43
American Academy of Religion The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels Author(s): Elaine Pagels Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 17-58 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465555 . Accessed: 18/06/2014 00:46 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

American Academy of Religion

The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament GospelsAuthor(s): Elaine PagelsSource: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 17-58Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465555 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 00:46

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Journal of the American Academy of Religion LXII/1

The Social History of Satan, Part II

Satan in the New Testament Gospels Elaine Pagels

THE NEW TESTAMENT gospels all place the story of Jesus in the context of cosmic war. As the evangelists tell it, the story shows how the power of God acts through Jesus to challenge the evil forces that dominate the present world. Each of the gospels frames its narrative, first at its beginning and then at its climax, with epi- sodes depicting the clash of supernatural forces that the evange- lists see played out through Jesus' life and in his death. Mark, for example, opens his gospel describing how the spirit of God descended upon Jesus at his baptism, and ". . . immediately drove him into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by the devil (hypo tou satana) and was with the beasts, and the angels ministered to him" (Mark 1:12). From that moment on, Mark relates, even after Jesus reentered human soci- ety, the powers of evil challenged and attacked him at every turn, and he attacked them back-and won. Matthew and Luke both adopt and elaborate this stark opening scene, and, apparently using Q, turn it into a drama of three increasingly intense confron- tations between Satan and God's spirit acting in Jesus. Luke shows how the devil, defeated in his attempts to overpower Jesus, pru- dently departed from him "for a time" (Luke 4:13b). Luke goes on to say explicitly what Mark and Matthew imply-namely, that the devil returned in person, so to speak, in the passion narrative, to destroy Jesus. Thus at the climax of the story Luke says that "Satan entered into Judas Iscariot" to finish his work by initiating Jesus' betrayal, arrest, torture, and execution. The New Testament gos- pels, then, (with considerable variation) depict the passion narra-

Elaine Pagels is Professor of Religion at Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544.

17

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

18 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

tive as the culmination of the cosmic war engaged at Jesus' baptism.

The gospel of John at first seems an exception to this pattern, since its author omits the opening temptation scene. Yet, as Ray- mond Brown (1961) points out, its author has replaced it with analogous conflict stories that do, indeed, depict Jesus and his fol- lowers engaged in conflict with persons whom John depicts as ful- filling the devil's will. At the climactic moment of the arrest, John has Jesus identify the forces arresting him with the "ruler of this world" (14:30) who is about to be "cast out" (12:31). In all of the gospels, then, Jesus' crucifixion seems to signal the victory of what Luke calls the "power of darkness" (22:53b). Yet each of the evan- gelists insists that, on the contrary, it actually heralds the ultimate annihilation of the forces of evil and ensures God's final victory.

How, then, does the figure of the devil, here usually called Satan, function in the New Testament gospels? Many liberally minded Christians have preferred to ignore or minimize the pres- ence of such blatant supernaturalism. Yet as the evangelists see it, the story they have to tell would make little sense apart from the context of cosmic war. For how could anyone claim that a man betrayed by one of his own followers and brutally executed on charges of treason against Rome not only was, but in fact still is, God's divinely appointed Messiah-unless his capture and defeat were (as the evangelists insist) only a preliminary skirmish in a vast cosmic conflict now enveloping the universe? As Jesus warns the high priest at his interrogation (Mk 14:62 par.), soon he shall be vindicated and triumphant when the "Son of Man" returns in glory.

For the purpose of this sketch, I intend to leave aside certain traditional approaches already well investigated by other scholars: for example, approaches involving exploration of the historical, cultural, and literary background (as Neil Forsyth recently has done). I intend to leave aside as well approaches primarily con- cerned with psychological and theological interpretation (such as those of Walter Wink and Jeffrey Burton Russell). Instead I pro- pose to explore in the gospels what I have come to call, half jok- ingly, the "social history of Satan."

This approach may seem at first both odd and unpromising. Indeed, as Russell has said, it is precisely "generations of socially oriented theologians" who have tended to "dismiss the devil and demons as superstitious relics of little importance to the Christian

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 19

message." Against this view, Russell himself argues, quite rightly, that "on the contrary, the New Testament writers had a sharp sense of the immediacy of evil," and he proceeds to take his argument in a theological direction in order to conclude that "the devil is essen- tial in the New Testament because he constitutes an important alternative in Christian theodicy" (222).

With this statement, as indicated above, I agree. But here I intend to take a different approach; that is, to investigate specifi- cally social implications of the figure of Satan in the New Testa- ment gospels. For the evangelists' sense of "the immediacy of evil" by no means involves only-nor perhaps even primarily-elements of cosmology. On the contrary, the theodicy of the evangelists intends to locate and identify specific ways in which the forces of evil have acted through certain people to effect violent destruction- above all, in Matthew's words, "the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah" (23:35)-violence epitomized in what the evangelists regard as the culmination of the greatest of all evils, the execution of Jesus.

What I have set out to explore is how, in particular, the figure of Satan serves to characterize human opposition to Jesus and his followers. What I discovered is this: that while the New Testament gospels never identify Satan with the Romans, they consistently identify him with Jesus' Jewish enemies.' This research has led me to conclude that, by casting the story of Jesus into the context of cosmic war, the gospel writers express in varying ways their identi- fication with an embattled minority against what each sees as the apostasy of the majority of Jesus' (and, of course, by extension, their own) Jewish contemporaries. As I have shown in a previous article (1991), Jesus and his followers did not invent such demon- ization of their enemies, although, as we shall see, they (and Mus- lims after them) carried it considerably further than others had, and with enormous consequences.

1I am grateful to Professor Wayne Meeks for pointing out to me that this statement requires qualification in the case of the Fourth Gospel. For while John explicitly identifies "the Jews" as the devil's offspring who "seek to kill" Jesus (8:40-44) and describes the devil entering into Judas to initiate the betrayal (13:2; 18), the author may implicitly include Roman forces along with Jewish ones as agents of "the ruler of this world" whose energy lies behind Jesus' arrest and crucifixion (14:30). For a different view, see the work of Alan Segal, who argues that in the fourth gospel "the Ruler of the World is part of one of the strongest anti-Jewish polemics in the New Testament" (44, 441-75).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

20 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

What the previous article shows, briefly stated, is that the fig- ure of Satan as leader of a supernatural army hostile to God emerged in certain Jewish pseudepigraphic sources from c. 165 B.C.E.-200 C.E. Specifically, it emerged as a way of characterizing not Israel's traditional enemies, "the nations" who conquered and ruled the nation,2 but fellow Jews whom certain sectarian groups regarded as their "intimate enemies." In works like 1 Enoch and Jubilees, stories adapted from Genesis 6 or Isaiah 14 came to describe how the "watchers," prominent leaders in the angelic army, rebelled against their commander in chief and finally became his enemies. Other stories, like the one related in the Life of Adam and Eve, depicted Satan as Adam's older brother, provoked to raging jealousy by God's preference for his human sibling. Such stories explained, in effect, how "one of us" could become "one of them"; that is, how relatives and colleagues could become the bit- terest of enemies. Such stories, I suggest, found their deepest resonances among certain groups of "dissident Jews" (Smith) con- vinced that the majority of other Jews had turned against them- and so (as the Essenes put it), against God.

Intra-Jewish conflict need not, of course, and most often did not, exclude hostility toward "the nations." Certain of the Qfmran authors characterize the foreign enemies along with the majority of Jews who collaborated with such "evil empires" as fellow agents of diabolic forces. Followers of Jesus often expressed themselves sim- ilarly. Wayne Meeks suggests that the author of John may include Roman forces along with Jewish ones as agents of the "ruler of this world" who effects Jesus' crucifixion (although Alan Segal dis- agrees; see note 1; personal communication, 1992). Certainly the author of Revelation graphically depicts the powers of Rome in the animalistic and monstrous imagery adopted from prophetic tradi- tion while simultaneously denouncing certain groups of Jews- apparently those who rejected his claims about Jesus-as the "syn- agogue of Satan" (2:9).3

Yet who actually were Jesus' enemies? What we know histori- cally suggests that his enemies were the Roman governor and his forces who condemned and executed Jesus on grounds of sedition against Rome. In all probability, as the gospels indicate, Jesus also had enemies among his own people, especially among those of its

20n traditional characterization of the "alien enemies," see Levenson. 3For discussion, see Collins (85), Schilssler Fiorenza (116-119), and Merideth.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 21

leaders who regarded his activity as threatening and potentially dangerous. Yet had Jesus' followers identified themselves with the majority of other Jews, they might have told his story very differently- and with considerably more historical plausibility. Specifically, they might have told it in a style rather like that of Maccabees, as that of an inspired Jewish holy man martyred by Israel's traditional "alien enemies."

At this crucial juncture, however, for reasons too complex to summarize here, the evangelists chose to dissociate themselves from the Jewish majority, and to focus instead upon intra-Jewish conflict-and so, simultaneously, upon their own quarrel with those who resisted their claims about Jesus. Within the gospel nar- ratives, the figure of Satan tends to correlate with-and to express- that dramatic shift of blame from "the nations" onto members of

Jesus' own people. The variations in each of the gospels as each depicts the activity of the demonic opposition (and, correspond- ingly, those they perceive as enemies) express, I suggest, a variety of relationships-often deeply ambivalent-between various groups of Jesus' followers and these Jewish groups each regarded as its primary opponents. We must be careful to avoid oversimplifica- tion. Yet it is probably fair to say that in every case the decision to cast the story of Jesus into the context of God's war against Satan tends to exempt the Romans and to place increasing blame upon the "intimate enemies." By the time of the gospel of John, as we shall see, those the author often designates simply as "the Jews" have become, in effect, a kind of diabolus ex machina.4

Before we look at the characterization of Satan in each of the gospels, let us make one preliminary note about the decision to start this investigation with the gospel narratives. Were our con- cern to unravel the problems of source and redaction criticism, we would have to begin, of course, with the earliest extant sources, such as the letters of Paul, and whatever other constituent elements of gospel tradition we might reconstruct,5 including, some scholars believe, the gospel of Thomas. But since our aim is different-to observe how the theme of cosmic war, and the corresponding divi- sion in society, dominates those traditions which the majority of Christians (c. 70-200 C.E.) affirmed as "canonical"-we begin

4For discussion of the much debated meaning of the term Ioudaios in John, see infra. 5For an outstanding recent discussion, see Koester.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

22 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

instead with those portraits of Jesus that proved most influential in shaping all subsequent orthodox tradition.

Let us consider first, then, the gospel of Mark and the Q source, the importance of these two reinforced by the way that Matthew and Luke reworked both into their later narratives. Several influen- tial scholars recently have suggested that certain earlier compo- nents of Jesus tradition lacked the theme of cosmic war. In his recent study of Ancient Christian Gospels, Helmut Koester has shown, for example, how certain sayings traditions, including sec- tions of the Gospel of Thomas, predate the canonical gospels. John Kloppenborg, following the lead of Koester and Robinson, has ana- lyzed the Q source, and claims to be able to separate "the formative component in Q," which he identifies with six "wisdom speeches," from what he regards as later additions, including the apocalyptic sayings, the polemic against the present "evil generation," and the diabolical temptation scene.

What matters for our present purpose, whatever we assume about earlier and later strata of Q, is to observe that such "wisdom sayings" came to be included in canonical tradition only when they are framed-and thus interpreted-by the theme of cosmic war. Although certain of the Q sayings attributed to Jesus may sound "sapiential," in my view they differ radically from the Egyptian and Greek collections to which Kloppenborg compares them. As he himself notes, the "confrontational, paradoxical, and hyperbolic" tone of Q is antithetical to the conservative attitudes expressed in pagan collections. Furthermore, as Kloppenborg also observes, the Q sayings are dominated and shaped by expectation of the coming judgment.

Most significantly, the sayings divide human society into two groups-not so much "the wise and the foolish" as a righteous minority ranged against a wicked majority. Wisdom tradition, by definition, presupposes an essential contrast between the wise and the foolish. But the Q sayings (including those Kloppenborg classifies as the "inaugural sermon" and "sayings on anxiety") presuppose a very different contrast. In the former, for example, the speaker's injunc- tions to "love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who abuse you," etc., implic- itly warn his hearers that, in effect, "many people are your enemies; they will curse, abuse, beat, and rob you; they will reject you and try to kill you." Unlike wisdom traditions, which intend to make "the wise" feel (and, one hopes, become) superior to "the foolish"

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 8: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 23

(Beardslee), these sayings involve far more than contrast; they pre- suppose active, hostile, even lethal opposition. Yet, as we noted already, even those sayings that can be construed as "sapiential" only survive into orthodox tradition in the context, Kloppenborg argues, of cosmic war. Consequently, they interpret all human conflict in terms of this cosmological strife.

Turning to Mark, we can see that his gospel, as James Robinson has observed, "is anything but a straightforward historical account" (63). Mark opens his narrative with the account of John baptizing Jesus and relates that, at the moment of baptism, the holy spirit descended upon Jesus, and "a voice spoke from heaven, saying 'This is My beloved son."' From that moment, all humans disappear from Mark's narrative: "Immediately the spirit drove (Jesus) into the wilderness, and there he remained for forty days, tempted by the satan (tou satana) and he was among the wild ani- mals, and the angels ministered to him." Recounting this episode, Mark does not intend to depart from events in the human, histori- cal world, but rather, as Robinson notes, to interpret their cosmic significance. The same pattern pervades the entire narrative.

Let us glance, then, at the "story line" of Mark's gospel. Directly after the spirit infuses Jesus with power, drawing him into combat with Satan in the desert, he emerges announcing the new situation (1:15), heralding God's imminent victory over the forces of evil. When he enters the synagogue at Capernaum, a demon- possessed man, hearing him preach "with authority," screams as the demon within him recognizes what Jesus' activity means and tries to overpower him: "What is there between us and you, Jesus of Nazareth. Have you come to destroy us?" (1:24). In this first public confrontation with a demon, Jesus commands the evil spirit to leave, and forces him out; the demon convulses the man and shrieks "with a great voice" as he departs. All who witness this contest, struck with astonishment, ask each other "What is this? New teaching! With power (exousian) he commands the unclean spirits, and they obey him!" (1:27).

As Mark tells the story, then, Jesus' power manifests itself espe- cially in action, since Mark does not, here, record Jesus' teaching. Even in the first public challenge to the forces of evil, Mark shows how Jesus' power sets him in contrast-and soon into direct con- flict-with the scribes commonly revered as religious authorities, for, as he explains, Jesus "taught with authority, and not like the scribes" (1:22).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 9: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

24 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Throughout this opening chapter, Mark emphasizes that Jesus "drove out many demons," healed demonically induced illness (1:34; 39), and traveled throughout Galilee "preaching in the syna- gogues and casting out demons," for, as he explains to his disci- ples, "that is what I came to do" (1:38). Simultaneously, as Mark tells it, the scribes immediately took offense at what they took to be his arrogating divine authority. Within the opening chapters, then, as Robinson has shown, Mark presents cosmic war on three interrelated fronts: the holy spirit against Satan; the "son of God" against the demons; Jesus of Nazareth against his human opponents.6

For Jesus has barely engaged Satan's power before his oppo- nents' hostility turns murderous. Directly after witnessing Jesus healing on the Sabbath, the Pharisees, Mark says, began to plot with the Herodians "how they might destroy him" (3:6). After this powerful coalition has united against him, Jesus retaliates by com- missioning a new leadership group, "the twelve," orders them to preach, and gives them "power to cast out demons" (3:13).

This escalation of spiritual war immediately evokes escalating opposition. For, Mark says, next "the scribes who came down from Jerusalem" charge that Jesus "is possessed by Beelzebub; by the prince of demons he casts out demons!" Jesus objects: "How can Satan cast out Satan? ... If Satan is in rebellion against himself, he is divided and cannot stand, and that is the end of him" (3:23- 26). According to Mark, Jesus characterized Satan (cf. Isaiah 56:7) as a powerful lord, the ruler of a kingdom, or the master of a house, upon whom Jesus openly declares war. He is out to "bind this enemy and to plunder his house." Jesus throws back upon his accusers the accusation of being demon-possessed, charging that in saying this they themselves are sinning so deeply as to seal their own damnation (3:28-30). Later, telling the parable of the sower, Jesus specifically identifies Satan as the enemy who frustrates the efficacy of his preaching:

6Robinson, "We have identified three levels of Markan language ... summarized schemati- cally as follows: the Spirit and Satan; the Son of God and demoniacs; Jesus and his oppo- nents" (80). "The debates, too, ... are the actions of Satan ... the debates with the Jewish authorities are designated peirasmai" (93). "Jesus and the church are engaged in the same cosmic struggle against the same demonic force of evil" (111). See also Nineham (34, passim).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 10: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 25

When they hear, Satan immediately comes and snatches away the word which is sown in them. (4:14)

From this point on, Jesus sharply discriminates between those whom he has chosen, the inner circle, and "those outside." Although he often criticizes the disciples7-in 8:33 he even accuses Peter of playing Satan's role-Jesus shares secrets with them that are hidden from outsiders. For the latter, he says, quoting Isaiah, are afflicted with impenetrable spiritual blindness. Thus the first four chapters of Mark demonstrate how the theme of cosmic war- fare intertwines with that of conflict between the tiny group of Jesus' intimates and the various and powerful groups ranged against them.

At first glance, one might assume that Mark here adopts and follows a pattern we observed in the literature of those various groups sometimes called "dissident Jews."8 To some extent, he does; yet despite Mark's affinity with such groups, his own view- point is actually far more radical. For the former attempt to reform or renew Israel by going back with increased devotion to tradi- tional ways of maintaining holiness-observance of Sabbath, for example, or kashrut. Mark, by contrast, depicts Jesus both accused and apparently guilty of violating strict observance on both counts. Criticized by the scribes, the Pharisees, and even, apparently, by the "disciples of John," Jesus rejects the implied criterion: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Unlike other "sectarian" texts, then, the gospel of Mark does not address those who are especially "righteous." I Enoch, for example, is addressed to the "holy ones" among humankind, while Jubilees and the Qfimran texts are addressed to a "righteous rem- nant" within Israel. Mark, on the contrary, places such "reform" parties as the Pharisees (and possibly the Essenes as well) among Jesus' primary critics, and so finally among his enemies.

What criteria remain, then, to discriminate-within Israel- between the people who belong to God and those who follow Satan? Mark makes his primary criterion discernment of spirits.

7See the work of Weeden and Tolbert for recent critical interpretation; I find more persua- sive the forthcoming study by Shiner. 8Note Smith's more precise attempt at definition: "Those first-century Jewish groups, both

in Palestine and in the Diaspora, both before and after the destruction of the Temple, that sought to develop a notion of community, principles of authority, sources of revelation, and modes of access to divinity apart from the Jerusalem temple, its traditions, priests, and cult" (2.701); see also Murray (1982:194-208, 1985:263-81).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 11: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

26 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Who recognizes the spirit acting in Jesus as holy, and who regards it as demonic? According to Mark, the answer to this question reveals, in each case, whether a person stands on God's side or Satan's. Here the mutual accusations of demon possession effec- tively define the identity of Jesus' followers, on the one hand, and, on the other, that of their Jewish opponents. Strikingly, however, as we noted above, Mark sees the evil "ruler of this world" personi- fied not so much in Israel's traditional "alien enemies" (in this case, the Romans) so much as in the "intimate enemies." Mark charges the Jewish leaders with virtually the full responsibility for enacting Satan's purposes on earth. For according to Mark, as Jesus leads his terrified followers toward Jerusalem, he tells them explicitly whom they are to blame for his impending death: "The chief priests and scribes ... will condemn (the Son of Man) to death, and hand him over to the nations, and they shall mock him and spit upon him, flog him and kill him" (Mark 10:33).

After Jesus' public demonstration in the temple outrages the temple officers, Mark again repeats that "the chief priests and scribes sought to destroy him" (11:18). When both groups, together with the elders, demand to know by what authority he acts, Jesus refuses to answer. Instead he retells Isaiah's parable of God's wrath against Israel (12:1-12) in a way so transparent that even the chief priests, scribes, and elders themselves recognized that he was telling it "against them" (12:12). The following scenes show Jesus contending first against the Pharisees and Herodians, who fail to trick him into making anti-Roman statements (12:13- 15), and then against the scribes (12:35). Chapter 14 begins with the statement that "the high priests sought by deceit how they might overcome him and kill him," while the people remain on Jesus' side (14:2). Shortly afterward, Judas Iscariot, obviously aware of the hostility Jesus had aroused-and among which influ- ential people-"went to the chief priests in order to betray (Jesus) to them, and when they heard it they were glad, and offered him money" (14:10-11). Mark's theology, as is well known, paradoxi- cally inverts the ordinary meaning of the event he relates. In his conviction that Jesus' death will become a means of destroying the powers of evil, Mark depicts Satan himself-momentarily appear- ing in the person of Peter-actually attempting to obstruct the pas- sion (8:31-33)!

The sacred mystery they claim lies hidden in Jesus' death does not, however, exonerate those who successfully conspire to kill

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 12: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 27

him. And while Mark does not explicitly introduce Satan into the passion narrative, from the first chapters (as we noted above) he has described those scribes, Herodians, Pharisees, and chief priests who seek "to destroy (Jesus)" as people acting in concert with the powers of evil.

Finally, then, as Mark's narrative darkens into the events lead- ing to the crucifixion, the reader senses those forces closing in, their presence manifest through the increasingly hostile and dan- gerous machinations of Jesus' "intimate enemies." We noted already that Satan appeared shortly before Jesus' arrest, not only, as Luke and John will have it, in the form of Judas Iscariot's deci- sion to betray Jesus, but even in Peter's instinctive attempt to defend him. Possessed by the conviction that Jesus "had to die" for mysterious reasons which he does not presume to fathom, Mark depicts Peter himself "tempting" Jesus to evade his divinely ordained death (8:31-33).

Far from acquitting Jesus' enemies of blame, however, Mark's account (possibly following earlier traditions) significantly shifts the blame from the Romans to the Jewish leaders. We need not rehearse here certain obvious reasons for deflecting responsibility for the crucifixion from the Romans. As Paul Winter points out, the evangelist, writing in the turmoil surrounding the disastrous Jewish war against Rome, wished ". .. to emphasize the culpability of the Jewish nation, particularly of its leaders . .. for . .. the death of Jesus. His motives are defensive, not aggressive; to avoid men- tioning anything that would provoke Roman antagonism toward, or even suspicion of, the ideas for which he stood ... the evangelist tried to conceal that Jesus had been condemned and executed on a charge of sedition" (144).

By contrast with John, Mark (like Matthew and Luke following him) mentions no participation by Roman soldiers. Instead he insists that Jesus was arrested by soldiers sent "from the chief priests and the scribes." It is certainly likely that Jewish authori- ties, having secured Judas' cooperation, may have sent Temple police to participate in the arrest; but Mark chooses to mention only Jewish officers-despite what he records of Jesus' protest at being arrested at night, and so treated "like a rebel" (h6s lestes, 14:48).9

90n the use of lestes for Jewish nationalists, see Horsley (1981).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 13: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

28 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

The most effective means Mark uses to shift responsibility onto Jesus' "intimate enemies," however, is to introduce the so-called "trial before the Sanhedrin," and to juxtapose this with the con- trasting "trial before Pilate." For Mark goes on to tell a dramatic story of Jesus' immediate arraignment that night before the high priest, in whose presence "all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled" (14:53). Mark elaborates each detail of this alleged "trial," where, he says, after hearing a series of trumped up charges and lying witnesses, the chief priest pro- nounced Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and the entire assembly "all condemned him as deserving death."'1

1oNew Testament scholars from the time of Dibelius through Barnabas Lindars and Edvard Schweizter, to the more recent studies of Linneman, Marxen, Peros, and Donahue agree that this critically placed "trial before the Sanhedrin" is historically implausible, most likely con- structed by the evangelist. As building blocks for the scene, scholars suggest such passages as Isaiah 53, which Mark apparently took as prophecies concerning an innocent sufferer, falsely accused, who says nothing in his own defense, in spite of being beaten, mocked, and spat upon. Donahue has pointed out how these and other major themes of this narrative all characterize the situation of Jesus' followers at the time Mark was writing. It is they who are accused of devaluing the temple, and of predicting its downfall; it is they who contest Jesus as "Messiah, Son of the Blessed One"; and, third, Mark hopes, it is they who will emulate Jesus' calm acceptance of condemnation and torture.

Mark composed this narrative, then, to encourage Jesus' followers facing interrogation and sentence before Jewish and pagan authorities c. 70-80 C.E. By juxtaposing Jesus' com- posure and straightforward confession with the scene of Peter's terrified denial when a ser- vant tries to identify him as Jesus' follower, Mark intends to exhort his fellow believers, when on trial, to imitate their Lord and shun the cowardice that Peter displays. Intending to demonstrate that the Roman authorities have no quarrel with Christians, Mark shifts the burden of blame virtually entirely from the Romans to the Jews. His account of the subse- quent "trial" before Pilate, by contrast, is abrupt and incomplete. There Mark mentions only the single charge that would interest a Roman interrogator: that Jesus had claimed to be "King of the Jews." Yet this second Marcan account hardly deserves to be called a trial, since it lacks elements central to Mark's fictitious "trial before the Sanhedrin"-including the appearance of witnesses and the pronouncement of sentence!

Mark goes on to elaborate how Pilate offered to release Jesus, "for he recognized that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up" (15:10). As Mark tells it, Pilate expresses scrupulous concern to avoid unjustly executing an innocent Jewish prisoner, while attempting in weak and futile gestures to appease the crowd. Those whom Mark previ- ously had described as Jesus' defenders he now depicts as a bloodthirsty mob screaming for crucifixion. Pilate, of course, finally capitulates, and-never having pronounced sentence- he "delivered (Jesus) to be crucified" (15:15b)! Later Luke will follow Mark but go farther, exculpating Pilate by revising the story to show that Pilate actually declared Jesus innocent no less than three times and tried three times-in vain-to release him before "he gave (Jesus) up to their (the Jews!) will" (23:24). Matthew adds the episode of Pilate washing his hands "in innocence," and Matthew alone adds the terrible curse the Jewish people invoke upon themselves and upon all their progeny ("His blood be upon us and upon our children"; 27:25). Still later John will imply that Pilate only allowed Jesus to be beaten and mocked in order to evoke compassion from the onlookers.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 14: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 29

Without rehearsing all the arguments here, I agree with those scholars who have argued that Mark's account of this so-called trial was a construction of the writer (or of his sources) designed to make an apologetic point. Thereby, as one scholar observes, Mark evades ". . . the indisputable fact . . . that (Jesus') final trial and sentence were the work of a Roman court.""11 Compare with this the equally artificial "trial before Pilate," in which, as Mark tells it, Pilate barely interrogates the accused, never sentences him, but instead acknowledges his innocence, and finally, only after trying in vain to defend him from the shouting mob, acquiesces in their demands. The French biblical scholar Loisy has, indeed, "gotten the point" of these two juxtaposed accounts: Mark intends ". . . to make us understand that the governor did not condemn Jesus, but that he merely allowed him to be put to death in accordance with the sen- tence of the Sanhedrin, after having tried in vain to free him from the hatred of his enemies" (1.1031). At first Mark identifies these ene- mies with the chief priests and scribes, but by the end of the story they also include "the crowd" whose response previously had pro- tected Jesus. Thus Mark effectively concludes that the majority of Jesus' fellow Jews served Satan's purpose in helping to destroy Jesus.

From this quick sketch drawn from Mark, let us turn to Mat- thew to see how the theme of supernatural conflict serves to char- acterize the relationship between Jesus' followers and those they saw as their primary enemies. Here, too, the relationship remains implicit, not explicit. Unlike Mark, who describes Jesus' baptism as the primary event in which God's spirit descended upon Jesus, Matthew declares-and emphasizes-that this divine power entered Jesus from the very moment of his conception. Indeed, according to Matthew, the spirit actually initiated that conception: "She was discovered to have a child in her womb through the holy spirit" (1:18). Thus the angel explains to Joseph that her child "was con- ceived through the holy spirit" (1:21).

As Matthew tells the story, then, Jesus even as a newborn was royal and divine, already God's designated future "King of the Jews" (2:2). Matthew proceeds immediately to show how Jesus' earliest history echoes and recapitulates the story of the infant Moses' escape from the murderous acts of an evil tyrant. Many have

11Winter (33-4); Nineham, especially 368-403: "The indisputable fact that he died by cru- cifixion shows that his trial and sentence were the work of a Roman court" (403).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 15: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

30 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

observed that Matthew presents Jesus' birth as a typological paral- lel with Moses' (Brown, 1977:214-225). But no one yet, so far as I know, has noted how Matthew simultaneously departs from his typological scheme by reversing traditional roles. Certain devout people among his subjects, including, of course, John the Baptist, regarded Herod's credentials as suspect. He was, after all, an Idu- mean; his family lived in a notoriously Gentile way (despite their religious professions); and, as the Baptist pointed out, he lived in open violation of Jewish law.

Shockingly, Matthew casts the Jewish king, Herod, into the vil- lain's role traditionally reserved for Pharaoh. Through this device, Matthew turns the "alien enemies" of Israel's antiquity into the "intimate enemies," as Matthew perceives them, including the chief priests and scribes, along with all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. For Matthew says that not only was Herod "troubled" to hear of Jesus' birth, but so was "all Jerusalem with him" (2:3). Matthew intends, no doubt, to contrast Herod, Idumean by background, and from a suspect dynasty, with Jesus, whose legitimately Davidic (and so royal) lineage Matthew proclaims. Here it is Herod-not Pharaoh- who ruthlessly orders the mass slaughter of Jewish male infants. Thus (as Raymond Brown also notes in his masterful study) even in the infancy narrative Matthew foreshadows the terrible climax of the passion (1977:183). According to Matthew, no sooner was Jesus born than the "chief priests and scribes of the people" assem- bled, unwittingly aiding Herod's attempt to "search for the child and kill him" (2:13).

While transposing the Jewish king into Pharaoh's traditional role, Matthew simultaneously reverses the valences of Israel's sym- bolic geography. Egypt, traditionally the land of slavery (and so traditionally synonymous with oppression) now becomes for Jesus and his family a sanctuary-a place of refuge and deliverance from the slaughter ordered by the Jewish king! In its shock value, this reversal of imagery nearly matches that in the book of Revelation, which refers to Jerusalem as the place "allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was crucified" (11:8)! Later, of course, Matthew will go on to have Jesus favorably compare Tyre and Sidon-and even Sodom-with the local towns of Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum (11:20-24).

Since Matthew claims that Jesus received God's spirit from the moment of his conception, he sees Jesus' baptism as merely con- firming, not conveying, his receipt of divine power. The spirit con-

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 16: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 31

tinues to direct the subsequent action, leading Jesus into the wilderness for the purpose of undergoing temptations "by the devil." Apparently taking his cues from the Q source, Matthew describes Satan challenging Jesus' divine identity ("If you are the Son of God. . ."). But failing twice to induce Jesus to prove his divine power and authority, Satan offers him "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory" (which Satan here claims as his own) in exchange for worship. Thus Matthew, following Mark's lead, implies that political success and power are evidence of affiliation with the devil-certainly not, as many of Matthew's contemporar- ies would have assumed, marks of divine favor!

Throughout his gospel, Matthew sustains both the reversal of alien enemies with intimate ones and the correlated reversal of Jew- ish vs. Gentile territory. Here, after the arrest of John the Baptist, Jesus went, as Isaiah had prophesied, to the "land beyond the Jor- dan, the Galilee of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 9:1-2, cited in Matthew 4:15). Subsequently he heals a leper outcast from Israel, and then he performs a healing for a Roman centurion who recognizes Jesus' divine power and appeals to him to use it on his behalf. Aston- ished to hear a Roman officer express faith "greater than any" he has found in Israel, Jesus immediately declares, "I tell you, many shall come from east and west and sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God, while the sons of the king- dom shall be cast out into outer darkness" (8:11-12a).

As Sean Freyne observes, Matthew, himself contending with his fellow Christians against the rival party of Pharisees, tells the story of Jesus as a polemic between Jesus and the Jewish leaders (1985:117-144; 1988:67-132). For this purpose, Matthew seems simultaneously intent on "correcting" what apparently was a com- mon impression-that Jesus simply ignored traditional Jewish con- cerns with righteous obedience to Torah. Thus, instead of beginning, as Mark does, by showing how Jesus' mighty works- and thus his implicit arrogation of divine authority-bring him into conflict with religious leaders, Matthew opens Jesus' ministry with his "new Torah." Thus Matthew prepares the reader for the charges of Jesus' laxity in Sabbath and kosher observance by insist- ing that Jesus acts on the basis of a greater righteousness (5:20), not a lesser one. According to Matthew 5 and 6, Jesus demands an enormous increase in religious scrupulosity: the traditional Torah is not half strict enough for him! Simultaneously, Matthew insists that Jesus' critics, "the scribes and the Pharisees," use mere hypo-

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 17: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

32 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

critical "observance" as a cover for violating what Jesus here pro- claims to be the Torah's central commands of love for God and neighbor (6:1-18).

Matthew thus leads the reader into the controversies between Jesus and his opponents by way of Jesus' teaching.12 And unlike Mark, as we noted already, Matthew casts the Pharisees, not the scribes, into the role of Jesus' primary antagonists.'3 Thus here it is the Pharisees who, at a crucial moment, charge Jesus with demon possession ("He casts out demons by the prince of demons"; 9:34). Having warned the Pharisees that by false "dis- cernment of spirits" they commit unforgivable blasphemy, Mat- thew's Jesus insists that supernatural conflict creates two separate-and opposing-communities: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

Distressed to see Israel lacking spiritual leadership, Jesus then designates the twelve and gives them "authority over unclean spir- its, to cast them out" (10:1). While warning them that the people "will deliver you up to sanhedrins, and beat you in their syna- gogues" (10:17), Jesus warns them to anticipate murderous hatred within their own households (10:21) as well as from "everyone" (10:22); for, as he says, "if they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they malign those members of his household?" (10:24).

After the Pharisees "went out and took counsel against him, how to destroy him" (12:14), Matthew's Jesus replies in Isaiah's words, claiming that God himself has said of him, "I have put my spirit upon (my servant), and he shall proclaim justice to the Gen- tiles . . . and in his name will the Gentiles hope" (12:13-21).

At this turning point in the story, Matthew reports that Jesus healed and exorcised a blind, mute man who was demon pos- sessed (might he represent the Gentiles to whom Jesus has just declared he is to minister?).'4 Seeing this, and seeing the crowd's admiring response, Matthew says, the Pharisees repeat their charge of demon possession: ". . . all the people were amazed, and said, 'Can this be the Son of David?' But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this

12See the recent study by Garland. 13Cf Overman. 14Note the perceptive and, I believe, correlated comments by Jackson, "The (Roman) centu-

rion is the counterpart for Mark's intended reader" (20), as he is in Matthew as well.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 18: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 33

man casts out demons.'" To this accusation, Jesus responds, as in Mark, with the countercharge of blasphemy and warns that they are liable to damnation.

The bitter hostility expressed in Matthew 23 has attracted con- siderable comment, notably including recent discussions by D. Garland and A. Overman. Luke Johnson has attempted to amelio- rate the bitterness by showing, quite accurately, that rhetorical vituperation typically characterized debate between rival teachers in antiquity. But Johnson fails to note that demonic vilification occurs extremely rarely. In the wide range of examples he offers, only Essenes and Christians actually escalate conflict with their opponents to the level of cosmic war. Indeed, as Matthew's narra- tive proceeds, the antagonism between Jesus and his enemies comes to be described-as in the literature of the Qtfmran sectari- ans-as a war between those whom Jesus calls "sons of the king- dom" (13:38a) and the "sons of the evil one" (13:38b). First Jesus repeats John's denunciation to them: "you are evil" (12:34). Next he predicts that despised foreigners shall "arise at the judgment of this generation and condemn it" (12:41). Finally he implicitly accuses his opponents of being hopelessly demon possessed, tell- ing the parable of a man who, once exorcised, experiences a new invasion of "seven other spirits more evil" than the first, ". . . so that the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be also with this evil generation!" (12:45).

Later, Jesus explains privately to his followers that the genera- tion he addresses-except for the elect-already has been judged and condemned; his opponents' refusal to receive his preaching, he says, evinces Satan's power over them. In terms of the parable of the sower, Jesus identifies the "evil one" as the "enemy" who has "snatched away" the seeds he has planted and so prevented his preaching from bearing fruit among his own people (13:19). Immediately thereafter Jesus tells the parable of the weeds, explic- itly interpreting it so as to identify his opponents as the offspring of Satan: ". .. the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil!" (13:38-39).

Jesus, finally recognized by his disciples as Messiah, tells them that now, by the authority of God's spirit, he is establishing his own assembly, which shall triumph over all the forces of evil. This signals that God has replaced Israel with a new community: as Nicklesburg observes, by Matthew 16 "the qahal 'Ysrael has become 'my church' (mou ten ekklesias)" (174).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 19: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

34 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Yet Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees has not yet reached the climax impending in the passion narrative. Hultgren (67-131) has shown how Matthew consistently turns earlier traditions into con- flict stories that pit Jesus against those he denounces seven times as "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," and even calls "children of hell" (23:15)! He goes on to call down divine wrath upon "this generation,... that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of the innocent Abel to that of Zechariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar" (23:35). Through the parable of the sheep and the goats Jesus proclaims a direct and powerful message: that every single response a person makes toward him-here interpreted as, in effect, anyone in need, hungering, thirsting, sick, naked, imprisoned-takes place within the context of this cosmic battle between God's spirit and Satan. For Matthew, this apparently means that Jesus in his future role as Son of Man shall judge the whole human race, inviting some to enter into God's kingdom and ordering all who ignore his commands "into the eternal fire pre- pared for the devil and his angels" (25:41).

Consistent with these themes is Matthew's greater emphasis throughout the passion narrative on Pilate's innocence and upon the consequently greater guilt of Jesus' Jewish contemporaries. Although we need not here repeat the work of those who have ana- lyzed the Matthean passion narrative in detail (Dahl), let us note some of the uniquely Matthean features: the story of Pilate's handwashing, an episode apparently added to echo Jewish practice as mentioned in such passages as Deut 21:6-9 and Ps 26:6; Pilate's implicit recognition of Jesus' innocence (27:18) and his conse- quent refusal to pronounce sentence; and, finally, his reluctant acquiescence as "all the people" acknowledge their blood guilt and invoke God's curse upon themselves and their children (Mt. 26:28). As Matthew tells the story, even Judas Iscariot himself-to say nothing of Pilate's own wife-declares Jesus innocent! Finally, it is Matthew alone who adds the story that the "chief priests and the Pharisees," following the crucifixion, solicit Pilate to secure Jesus' tomb with a guard, lest his followers steal his body in order to fake a resurrection. Matthew's story concludes with the well- known story of the Jewish authorities bribing the soldiers to start the false rumor that "has been spread among the Jews to this day" (28:15).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 20: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 35

As the gospel ends, then, Matthew clearly dissociates Jesus' fol- lowers from these hostile and lying "Jews" and depicts the resur- rected Jesus announcing to his followers that now, having received "all authority, on heaven and on earth," he orders them to "go and make disciples of all nations" (28:19). Thus the end of the gospel echoes the beginning: the traditional "alien enemies" have now become those from whom, along with a remnant from Israel, God's spirit shall gather the new "qahal"-Jesus' ekkl1sia.

The gospel of Luke makes considerably more explicit the pat- tern we are calling the "social history of Satan." According to Luke, it is the holy spirit (or its agents, the angels) who initiates every one of the uniquely Lucan opening anecdotes, from John's miracu- lous conception to Simeon and Anna's greeting to Jesus in the Tem- ple. Like Matthew, Luke shows that the moment Jesus appears as a full grown man, "full of the holy spirit" to challenge the forces of evil, Satan immediately appears to challenge him. Finding himself thrice defeated, "the devil departed from him for a time" (4:13). This does not mean, as Conzlemann imagined, that Jesus' activity until his betrayal was "Satan-free." As I read the gospel, I agree with certain more recent commentators who contend that Luke's entire narrative demonstrates the opposite.'5 Now, however, the devil works underground-or, more accurately, on the ground- through human undercover agents.

What first suggests this is his juxtaposition of two conflict sto- ries in Luke 4. For directly following his account of Jesus' conflict with the devil, Luke narrates his first public appearance-a scene that ends in sudden and nearly lethal violence. Here Jesus appears in the Nazareth synagogue reading passages from Isaiah and pro- claiming their fulfillment. Favorably received at first, Jesus then predicts that his own townspeople shall reject him, and declares that God intends to bring salvation to the Gentiles. His words so outrage his audience that "... hearing these things, all those in the synagogue were filled with rage, and they rose up to throw him out of the city, and led him to the edge of the hill on which their city was built, in order to throw him down headlong" (4:28-29). But Jesus quickly departs, and so he escapes this first attempt on his life.

15See, for recent discussion, Garrett.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 21: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

36 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

After Jesus' townspeople have responded to his first appearance by trying to kill him-and thus to accomplish the devil's purpose- Luke shows the religious authorities beginning to plot against

Jesus. At first they suspiciously watch him, hoping for an opportu- nity "to make an accusation against him." When they find one, seeing him heal on the Sabbath, "... they were filled with insane rage (anoias) and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus" (6:11). From the beginning of Jesus' public activity to its end, Luke intends to show that it is Jews, Jesus' intimate enemies, who willingly play Satan's role.16 Yet even in Luke this theme is not a simple one; here, as some scholars have noted, Jesus' encounter with the Jewish leaders often seems to indicate intra-Jewish polemic rather than anti-Jewish polemic.17 While Luke castigates the Pharisees for having set themselves, in effect, against God (cf. 16:13-14), he simultaneously characterizes Jesus' followers in lan- guage reserved for the "righteous remnant." From the opening scenes in the Temple involving Jesus' infancy and adolescence to the words with which Luke closes the gospel (the disciples "went to Jerusalem, and were continually in the temple praising God") Luke depicts Jesus and his associates as deeply loyal to the Temple-as, perhaps, the only genuine Israelites left in Jerusalem.

Internal conflict often is, of course, the bitterest of all. When Jesus proceeds to teach and heal, "casting out a demon that was dumb," Luke says that "some of the people" accuse him of posses- sion by Beelzebub. Luke, like Matthew, quotes the Q sources, acknowledging the divisions his coming arouses within the "house of Israel": "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth, no, rather division; from now on in one house there shall be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother. . ." (12:51-55).

Spiritual warfare between God and Satan-and so, simultane- ously, between Jesus, his followers, and their "intimate enemies"- intensifies throughout the gospel. As his enemies harden their opposition, certain Pharisees warn Jesus (in an episode unique to Luke) that "Herod wants to kill you." Jesus' contemptuous answer suggests that what really underlies Herod's hostility (as well as that of others) is that Jesus challenges Satan's power: "Go and tell that

160n many points I tend to agree with Sanders' discussion; see especially 1-83. 170n the work of other scholars, see Sanders.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 22: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 37

fox, 'today and tomorrow I cast out demons and heal, and the third day I finish my course. . ."' (13:31-32). Yet after the seventy apos- tles he sends out return astonished and triumphant at their power over demons, Jesus exults, foreseeing Satan's impending defeat:18 "I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven: Behold, I have given you power to tread on snakes and scorpions, and upon every power of the enemy" (10:18-19).

Directly before this supernatural "enemy" enters into Judas Iscariot to initiate the betrayal, Luke has Jesus warn-in parable- how he himself shall return as king to annihilate his enemies. At the very moment he begins his final journey to Jerusalem, Jesus tells the story of "a certain nobleman" who travels to a distant land "in order to claim his kingly power (basileian) and return" (19:11). When he has accomplished this and returns in triumph, his first act is to demand the immediate execution of his enemies: "As for those enemies of mine, who did not want me to rule over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me" (emphasis added; 19:27). Luke highlights the significance of these ominous words as follows: "while saying these words, Jesus travelled before (the disciples), going up to Jerusalem." Arriving there, he ordered his disciples to prepare for his royal entry into the city (cf. Zech. 9:9). Luke alone inserts the words "the king" into the Psalmist's acclamation he says the disciples shouted at Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem: "Blessed is the one, the king, who comes in the name of the Lord!" (Ps 118:26; Lk 19:38).

As the passion narrative proceeds, Luke increasingly empha- sizes the culpability of those Jews who "did not want (him) to rule over them" and so reject their anointed king. As Luke tells the story, "Satan entered into Judas Iscariot," but neither this nor God's preordained plan absolved Judas from bearing his guilt (22:22). Intending to betray Jesus, Judas went not only to the chief priests but also, Luke adds, to "the Temple officers" to arrange for the arrest. Unlike John, Luke mentions no Roman soldiers among the arresting party. Later, describing Judas' arrival in Gethsem- ane, Luke significantly omits the saying common to Mark and Mat- thew, that "the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners (=Gentiles)" (Mk 14:41 par). Instead, Jesus here addresses "the chief priests and temple officers and elders who had come out

18Cf. Garrett.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 23: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

38 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

against him," and identifies these very persons as, in effect, Satan incarnate: "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you in the temple every day, you did not lay hands upon me. But this is your (pl.) hour, and (that of) the power of darkness (he exousia tou skoutos)" (22:52-53; emphasis added).

Luke goes much further than either Mark or Matthew had-and makes a much less plausible story-by depicting Jews not only as responsible for arresting and sentencing Jesus, but even, perhaps, the carrying out his execution. Without discussing in detail Luke's version of the "Trial before the Sanhedrin," we note that, in Sand- ers' words, this evangelist ". .. portrays the Jewish religious leaders as presenting obviously false political charges to Pilate, charges the falsehood of which is immediately clear to any reader of the gospel who pays attention. As Luke tells the story, the Jewish leaders are a cohesive group capable of manipulating the Roman authorities for the purpose of getting rid of Jesus for very murky reasons" (7).

Luke adds to the account of Pilate's interrogation the statement that Pilate specifically pronounced Jesus innocent: "I find no cause (aition = i.e. = for prosecution) in this person" (23:14). Yet "the chief priests and the crowds" (who here are clearly Jews) object, Luke says, and insist that Jesus is guilty of disturbing the peace, "from Galilee to this place" (23:5). Luke alone claims that Pilate, hearing this, sends Jesus to Herod. Having interrogated Jesus and having failed to elicit from him any information, "Herod with his soldiers abused and mocked him" (23:11) and sent him back. Here Herod, acting as an official working under Roman jurisdiction, agrees with Pilate, and in this sense fulfills Luke's pur- pose by effectively acquitting Jesus of any political charges against him. Luke also diverges from Mark and Matthew in attributing Jesus's mockery and abuse to Herod's-not Pilate's-officers (23:11).

Pilate then receives Jesus back and calls together "the chief priests and the rulers and the people" (23:13). These three groups, previously divided at least between the leaders and the people, now presents a united front against Jesus. Pilate formally declares Jesus innocent for the second time, adding that Herod has agreed with this verdict. But hearing Pilate declare that he now intends to release Jesus, Luke says, "they all cried out together" (23:18) for Jesus' execution and for Barabbas' release. When Luke presents Pilate's protestation of Jesus' innocence for yet a third time, he says

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 24: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 39

that ". . . they cried out in loud voices that he should be crucified, and their voices prevailed, and Pilate commanded that their demand might be granted . . . and he gave Jesus over to their will" (23:25; emphasis added). Immediately following, Luke writes, ". .. they led him away . .. and when they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him." Previously, Luke has followed tradition, indi- cating that it is the Gentiles to whom Jesus' people delivered him (18:31-34); later Luke will note the presence of a Roman centurion at the crucifixion. These clues, along with his account of the writ- ten charge, surely indicate that Luke knew that Romans actually had pronounced the sentence and carried out the execution.19 Nevertheless, as Sanders points out, Luke recounts the story in such a way that not only allows but perhaps intends for the reader (especially one unfamiliar with the other gospel accounts) to infer that, after a Jewish court alone had condemned Jesus, it was Jewish soldiers who actually crucified him.

Luke's account seems to confirm these shocking inferences in what follows. He relates, for example, that the Roman centurion present at the execution, seeing Jesus die, "praised God" and exclaimed that "certainly this man was innocent." Thus the foreign officer confirmed what the Roman governor already had stated three times. Luke offers further confirmation in the charges hurled by Stephen and Peter in the early chapters of Acts, where Peter specifically addresses the "men of Israel," charging that "you crucified and killed" the righteous one whom God had sent to Israel. Shortly after, Peter again addresses the "men of Israel," preaching of Jesus, ". .. whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when Pilate had decided to release him . . . you denied the holy and righteous one, and you asked instead for a mur- derer to be granted to you" (3:13-14).

When the high priest and the sanhedrin accuse Peter and his companions of "intend(ing) to bring this man's blood upon us," Peter boldly repeats the charge: "You killed Jesus by hanging him on a tree." Stephen, of course, takes up accusations familiar from certain prophetic sources and amplified among "dissident Jews":20 it is the Jewish people-the apostate majority, that is-who bear the responsibility and the guilt for Jesus' death, as for those of his fol-

19This point has been debated by Lucan scholars; see Grundmann (429, 473), Loisy (552,577), and Via (122-45). I agree with Fitzmeyer (493-513) and Sanders (1-23). 20Cf. Pagels 1991 passim.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 25: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

40 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

lowers. As Loisy says, according to Luke/Acts, "the Jews are the authors of all evil" (787); thus Luke indicates that those who reject Jesus' messiahship accomplish Satan's will and Satan's work on earth.

What about the gospel of John? Gustave Hoennicke, analyzing "Die Teufelsidee in den Evangelien," declares that "most of what we read in Christian theology about the devil goes back to the evange- lists" but locates this theme specifically in the synoptics. Hoen- nicke says that in Mark and Luke the demonology is particularly marked, while in John der Teufelsidee ganz fehlt" (208). Far more accurate is Raymond Brown's opposite assessment: that in the gos- pel of John, no less than in the synoptics, the whole ministry of Jesus is a struggle with Satan, culminating in the final struggle of the passion (1966, especially 364-476).

What prompts Hoennicke's comment, no doubt, is his observa- tion that the Johannine author depicts the devil quite differently than do the synoptic authors. The most obvious difference is that John omits the synoptics' opening "frame"-the scene of the desert temptation-and so omits as well many of the statements that evince the presence of constant demonic opposition throughout Jesus' ministry. Hoennicke characterizes this difference as a con- trast between what he calls the synoptics' "mythological" represen- tation of the devil and its "ethical" representation in John: "Auch Joh. 8, 44 ist der Teufel Vater der Juden nur in ethischen Sinn... In den Menschen Herzen herrscht der Teufel." But this alleged contrast between "mythological" and "ethical" representations of the devil fits neither the synoptics nor John-nor, for that matter, any of the Jewish literature known to me from c. 165 B.C.E.-100 C.E. From I Enoch's Book of the Watchers to the Martyrdom of Isaiah, from the Life of Adam and Eve to the synoptic gospels, the figure of the devil functions simultaneously mythologically and ethically. What Hoennicke says of John-"the devil reigns in human hearts"-is, as we have seen, as true of Mark, Matthew, and Luke as it is of John. Thus, I suggest, Hoennicke's observation inadvertently confirms the basic point of this article-that the devil serves, as one of its several purposes, to characterize human opposition.

Yet John does alter earlier characterizations of Satan in striking ways. Here, significantly, Satan does not appear as a supernatural character acting independently of human beings, as he does in the synoptic temptation scenes. Thus the latter does not occur in John-neither in the stark confrontation Mark describes nor in the

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 26: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 41

drama in three acts that Matthew and Luke recount. At first glance, then, we might assume that the story of three diabolic temptations is entirely absent from John; but, as Brown has pointed out, this is not so. Instead John transposes this scene-and its underlying theme of cosmic war-into a new key.

Let us observe, then, what John puts in place of the synoptic temptation scene. First, beginning with the prologue, John substi- tutes as a "frame" for the narrative the cosmological theme of the conflict between light and darkness. Echoing the grand cosmology of Genesis 1, the prologue identifies the logos, God's energy acting in creation with life (zie) and light (ph6s), that is, the "light of human kind" (ph6s tOn anthrip6n). Anticipating the message of his entire gospel, John declares that "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." John goes on to specify that this divine presence, "the light of humankind," finally came to shine in and through Jesus of Nazareth, revealed to be the Son of God.

Thus John recasts the elements separated in creation (light and darkness) into the form of human drama, now interpreting them simultaneously in religious, ethical, and social terms. According to John, this divine "light" not only "became human, and dwelt among us," but also becomes the spiritual progenitor of those who "become the children of God" (1:12). (Later in the gospel he says that those who believe become "sons of light" (12:35).) Simultane- ously, too, the crisis of Jesus' appearance reveals others as the "sons of darkness." Thus Jesus explains to Nicodemus that "... this is the judgment: that the light came into the world and people loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil ... but whoever does the truth comes to the light. . ." (3:19-21).

By the end of the gospel, Jesus' epiphany shall have accom- plished in human society what God accomplished cosmologically in creation: the separation of light from darkness-that is, of the "sons of light" from the offspring of darkness and the devil. Hav- ing placed the story of Jesus within this grand cosmological frame, John then sets it entirely within the dynamics of this world, the world of human interaction: "the story of Jesus in the gospel is all played out on earth" (Meeks 1972:50). The frame, nevertheless, informs the reader that both Jesus' coming and all his human rela- tionships are elements played out in a supernatural drama between the forces of good and evil.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 27: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

42 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Furthermore, every one of the three traditional "temptation scenes," as Brown points out, has an analogue in the fourth gospel. Here no disembodied Satan appears to contend against Jesus; instead, it is other people-first members of Jesus' audience, and then his own brothers-who play the tempter's role (Brown 1966). A contemporary reader might be inclined to interpret this as a psy- chologizing of the temptation account; yet John intends by this means to interpret human conflict theologically. Just as God has become incarnate in Jesus, so Satan too becomes incarnate in Jesus' human opponents. We have seen this occur implicitly in the synoptics; now John makes it explicit, and carries it out with a programmatic consistency.

Let us recall, in the first place, what Luke relates as the devil's second temptation (4:5-6) and Matthew as the third (4:8-9), in which Satan challenges Jesus to claim power over earthly king- doms. According to John, a parallel "diabolic temptation" occurs when "the people" try to seize Jesus and forcibly make him king (6:15). Here, as in the synoptics, Jesus resists the temptation; thus he eludes the crowd and escapes. Second, while Matthew and Luke, following Q, relate that the devil challenged Jesus to "make these stones into bread" to prove his divine authority, John says that those who witnessed Jesus' miracles-and in particular his multiplication of the loaves-then challenged him to perform another miracle to prove his messianic identity. Like the devil in the synoptics, "the people" in John quote the Scriptures as they urge Jesus to produce bread miraculously: "... so they said to him, 'What sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat'" (6:30-31). Jesus resists this second temptation as well, and he answers his human tempters just as the synoptic Jesus had answered the devil, with a metaphorical response about spiritual nourishment. The third episode, which Matthew and Luke describe as the devil tempting Jesus to display his divine powers in public, finds its par- allel in John 7:1-9 when Jesus' own disbelieving brothers challenge Jesus to "go to Judea," to "show yourself to the world" in Jerusalem, where, as he and they are well aware, his enemies seek to kill him (7:1). This third temptation, too, Jesus rejects.

According to John, Jesus himself reveals the "social history of Satan"-or, to be more accurate, the social identity of Satan. For Jesus, hearing Peter declare that "we (disciples) believe that you are

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 28: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 43

the Messiah, the Son of God," responds with these brusque words: "'Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?' He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he that would betray him, being one of the twelve" (6:69-71; emphasis added).

At the scene of his betrayal, Jesus again identifies Judas, along with his accompanying posse of Roman and Jewish soldiers, as his supernatural enemy appearing in human form-indeed, in the form of his most intimate enemy. While according to Matthew, Jesus signals Judas' arrival with the words, "Rise; let us be going; my betrayer is coming" (12:46), John has Jesus announce instead that ". . . the ruler of this world is coming; . . . rise, let us be going" (14:30-31). Soon afterwards, Jesus accuses "the Jews who had believed in him" of plotting murder: twice he charges that "you seek to kill me." When they find his words incomprehensible, Jesus proceeds to identify "the Jews" who had previously believed in him as Satan's own: "You are of your father, the devil; and you want to accomplish your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning . . ." (8:4-11). Brown comments that in these passages ". .. for the first time the fact that the devil is Jesus' real antagonist comes to the fore. This motif will grow louder and louder as the hour of Jesus approaches, until the passion is presented as a struggle to the death between Jesus and Satan (1966:364).

Such remarks, however accurate, remain confined to the rela- tively safe terrain of theology. What do these passages mean in terms of human conflict? Many commentators, along with per- haps the vast majority of Christian readers, have agreed with Rudolph Bultmann's blunt, unself-conscious assessment: "There can be no doubt about the main point of the passage, which is to show that the Jews' unbelief, with its hostility to truth and life, stems from their being children of the devil" (319; emphasis added). Bultmann adds that John, like Matthew and Luke, in effect charges the Jews with "intended murder" (321). (As we shall see, Bultmann elsewhere makes statements bearing very different implications.) During recent decades, of course, these passages have elicited a flurry of discussion and argumentation, often from Christian com- mentators insisting that they do not-or morally cannot-mean what most Christians for nearly two millennia have taken them to mean.

Many scholars have observed that the term "Jews" occurs much more frequently in John than in the synoptics and that its use often

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 29: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

44 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

indicates that the Johannine author regards himself and his fellow believers standing at an even greater distance from the Jewish majority than do the other evangelists.21 Sometimes, of course, the use of the term coincides with that of the synoptics (and for that matter with general contemporary usage) in passages that simply describe people who are Jewish and not Gentile. Yet in John the term has a range of interrelated connotations. Brachter lists four types of usage (365-409). Besides the simple descriptive sense, the term may specifically designate, in a specific group of passages, Judeans, that is, people who live in Jerusalem and its vicinity. In a third group of passages, the term clearly serves as a synonym for the Jewish authorities. Finally, a considerable number of passages apparently uses the term simply to characterize persons hostile to Jesus.

Various scholars have chosen to emphasize each of these con- notations. C. J. Cuming, for example, chooses the second and third options and so concludes his research by declaring that "... the Jews in the fourth gospel whom the evangelist regards with such hostility do not represent the nation as a whole. For him the word has a special association with Jerusalem: It means Judeans as opposed to Galileans" (290-2). This interpretation enables Cum- ing to conclude that "the indictment is not directed against the whole Jewish nation, but against its religious leaders" (292). Mal- colm Lowe, intending to sum up scholarly discussion in the mid- 1970s, argues that the second meaning dominates the Johannine gospel. Lowe bases his discussion primarily on passages in which this meaning is indisputable and proceeds from these to claim that the term Ioudaios should regularly be translated "Judeans" because, in his words, the "philological error" of translating the term as "Jews" ".. . has provided, in practically all modern translations of the gospels, a constant excuse for antisemitism, whose further exist- ence cannot be permitted" (130; emphasis added).

Thus Lowe seems to equate what he calls "philological error" with moral unacceptability. Urban von Wahlde, on the other hand, presents a comparative survey of Johannine research (33-60) and then charts the occurrence of the term in the gospel in order to argue that the Johannine author intended the term "for the reli- gious authorities exclusively."

21Shepherd, for example, counts 70 occurrences (96); Meeks counts 71 (180).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 30: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 45

While each of these arguments bears a certain validity, I find each limited primarily to the specific groups of passages on which each scholar chooses to focus. Although von Wahlde's argument may work in certain passages, others, as I read them, use the term "Jews" in a more generalized way to mean "persons hostile to Jesus"-without the qualifications that von Wahlde and others wish that John had added. I agree, then, with Wayne Meeks that "it is undeniable that in the fourth gospel 'the Jews' in general is used in an alien, even hostile, sense, particularly in the notes, evidently by the hand of the evangelist, that 'the Jews persecuted Jesus,' or 'the Jews sought to kill him,' and in the repeated phrase, 'because of the fear of the Jews'" (1975:181).22

Neutral uses of the term give way to increasingly hostile uses as the gospel narrative progresses,23 especially from the moment of Jesus' arrest. At this point, the author clearly marks himself and those with whom he identifies as separate and distinct from "the Jews." While it is true that in the Johannine gospel Jesus himself is twice called "a Jew," both occur as descriptive terms used by out- siders, first by the Samaritan woman and secondly by Pilate. By the time of Jesus' execution, as Meeks says, ". .. the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel is also distant from 'the Jews,' even though (or just because) they are 'his own' who reject him, and even though what Pilate 'has written' stands ineffaceable, that he is 'King of the Jews"' (1975:181).

Many scholars who acknowledge this theme in the Johannine gospel nevertheless insist on interpreting "the Jews" only symboli- cally. Rudolph Bultmann sometimes mitigates his other state- ments by insisting that "the Jews" merely symbolize ho kosmos; "the Jews in their totality are the representatives of unbelief' (59, my translation). Erich Grasser develops this theme, describing ". ein in der Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums unbestrittener Tatbestand; namlich die Synonymitat der Begriffe kosmos und Ioudaios Denn kosmos und loudaios sind in gleicher Weise Chiffren

22See also Meeks (1972:22-70; cf. especially 35 and 70); Brown (1966:70, LXXXIV): "John's attitude toward 'the Jews' is not missionary but apologetic and polemic. The vio- lence of the language in chapter eight, comparing the Jews to the devil's brood, is scarcely designed to convert the synagogue, which in Johannine thought is now the 'synagogue of Satan'" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). 23See, for example, Townsend (72-97). For an opposing view, see von Wahlde (47): "There

is no sign of an increase of hostility throughout the gospel; rather, their reaction is unified and monolithic."

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 31: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

46 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

fiur den Unglauben schlechtin" (88-89; latter emphasis added). H. Schneider adds that

The Jews symbolize fleshly man in his opposition to God ... From a general non-acceptance of Jesus by men in the early chapters, the opposition is more and more identified with a group. . ., with the Jews. Ultimately the group stands for the forces opposed to Jesus, which are the forces of darkness. It is obvious that we are not deal- ing with an ethnic group, but with a dramatic theological symbol... We would miss the full significance of this symbol if we considered the Jew in John only as an historical figure. .. "The Jews" are an ever- present reality and threat to any worship of God in spirit and in truth. (347-351; emphasis added)

Yet other commentators, including the Jewish scholar Samuel Sandmel, find such conclusions anything but obvious. Discussing both the arguments that "the Jews" means different things in differ- ent Johannine passages, and that ". . . 'Jews' does not really mean Jews, but is rather a term for all human opaqueness about Jesus ... or ... the general evil in the world," Sandmel suggests that such interpreters are, in fact, attempting "to exculpate the gospel from its manifest anti-Semitism" (117). Most telling is Sandmel's obser- vation that John does not charge "humanity" or "the world" in gen- eral for actively seeking Jesus's execution, but specifically "the Jews."24

It is not my purpose here to speculate, as others have, upon the complex situation that gave rise to the Johannine passion narrative. Let us simply acknowledge, first, the historical likelihood that cer- tain Jewish leaders collaborated with the Roman authorities to engineer Jesus' arrest and execution. Let us acknowledge, too, the point well explicated by Louis Martyn and others, that the Johan- nine author reads into his story conflicts he is experiencing between his own group and those he calls "the Jews." The author probably means by this term primarily the Pharisaic leaders of Jewish communities known to him (c. 90-100 C.E.), together with the majority of their followers. Granting these general premises, our purpose here is not that already undertaken by so many schol- ars,25 to define his use of the term precisely. Instead our purpose

24See Martyn; Sandmel (115). 25For an abbreviated list of these, see, for example, Grasser (74-79); Fortna (58-94);

Brachter (401-409); von Wahlde (33-60); Cuming; Brown (1966:1xx-1xxiii); Meeks (1975:103-186); and Culpepper (273-288).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 32: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 47

is much simpler: to show how, in John as in the synoptics, the mythological figure of Satan coincides with specific human oppo- sition, implicating Judas Iscariot in the first place, then the Jewish authorities, and finally "the Jews" collectively.

My previous research (1973) on the language of the fourth gos- pel inclines me to agree with those who insist on "symbolist" inter- pretations. Nevertheless, to maintain an exclusively "symbolist" view which denies the practical implications of his use of the term "Jews,"'26 seems to me not only an evasion of John's message but also an attempt at apologetic sleight-of-hand. For this author's decision to make an actual, identifiable group-both among Jesus' contemporaries and his own-into a symbol of "all evil"27 obvi- ously bears religious, social, and political implications that provide the potential for arousing and even legitimating anti-Judaism-a potential which, as Reginald Fuller says, "has been abundantly and tragically actualized in the course of Christian history" (37).

From the beginning of the gospel, then, as we have seen, the Johannine author, like his predecessors at Qumran, draws the bat- tle lines between the "sons of light" and those whom Jesus' coming proves to be sons of darkness and the devil. Following the scene in which "the Jews" attempt to stone Jesus for speaking words they take as blasphemy (claiming, in effect, the divine name, 8:59), he declares that "I must do the work of him who sent me, while it is day; the night is coming, when no one may work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Moving quickly toward the passion narrative, which here comprises half of the entire gos- pel, John, like Luke, makes explicit the charge implicit in Mark and Matthew-that Satan himself initiated Judas' treachery: "During supper, the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him. .. Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, 'What you are going to do, do quickly'... So after receiving the morsel, [Judas] immediately went out; and it was night" (13:2, 27-30). Because John wants to insist that Jesus, fully aware of the future course of events, remains in complete control of them, he relates that Jesus himself gives Judas the morsel that preceded Satan's entry (thus fulfilling the prophecy of Ps 41:9). Jesus then actually directs Judas' subsequent action ("do quickly what you are going to do"). At that fateful moment

26See, for example, Lutgert. 27See Loisy (787).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 33: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

48 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

which initiates Jesus' betrayal, John, like Luke, depicts the "power of darkness" (cf. Lk. 22:53) eclipsing the "light of the world": hence his stark final phrase, en de nux.

John, like Luke, seems intent on suppressing all traces of Roman initiative in Jesus' execution. In nearly every episode, John goes to the point of "bizarre exaggeration" to insist that the blame for initiating, ordering, and carrying out the crucifixion lies upon Satan's offspring, Jesus' intimate enemies.

Apparently using at least one source independent of the synop- tics, John reports that before Jesus' arrest the Pharisees and chief priests convened, having heard about Jesus' popular appeal, and concluded that ". . . if we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation" (11:45-48). Concluding the meeting, they plot "how to put him to death" (11:53). After "Judas, procuring a band of (presumably Roman) soldiers, and some officers from the chief priests of the Pharisees," (18:8) betrayed Jesus, the arresting party seized and bound him and led him to Annas, "father in law of the high priest," who, after interrogating him, "sent him bound to Cai- aphas the high priest." Reuther rightly observes that John here intends to suppress political charges against Jesus in favor of a reli- gious one, despite the fact that John's prior account of the chief priests' meeting had described their plausible and pragmatic con- cern to protect their own constituency from Roman reprisals, even at the possible cost of a wrongful execution.

Although John reports no other trial by any Jewish tribunal, he leaves no doubt that the chief priests want Jesus killed. When Pilate inquires about the charge, their answer manages to be at once evasive and self-righteous: "If this man were not a malefactor, we would not have brought him to you" (18:30)! When Pilate, still having heard no charge, answers, in words apparently either indif- ferent or contemptuous, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law," the "Jews" answer: "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death" (15:32). Reflecting upon the scholarly debate about the historical accuracy of this statement, Winter argues that the Romans, following their policy of allowing subject peoples to govern internal disputes, did, in fact, accord to Jews the right of adjudicating capital cases before 70 C.E. Whether or not he is right, the point John wants to make is clear enough: that although Romans were known to have carried out Jesus' execution by their

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 34: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 49

own peculiar method (see 19:32), they did so only because "the Jews" forced them to do so (Sandmel:115).

When Pilate does question Jesus about an apparently political charge ("Are you a king?"), Jesus parries the question, and Pilate retorts, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me: what have you done?" (emphasis added; 18:35). Were his kingdom an earthly one, Jesus declares, "my ser- vants would fight so that I might not be handed over to the Jews" (18:36)-an ironic Johannine reversal of the synoptic charge, which repeatedly describes the Jews "handing Jesus over" to "the nations"!

Like Luke, John shows Pilate three times proclaiming Jesus innocent, and proposing three times to release him; but each time "the Jews" cry out, demanding instead that Pilate "crucify him" (19:6, 15). John "explains," too, that Pilate had allowed his soldiers to scourge and torture Jesus only for the purpose of evok- ing the crowd's compassion (19:1-4), and so to placate "the insatia- ble fury of the Jews."28 John adds that when they protested that Jesus had violated their religious law, and therefore "deserves to die," Pilate was "more terrified" (19:8). Returning to Jesus as if he still hoped to find a basis to acquit him, Pilate instead receives from the prisoner near exoneration of his own guilt. Speaking as if he himself were Pilate's judge, Jesus declares to the governor that "the one who delivered me to you has the greater sin." When the crowd threatens to charge Pilate himself with treason against Rome (19:12), Pilate makes one more futile attempt at release and then gives in to the shouting, blood-thirsty mob. Finally, having pro- nounced neither sentence nor any order of execution, Pilate "handed (Jesus) over to them to be crucified" (19:16). Throughout this scene, as John tells it, ". . . the priests exert unrelenting pres- sure, while the governor turns and doubles like a hunted hare."29 Thus John, like Luke, leads the reader to conclude that "the cruci- fixion ... comes from the Jews" (Winter:88). Indeed, after Pilate hands Jesus over to the Jews, the narrator goes on to say that "... they took Jesus ... to the place called in Hebrew Golgotha,... there they crucified him, and with him two others" (19:17).

After the crucifixion scene, designed to demonstrate how Jesus' ignominious death fulfills prophecy in every detail, John adds that

28See Nineham (412). 29See Dodd (97).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 35: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

50 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Nicodemus, "for fear of the Jews" (19:38), secretly petitions Pilate to allow him to recover Jesus' body and to bury it at enormous expense, using "a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloe." Many scholars have discussed the author's motives for thus depicting "the innocent Jesus whom Pilate wishes to free" against the Jews who here become not only the "villains, but the ultimate in villainy."30

Pilate, as John depicts him, does retain to some extent his tradi- tional role as "alien enemy." But in the "concluding frame" of the passion narrative, as we have seen, John, like Matthew and Luke, adds and alters details that suggest increased concern to mollify Roman suspicion of Christians. As we observe changes in the trial account from one gospel to the next, we can see that it comes to serve several purposes at once. First, it represents Christians, like their leader, as innocent people falsely accused, who present no real danger to the Roman order; second, it represents Pilate acting as Christians hoped to persuade agents of imperial authority to act, as benign rulers, zealous to preserve justice; and, third (where both of these failed), it offers Christians under arrest, torture, and impending execution as exemplary paradigms of martyrdom. In the process of reworking the trial narrative, the Pilate we know from history disappears. For those contemporary reports we do have of Pilate completely contradict the evangelists' characteriza- tion of him. Philo describes the governor as a man notorious for his "inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition," and lists as typi- cal features of his administration "violence, robbery, assault, abu- sive behavior, frequent executions without trial" (Legatio ad Gaium 301-302). Josephus records incidents that illustrate either Pilate's indifference or, more likely, his contempt, for his subjects' religious convictions. Josephus also notes the quick and brutal action Pilate characteristically took to terrify angry crowds into submission. One episode tells how Pilate, ignoring his Roman predecessors' respect for Jewish religious sensibilities, violated precedent by ordering a Roman garrison to enter Jerusalem deliberately display- ing-instead of covering-the army standards that Jews considered idolatrous. Anticipating the massive resistance he would meet

30The scope of this article does not allow us to include an account of the much-discussed question of the Johannine community, which would have to consider its sectarian character, the situation of increased hostility and separation between Jesus' followers and their Jewish opponents which this gospel indicates, and, finally, the Roman suspicion of Christians (Winter).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 36: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 51

from the population, Pilate already had ordered his soldiers to sur- round the Jewish crowd, three men deep, and to kill anyone who expressed outrage or offered resistance.31 In another incident, Josephus tells how Pilate decided to finance aqueducts for Jerusa- lem by illegally appropriating money from the Temple treasury, "an act of sacrilege even from the Roman point of view, since the Tem- ple tax had been made sacrosanct by Rome" (Smallwood:162). This time, too, fully anticipating the resistance he encountered, Pilate had ordered his soldiers to mingle with the crowd in disguise until he gave a signal for them to beat everyone who protested. Josephus adds that "many died from the blows and many were trampled to death by their fellows. The fate of those who died ter- rified the rest into silence." Even Luke, despite his flattering por- trait of a wholly different Pilate, nevertheless alludes to an episode involving certain Galileans "whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices" (13:1). Smallwood notes that rounding up Jews sus- pected of anti-Roman activity "was a commonplace in Judea" dur- ing Pilate's time (164). Pilate's political tenure abruptly ended when the legate of Syria finally responded to repeated protests from Pilate's subjects by stripping him of his commission, and dis- patching one of his own staff to serve as governor. Pilate, ordered to return to Rome at once to answer the charges against him, apparently never returned. It is remarkable, then, that as Paul Winter observes, according to the gospel account ". . . The stern Pilate grows more mellow from gospel to gospel ... [from Mark to Matthew, from Matthew to Luke and then to John]. The more removed from history, the more sympathetic a character he becomes" (Winter:88-89).

In regard to the "intimate enemy," a parallel process occurs, but in reverse. Where Mark depicts Jesus' bold initial challenge to the power of evil, he shows Jesus coming into increasingly intense con- flict first with "the scribes," then with the Pharisees and Herodi- ans, until crowds of his own people, in a conflict depicted essentially as "intra-Jewish," persuade reluctant Roman forces to execute him. Matthew, as we saw, writing some twenty years later, depicts a far more bitter and aggressive antagonism between Jesus and the majority of his Jewish contemporaries, even to the point of transforming the role of Pharaoh into that of the Jewish king, Herod. Indeed, no sooner was Jesus born than he aroused the sus-

31See Bellum Judaicum II. 169-177; Antiquities XVII. 55-64, 84-87.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 37: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

52 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

picion of Herod and "all Jerusalem with him." Matthew goes on to depict the Pharisees as "sons of hell," the devil's own offspring, destined, along with all who reject Jesus' teaching, for eternal pun- ishment in the "fire reserved for the devil and all his angels." Yet we may agree that even Matthew depicts, in effect, a battle between rival reform groups of Jews-each insisting upon its own superior righteousness, and each depicting the other as demon-possessed.

Luke, as we have seen, goes considerably farther. No sooner has the devil appeared to tempt and destroy Jesus than the whole of Jesus' townspeople, hearing his first public address in their syna- gogue, aroused to fury, attempt to throw him down a cliff. Only at the climax of the gospel will Satan enter into Judas and so to direct the operation that ends with the crucifixion.

John, finally, writing c. 100 C.E., dismisses the device of the devil as an independent supernatural character (if, indeed, he knew of it, as I suspect he did). Instead, as John tells the story, Satan, like God himself, here appears in the form of incarnation. First he becomes incarnate in Judas Iscariot, then in the Jewish authorities as they mount opposition to Jesus, and finally in those John calls "the Jews"-a group of Satan's allies now as separate from Jesus and his followers as darkness is from light, or the forces of hell from the armies of heaven.

Each of the evangelists' various depictions of the devil progres- sively correlates with the "social history of Satan"-that is, with the history of increasing conflict and opposition between groups repre- senting Jesus' followers and their opposition. By presenting Jesus' life and message in these various forms of polemic, the evangelists probably intended (as Kloppenborg says of the Q source) to strengthen group boundary and self-definition. In the process, they shaped, in ways that were to become incalculably consequent- ial, the self-understanding of Christians for millennia to come.32

32For their generous help and learned criticism in preparing the present draft of this arti- cle, I am grateful to colleagues and friends, including especially Professors John Gager, Kent Greenawalt, Howard Clark Kee, Wayne Meeks, Vernon Robbins, James Robinson, and Alan Segal.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 38: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 53

REFERENCES

Beardslee, W. "Uses of the Proverb." Interpretation 24/9:61-73. 1970

Brachter, Robert "'The Jews' in the Gospel of John." Practical Papers G., trans. for the Bible Translator 26/4:365-409.

1975

Brown, Raymond "Incidents That Are Units in the Synoptic Gospels E. But Dispersed in St. John." CBQ 23:143-160.

1961 1966, 1970 The Gospel According to John, 29, 29A. Garden City,

NY: Anchor Bible. 1977 The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City: Doubleday,

and London: Geoffrey Chapman.

Bultmann, Rudolf Das EvangeliumJohannis. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck 1941 and Ruprecht. The Gospel of John: A Commentary.

Trans. by G.R. Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Collins, Adela Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Yarbro Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

1984

Conzelmann, Hans Die Apostelgeschichte. The Theology of St. Luke. 1961 Trans. by G. Buswell. New York: Harper and Row.

Cook, Michael J. Mark's Treatment of theJewish Leaders. Leiden: E.J. 1978 Brill.

Culpepper, R. Alan "The Gospel of John and the Jews." Review and 1987 Expositor, 84:273-288.

Cuming, G.J. "The Jews in the Fourth Gospel." Expository Times 1948-9 60:290-2.

Dahl, N. Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapo- 1976 lis: Augsberg.

Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cam- 1963 bridge: Cambridge University Press.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 39: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

54 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Fitzmeyer, Joseph "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Litera- A. ture, and the New Testament." CBQ 40:493-513.

1983

Forsyth, N. The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth. 1987 Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Fortna, Robert "Theological Use of Locale in the Fourth Gospel." 1974 Anglican Theological Review Supplementary Series

3:58-94.

Freyne, Sean "Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Mat- 1985 thew's and John's Anti-Jewish Polemic in Focus."

In "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, 93-116. Ed. by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico: Scholars Press.

1988 Galilee, Jesus, and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Fuller, Reginald "'The Jews' in the Fourth Gospel." Dialog 16:37. 1971

Gager, John The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward 1983 Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Garland, D. The Intention of Matthew 23. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1979

Garrett, Susan The Demise of the Devil. Minneapolis: Fortress 1989 Press.

Gowler, David B. Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the 1991 Pharisees in Luke and Acts. New York: Peter Lang.

Grasser, Erich "Die antijiidische Polemik im Johannesevange- 1964-1965 lium." New Testament Studies 10-11:74-79; 88-89.

Grundmann, W. "Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte in 19?? seinem theologischen Sinn." Studia Evangelica,

2:429, 473.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 40: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 55

Hoennicke, "Die Teufelsidee in den Evangelien." In Neutesta- Gustave mentliche Studien: Fiir Georg Heinrici zu seinem 70,

1914 208. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.

Horsley, Richard "Josephus and the Bandits." JSJ 10:37-63. A.

1979 1981 "Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt Against

Rome, A.D. 66-70." CBQ 43:420-424. 1985 Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements

in the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis: Winston.

Hultgren, Arland Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of 1979 the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition. Minne-

apolis: Augsburg.

Jackson, H., "The New Testament: Anti-Jewish Slander and the and Luke T. Conventions of Ancient Polemic." JBL 108/3:419-

Johnson 441. 1989

Kloppenborg, J. The Formation of Q. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1987

Koester, H. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Devel- 1990 opment. London/Philadelphia: Trinity Press Inter-

national.

Koester, Helmut, Trajectories Through Early Christianity. Philadel- and James M. phia: Fortress Press.

Robinson 1968

Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish 1980 Drama of Divine Omnipotence. San Francisco:

Harper and Row.

Levine, Amy-Jill The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Social 1988 History. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.

Loisy, Alfred F. Les Evangiles Synoptiques. Ceffons pres Montieren 1907-1908 Der: Chez l'auteur.

Lowe, Malcolm "Who Were the 'loudaioi'?" Novum Testamentum 1976 XVIII/2:101-130.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 41: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

56 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Lutgert, Wilhelm "Die Juden im Johannesevangelium." In Neutesta- 1914 mentliche Studien: Fiir Georg Heinrici zur seinem 70.

Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.

Martyn, J. Louis History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edi- 1978 tion. Nashville: Abingdon.

Meeks, Wayne A. "The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarian- 1972 ism." JBL, 91:22-70. 1975 "'Am I a Jew?': Johannine Christianity and Juda-

ism." In Christianity, Judaism, and Other Graeco- Roman Cults, 103-186. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

1985 "Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity's Separation from the Jewish Commu- nities," In "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, 93-116. Edited by Jacob Neusher and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico Scholars Press.

Merideth, Anne "The Figure of Satan in Revelation 2-3," unpub- 1992 lished paper.

Murray, Robert "Jews, Hebrews, and Christians: Some Needed Dis- 1982 tinctions." Novr 24:194-208. 1985 "'Disaffected Judaism' and Early Christianity:

Some Predisposing Factors." In "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, 263-81. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico: Scholars Press.

Nicklesburg, "The Genre and Function of Mark's Passion Narra- George tive." Harvard Theological Review 73:153-184.

1980 1985 "Revealed Wisdom as a Criterion for Inclusion and

Exclusion: From Jewish Sectarianism to Early Christianity." In "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, 73-92. Ed. by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Fre- richs. Chico: Scholars Press.

Nineham, Dennis The Gospel of St. Mark. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Eric

1967

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 42: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 57

Overman, J. Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism. Minneap- Andrew olis: Augsburg/Fortress.

1990

Pagels, E. TheJohannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. Nashville: 1973 Abingdon Press. 1991 "The Social History of Satan, the 'Intimate Enemy':

A Preliminary Sketch." Harvard Theological Review 84/2:1-23.

Robinson, J. M. The Problem of History in Mark. London: SCM. 1957

Russell, J. B. The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to 1987 Primitive Christianity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-

sity Press.

Reuther, R.R. Faith and Fortitude: The Theological Roots of Anti- 1974 Semitism. Minneapolis: Seabury Press.

Sanders, Jack T. TheJews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1987

Sandmel, Samuel Anti-Semitism in the New Testament. Philadelphia: 1978 Fortress Press.

Schneider, H. "The Word Was Made Flesh: An Analysis of Revela- 1969 tion in the Fourth Gospel." CBQ 31:344-356.

Schiissler, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. Phila- Fiorenza, E. delphia: Fortress Press.

1985

Segal, Alan F. The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity. Atlanta: 1987 Scholars Press. 1991 "Matthew's Jewish Voice." In The Social History of

the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Shepherd, Massey "The Jews in the Gospel of John: Another Level of H., Jr. Meaning." Anglican Theological Review Supplemen- 1974 tary Series 3:96.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 43: The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels

58 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Smallwood, E. The Jews under Roman Rule From Pompey to Diocle- Mary tian. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1981

Smith, Jonathan Z. "Introduction to 'The Prayer ofJoseph.'" In Old Tes- 1985 tament Pseudepigrapha, 2.701. 2 vols. Ed. by James

H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday. 1985 "What a Difference Makes." In "To See Ourselves as

Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, 3-48. Ed. byJacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico: Scholars Press.

Tilborg, Sjefvan The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1979

Tolbert, Mary Ann Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Histori- 1989 cal Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Townsend, John T. "The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a 1979 Religious Divorce." In Antisemitism and the Foun-

dations of Christianity, 72-97. Edited by Alan Davies. New York: Paulist Press.

Via, Jane E. "According to Luke, Who Put Jesus to Death?" In 1983 Political Issues in Luke-Acts, 122-45. Edited by R. J.

Cassidy and P.J. Scharper. Maryknoll: Orbis.

von Wahlde, "The Johannine 'Jews': A Critical Survey." New Tes- Urban C. tament Studies 28:33-60.

19??

Weeden Theodore "Recovering the Parabolic Intent in the Parable of J. the Sower (Mk 4:3-9)." Journal of the American

1979 Academy of Religion 47:97-120.

Wink, W. Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces That 1986 Determine Human Existence. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press.

Winter, Paul On the Trial of Jesus, 2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter. 1974

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:46:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions