We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The Revelation of John presents to its readers a scenario that describes the oppression and persecution of the early Christian communities of western Asia Minor by external pagan forces (specifically, the Roman government). Later Christian tradition tied the Apocalypse to the later years of the reign of Domitian and consequently dubbed that emperor a second Nero. Until relatively recently, this scenario has been affirmed by both the church and the academy. However, mid-twentieth century scholarship successfully challenged the validity of this viewpoint, based upon a review of the historical evidence. Since that time, scholars have scrambled to reconcile the historical world lying behind the Apocalypse with the narrative world presented by the text. Such figures as James A. T. Robinson, Adela Yarbro Collins, and Leonard Thompson have considerably advanced the discussion in our time. However, these recent attempts to detail the relationship between Christianity and pagan society have so dominated the attention of scholars that a serious discussion of the tensions within the Asia Minor Christian communities has been largely neglected. The present study is offered as a partial corrective to this trend.
1 Iren. adv. haer. 5.30.3.
2 See, for example Eusebius HE 3.17.
3 For a survey of the literature questioning the historicity of the tradition, see Robinson, J. A. T., Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 233, n. 64.Google Scholar
4 For a brief discussion of the differences between the narrative and historical worlds, see Duff, P. B., ‘2 Corinthians 1–7: Sidestepping the Division Hypothesis Dilemma’, BTB 24 (1994) 22.Google Scholar
5 In the mid-seventies, Robinson, J. A. T. (Redating, 221–53)Google Scholar proposed that an earlier date (shortly after the time of Nero) should be accepted. In the mid-eighties, Collins, A. Yarbro (Crisis and Catharsis [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984])Google Scholar suggested that any pressure from the outside world need not have been real pressure exerted on the early Christian communities. Instead, it could have been pressure which was merely perceived by the community. Most recently, Thompson, L. (The Book of Revelation [New York: Oxford University, 1990])Google Scholar recommended that Revelation's reflection of apocalyptic tension between Christianity and pagan society was a literary device manufactured by the seer in order to aid the Christian communities in the ‘laborious adjustment' by … which humans adapt to their environment’ (199).
6 Cf. Yarbro Collins (Crisis and Catharsis) who suggests that the implicit tension between the communities and external society is projected onto the cosmos in the seer's apocalyptic vision.
7 Who the historical ‘Jezebel’ really was is problematic because her image can only be observed through the filter of the seer's polemic.
8 It is more accurate to describe these passages as oracles rather than letters. See Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, Revelation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 4.Google Scholar
9 The ‘letter’ or oracle is actually directed to the ‘angel of the church at Thyatira’, possibly a heavenly figure who was thought of as a kind of patron to the church. See e.g. Kittel, G., ‘ἅγγɛλоς’, TDNT 1.86–7.Google Scholar
10 Cf. Daniel's angelic figure in Dan 10.6. On John's use of Daniel 10, see Rowland, C., ‘The Visions of the Risen Christ in Rev. i,13ff: The Debt of an Early Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology’, JTS (n.s.) 31 (1980) 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 It is noteworthy that the seer collapses during the epiphany of chapter 1 just as ‘Jezebel’ collapses in 2.22. The collapse of the seer parallels the response of certain of the prophets in commissioning passages found in the Hebrew Bible: Ezek 1.28–2.2; Isa 6.1–10; Dan 10.2–11; cf. also 1 Enoch 71.11–15; Apoc. Abr. 10.1–6; etc.
12 The phenomenon of the ‘evil eye’ in a human being usually consists of the belief that the glance or stare of a certain individual can cause misfortune, sickness, or even death to the one ‘overlooked’. The amount of literature on the phenomenon is overwhelming. The best surveys on the ‘evil eye’ in the ancient world are: Elworthy, F. T., The Evil Eye (New York: Julian, 1958; reprint of London: Murray, 1895Google Scholar); idem, ‘Evil Eye’, in Hastings, J., ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 5 (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1924) 608–15Google Scholar; Blau, L., Das altjudische Zauberwesen (Westmead, England: Gregg, 1970Google Scholar; reprint of Budapest, 1898) 152–6; Kuhnert, E., ‘Fascinum’, PW 6 (1909) 2109–14Google Scholar; Seligmann, S., Der Böse Blick und Verwandtes (2 vols; Berlin: Barsdorf, 1910)Google Scholar; Kötting, B., ‘Böser Blick’, RAC 2 (1954) 473–82Google Scholar; Noy, D., ‘Evil Eye’, EncJud 6 (1971) 997–1000Google Scholar; Elliott, J., ‘The Fear of the Leer’, Forum 4 (1988) 42–71Google Scholar; Ulmer, R., The Evil Eye in the Bible and in Rabbinic Literature (Hoboken: KTAV, 1994).Google Scholar For modern material, see Maloney, C., The Evil Eye (New York: Columbia University, 1976)Google Scholar and Dundes, A., The Evil Eye (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1992).Google Scholar For further recent studies on the ‘evil eye’, see the bibliography in Dundes, Evil Eye, 316–18. It is important to note that there are variations in the phenomena of the ‘evil eye’. On the one hand, the ‘evil eye’ can be cast unintentionally by anyone at times. On the other hand, there is the malicious use of the ‘evil eye’ by a witch. We are concerned only with the latter phenomenon. For a discussion of these variations, see Dionisopoulos-Mass, R., ‘The Evil Eye and Bewitchment in a Peasant Village’, in Maloney, , Evil Eye, 44–5.Google Scholar
13 For example Yamm and Lotan in the Ugaritic writings (C.T.A. 2.1.30–1 cited in Pritchard, J., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [Princeton: Princeton University, 1969] 130),Google Scholar YHWH in 2 Enoch 39.4 (A), 4 Ezra 8.23 and textual variants (see Stone, M., Fourth Ezra [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990] 269),Google Scholar Ophanniel in 3 Enoch 25.1–4. The Greek world also has its examples. See, for instance, Zeus whose eyes cast fire in the guise of thunderbolts (Aesch. Ag., 469–70; PGM 5.3–4), Athene called ‘flashing-eyed’ (Homer Il. 1.206; 2.166; 5.29, etc.) or ‘shining-eyed’ (Hyg. Fab. 165) or attributed ‘gleaming eyes’ (Lucian dial. deor. 20.10 [printed as ‘The Judgement of the Goddesses’ 10 in LCL, v. 3]).
14 Cf. 2 Enoch 39.4 (A).
15 For example, the god Marduk protects himself from Tiamat's ‘evil eye’ by means of an amulet. See Kötting, ‘Böser Blick’, 473.
16 Cf. Ulmer, Evil Eye, 79.
17 However, whether the powerful-eyed (or ‘flashing-eyed’) god and the ‘evil-eyed’ human are indeed related phenomena is open to question, for the origins of both are shrouded in mystery. On the origins of the ‘evil-eye’ see, for example, Maloney, ‘Introduction’, in his Evil Eye, x–xvi. The connection between the powerful-eyed deity and the ‘evil-eyed’ human is a subject that has not been given much attention and it deserves further study.
18 Of course, there are instances where individuals with peculiarities of the eye (e.g., eyes of a particular colour or diseased eyes) are accused of the ‘evil eye’. However, I am not concerned with this phenomenon in this work.
19 Cf. Dionisopoulos-Mass, ‘Evil Eye’, 44–5.
20 Cf. Plut. Quaest. Con. 5.7.2 (681A) who describes that which is sent forth from the eyes as a flame-like substance (πυρώδης). See esp. b. Shabbat 33b.
21 In fact, there is such a thing as a ‘good eye’ in ancient and modern societies which can also affect objects or individuals in a positive way. See Ulmer, Evil Eye, 33–71; Cook, A. B., Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion 2 (New York: Biblio and Tannen, 1965; reprint of 1925 ed.) 504, n. 6.Google Scholar
22 For example, Athene (whose epithets include γλαυκπις ‘flashing-eyed’ and caesia ‘gleaming-eyed’) had the ability to bewitch with her glance (cf. Soph. Aj. 450–3). In the PGM Zeus-Helios-Mithras is called the ‘terrible-eyed thunderer and lightning givery’ φριξωπβρνταξαστάπɛα. For an example of the goddess Isis killing a child with her glance, see Plut. Is. et Os. 17 (357D–E).
23 For example, the witch Medea casts the evil eye in Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.1668–77.
24 For the powerful eyes of Hekate, see Lucian, Philopseudes 22.Google Scholar The Greek Magical Papyri likewise attest Hekate's powerful eye for there the epithet γоργπις (‘grim-eyed’ ‘Gorgon-eyed’) is applied to her (PGM 4.1404). Another illustration of Hekate's ‘evil eye’ comes from her identification with the ancient Near Eastern goddess Ereshkigal, another goddess who bore the ‘evil eye’. On Ereshkigal's ‘evil eye’ see The Descent of Innana 164. A copy of the text is found in ‘Innana's Descent to the Nether World’, JCS 5 (1951) 1–17.Google Scholar
25 According to Luck, George (Arcana Mundi [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1985] 26),Google Scholar she was the ‘divinity par excellence of the witches’. One tradition even suggests that Medea and Circe, the two greatest witches of the Greek world, were daughters of Hekate (Diod. Sic. 4.45).
26 Hekate is especially noteworthy for our study because the seer alludes to her elsewhere in the Apocalypse. See Aune, D., ‘The Apocalypse of John and Greco-Roman Revelatory Magic’, NTS 33 (1987) 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 As far back as Homer Athene was connected with both the ‘evil eye’ (Il.. 1.206; 2.166; 5.29, etc.) as well as what could be called witchcraft (consider the spells that Athena frequently casts, e.g. Od. 6.244ff.; 7.17ff, etc.).
28 See Aune, D., ‘Magic in Early Christianity’, ANRW 2.23.2 (1980) 1555–6.Google Scholar
29 E.g. Rev 1.4.
30 Especially the use of the adverb ταχ (2.16; 3.11; 11.14; 22.6, 7, 12, 20). Cf. its comparable use in the PGM (e.g., PGM 7.248, 332, 372, etc.). Note also the use of the verb νικάω in Revelation which parallels a similar use of this term in the magical literature (e.g. PGM 4.1671).
31 E.g. the imagery of the Egyptian plagues (Exodus 7–12) from the seals (chs 6–7), trumpets (chs 8–11), and bowls episodes (chs 15–16) in the Apocalypse is reminiscent of the plague imagery found in PGM 4.3034–40. Also the image of the beast in Rev 4.6, 8 recalls the iconography in the PGM and on magical amulets.
32 Cf. PGM 4.1182; 5.363, 367. Aune (‘Apocalypse’) argues that this title would point to Hekate specifically.
33 Aune, , ‘Apocalypse’, 484–9.Google Scholar
34 It is significant that, with one exception, these terms do not appear elsewhere in the New Testament canon. The exception is Gal 5.20 where φαρμακεα occurs in a list of vices. Concerning this, it is perhaps noteworthy that Galatians has been dubbed a magical letter by Betz, H. D. in his Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 25, 52–3.Google Scholar J. Elliott (‘Fear’, 64) has suggested that ‘evil eye’ accusations played a part in the Galatian conflict.
35 For the connection of this root with magic or sorcery, see R. Parker, , Miasma (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983) 222, n. 80.Google Scholar
36 Of course, the bed imagery may also ironically reflect John's accusations about her sexual crimes.
37 Modern reports of such a complaint are too numerous to be mentioned here although they are amply illustrated in the works on the evil eye cited above in note 5.
38 Cited in Plut. Quaest. con. 5.7.1 (680D–E).
39 Plut. Quaest. con. 5.7.4–6 (682A–F).
40 See the studies in Maloney, Evil Eye, and Dundes, Evil Eye.
41 The examples are far too numerous to list. See the various studies in Maloney, Evil Eye and Dundes, Evil Eye. See also Elliott (‘Fear’, 64) who makes the same argument about Galatians.
42 E.g., Dionisopoulos-Mass, , ‘Evil Eye’, 49Google Scholar in Maloney, Evil Eye; Donaldson, B. A., ‘The Evil Eye in Iran’, 71Google Scholar in Dundes, Evil Eye; Hardie, M., ‘The Evil Eye in Some Greek Villages of the Upper Haliakmon Valley in West Macedonia’, 110–11Google Scholar in Dundes, Evil Eye; A. Murgoci, , ‘The Evil Eye in Roumania and Its Antidote’, 127Google Scholar in Dundes, Evil Eye; Róheim, G., ‘The Evil Eye’, 215Google Scholar in Dundes, Evil Eye.
43 Plut. Quaest. con. 5.7.1 (680D), trans. H. Hoffleit, LCL. For other ancient texts mentioning the susceptibility of children see also Plut. Quaest. con. 5.7.4 (682A), 5.7.5 (682F); Plut. Is. et Os.17 (357D–E); Pliny Nat. Hist. 7.2.16; Alex. Aphrod. prob. phys. 2.53; Hesychius, , s.v. ‘κραυγή’, Lact. div. inst. 1.20.36.Google Scholar The susceptibility of children is also attested in the Jewish world. See for example, b. Baba B. 141a which presupposes such. See also A. Brav, ‘The Evil Eye among the Hebrews’, in Dundes, , Evil Eye, 48.Google Scholar
44 Another example comes from Aesch. Prom. 667–8. This passage suggests that the thunderbolt of Zeus would be sent from his eyes (πυρωπóν) if his command were not followed.
45 The ‘evil eye’ was frequently associated with a jealous eye. See, for example, Plut. Quaes, con. 5.7.3 (681E); Heliodorus, Aethiop. 3.7.Google Scholar
46 Cf. also the BT, Roš. Haš. 17B. Both of these passages are cited in Ulmer, Evil Eye, 77–8.
47 The other letter is to Ephesus.
48 One problem for our interpretation is the allusion to the feet of bronze. It is possible that this is an oblique reference to Hekate. In Lucian's description of her (Philospsedues 22) her powerful feet are attested for she is able to open up the underworld by stamping her feet.
49 Cf. a similar phenomenon in the letter to the church at Ephesus (2.1–7). Likewise, the letters to the church at Smyrna (2.8–11) and Philadelphia (3.7–13) connect the attributes of the risen Jesus in the epistolary introduction with the situation in the community articulated later in the letter, but in a positive way. In the case of the former church, the resurrection (2.8b) is promised to the church faithful (2.10). In the case of the latter church, the key possessed by the ‘holy one’ (3.7) is made available to the members of the community (3.8).
50 See Elworthy, , Evil Eye, 158–80Google Scholar, esp. 178. See also Ulmer, , Evil Eye, 75–6.Google Scholar
51 Elworthy, Evil Eye, loc. cit.
52 Aune, ‘Apocalypse’.
53 Douglas, M., Natural Symbols (New York: Vintage, 1970) 136–7.Google Scholar
54 See the ‘Introduction’ in Douglas, M., ed., Witchcraft Accusations and Confessions (ASA Monographs; New York: Tavistock, 1970) xxvi–xxvii.Google Scholar
55 For example, see Teitlebaum, J., ‘The Leer and the Loom’, 63–75Google Scholar in Maloney, Evil Eye who points out that in the coastal villages of Tunisia, sorcery (in this case, the evil eye) is attributed to the overachiever. For a similar example of the evil eye functioning to maintain social control, see Dionisopoulos-Mass, , ‘Evil Eye’, 42–62Google Scholar in Maloney, Evil Eye.
56 Consider, for example, C. Kluckhohn's observations about Navaho witchcraft accusations: If I am a singer and smarting under professional jealousy of another singer I can whisper accusations of witchcraft against my rival. Or I can mitigate the burning of my envy of a rich neighbour by suggesting that perhaps the way his riches were obtained would not bear careful scrutiny (Navaho Witchcraft [Boston: Beacon, 1967] 99).Google Scholar In this example, the accusation of witchcraft alone weakens the malignant power of envy within the Navaho community.
57 Douglas, M., ‘Techniques of Sorcery Control’, in Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa (ed. Middleton, J. and Winter, E. H.; New York: Praeger, 1963) 123–6.Google Scholar See also Crawford, J. R., Witchcraft and Sorcery in Rhodesia (London: Oxford University, 1967) 158–61.Google Scholar
58 Kluckhohn, Navaho.
59 Cf. the witchcraft accusations among the Trio Indians of Brazil and Suriname cited in P. Rivière, ‘Factions and Exclusions in Two South American Village Systems’, in Douglas, , Witchcraft, 250–3.Google Scholar
60 Douglas, , Witchcraft, xxviiGoogle Scholar; see also Kluckhohn, , Navaho, 73–5.Google Scholar
61 According to J. Neyrey, this is what is going on in some of the Pauline communities. See his Paul, In Other Words (Louisville: WJPK, 1990) 181–217.Google Scholar
62 Cf. also 17.18.
63 Although I am using ‘sorcery’ and ‘witchcraft’ as synonymous, the Abelam make a strict differentiation, witchcraft being an innate power of certain women whereas sorcery requires no innate qualities and is practised exclusively by men.
64 Forge, A., ‘Prestige, Influence, and Sorcery: A New Guinea Example’, in Douglas, , Witchcraft, 257–75.Google Scholar
65 Ibid., 262–3. An interesting and similar blurring of distinctions between insiders and outsiders (vis-à.-vis witchcraft) occurs amongst the Trio Indians. See Rivière, , ‘Factions’, 250–3.Google Scholar
66 There is no good evidence for sexual promiscuity on the part of ‘Jezebel’ or her followers. Most likely, this reference is meant metaphorically. Cf. Caird, G. B., The Revelation of St John the Divine (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 44Google Scholar; Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954) 44.Google Scholar
67 For example, on sexual perversity as a vice of outsiders (i.e., gentiles) see esp. Wisd. Sol. 14.12; Let. Aris. 152; T. Reub. 4.6; Abod. Zar. 2.1; cf. Rom 1.18–25. For a further treatment of this theme, see P. B. Duff, ‘Rene Girard in Corinth: An Early Christian Social Crisis and a Biblical Text of Persecution’, Helios 22 (1995) 89–91.
68 Braun, H., ‘πλανάω, κτλ.’, TDNT 6.233.Google Scholar For instance, in a fragment of a comedy by Nicostratus, the nominal form πλάνоς refers to a ‘conjuror’ (CAF 2.226; CAF 2.426). Another example comes from Vettius Valens who groups the word πλάνоς with the terms μάγς (‘magician’) and θτης (‘sorcerer’ Vett. Val. 2.16).
69 For instance, of all the characters that populate the narrative world of John's apocalypse, only four females appear: ‘Jezebel’, the unnamed woman clothed with the sun (ch. 12), ‘Babylon’, and the bride of the lamb (21.1–22.6). The scarcity of female figures among Revelation's considerable cast of characters coupled with the fact that ‘Jezebel’ and ‘Babylon’ are the only two women in the apocalypse depicted negatively demands that we compare these figures. In addition, both of these women are accused of sexual transgressions, specifically 'оρνɛα (2.20, 22; 17.1, 2, 5) and both figures are described as mothers (2.23; 17.5). Finally, defiling food connects the figures. Both the ‘wine of ’оρνεα with which the whore intoxicates the inhabitants of the earth and the ‘blood of the holy ones and … of the witnesses’ which ‘Babylon’ consumes are homologous to the εἰδωλóθυτα (‘meat sacrificed to idols’) which ‘Jezebel’ induces her followers to eat.
