n. 7, 149n. 15, 152n. 64 city of, 20, 21, 26, 139n. 10, 140nn.20, 141n.35 letter to church at, 1 5, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39-40, 45, 58-59, 145nn. 7, 8, 152n. 64, 159n.10 Tiberius (emperor), 23 Tiberius Rhetor, 79 Timothy, 143n. 68 Tobit, 56 Trajan, 7, 150n. 30 Tralles, 138n. 2 Tree of life, 99, 102-4, 16In. 14 Treggiari, Susan, 142nn, 43-45 Trimalchio, 140n. 14, 142n. 47, 154n. 21 Troas, 138n. 2

Index of Subjects Tryphon the weaver, 22, 26, 141nn. 34, 35 Vernant, Jean-Pierre, 149n. 23, 163n. 43 Verner, David C, 144nn. 68, 69, 71, 75 Verres, Gaius, 80 Vitellius, 143n. 49 Voluntary associations, 53 Water of life, 89, 95, 99, 102-5, 161n. 14 Watson, Duane P., 149n. 16 Wealth, 10, 13, 15, 18-20, 25-30, 41-43, 47, 61-70, 153nn. 3, 9, 155nn. 23, 32 polemic against, 62-65 spiritual, 41-42 Westcott, B. R, 6 Wharton, Edith, 158n. 35 Whore. See Prostitute Wiedemann, Thomas, 142n. 40 Wilderness, 85, 86, 101-3, 162nn. 20, 22 Wilken, Robert L., 148n. 8 Willis, Wendel Lee, 150n. 26, 151n.33 Wilson, J. Christian, 6, 11, 136-37n.23

189

Winkler, John J., 163n. 36 Wisdom of Solomon, 56 Witherington, Ben, HI, 143n. 65, 149n. 17, 150n. 28 Witnesses to Jesus, 87, 90, 101 of Revelation 11, 100 Woman "clothed with the sun,"16, 103-4, 158nn. 2, 3, 159nn. 5, 6 compared to "Jerusalem," 83 contrasted to "Babylon," 83, 85-87 contrasted to "Jezebel," 83, 92-94 as a passive figure, 93-94, 112, 160n. 20 Wuellner, Wilhelm, 143n. 50 Xenophon, 149n. 22, 163n. 38, 164n. 44 Yarbro Collins, Adela, 7-8, 10, 11-12, 13, 14, 64, 136n. 22, 137nn. 25, 28, 40, 138n. 41, 44, 46, 146n. 28, 147n. 4, 148nn. 5, 6, 13, 149n. 13, 154n. 12 Yarbrough, O. Larry, 160n. 21 Zanker, Paul, 165nn. 49, 52 Zeitlin, Froma L, 156n. 11