Satan in the New Testament Gospels

7/29/2019 Satan in the New Testament Gospels

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/satan-in-the-new-testament-gospels 1/43

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: 16/02/2010 17:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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 is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the

American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465555?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465555?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Journal of the American Academyof Religion LXII/1

T h e S o c i a l His tory o f S a t a n ,

P a r t I ISatan in the New Testament Gospels

Elaine Pagels

THE NEWTESTAMENTospels allplacethe storyofJesusin the

context of cosmic war. As the evangeliststell it, the story showshow the power of God acts throughJesus to challenge the evilforcesthat dominate the presentworld. Eachof the gospels framesits narrative, irst at its beginningand then at its climax,with epi-sodes depicting the clash of supernaturalforces that the evange-lists see playedout throughJesus'life and in his death. Mark,for

example, opens his gospel describing how the spirit of GoddescendeduponJesus at his baptism,and ". .. immediatelydrove

him into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty daysbeing tempted by the devil (hypo tou satana) and was with the

beasts, and the angels ministered o him"(Mark1:12). Fromthatmoment on, Markrelates,even afterJesus reenteredhuman soci-

ety, the powersof evil challengedand attackedhim at everyturn,and he attacked them back-and won. Matthew and Luke both

adopt and elaborate this stark opening scene, and, apparentlyusing Q, turn it into a dramaof threeincreasingly ntenseconfron-

tationsbetweenSatanandGod'sspiritacting nJesus. Lukeshowshow the devil, defeatedin his attemptsto overpower esus, pru-dently departedfrom him "fora time" Luke4:13b). Lukegoes onto say explicitlywhat Markand Matthew mply-namely, that thedevil returnedin person, so to speak, in the passion narrative, o

destroyJesus. Thusat theclimax of the storyLukesaysthat"SatanenteredintoJudas Iscariot" o finish his work by initiatingJesus'betrayal,arrest,torture,and execution. The New Testamentgos-pels, then, (with considerablevariation)depict the passion narra-

ElainePagels s Professorof Religionat PrincetonUniversity,Princeton,NJ 08544.

17



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

Thegospel

ofJohn

at firstseems

anexceptionto this pattern,since its author omits the opening temptationscene. Yet,as Ray-

mond Brown (1961) points out, its author has replacedit with

analogousconflict stories thatdo, indeed,depictJesus and his fol-lowersengagedin conflict with personswhomJohndepictsas ful-

filling the devil'swill. Atthe climacticmoment of the arrest,Johnhas Jesus identify the forces arrestinghim with the "rulerof thisworld"(14:30) who is aboutto be "castout"(12:31). In all of the

gospels, then,Jesus'crucifixionseems to signalthevictoryof what

Luke calls the "powerof darkness" 22:53b). Yeteach of the evan-gelists insists that,on the contrary, t actuallyheralds the ultimateannihilationof the forces of evil and ensures God's final victory.

How, then, does the figure of the devil, here usually calledSatan, function in the New Testamentgospels? Many liberallyminded Christians havepreferred o ignoreor minimizethe pres-ence of such blatantsupernaturalism.Yetas the evangelistssee it,the story they have to tell would make little sense apartfrom the

context of cosmic war. Forhow could anyone claim that a manbetrayed by one of his own followers and brutally executed on

chargesof treasonagainstRome not only was, but in fact still is,God's divinely appointedMessiah-unless his captureand defeatwere (as the evangelistsinsist) only a preliminaryskirmish in avast cosmic conflict now envelopingthe universe?AsJesuswarnsthe high priest at his interrogation Mk 14:62 par.), soon he shallbe vindicated and triumphantwhen the "Sonof Man"returnsin

glory.For the purpose of this sketch, I intend to leave aside certain

traditionalapproachesalreadywell investigatedby otherscholars:for example, approachesinvolving explorationof the historical,cultural, and literarybackground(as Neil Forsythrecently hasdone). I intend to leave aside as well approachesprimarilycon-cerned with psychologicaland theologicalinterpretation such asthose of WalterWink andJeffreyBurtonRussell). InsteadI pro-

pose to explorein the gospels what I have come to call, half jok-ingly, the "socialhistoryof Satan."

This approachmay seem at first both odd and unpromising.Indeed,as Russell has said, it is precisely"generationsof sociallyorientedtheologians"who have tended to "dismiss the devil anddemons as superstitiousrelicsof little importanceto the Christian

18 Journal of the American Academy of Religion



message." Againstthis view, Russellhimself argues,quite rightly,that"on the contrary, he New Testamentwritershad a sharpsenseof the immediacyof evil,"and he proceedsto takehis argument n

a theologicaldirection n orderto conclude that"thedevilis essen-tial in the New Testamentbecause he constitutes an importantalternative n Christiantheodicy" 222).

With this statement,as indicated above, I agree. But here Iintend to take a differentapproach; hat is, to investigate specifi-cally social implicationsof the figureof Satan in the New Testa-mentgospels. For the evangelists' ense of "the mmediacyof evil"

by no means involvesonly-nor perhapsevenprimarily-elementsof cosmology. On the contrary,the theodicy of the evangelistsintends to locate and identify specific waysin which the forcesofevil have actedthrough ertainpeople o effect violent destruction-aboveall, in Matthew'swords,"therighteousblood shed on earth,from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah he sonof Berachiah"23:35)-violence epitomized n what the evangelistsregardas the culminationof the greatestof all evils, the executionof Jesus.

What I have set out to exploreis how, in particular, he figureof Satan serves to characterizehumanoppositiontoJesus and hisfollowers. WhatI discovered s this: that while the New Testament

gospels never identify Satan with the Romans, they consistentlyidentifyhim withJesus'Jewishenemies.1This researchhas led meto conclude that, by castingthe story of Jesus into the context ofcosmic war,the gospelwritersexpressin varyingwaystheir identi-fication with an embattledminority againstwhat each sees as the

apostasy of the majorityof Jesus' (and, of course, by extension,theirown)Jewish contemporaries.As I have shown in a previousarticle(1991), Jesus and his followersdid not inventsuch demon-ization of theirenemies,although,as we shall see, they (and Mus-lims after them) carried it considerablyfurther than others had,and with enormousconsequences.

11 amgrateful

to ProfessorWayne

Meeks forpointing

out to me that this statementrequiresqualification in the case of the Fourth Gospel. For while John explicitly identifies "theJews"

as the devil's offspring who "seek to kill"Jesus (8:40-44) and describes the devil enteringinto Judas to initiate the betrayal (13:2; 18), the author may implicitlyinclude 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 arguesthat in the fourth gospel "the Ruler of the World is part of one of the strongest anti-Jewishpolemics in the New Testament" (44, 441-75).

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II 19



What the previousarticleshows, briefly stated, is that the fig-ure of Satan as leader of a supernaturalarmy hostile to God

emergedin certainJewish

pseudepigraphicsources from c. 165

B.C.E.-200C.E. Specifically, t emergedas a way of characterizingnot Israel'straditional nemies, "thenations"who conqueredandruled the nation,2but fellowJews whom certain sectariangroupsregardedas their "intimateenemies." In works like 1 Enochand

Jubilees,stories adapted from Genesis 6 or Isaiah 14 came todescribe how the "watchers,"prominent leaders in the angelicarmy, rebelled against their commander in chief and finallybecame his enemies. Otherstories,like the one related in the Life

ofAdamandEve,depictedSatanas Adam'solderbrother,provokedto raging ealousyby God'spreference orhis humansibling. Suchstoriesexplained,in effect,how "one of us"could become "one of

them"; hat is, how relativesand colleaguescould become the bit-terest of enemies. Such stories, I suggest, found their deepestresonancesamongcertaingroupsof "dissident ews"(Smith)con-vinced that the majorityof otherJews had turned against them-and so (as the Essenesput it), againstGod.

Intra-Jewishonflict need not, of course, and most often didnot, excludehostilitytoward"thenations." Certainof the Qfmranauthorscharacterize he foreignenemiesalongwith the majorityof

Jewswho collaboratedwith such "evilempires"as fellowagentsofdiabolic forces. FollowersofJesusoftenexpressedthemselvessim-

ilarly. WayneMeekssuggeststhat the author ofJohnmayincludeRomanforcesalongwithJewishones as agentsof the "rulerof thisworld" who effects Jesus' crucifixion (although Alan Segal dis-

agrees;see note

1;personalcommunication,1992). Certainlythe

authorof Revelation raphicallydepictsthe powersof Romein theanimalisticand monstrousimagery adoptedfromprophetictradi-tion while simultaneously denouncing certain groups of Jews-

apparently hose who rejectedhis claims aboutJesus-as the "syn-agogue of Satan" 2:9).3

Yetwho actuallywereJesus' enemies? What we know histori-

cally suggests that his enemies were the Romangovernorand hisforceswho condemned and executedJesus on groundsof sedition

againstRome. In all probability,as the gospels indicate,Jesus alsohad enemies amonghis own people, especially amongthose of its

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

Journal of the American Academy of Religion0



leaders who regardedhis activityas threateningand potentiallydangerous. YethadJesus'followersidentifiedthemselveswith the

majorityofotherJews,

heymighthavetold his

storyverydifferently-and withconsiderablymorehistoricalplausibility.Specifically, heymighthave told it in a stylerather ike that of Maccabees,s that ofan inspiredJewishholy manmartyredby Israel's raditional"alienenemies."

At this crucialjuncture,however,for reasons too complex tosummarize here, the evangelists chose to dissociatethemselvesfrom the Jewish majority,and to focus instead upon intra-Jewishconflict-and so,

simultaneously, upontheir own

quarrelwith

thosewho resisted their claimsaboutJesus. Withinthegospel nar-ratives, he figureof Satan tends to correlatewith-and to express-that dramatic shift of blame from "the nations" onto membersof

Jesus' own people. The variationsin each of the gospels as each

depicts the activityof the demonic opposition (and, correspond-ingly, those they perceiveas enemies) express,I suggest,a varietyof relationships-often deeplyambivalent-betweenvariousgroupsof Jesus' followersand these Jewish groups each regardedas its

primaryopponents. We must be careful to avoid oversimplifica-tion. Yet t is probably airto say thatin everycase the decision tocast the story ofJesus into the context of God's war againstSatantends to exemptthe Romansand to place increasingblame uponthe "intimateenemies." By the time of the gospel of John, as weshall see, those the authoroften designatessimply as "theJews"havebecome, in effect, a kind of diabolusex machina.4

Beforewe look at the characterization f Satanin each of the

gospels, let us make one preliminarynote about the decision tostart this investigationwith the gospel narratives. Wereour con-cern to unravelthe problemsof source and redactioncriticism,wewould have to begin, of course, with the earliest extant sources,such as the letters of Paul,andwhateverotherconstituentelementsof gospel traditionwe mightreconstruct,5ncluding,some scholarsbelieve, the gospel of Thomas. But since our aim is different-toobserve how the theme of cosmicwar,and the correspondingdivi-

sion in society, dominatesthose traditionswhich the majorityofChristians (c. 70-200 C.E.) affirmed as "canonical"-we begin

4Fordiscussion of the muchdebatedmeaningof the termIoudaiosn John,see infra.5Foran outstandingrecentdiscussion,see Koester.




insteadwith those portraitsofJesusthatprovedmost influentialin

shaping all subsequentorthodoxtradition.

Letus considerfirst, then,thegospelof Markand the Q source,the importanceof these two reinforcedby the way that MatthewandLukereworkedboth into their later narratives. Severalnfluen-tial scholars recently have suggested that certain earliercompo-nents of Jesus tradition lacked the theme of cosmic war. In hisrecent study of Ancient ChristianGospels,Helmut Koesterhas

shown, forexample,how certainsayingstraditions, ncludingsec-tions of the Gospelof Thomas,predate he canonicalgospels. JohnKloppenborg,ollowingthe lead of Koesterand Robinson,has ana-

lyzedthe Q source,and claims to be able to separate"the ormativecomponentin Q,"which he identifieswith six "wisdomspeeches,"from what he regardsas lateradditions,includingthe apocalypticsayings, the polemic againstthe present"evilgeneration,"and thediabolicaltemptationscene.

What matters for our present purpose, whatever we assumeaboutearlierand later strataof Q, is to observe that such "wisdom

sayings"came to be includedin canonical traditiononlywhen theyare framed-and thus interpreted-by the theme of cosmic war.Althoughcertain of the Q sayings attributedto Jesus may sound

"sapiential,"n myview theydifferradically rom the EgyptianandGreek collections to which Kloppenborgcomparesthem. As hehimself notes, the "confrontational, aradoxical,and hyperbolic"tone of Q is antithetical o the conservativeattitudesexpressedin

pagancollections. Furthermore, s Kloppenborg lso observes,the

Q sayingsaredominatedandshaped by expectationof the coming

judgment.Most significantly, the sayingsdivide humansociety into two

groups-notso much"thewise andthefoolish" s a righteousminorityrangedagainsta wickedmajority.Wisdomtradition,by definition,presupposesan essentialcontrastbetween thewise and the foolish.But the Q sayings (includingthose Kloppenborg lassifies as the

"inaugural ermon" and "sayingson anxiety")presupposea verydifferentcontrast. In the former, orexample,the speaker's njunc-

tions to "loveyour enemies;do good to those who hateyou; blessthose who curseyou; prayfor those who abuseyou,"etc., implic-itlywarnhis hearers hat,in effect,"manypeopleareyourenemies;they will curse, abuse,beat, and robyou; they will rejectyou andtry to kill you." Unlike wisdom traditions,which intend to make"thewise"feel (and, one hopes, become) superiorto "thefoolish"




(Beardslee), hese sayingsinvolve far more thancontrast; hey pre-suppose active, hostile, even lethal opposition. Yet,as we noted

already,even those

sayingsthat can be construedas

"sapiential"only survive into orthodox traditionin the context,Kloppenborgargues, of cosmic war. Consequently, they interpretall humanconflict in terms of this cosmologicalstrife.

Turning o Mark,we can see that his gospel,asJamesRobinsonhas observed, "is anything but a straightforwardhistoricalaccount" 63). Markopens his narrativewith the account ofJohnbaptizingJesus and relates that, at the moment of baptism, the

holy spiritdescended

uponJesus,and "avoice

spokefromheaven,

saying 'Thisis Mybelovedson."' Fromthat moment,all humansdisappearfrom Mark's narrative: "Immediately he spirit drove

Jesus) into the wilderness, and there he remainedfor forty days,temptedby the satan (tousatana)and he was amongthe wild ani-mals, and the angelsministered o him." Recounting his episode,Markdoes not intend to departfromeventsin the human,histori-cal world, but rather,as Robinsonnotes, to interpret heir cosmic

significance. The same patternpervadesthe entire narrative.

Let us glance, then, at the "story line" of Mark's gospel.Directlyafter the spiritinfusesJesuswith power,drawinghim intocombatwith Satanin the desert,he emergesannouncingthe newsituation(1:15), heraldingGod'simminentvictoryover the forcesof evil. When he enters the synagogueat Capernaum,a demon-

possessed man, hearinghim preach"withauthority," creamsasthe demon within him recognizeswhatJesus' activitymeans andtries to overpowerhim: "What s there betweenus and you,Jesus

of Nazareth. Haveyou come to destroyus?"(1:24). In this firstpublicconfrontationwith a demon,Jesuscommandsthe evil spiritto leave, and forces him out; the demon convulses the man andshrieks "witha greatvoice"as he departs. All who witness thiscontest, struck with astonishment,ask each other "What s this?New teaching! With power(exousian)he commandsthe unclean

spirits, and they obey him!"(1:27).As Mark ells the story,then,Jesus'powermanifests itself espe-

cially in action, since Markdoes not, here, recordJesus' teaching.Evenin the firstpublic challengeto the forces of evil, Markshowshow Jesus'power sets him in contrast-and soon into direct con-flict-with the scribes commonly reveredas religiousauthorities,for, as he explains,Jesus "taughtwith authority,and not like thescribes"(1:22).

Pagels: The SocialHistoryof Satan, PartII 23



Throughout his opening chapter,MarkemphasizesthatJesus"drove out many demons," healed demonically induced illness

(1:34; 39), and traveledhroughout

Galilee"preaching

n thesyna-gogues and casting out demons,"for, as he explains to his disci-

ples, "that s what I came to do"(1:38). Simultaneously,as Marktells it, the scribes immediatelytook offense at what they took tobe his arrogatingdivine authority. Within the opening chapters,then, as Robinson has shown, Markpresentscosmic war on threeinterrelated ronts: the holy spiritagainstSatan;the "son of God"

against the demons; Jesus of Nazareth against his humanopponents.6

ForJesus has barely engaged Satan'spower before his oppo-nents' hostility turns murderous. DirectlyafterwitnessingJesushealing on the Sabbath,the Pharisees,Marksays, began to plotwith the Herodians"howthey might destroyhim"(3:6). Afterthis

powerfulcoalition has unitedagainsthim,Jesus retaliatesby com-

missioning a new leadershipgroup, "thetwelve,"orders them to

preach,and gives them "power o cast out demons"(3:13).This escalation of spiritualwar immediatelyevokes escalating

opposition. For,Mark ays,next "thescribes who camedown fromJerusalem"chargethat Jesus "is possessed by Beelzebub;by the

prince of demons he casts out demons!"Jesus objects: "HowcanSatan cast out Satan? ... If Satan is in rebellionagainsthimself,he is divided and cannotstand, and that is the end of him"(3:23-26). According o Mark, esuscharacterized atan(cf. Isaiah56:7)as a powerful ord,the rulerof a kingdom,or the masterof a house,upon whom Jesus openly declares war. He is out to "bindthis

enemy and to plunder his house." Jesus throws back upon hisaccusers the accusationof being demon-possessed,chargingthatin sayingthis theythemselvesaresinningso deeplyas to seal theirown damnation(3:28-30). Later,tellingthe parableof the sower,Jesus specificallyidentifiesSatan as the enemywho frustrates he

efficacyof his preaching:

6Robinson,"Wehave dentified hree evels of Markananguage .. summarized chemati-

cally as follows: the Spiritand Satan; he Son of God and demoniacs; esusand his oppo-nents" 80). "Thedebates,too, ... are the actions of Satan .. the debateswith theJewishauthoritiesaredesignatedpeirasmai"93). "Jesus nd the church areengaged n the samecosmic struggle against the same demonic force of evil"(111). See also Nineham(34,passim).




When heyhear,Satanmmediatelyomesand snatchesaway hewordwhich s sownin them. 4:14)

From this point on, Jesus sharply discriminatesbetween thosewhom he has chosen, the inner circle, and "those outside."

Althoughhe often criticizesthe disciples7-in 8:33 he evenaccusesPeterof playing Satan'srole-Jesus shares secretswith them thatarehidden fromoutsiders. For the latter,he says, quotingIsaiah,are afflictedwith impenetrable piritualblindness. Thus the firstfour chaptersof Markdemonstratehow the theme of cosmic war-fare intertwineswith that of conflict between the tiny group of

Jesus'intimates and the various and

powerful groups rangedagainst them.At first glance, one might assume that Markhere adopts and

follows a pattern we observed in the literatureof those various

groups sometimes called "dissidentJews."8To some extent, he

does; yet despite Mark'saffinitywith such groups,his own view-

point is actuallyfar moreradical. Forthe formerattemptto reformor renew Israel by going back with increased devotion to tradi-tional ways of maintainingholiness-observance of Sabbath,for

example,or kashrut.Mark,by contrast,depictsJesusboth accusedand apparently uiltyofviolatingstrictobservanceon both counts.Criticizedby the scribes, the Pharisees,and even, apparently,bythe "disciplesofJohn,"Jesus rejectsthe impliedcriterion: "Icamenot to call the righteous,but sinners, to repentance."

Unlike other "sectarian"exts, then, the gospel of Mark doesnot address those who are especially "righteous."I Enoch,for

example,is addressed o the "holyones"amonghumankind,while

Jubileesand the Qfmran texts are addressedto a "righteousrem-nant"within Israel. Mark,on the contrary,places such "reform"

parties as the Pharisees(and possibly the Essenes as well) amongJesus'primarycritics,and so finally amonghis enemies.

What criteria remain, then, to discriminate-within Israel-between the people who belong to God and those who followSatan? Mark makes his primarycriterion discernmentof spirits.

7See the workof Weedenand Tolbert or recentcritical nterpretation;find morepersua-sive the forthcoming tudy by Shiner.8Note Smith'smorepreciseattemptat definition:"Those irst-centuryewishgroups,both

in Palestineand in the Diaspora,both beforeand afterthe destructionof the Temple, hat

soughtto developa notion of community,principlesof authority, ourcesof revelation, ndmodesof access to divinityapart romtheJerusalememple, ts traditions,priests,and cult"

(2.701); see also Murray 1982:194-208,1985:263-81).




Who recognizesthe spiritactinginJesusas holy, and who regardsit as demonic? Accordingto Mark,the answer to this question

reveals,in each

case,whether a

personstands on God's side or

Satan's. Here the mutual accusationsof demon possession effec-

tivelydefine the identityofJesus'followers,on the one hand, and,on the other, that of theirJewishopponents. Strikingly,however,as we noted above,Marksees the evil "rulerof this world"personi-fied not so much in Israel's traditional "alien enemies"(in this

case, the Romans) so much as in the "intimateenemies." Mark

chargestheJewishleaders with virtuallythe full responsibilityfor

enacting Satan's purposes on earth. For accordingto Mark,as

Jesus leads his terrified followers towardJerusalem,he tells themexplicitlywhom they are to blame for his impendingdeath: "Thechief priests and scribes . . . will condemn (the Son of Man) to

death,and hand him overto the nations,and they shall mock himand spit upon him, flog him and kill him"(Mark 10:33).

AfterJesus' public demonstrationin the temple outrages the

temple officers, Mark again repeats that "the chief priests andscribes sought to destroy him" (11:18). When both groups,togetherwith the elders, demand to know by what authorityheacts,Jesus refuses to answer. Insteadhe retells Isaiah'sparableofGod'swrath againstIsrael (12:1-12) in a way so transparent hateven the chief priests, scribes, and elders themselvesrecognizedthat he was tellingit "against hem" 12:12). The followingscenesshow Jesus contendingfirst against the Phariseesand Herodians,who fail to trick him into making anti-Roman tatements(12:13-15), and then against the scribes (12:35). Chapter 14 begins with

the statement that "the high priests sought by deceit how theymight overcomehim and kill him,"while the people remain on

Jesus' side (14:2). Shortly afterward,Judas Iscariot, obviouslyaware of the hostilityJesus had aroused-and amongwhich influ-entialpeople-"wentto the chiefpriestsin order o betrayUesus)tothem, and when they heard it they were glad, and offered him

money"(14:10-11). Mark'stheology,as is well known, paradoxi-cally inverts the ordinarymeaningof the event he relates. In his

conviction thatJesus'death will become a means of destroying hepowers of evil, Markdepicts Satanhimself-momentarily appear-ing in the person of Peter-actuallyattempting o obstruct he pas-sion (8:31-33)!

The sacredmysterythey claimlies hidden in Jesus'death doesnot, however,exonerate those who successfully conspire to kill





him. And while Markdoes not explicitlyintroduceSatan into the

passion narrative, rom the first chapters(as we noted above)hehas described those

scribes, Herodians, Pharisees,and chief

priests who seek "todestroy(esus)" as people acting in concertwith the powersof evil.

Finally, then, as Mark'snarrativedarkens into the eventslead-

ing to the crucifixion, the reader senses those forces closing in,their presencemanifestthroughthe increasinglyhostile and dan-

gerous machinations of Jesus' "intimate enemies." We noted

alreadythat SatanappearedshortlybeforeJesus'arrest,not only,as Luke andJohnwill haveit, in the form ofJudasIscariot'sdeci-sion to betrayJesus, but even in Peter's instinctive attempt todefendhim. Possessedby the conviction thatJesus"had o die"for

mysteriousreasonswhich he does not presumeto fathom,Mark

depicts Peter himself "tempting"Jesus to evade his divinelyordaineddeath (8:31-33).

Farfrom acquittingJesus' enemies of blame, however,Mark'saccount (possibly followingearliertraditions)significantlyshiftsthe blame from the Romans to the Jewish leaders. We need not

rehearsehere certainobvious reasons fordeflectingresponsibilityfor the crucifixion from the Romans. As Paul Winterpoints out,the evangelist,writing in the turmoil surroundingthe disastrousJewishwaragainstRome,wished "... to emphasizethe culpabilityof theJewishnation,particularlyof its leaders... for ... the deathof Jesus. His motivesare defensive,not aggressive; o avoid men-

tioning anythingthat would provokeRomanantagonismtoward,orevensuspicionof, the ideas forwhich he stood ... the evangelist

triedto concealthatJesushadbeen condemnedand executed on achargeof sedition"(144).

By contrastwithJohn,Mark(like Matthewand Lukefollowinghim) mentions no participationby Roman soldiers. Instead heinsists that Jesus was arrestedby soldiers sent "from the chief

priests and the scribes." It is certainlylikely thatJewish authori-ties, having securedJudas' cooperation, may have sent Templepolice to participatein the arrest;but Markchooses to mention

onlyJewish officers-despite what he recordsof Jesus' protest atbeing arrested at night, and so treated"like a rebel"(hos lestes,14:48).9

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




The most effectivemeansMarkuses to shift responsibilityonto

Jesus' "intimateenemies,"however,is to introduce the so-called"trialbefore the Sanhedrin,"and to

juxtaposethis with the con-

trasting"trialbeforePilate." For Markgoes on to tell a dramatic

story of Jesus' immediatearraignment hat night before the highpriest, in whose presence"allthe chief priests and the elders andthe scribes were assembled" 14:53). Markelaborateseach detailof this alleged "trial,"where, he says, after hearing a series of

trumped up charges and lying witnesses, the chief priest pro-nouncedJesus guilty of blasphemy,and the entire assembly "allcondemnedhim as deservingdeath."'0

10New 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 passagesas 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 Jesusas "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 interrogationand 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 Peterdisplays. 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,

bycontrast, is

abruptand

incomplete.There Mark mentions

onlythe single charge that would interest a Roman interrogator: that Jesus had claimed to be

"Kingof theJews." Yetthis second Marcanaccount 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 Markprevi-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

Uesus)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 innocentno less than three times and tried three times-in vain-to release him before "hegave (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 uponthemselves and upon all their progeny ("His blood be upon us and upon our children";

27:25). Still laterJohn will imply that Pilate only allowed Jesus to be beaten and mocked inorder to evoke compassion from the onlookers.




Without rehearsingall the argumentshere, I agreewith thosescholarswho haveargued hatMark'saccountof this so-calledtrialwas a construction of the writer

(orof his

sources) designedto

make an apologeticpoint. Thereby,as one scholarobserves,Markevades ". .. the indisputable fact . . . that (esus') final trial andsentence were the work of a Romancourt."11Comparewith thisthe equallyartificial"trialbeforePilate,"n which, as Mark ells it,Pilate barely interrogatesthe accused, never sentences him, butinsteadacknowledgeshis innocence,and finally, only aftertryingin vain to defend him from the shoutingmob, acquiescesin theirdemands. The French biblical scholarLoisy has, indeed, "gottenthe point" of these two juxtaposed accounts: Mark intends ". .. tomakeus understand hat thegovernordid notcondemnesus,butthathe merelyallowedhim to beput to death n accordancewith thesen-tenceof theSanhedrin, fterhaving ried in vain tofree him romthehatredof his enemies" 1.1031). At first Mark dentifies these ene-mies with the chief priestsand scribes,but by the end of the storythey also include "thecrowd"whose response previouslyhad pro-tectedJesus. Thus Markeffectivelyconcludesthat the majorityof

Jesus' fellow Jews served Satan'spurpose in helping to destroyJesus.Fromthis quick sketch drawnfrom Mark, et us turn to Mat-

thew to see how the themeof supernaturalconflict serves to char-acterize the relationshipbetweenJesus' followersand those theysaw as theirprimaryenemies. Here,too, the relationshipremains

implicit,not explicit. Unlike Mark,who describesJesus' baptismas the primaryeventin which God'sspiritdescendeduponJesus,Matthewdeclares-and

emphasizes-thatthis divine

powerentered

Jesus fromthe verymoment of his conception. Indeed,accordingto Matthew, he spiritactuallyinitiatedthat conception: "Shewasdiscovered to have a child in her womb throughthe holy spirit"(1:18). Thus the angel explainstoJosephthat her child "wascon-ceivedthroughthe holy spirit"(1:21).

As Matthewtells the story, then,Jesus even as a newborn was

royalanddivine,alreadyGod'sdesignated uture"Kingof theJews"(2:2). Matthewproceedsimmediatelyto show howJesus'earliest

history echoes and recapitulatesthe story of the infant Moses'escape from the murderousacts of an evil tyrant. Many have

llWinter (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).




observedthatMatthewpresentsJesus'birth as a typologicalparal-lel with Moses'(Brown,1977:214-225). Butno one yet, so far as I

know, has noted how Matthewsimultaneously departs

from his

typologicalscheme by reversing raditionalroles. Certaindevout

people among his subjects,including,of course,John the Baptist,regardedHerod'scredentialsas suspect. He was, afterall, an Idu-

mean;his family lived in a notoriouslyGentileway (despite their

religiousprofessions);and, as the Baptistpointed out, he lived in

open violation ofJewish law.

Shockingly,Matthewcasts theJewishking, Herod,into the vil-lain's role

traditionallyeservedforPharaoh.Through his device,

Matthew turns the "alienenemies" of Israel'santiquityinto the"intimate nemies,"as Matthewperceives hem,includingthe chief

priestsand scribes,alongwith all the inhabitantsofJerusalem.ForMatthewsays that not only was Herod "troubled"o hear ofJesus'birth,but so was "allJerusalemwith him"(2:3). Matthew ntends,no doubt, to contrastHerod,Idumeanby background,and from a

suspect dynasty, with Jesus, whose legitimatelyDavidic (and so

royal) ineageMatthewproclaims. Hereit is Herod-not Pharaoh-

who ruthlesslyorders the mass slaughterof Jewish male infants.Thus (as RaymondBrown also notes in his masterfulstudy) evenin the infancynarrativeMatthewforeshadows he terrible climaxof the passion (1977:183). According o Matthew,no sooner was

Jesusborn than the "chiefpriestsand scribes of the people"assem-

bled, unwittingly aiding Herod'sattemptto "searchfor the childand kill him"(2:13).

While transposingthe Jewish king into Pharaoh's traditional

role,Matthewsimultaneouslyreverses he valences of Israel'ssym-bolic geography. Egypt, traditionally he land of slavery(and so

traditionally ynonymouswith oppression)now becomes forJesusand his familya sanctuary-a placeof refugeand deliverance romthe slaughterorderedby theJewishking! In its shock value, thisreversalof imagerynearlymatchesthat in the book of Revelation,which referstoJerusalemas the place "allegorically alled Sodomand Egypt,where our Lordwas crucified" 11:8)! Later,of course,

Matthewwill go on to have Jesus favorably compare Tyre andSidon-and even Sodom-with the local towns of Bethsaida,Chorazin,and Capernaum 11:20-24).

Since Matthewclaims thatJesus receivedGod'sspirit fromthemoment of his conception,he sees Jesus'baptismas merelycon-

firming,not conveying,his receiptof divinepower. Thespiritcon-




tinues to direct the subsequent action, leading Jesus into thewilderness for the purpose of undergoing temptations "by thedevil."

Apparently akinghis cues from the Q source, Matthew

describes SatanchallengingJesus'divine identity ("Ifyou are theSon of God. . ."). But failing twice to induceJesus to provehisdivinepowerand authority,Satan offershim "all the kingdomsofthe world and theirglory" whichSatanhere claims as his own) in

exchange for worship. Thus Matthew, following Mark's lead,implies that politicalsuccess and powerare evidenceof affiliationwith the devil-certainly not, as many of Matthew'scontemporar-ies would have assumed,marksof divine favor!

Throughouthis gospel, Matthewsustains both the reversalofalien enemieswith intimateones and the correlatedreversalofJew-ish vs. Gentileterritory.Here,after the arrest ofJohn the Baptist,Jesus went, as Isaiahhad prophesied,to the "landbeyondtheJor-dan, the Galilee of the Gentiles"(Isaiah 9:1-2, cited in Matthew

4:15). Subsequentlyhe heals a leperoutcastfromIsrael,and thenhe performsa healingfor a Romancenturionwho recognizesJesus'divine power and appealsto him to use it on his behalf. Aston-

ished to hear a Roman officerexpress faith"greaterhan any"hehas found in Israel,Jesus immediatelydeclares,"Itell you, manyshall come from east and west and sit down with AbrahamandIsaac andJacobin the Kingdomof God,while the sons of the king-dom shall be cast out into outer darkness" 8:11-12a).

As SeanFreyneobserves,Matthew,himselfcontendingwith hisfellow Christiansagainstthe rivalpartyof Pharisees, ells the storyof Jesus as a polemic between Jesus and the Jewish leaders

(1985:117-144; 1988:67-132). For this purpose, Matthewseemssimultaneouslyintent on "correcting" hat apparentlywas a com-mon impression-thatJesus simply ignoredtraditional ewishcon-cerns with righteous obedience to Torah. Thus, instead of

beginning, as Markdoes, by showing how Jesus' mighty works-and thus his implicit arrogationof divine authority-bring himinto conflict with religiousleaders,MatthewopensJesus'ministrywith his "new Torah."Thus Matthewpreparesthe reader for the

chargesofJesus' laxityin Sabbathand kosher observanceby insist-ing thatJesus acts on the basis of a greaterrighteousness(5:20),not a lesser one. According o Matthew5 and 6,Jesusdemands anenormous increase n religiousscrupulosity:the traditionalTorahis not half strictenoughfor him! Simultaneously,Matthew nsiststhatJesus' critics,"the scribes and the Pharisees,"use merehypo-




critical "observance" s a coverforviolatingwhatJesus here pro-claims to be the Torah'scentral commands of love for God and

neighbor(6:1-18).

Matthew thus leads the reader into the controversiesbetweenJesus and his opponents by way of Jesus' teaching.12And unlikeMark,as we noted already,Matthewcasts the Pharisees,not thescribes, into the role ofJesus'primaryantagonists.13Thus here itis the Pharisees who, at a crucial moment, chargeJesus withdemon possession ("He casts out demons by the prince ofdemons";9:34). Havingwarned the Pharisees that by false "dis-cernment of spirits" they commit unforgivableblasphemy, Mat-

thew's Jesus insists that supernatural conflict creates twoseparate-and opposing-communities: "Whoevers not with meis againstme, and whoeverdoes not gatherwith me scatters."

Distressed to see Israellackingspiritualleadership,Jesus then

designatesthe twelveand gives them "authority veruncleanspir-its, to cast them out"(10:1). While warningthem that the people"will deliveryou up to sanhedrins, and beat you in their syna-gogues"(10:17),Jesuswarns them to anticipatemurderoushatred

within their own households (10:21) as well as from "everyone"(10:22);for,as he says,"iftheyhavecalled the masterof the houseBeelzebub,how much morewill theymalignthose members of hishousehold?" 10:24).

Afterthe Pharisees "wentout and took counsel against him,how to destroyhim" (12:14), Matthew'sJesus replies in Isaiah'swords, claimingthat God himself has said of him, "Ihaveput myspirit upon (my servant),and he shallproclaim ustice to the Gen-

tiles . . . and in his name will the Gentiles hope" (12:13-21).At this turning point in the story, MatthewreportsthatJesus

healed and exorcised a blind, mute man who was demon pos-sessed (might he representthe Gentiles to whom Jesus has justdeclaredhe is to minister?).14Seeingthis, and seeing the crowd's

admiringresponse,Matthew ays,the Phariseesrepeattheirchargeof demon possession: ". .. all the people were amazed, and said,'Canthis be the Son of David?' Butwhen the Phariseesheardit,

they said, 'Itis only by Beelzebub, he princeof demons, that this

12See he recentstudyby Garland.13Cf.Overman.14Note heperceptive nd,Ibelieve,correlated ommentsbyJackson,"The Roman)centu-

rion is the counterpartor Mark'sntendedreader"20), as he is in Matthewas well.




man casts out demons."' To this accusation,Jesus responds,as in

Mark,with the counterchargeof blasphemyand warns that theyare liable to damnation.

The bitterhostility expressedin Matthew23 has attractedcon-siderable comment, notably including recent discussions by D.Garlandand A. Overman.LukeJohnsonhas attempted o amelio-rate the bitterness by showing, quite accurately,that rhetorical

vituperationtypicallycharacterizeddebate between rival teachersin antiquity. ButJohnson fails to note that demonicvilificationoccurs extremelyrarely. In the wide rangeof exampleshe offers,only Essenes and Christians

actuallyescalate conflict with their

opponentsto the levelof cosmic war. Indeed,as Matthew'snarra-tive proceeds, the antagonism between Jesus and his enemiescomes to be described-as in the literatureof the Qfmran sectari-ans-as a war between those whomJesus calls "sons of the king-dom"(13:38a) and the "sons of the evil one"(13:38b). FirstJesusrepeatsJohn's denunciation to them:"youare evil"(12:34). Nexthe predictsthat despised foreigners hall "ariseat thejudgmentofthis generation and condemn it" (12:41). Finally he implicitly

accuses his opponentsof being hopelessly demon possessed, tell-ing the parableof a man who, once exorcised,experiencesa newinvasion of "seven other spirits more evil" than the first, ". .. sothat the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. Soshall it be also with this evil generation!"12:45).

Later,Jesus explains privatelyto his followers that the genera-tion he addresses-except for the elect-already has been judgedand condemned;his opponents'refusalto receivehis preaching,he

says, evinces Satan'spowerover them. In terms of the parableofthe sower,Jesus identifies the "evilone" as the "enemy"who has"snatchedaway"the seeds he has planted and so preventedhis

preaching from bearing fruit among his own people (13:19).Immediately hereafter esus tells the parableof the weeds, explic-itly interpretingt so as to identifyhis opponentsas the offspringof Satan: "... theweeds arethe sons of the evilone, andthe enemywho sowed them is the devil!" 13:38-39).

Jesus, finallyrecognizedby his disciplesas Messiah,tells themthat now, by the authorityof God's spirit, he is establishinghisownassembly,which shall triumphover all the forces of evil. This

signals that God has replacedIsrael with a new community:as

Nicklesburg observes, by Matthew 16 "the qahal 'Ysraelhasbecome 'my church'(mouten ekklesias)"174).




YetJesus' conflict with the Pharisees has not yet reachedtheclimaximpendingin the passion narrative.Hultgren 67-131) hasshown how Matthew

consistentlyturns earliertraditions nto con-

flict stories that pitJesus againstthose he denounces seven timesas "scribesand Pharisees,hypocrites,"and even calls "childrenofhell" (23:15)! He goes on to call down divine wrath upon "this

generation,. . . that upon you may come all the righteousbloodshed on earth, from the blood of the innocent Abel to that ofZechariah,son of Barachiah,whom you murderedbetween the

sanctuaryand the altar" 23:35). Through he parableof the sheepand the goatsJesusproclaimsa direct and powerfulmessage: that

everysingleresponsea personmakes towardhim-here interpretedas, in effect, anyone in need, hungering, thirsting, sick, naked,imprisoned-takes place within the context of this cosmic battlebetween God's spirit and Satan. For Matthew,this apparentlymeans thatJesus in his future role as Son of Manshalljudge thewhole humanrace,invitingsome to enterinto God'skingdomand

orderingall who ignorehis commands "into the eternal fire pre-paredfor the devil and his angels"(25:41).

Consistent with these themes is Matthew'sgreateremphasisthroughoutthe passion narrativeon Pilate'sinnocence and uponthe consequently greater guilt of Jesus' Jewish contemporaries.Althoughwe need not hererepeatthe work of those who have ana-

lyzed the Mattheanpassion narrative n detail (Dahl), let us notesome of the uniquely Mattheanfeatures: the story of Pilate's

handwashing,an episode apparentlyadded to echoJewishpracticeas mentionedin such passagesas Deut 21:6-9andPs 26:6;Pilate's

implicit recognition of Jesus' innocence (27:18) and his conse-quent refusal to pronounce sentence; and, finally, his reluctant

acquiescenceas "allthe people"acknowledge heirblood guilt andinvoke God's curse upon themselves and their children (Mt.26:28). As Matthew ells the story,evenJudasIscariothimself-to

say nothingof Pilate's own wife-declares Jesus innocent! Finally,it is Matthewalonewho adds the storythat the "chiefpriests andthe Pharisees,"following the crucifixion, solicit Pilate to secure

Jesus' tombwith a guard, est his followerssteal his body in orderto fake a resurrection. Matthew'sstory concludes with the well-known story of theJewish authoritiesbribingthe soldiers to startthe falserumorthat "hasbeen spreadamongtheJews to this day"(28:15).

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion4



As the gospel ends, then,MatthewclearlydissociatesJesus'fol-lowers from these hostile and lying "Jews" nd depicts the resur-rectedJesus

announcingto his followersthatnow, havingreceived

"allauthority,on heavenand on earth,"he ordersthem to "goandmakedisciples of all nations"(28:19). Thus the end of the gospelechoes the beginning: the traditional"alien enemies" have nowbecome those fromwhom, alongwith a remnant romIsrael,God's

spirit shall gatherthe new "qahal"-Jesus'kklesia.

The gospel of Luke makes considerablymore explicit the pat-ternwe arecallingthe "socialhistoryof Satan."According o Luke,it is the holy spirit (or its agents, the angels) who initiates everyone of the uniquelyLucanopeninganecdotes,fromJohn'smiracu-lous conceptionto Simeonand Anna'sgreeting oJesusin the Tem-

ple. LikeMatthew,Lukeshows that the momentJesusappearsas afull grownman, "full of the holy spirit"to challengethe forces of

evil, Satanimmediatelyappears o challengehim. Findinghimselfthrice defeated,"the devil departedfrom him for a time"(4:13).This does not mean, as Conzlemann magined,thatJesus' activityuntil his betrayalwas "Satan-free."As I read the gospel, I agree

with certain more recent commentatorswho contend that Luke'sentire narrative demonstratesthe opposite.15Now, however,thedevil works underground-or, more accurately,on the ground-throughhuman undercoveragents.

What firstsuggeststhis is his juxtapositionof two conflict sto-ries in Luke 4. Fordirectlyfollowinghis accountofJesus'conflictwith the devil, Luke narrateshis first public appearance-a scenethat ends in suddenand nearly ethal violence. HereJesusappears

in the Nazarethsynagoguereadingpassages fromIsaiah and pro-claiming their fulfillment. Favorablyreceived at first,Jesus then

predicts that his own townspeopleshall rejecthim, and declaresthat God intends to bring salvation to the Gentiles. His words so

outrage his audience that ". . . hearing these things, all those in the

synagoguewere filled with rage,andtheyroseup to throwhim outof the city, and led him to the edge of the hill on which theircitywas built, in order to throw him down headlong"(4:28-29). But

Jesus quickly departs,and so he

escapesthis first

attempton his

life.

15See, or recentdiscussion,Garrett.




AfterJesus'townspeoplehaverespondedto his firstappearanceby tryingto kill him-and thus to accomplishthe devil'spurpose-Luke shows the

religiousauthorities

beginningto

plot againstJesus. At firstthey suspiciouslywatchhim, hopingfor an opportu-nity "to make an accusationagainst him." When they find one,seeing him heal on the Sabbath, ". . . they were filled with insane

rage (anoias) and discussed with one anotherwhat they might dotoJesus"(6:11). From the beginningofJesus'public activityto its

end, Luke intends to show that it is Jews,Jesus'intimateenemies,who willingly playSatan'srole.16Yetevenin Lukethis theme is nota simple one; here, as some scholarshavenoted,Jesus'encounter

with the Jewish leaders often seems to indicate intra-Jewishpolemic ratherthan anti-Jewishpolemic.17While Lukecastigatesthe Pharisees for havingset themselves, n effect,againstGod (cf.16:13-14),he simultaneouslycharacterizes esus'followersin lan-

guage reserved for the "righteousremnant."From the openingscenes in the Temple nvolvingJesus' infancy and adolescence tothe words withwhich Lukecloses thegospel (thedisciples"went o

Jerusalem,and werecontinually n the templepraisingGod")Luke

depictsJesus and his associates as deeply loyalto the Temple-as,perhaps,the only genuine Israelites eft in Jerusalem.

Internal conflict often is, of course, the bitterest of all. When

Jesus proceeds to teach and heal, "castingout a demon that wasdumb,"Lukesays that "some of the people"accusehim of posses-sion by Beelzebub. Luke, like Matthew,quotes the Q sources,acknowledging he divisions his comingarouseswithin the "houseof Israel":"Do not thinkthatI havecome to bring peace on earth,

no, ratherdivision;from now on in one house there shall be fivedivided, three against two and two against three; they will bedivided,fatheragainstson and son againstfather,motheragainstdaughter and daughter against her mother. . ." (12:51-55).

Spiritualwarfarebetween God and Satan-and so, simultane-

ously, betweenJesus,his followers,and their"intimateenemies"-intensifies throughoutthe gospel. As his enemies harden their

opposition,certainPhariseeswarnJesus (in an episode unique toLuke)that "Herodwants to kill you."Jesus'contemptuousanswer

suggeststhat whatreallyunderliesHerod'shostility(as well as thatof others) is thatJesus challengesSatan'spower: "Goand tell that

160n many points I tend to agreewith Sanders'discussion;see especially1-83.170n the work of otherscholars,see Sanders.




fox, 'todayandtomorrow cast out demonsandheal,and the third

day I finish my course. . ."'(13:31-32). Yet after the seventyapos-tles he sends out return astonished and

triumphantat their

poweroverdemons,Jesus exults, foreseeingSatan'simpendingdefeat:18"Isaw Satan fall like lighteningfromheaven: Behold,I havegivenyou powerto treadon snakes andscorpions,andupon everypowerof the enemy"(10:18-19).

Directly before this supernatural "enemy"enters into JudasIscariotto initiate the betrayal,Luke has Jesus warn-in parable-how he himself shall return as king to annihilatehis enemies. Atthe

verymoment he

beginshis final

journeyto Jerusalem,Jesus

tells the storyof "acertainnobleman"who travels o a distant land"inorderto claim his kingly power(basileian)and return" 19:11).When he has accomplishedthis and returnsin triumph,his firstact is to demand the immediateexecution of his enemies: "Asforthoseenemiesof mine,who didnot want me to rule overthem,bringthem here and slaughter hembeforeme"(emphasisadded;19:27).Lukehighlightsthe significanceof these ominous wordsas follows:"whilesaying these words,Jesus travelledbefore (the disciples),going up to Jerusalem."Arriving here,he orderedhis disciplestopreparefor his royalentryinto the city (cf. Zech.9:9). Lukealoneinserts thewords "theking" nto the Psalmist'sacclamationhe saysthe disciples shoutedatJesus'arrival nJerusalem:"Blessed s theone, theking,who comes in the name of the Lord!"Ps 118:26;Lk

19:38).As the passion narrativeproceeds, Luke increasinglyempha-

sizes the culpabilityof thoseJewswho "didnot want (him) to rule

over them" and so reject their anointed king. As Luke tells thestory, "Satanentered into Judas Iscariot,"but neither this norGod's preordainedplan absolvedJudas from bearing his guilt(22:22). Intending o betrayJesus,Judaswent not only to the chief

priests but also, Lukeadds, to "theTempleofficers" o arrangeforthe arrest. UnlikeJohn,Lukementions no Romansoldiersamongthe arresting party. Later,describingJudas'arrival in Gethsem-ane, Lukesignificantlyomitsthe sayingcommonto Markand Mat-

thew, that "theSon of Manis betrayed nto the hands of sinners(=Gentiles)" Mk 14:41 par). Instead,Jesus here addresses "thechief priests and temple officers and elders who had come out

18Cf.Garrett.




againsthim,"and identifiesthese very persons as, in effect, Satanincarnate: "Haveyou come out as against a robber,with swordsand clubs? When I was with

youin the

templeevery day, youdid

not layhandsupon me. Butthis is your(pl.) hour,and(thatof) the

power of darkness he exousia tou skoutos)" 22:52-53; emphasisadded).

Lukegoes much further han eitherMarkor Matthewhad-andmakes a much less plausible story-by depictingJews not only as

responsiblefor arrestingand sentencingJesus, but even, perhaps,the carryingout his execution. Withoutdiscussingin detailLuke'sversion of the "Trialbefore the Sanhedrin,"we note that, in Sand-ers'words,this evangelist"... portrays heJewishreligiousleadersas presentingobviouslyfalsepolitical chargesto Pilate,chargesthefalsehood of which is immediatelyclearto anyreaderof the gospelwho paysattention. As Luketells the story,theJewishleaders are acohesivegroup capableof manipulating he Romanauthoritiesforthe purpose of gettingrid ofJesus forvery murkyreasons"(7).

Lukeadds to the account of Pilate's nterrogationhe statementthat Pilate specifically pronouncedJesus 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 clearlyJews)object,Lukesays, and insist thatJesus is guilty of disturbingthe

peace, "fromGalileeto this place"(23:5). Lukealone claims that

Pilate, hearing this, sends Jesus to Herod. Having interrogatedJesus and havingfailed to elicit fromhim anyinformation,"Herodwith his soldiers abused and mockedhim"(23:11) and sent himback. Here Herod, acting as an official working under Roman

jurisdiction,agreeswithPilate,andin this sense fulfills Luke'spur-pose by effectivelyacquittingJesus of any political charges againsthim. Luke also divergesfrom Mark and Matthewin attributingJesus's mockery and abuse to Herod's-not Pilate's-officers

(23:11).Pilate then receivesJesus back and calls together "the chief

priestsandthe rulersandthe people" 23:13). These threegroups,previously divided at least between the leaders and the people,

now presentsa unitedfrontagainstJesus. PilateformallydeclaresJesus innocent for the second time, addingthat Herod has agreedwith this verdict. ButhearingPilate declarethat he now intends toreleaseJesus, Luke says, "theyall cried out together"23:18) forJesus' execution and for Barabbas' elease. When Luke presentsPilate'sprotestationofJesus'innocence foryet a thirdtime,he says

Journalof theAmericanAcademyof Religion8



that ". .. they criedout in loud voices that he should be crucified,and theirvoicesprevailed, nd Pilate commandedthat theirdemandmightbe

granted. . and he

gaveJesusover to their will"

(23:25;emphasis added). Immediatelyfollowing,Lukewrites, ". . . theyled him away... and when theycameto the placecalledthe Skull,they crucifiedhim." Previously,Lukehas followedtradition, ndi-

cating that it is the Gentiles o whomJesus' people deliveredhim

(18:31-34);laterLukewill note the presenceof a Romancenturionat the crucifixion. Theseclues, alongwith his accountof the writ-ten charge,surely indicate that Luke knew that Romansactuallyhad pronounced the sentence and carried out the execution.19

Nevertheless,as Sanderspoints out, Luke recounts the story insuch a way that not only allows but perhapsintendsforthe reader

(especiallyone unfamiliarwith the othergospel accounts)to inferthat,after aJewishcourt alonehad condemnedJesus, it wasJewishsoldiers who actuallycrucifiedhim.

Luke's account seems to confirm these shockinginferencesinwhat follows. He relates,for example, that the Romancenturion

present at the execution, seeing Jesus die, "praisedGod" and

exclaimedthat"certainlyhis man was innocent." Thus the foreignofficer confirmed what the Roman governor alreadyhad statedthree times. Luke offers further confirmation in the chargeshurled by Stephenand Peter n the early chaptersof Acts, wherePeterspecificallyaddresses the "menof Israel," hargingthat "youcrucified and killed"the righteous one whom God had sent toIsrael. Shortly after, Peteragain addresses the "men of Israel,"preachingof Jesus, ". .. whom you deliveredup and denied in the

presenceof Pilate,when Pilate had decided o release him . . . youdeniedtheholyand righteousone, andyou askedinsteador a mur-dererto begranted oyou"(3:13-14).

When the high priest and the sanhedrin accuse Peter and his

companions of "intend(ing) o bring this man's blood upon us,"Peterboldly repeatsthe charge: "You illedJesus by hanginghimon a tree." Stephen,of course,takesup accusations familiar romcertainpropheticsources and amplifiedamong"dissidentJews":20it is theJewish

people-the apostatemajority,hatis-who bear the

responsibilityand the guilt forJesus'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.




lowers. As Loisy says, accordingto Luke/Acts,"theJews are theauthors of all evil"(787); thus Luke ndicates that thosewho rejectJesus'

messiahship accomplishSatan'swill and Satan's work on

earth.What aboutthe gospel ofJohn? GustaveHoennicke,analyzing

"DieTeufelsideen den Evangelien,"eclares hat"mostofwhatweread in Christiantheologyaboutthe devilgoes backto the evange-lists" but locates this theme specificallyin the synoptics. Hoen-nicke says that in Markand Lukethe demonologyis particularlymarked,while in John der Teufelsideeanzfehlt"(208). Farmoreaccurate s RaymondBrown'soppositeassessment: thatin the

gos-pel of John, no less than in the synoptics, the whole ministry ofJesus is a strugglewith Satan,culminating n the final struggleofthe passion (1966, especially364-476).

WhatpromptsHoennicke'scomment,no doubt,is his observa-tion that the Johannineauthordepicts the devil quite differentlythan do the synopticauthors. The most obviousdifference s thatJohnomits the synoptics'opening"frame"-thescene of the deserttemptation-and so omits as well many of the statements that

evince the presence of constant demonic opposition throughoutJesus' ministry. Hoennickecharacterizeshis difference as a con-trastbetweenwhat he calls the synoptics'"mythological"epresen-tation of the devil and its "ethical"representationn John: "AuchJoh.8, 44 ist derTeufelVaterderJuden nurin ethischenSinn ... IndenMenschenHerzenherrschtderTeufel."Butthis allegedcontrastbetween "mythological" nd "ethical"representationsof the devilfits neitherthe synopticsnorJohn-nor, forthatmatter,any of the

Jewish literatureknownto me from c. 165 B.C.E.-100C.E. From IEnoch's Bookof theWatchers o the Martyrdomf Isaiah,fromtheLifeofAdamandEve o the synopticgospels, the figureof the devilfunctions simultaneouslymythologically and ethically. WhatHoennickesays ofJohn-"the devilreignsin humanhearts"-is, aswe haveseen, as trueof Mark,Matthew,and Lukeas it is ofJohn.Thus, I suggest, Hoennicke'sobservationinadvertentlyconfirmsthe basic point of this article-that the devil serves, as one of itsseveral

purposes,to

characterizehumanopposition.YetJohn does alterearliercharacterizations f Satan in strikingways. Here, significantly,Satandoesnot appearas a supernaturalcharacteractingindependently f humanbeings,as he does in thesynoptic temptation scenes. Thus the latter does not occur inJohn-neither in the starkconfrontationMarkdescribes nor in the




drama in three acts that Matthew and Luke recount. At first

glance, then, we might assume that the story of three diabolic

temptationsis

entirelyabsent from John; but, as Brown has

pointedout, this is not so. InsteadJohn ransposesthis scene-andits underlyingtheme of cosmic war-into a new key.

Let us observe, then, whatJohn puts in place of the synoptictemptationscene. First,beginningwith the prologue,John substi-tutes as a "frame" or the narrative he cosmologicaltheme of theconflict betweenlightanddarkness. Echoingthe grand cosmologyof Genesis 1, the prologueidentifies the logos,God'senergy actingin creation with life (zoe) and

light (phos),that is, the

"lightof

humankind"(phostonanthropon).Anticipating he messageof hisentiregospel,John declaresthat "the ight shines in the darkness,and the darknesshas not overcomeit." John goes on to specifythat this divinepresence,"thelightof humankind,"inallycame toshine in and throughJesus of Nazareth,revealedto be the Son ofGod.

ThusJohnrecasts the elementsseparated n creation(lightand

darkness)into the form of human drama,now interpreting hem

simultaneously n religious,ethical,andsocial terms. According oJohn, this divine "light"not only "becamehuman, and dwelt

amongus,"but also becomes the spiritualprogenitorof those who"becomethe children of God"(1:12). (Later n the gospel he saysthat thosewho believebecome "sons of light" 12:35).) Simultane-

ously, too, the crisis of Jesus' appearancereveals others as the"sons of darkness."ThusJesus explains to Nicodemus that ".this is thejudgment: that the lightcame into the world andpeople

loveddarkness ratherthanlight,because their deeds wereevil ...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 accomplishedcosmologicallyin creation: the separationof light fromdarkness-that is, of the"sons of light"from the offspringof darkness and the devil. Hav-

ing placedthe storyofJesuswithin this grandcosmologicalframe,John then sets it entirelywithin the dynamics of this world, the

worldof human interaction:"thestoryofJesus in the gospel is allplayed out on earth"(Meeks 1972:50). The frame, nevertheless,informsthe reader hatbothJesus'coming and all his human rela-

tionshipsareelementsplayedout in a supernaturaldramabetweenthe forcesof good and evil.




Furthermore,every one of the three traditional"temptationscenes,"as Brownpointsout, has an analogue n the fourthgospel.Here no disembodied Satan

appearsto contend

against Jesus;instead, it is otherpeople-first membersof Jesus' audience, andthen his own brothers-who playthe tempter'srole (Brown 1966).A contemporary eadermightbe inclined to interpret his as a psy-chologizingof the temptation account;yet John intends by thismeans to interprethuman conflict theologically. ust as God hasbecome incarnate in Jesus, so Satan too becomes incarnate in

Jesus'humanopponents. Wehave seen this occur implicitlyn the

synoptics; now John makes it explicit,and carries it out with a

programmatic onsistency.Letus recall,in the first place,what Luke relates as the devil's

second temptation (4:5-6) and Matthewas the third (4:8-9), inwhich Satan challengesJesus to claim power over earthly king-doms. Accordingto John, a parallel"diabolic emptation"occurswhen "thepeople"try to seizeJesus and forciblymake him king(6:15). Here,as in the synoptics,Jesusresists the temptation; hushe eludes the crowd and escapes. Second, while Matthew and

Luke,followingQ, relate that the devil challengedJesus to "makethese stones into bread" o provehis divine authority,John saysthat those who witnessedJesus' miracles-and in particularhis

multiplication of the loaves-then challenged him to performanothermiracleto provehis messianic identity. Likethe devil inthe synoptics, "thepeople"in John quote the Scripturesas theyurgeJesusto producebreadmiraculously:"... so theysaid to him,'What sign do you do, that we may see and believeyou? What

work do you perform?Ourfathersate mannain thewilderness;asit is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat"'(6:30-31).Jesus resists this second temptationas well, and he answers hishumantempters ust as the synopticJesus had answered he devil,with a metaphorical response about spiritualnourishment. Thethird episode, which Matthew and Luke describe as the devil

temptingJesus to displayhis divinepowersin public,finds its par-allel inJohn 7:1-9whenJesus'own disbelievingbrotherschallenge

Jesusto "gotoJudea," o "showyourselfto theworld" nJerusalem,where,as he and they are well aware,his enemies seek to kill him

(7:1). This thirdtemptation,too,Jesus rejects.

Accordingto John, Jesus himself revealsthe "socialhistory ofSatan"-or, to be more accurate,the social identityof Satan. For

Jesus, hearingPeterdeclarethat "we(disciples)believethatyou are




the Messiah,the Son of God,"respondswith these brusquewords:"'Have not chosenyou twelve,and oneofyou is a devil?' He spokeofJudasIscariot,the son of Simon,for it was he that would betrayhim, being one of the twelve" 6:69-71;emphasis added).

At the scene of his betrayal, esus again identifiesJudas,alongwith his accompanyingposse of RomanandJewishsoldiers,as his

supernaturalenemy appearingin human form-indeed, in theform of his most intimate enemy. While accordingto Matthew,Jesus signalsJudas'arrivalwith the words, "Rise; et us be going;my betrayer s coming"(12:46),John has Jesus announce insteadthat ". .. the ruler of this world is coming; . . . rise, let us be going"(14:30-31). Soon afterwards,Jesus accuses "theJews who hadbelieved in him" of plotting murder: twice he chargesthat "youseek to kill me." When they find his words incomprehensible,Jesus proceedsto identify"theJews"who had previouslybelievedin him as Satan'sown: "Youareof your father,the devil;and youwant to accomplishyour father'sdesires. He was a murderer romthe 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 andlouder 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,howeveraccurate,remainconfined to the rela-

tively safe terrain of theology. What do these passages mean interms of human conflict? Many commentators,along with per-haps the vast majorityof Christian readers, have agreed with

Rudolph Bultmann'sblunt, unself-consciousassessment: "Therecan be no doubt about the mainpoint of the passage,which is toshow that theJews'unbelief,with its hostilityto truth andlife, stems

from their being childrenof the devil" (319; emphasis added).Bultmannadds thatJohn,like Matthewand Luke, n effectchargestheJewswith "intendedmurder"321). (Aswe shallsee, Bultmannelsewheremakes statementsbearing very differentimplications.)During recent decades, of course, these passages have elicited a

flurryof discussion and

argumentation, ften fromChristiancom-mentators insisting that they do not-or morally cannot-meanwhat most Christiansfornearlytwo millenniahavetakenthem tomean.

Manyscholars haveobservedthat the term"Jews"ccurs muchmorefrequently nJohnthanin the synopticsandthat its use often

43Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II



indicates that theJohannineauthorregardshimself and his fellowbelievers standing at an even greaterdistance from the Jewish

majorityhan do the other

evangelists.21Sometimes,of

course,the

use of the term coincides with that of the synoptics (and for thatmatter with generalcontemporaryusage) in passages that simplydescribe people who areJewish and not Gentile. Yetin John theterm has a rangeof interrelatedconnotations. Brachter ists four

types of usage (365-409). Besides the simple descriptive ense, theterm may specificallydesignate,in a specific group of passages,Judeans, hat is, peoplewho live inJerusalemand its vicinity. In athirdgroupof passages,the term clearlyserves as a synonymfor

theJewishauthorities.Finally,a considerablenumber of passagesapparentlyuses the term simply to characterizepersons hostile toJesus.

Variousscholars havechosen to emphasizeeach of these con-notations. C. J. Cuming, for example, chooses the second andthirdoptions and so concludes his researchby declaringthat "...the Jews in the fourth gospel whom the evangelist regardswithsuch hostilitydo not represent he nation as a whole. Forhim the

wordhas a specialassociationwithJerusalem:It meansJudeansasopposed to Galileans" 290-2). This interpretationenables Cum-

ing to conclude that "the indictmentis not directedagainst thewholeJewishnation,but againstits religiousleaders" 292). Mal-colm Lowe,intendingto sum up scholarlydiscussion in the mid-1970s, argues that the secondmeaning dominates the Johanninegospel. Lowebases his discussionprimarilyon passages in whichthis meaningis indisputableandproceedsfromthese to claimthat

the termIoudaios houldregularlybe translated"Judeans" ecause,in his words, the "philologicalerror"of translatingthe term as"Jews" .. . has provided, n practicallyall moderntranslationsofthe gospels, a constantexcuseforantisemitism,whosefurther xist-encecannotbepermitted"130; emphasisadded).

Thus Loweseems to equatewhat he calls "philologicalerror"with moral unacceptability. Urban von Wahlde, on the otherhand,presentsa comparativeurveyofJohannineresearch 33-60)

and then charts the occurrenceof the term in thegospel in ordertoargue that the Johannineauthorintended the term "forthe reli-gious authoritiesexclusively."

21Shepherd,orexample,counts 70 occurrences 96); Meekscounts 71 (180).




While each of these argumentsbears a certainvalidity, I findeach limitedprimarily o the specific groupsof passageson whicheach scholarchooses to focus.

Althoughvon Wahlde's

argumentmayworkin certainpassages,others,as I readthem,use the term

"Jews"n a more generalizedway to mean "persons hostile to

Jesus"-without the qualifications that von Wahlde and otherswish thatJohnhad added. I agree,then,withWayneMeeksthat"itis undeniablethat in the fourthgospel 'theJews'in generalis usedin an alien, evenhostile, sense, particularlyn the notes, evidentlyby the hand of the evangelist,that 'theJews persecutedJesus,' or'theJews sought to kill him,' and in the repeatedphrase,'because

of the fear of the Jews'" (1975:181).22Neutraluses of the termgivewayto increasinglyhostile uses as

the gospel narrativeprogresses,23 specially from the moment of

Jesus' arrest. At this point, the authorclearlymarks himself andthose with whom he identifies as separateand distinct from "the

Jews."While it is true thatin theJohanninegospelJesushimself istwice called "aJew,"both occur as descriptive erms used by out-

siders, first by the Samaritanwoman and secondly by Pilate. By

the time of Jesus' execution,as Meekssays, ". .. theJesus of theFourthGospel is also distantfrom'theJews,'eventhough(orjustbecause) they are 'his own'who rejecthim, and eventhoughwhatPilate 'has written' stands ineffaceable,that he is 'King of the

Jews"'(1975:181).

Manyscholarswho acknowledgethis theme in the Johannine

gospel nevertheless nsist on interpreting"theJews"only symboli-cally. Rudolph Bultmannsometimes mitigates his other state-

mentsby insistingthat "theJews"merelysymbolizehokosmos; theJews in their totalityare the representativesof unbelief' (59, mytranslation). ErichGrasserdevelops this theme, describing"..ein in der Auslegung des vierten Evangeliumsunbestrittener

Tatbestand;namlich die Synonymitatder Begriffekosmos undIoudaiosDenn kosmosund loudaiossind in gleicherWeiseChiffren

22See also Meeks(1972:22-70;

cf.especially 35 and 70);

Brown(1966:70, LXXXIV):"John'sattitude 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 scarcelydesigned to convert the synagogue, which in Johannine thought is now the 'synagogue ofSatan'" (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 unifiedand monolithic."




fur den Unglauben schlechtin"(88-89; latter emphasis added). H.

Schneideradds that

TheJewssymbolizeleshlyman nhisoppositionoGod .. Fromageneral on-acceptancefJesusbymen n theearlychapters,heoppositionis more and more identifiedwith a group.. ., with the

Jews.Ultimatelyhegroup tands orthe forcesopposedoJesus,which are the forcesof darkness. It is obvious hat we are not deal-

ing with an ethnicgroup,butwith a dramaticheologicalymbol...Wewouldmiss the ull significance f thissymbolf we consideredhe

JewinJohnonlyas an historicaligure. .. "The ews"are an ever-

present ealityand threat oanyworship f God nspiritandin truth.

(347-351; emphasisadded)Yet other commentators, ncluding the Jewish scholar Samuel

Sandmel,find such conclusions anythingbut obvious. Discussingboth the arguments hat "theJews"means different hingsin differ-ent Johannine passages, and that ". .. 'Jews'does not really mean

Jews,but is rathera term forallhumanopaquenessaboutJesus ...or ... the general evil in the world," Sandmel suggests that such

interpretersare, in fact, attempting"toexculpatethe gospel from

its manifest anti-Semitism"117). Mosttellingis Sandmel'sobser-vation thatJohndoes not charge"humanity"r "theworld" n gen-eral for actively seeking Jesus's execution, but specifically "the

Jews."24

It is not my purposehere to speculate,as othershave,upon the

complexsituationthatgaverise to theJohanninepassionnarrative.Letus simply acknowledge, irst,the historical ikelihood that cer-tain Jewish leaders collaborated with the Roman authorities to

engineerJesus'arrest and execution. Let us acknowledge, oo, thepoint well explicatedby LouisMartynand others, that theJohan-nine author reads into his story conflicts he is experiencingbetween his own groupand those he calls "theJews." The author

probablymeans by this term primarilythe Pharisaic leaders ofJewish communities known to him (c. 90-100 C.E.),togetherwiththe majorityof their followers. Grantingthese general premises,ourpurposehere is not thatalreadyundertakenby so manyschol-

ars,25o 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:lxx-lxxiii); Meeks

(1975:103-186); and Culpepper (273-288).




is much simpler: to show how, in John as in the synoptics, the

mythologicalfigureof Satan coincides with specific human oppo-sition,

implicatingJudasIscariot n the first

place,then the

Jewishauthorities,and finally"theJews"collectively.Mypreviousresearch 1973) on the languageof the fourthgos-

pel inclines me to agreewith thosewho insist on "symbolist"nter-

pretations. Nevertheless,to maintain an exclusively"symbolist"view which denies the practical mplicationsof his use of the term

"Jews,"26eems to me not only an evasion of John'smessage butalso an attempt at apologetic sleight-of-hand.For this author'sdecision to make an actual,identifiablegroup-both amongJesus'

contemporariesand his own-into a symbol of "all evil"27obvi-ously bearsreligious,social, andpoliticalimplications hatprovidethe potential for arousingand even legitimatinganti-Judaism-apotentialwhich, as ReginaldFullersays,"hasbeen abundantlyand

tragicallyactualized n the course of Christianhistory"(37).From the beginningof the gospel, then, as we have seen, the

Johannineauthor, ike his predecessorsat Qumran,draws the bat-tle lines between the "sonsof light"and those whomJesus'coming

provesto be sons of darknessand the devil. Followingthe scene inwhich "theJews"attemptto stone Jesus for speakingwords theytake as blasphemy(claiming,in effect, the divine name, 8:59), hedeclares that "Imust do the work of him who sent me, while it is

day;the night is coming,when no one maywork. As long as I amin the world, I am the light of the world."Moving quicklytowardthe passion narrative,which herecompriseshalf of the entiregos-pel,John,like Luke,makesexplicitthe charge mplicitin Markand

Matthew-that Satan himself initiatedJudas' treachery: "Duringsupper,the devilhad alreadyput it into the heartofJudasIscariot,the son of Simon, to betrayhim. . . Then after the morsel, Satanentered nto him. Jesus said to him, 'Whatyou aregoing to do, do

quickly'... So afterreceiving he morsel,[udas] immediatelywentout; and it was night"(13:2, 27-30). BecauseJohnwants to insistthatJesus, fully awareof the future course of events, remains in

completecontrolof them,he relatesthatJesus himself givesJudasthe morsel thatprecededSatan'sentry(thusfulfillingtheprophecyof Ps 41:9). Jesus then actuallydirectsJudas' subsequent action("do quicklywhat you are going to do"). At that fateful moment

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




which initiatesJesus'betrayal, ohn, like Luke,depicts the "powerof darkness"cf. Lk.22:53) eclipsingthe "lightof theworld":hencehis stark final phrase,en de nux.

John, like Luke, seems intent on suppressing all traces ofRoman nitiative nJesus'execution. In nearly every episode,Johngoes to the point of "bizarre xaggeration"o insist that the blamefor initiating, ordering,and carryingout the crucifixionlies uponSatan'soffspring,Jesus' intimateenemies.

Apparentlyusing at least one sourceindependentof the synop-tics,John reportsthat beforeJesus'arrest the Pharisees and chief

priests convened,havingheard about

Jesus' popularappeal,andconcluded that ". .. if we let him go on thus, everyonewill believein him, and the Romanswill come and destroyboth ourholy placeand our nation"(11:45-48). Concludingthe meeting, they plot"how to put him to death" 11:53). After"Judas, rocuringa bandof (presumablyRoman)soldiers,and some officersfrom the chief

priests of the Pharisees,"18:8) betrayed esus, the arrestingpartyseized and bound him and led him to Annas,"fathern law of the

high priest,"who, afterinterrogatinghim, "senthim bound to Cai-

aphas the high priest." Reutherrightly observes that John hereintends to suppresspoliticalchargesagainstJesus in favorof a reli-

gious one, despite the fact thatJohn's prior account of the chief

priests'meetinghad described theirplausibleand pragmaticcon-cern to protecttheir own constituencyfromRomanreprisals,evenat the possible cost of a wrongfulexecution.

AlthoughJohnreportsno othertrialby anyJewishtribunal,heleaves no doubt that the chief priests want Jesus killed. When

Pilate inquires about the charge,their answer manages to be atonce evasiveand self-righteous:"If his manwerenot a malefactor,we would not havebroughthim to you"(18:30)! When Pilate,stillhavingheard no charge,answers, n wordsapparently itherindif-ferent or contemptuous,"Takehim yourselvesand judge him byyour own law,"the "Jews" nswer:"It is not lawful for us to putanyone to death"(15:32). Reflecting upon the scholarly debateabout the historicalaccuracyof this statement,Winterarguesthat

the Romans,followingtheirpolicy of allowing subjectpeoples togovern internal disputes, did, in fact, accord to Jews the right ofadjudicatingcapital cases before 70 C.E. Whether or not he isright,the pointJohnwantsto make is clearenough: that althoughRomanswere known to havecarriedoutJesus'executionby their




own peculiarmethod (see 19:32), they did so only because "the

Jews"forced them to do so (Sandmel:115).When Pilate does

questionJesusaboutan

apparentlypoliticalcharge("Areyou a king?"), esus parries the question, and Pilate

retorts,"AmI a Jew? Yourown nation and the chiefpriests havehandedyou over to me: what haveyou done?" (emphasis added;18:35). Werehis kingdoman earthlyone,Jesus declares,"myser-vants would fight so that I might not be handed overto theJews"(18:36)-an ironicJohanninereversalof the synopticcharge,which

repeatedly describes the Jews "handing Jesus over" to "thenations"!

Like Luke,John shows Pilate three times proclaimingJesusinnocent, and proposingthree times to releasehim;but each time"theJews"cry out, demandinginstead that Pilate "crucifyhim"

(19:6, 15). John "explains,"too, that Pilate had allowed hissoldiers to scourgeand tortureJesus only forthe purposeof evok-

ing the crowd'scompassion(19:1-4),andso to placate"the nsatia-ble fury of the Jews."28 ohn adds that when they protestedthat

Jesus had violated their religiouslaw, and therefore"deserves to

die,"Pilate was "more errified"19:8). Returning oJesus as if hestill hoped to find a basis to acquit him, Pilate instead receivesfrom the prisonernear exonerationof his ownguilt. Speakingas ifhe himself were Pilate'sjudge,Jesus declares to the governorthat"the one who deliveredme to you has the greatersin." When thecrowdthreatens o chargePilate himself with treasonagainstRome

(19:12), Pilatemakes one more futile attemptat releaseand then

gives in to the shouting, blood-thirstymob. Finally, having pro-

nounced neither sentence nor any order of execution, Pilate"handed esus) over to themto be crucified" 19:16). Throughoutthis scene, asJohn tells it, ". .. the priests exertunrelentingpres-sure, while the governorturns and doubles like a hunted hare."29ThusJohn, like Luke, eads the readerto conclude that "thecruci-fixion ... comes fromtheJews"(Winter:88). Indeed,after PilatehandsJesus over to theJews,the narratorgoes on to say that "...

theytookJesus ... to theplacecalledin HebrewGolgotha,... there

they crucifiedhim, and with him two others"(19:17).Afterthe crucifixionscene, designedto demonstratehowJesus'

ignominiousdeathfulfillsprophecy n everydetail,Johnadds that

28SeeNineham(412).29SeeDodd (97).




Nicodemus,"forfear of theJews"(19:38), secretlypetitionsPilateto allow him to recoverJesus' body and to bury it at enormous

expense, using"a hundred

poundsof

myrrhand aloe."

Manyscholars have discussed the author'smotives for thus depicting"theinnocentJesus whom Pilate wishes to free"against the Jewswho here become not only the "villains, but the ultimate in

villainy."30Pilate,asJohndepictshim, does retain to some extenthis tradi-

tional role as "alienenemy."Butin the "concluding rame"of thepassion narrative,as we have seen,John, like Matthewand Luke,adds and altersdetails that suggest increasedconcern to mollifyRomansuspicionof Christians.As we observechangesin the trialaccount from one gospel to the next, we can see that it comes toserve severalpurposesat once. First,it representsChristians, iketheir leader, as innocent people falsely accused, who present norealdangerto the Romanorder;second, it representsPilate actingas Christianshoped o persuadeagentsof imperialauthority o act,as benignrulers,zealous to preserve ustice;and,third(wherebothof these failed), it offers Christians under arrest, torture, and

impending execution as exemplaryparadigmsof martyrdom. Inthe process of reworkingthe trial narrative,the Pilate we knowfrom history disappears. For those contemporaryreportswe dohave of Pilate completelycontradictthe evangelists'characteriza-tion of him. Philo describesthe governoras a man notorious forhis "inflexible,stubborn,and cruel disposition,"and lists as typi-cal features of his administration"violence,robbery,assault, abu-sivebehavior, requentexecutionswithout trial"(Legatioad Gaium

301-302). Josephusrecords ncidents that illustrateeitherPilate'sindifferenceor,morelikely,his contempt,forhis subjects'religiousconvictions.Josephusalso notes the quickand brutalactionPilatecharacteristically ook to terrify angry crowds into submission.One episode tells how Pilate, ignoring his Romanpredecessors'respect for Jewish religious sensibilities, violated precedent byorderinga Romangarrisonto enterJerusalemdeliberatelydisplay-ing-instead of covering-the armystandards hatJews consideredidolatrous. Anticipatingthe massive resistance he would meet

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




from the population,Pilatealreadyhad orderedhis soldiersto sur-round theJewish crowd,three men deep, and to kill anyonewho

expressed outrageor offered resistance.31In another incident,

Josephus tells how Pilatedecided to finance aqueductsforJerusa-lem by illegallyappropriatingmoneyfromtheTemple reasury,"anact of sacrilegeeven fromthe Romanpoint of view, since the Tem-

ple tax had been made sacrosanctby Rome"(Smallwood:162).This time, too, fully anticipatingthe resistance he encountered,Pilate had orderedhis soldiers to minglewith the crowd n disguiseuntil he gave a signal for them to beat everyonewho protested.Josephus adds that "manydied from the blows and many were

trampled o deathby theirfellows. The fateof those who died ter-rified the rest into silence." EvenLuke,despitehis flatteringpor-traitof a wholly differentPilate,neverthelessalludesto an episodeinvolvingcertainGalileans"whoseblood Pilatemingledwith theirsacrifices"(13:1). Smallwoodnotes that rounding up Jews sus-

pected of anti-Romanactivity"wasa commonplace n Judea"dur-

ing Pilate's time (164). Pilate's political tenure abruptlyendedwhen the legate of Syria finally responded to repeatedprotests

fromPilate'ssubjectsby strippinghim of his commission,and dis-patchingone of his own staff to serveas governor.Pilate,orderedto return to Rome at once to answer the charges against him,apparentlynever returned. It is remarkable, hen, that as PaulWinter observes, according to the gospel account ". . . The sternPilategrowsmoremellowfromgospel to gospel ... [fromMark oMatthew,from Matthew to Luke and then to John]. The moreremoved from history, the more sympathetic a character hebecomes"

(Winter:88-89).In regard o the "intimateenemy,"a parallelprocessoccurs,butin reverse. WhereMarkdepictsJesus'bold initial challengeto the

powerof evil,he showsJesuscominginto increasingly ntense con-flict first with "thescribes,"then with the Pharisees and Herodi-ans, until crowds of his own people, in a conflict depictedessentially as "intra-Jewish,"ersuadereluctant Roman forces toexecute him. Matthew,as we saw,writingsome twentyyearslater,depicts a farmorebitter and aggressiveantagonismbetweenJesusand the majorityof hisJewishcontemporaries, vento the point oftransformingthe role of Pharaohinto that of the Jewish king,Herod. Indeed,no soonerwasJesusborn thanhe arousedthe sus-

31See BellumJudaicum II. 169-177; AntiquitiesXVII. 55-64, 84-87.




picion of Herod and "allJerusalemwith him."Matthewgoes on to

depict the Pharisees as "sons of hell,"the devil's own offspring,

destined,alongwith all who

rejectJesus'teaching,for eternal

pun-ishment in the "firereservedfor the devil and all his angels." Yetwe mayagreethat evenMatthewdepicts,in effect,a battle betweenrival reformgroupsofJews-each insisting upon its own superiorrighteousness,and each depictingthe other as demon-possessed.

Luke,as we have seen, goes considerablyfarther. No soonerhas the devilappeared o temptanddestroyJesusthanthewhole of

Jesus' townspeople,hearinghis first public addressin their syna-

gogue,aroused to

fury,attemptto throwhim down a cliff.

Onlyat

the climax of the gospelwill Satanenter intoJudasand so to directthe operationthat ends with the crucifixion.

John, finally, writing c. 100 C.E.,dismisses the device of thedevil as an independent supernaturalcharacter(if, indeed, heknew of it, as I suspect he did). Instead,as John tells the story,Satan,like God himself, here appearsin the form of incarnation.First he becomes incarnatein Judas Iscariot,then in the Jewish

authoritiesas they mountoppositiontoJesus, and finallyin thoseJohn calls "theJews"-a group of Satan's allies now as separatefromJesusand his followersas darkness s fromlight,or the forcesof hell from the armies of heaven.

Each of the evangelists'variousdepictionsof the devil progres-sivelycorrelateswith the "socialhistoryof Satan"-thatis, with the

historyof increasingconflict andoppositionbetweengroups repre-sentingJesus'followersand theiropposition. By presentingJesus'

life and messagein thesevariousforms of polemic,the evangelistsprobably intended (as Kloppenborg says of the Q source) to

strengthengroup boundary and self-definition. In the process,they shaped,in waysthatwere to becomeincalculablyconsequent-ial, the self-understandingof 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, KentGreenawalt, Howard Clark Kee, Wayne Meeks, Vernon Robbins, James Robinson, and Alan

Segal.




REFERENCES

Beardslee,W.

1970

Brachter, Robert

G., trans.1975

Brown, RaymondE.

1961

1966,

Bultmann, Rudolf1941

Collins, AdelaYarbro

1984

Conzelmann, Hans1961

Cook, Michael J.1978

Culpepper, R. Alan1987

Cuming, GJ.1948-9

"Uses of the Proverb."Interpretation 24/9:61-73.

"'TheJews' in the Gospel of John." Practical Papersfor the Bible Translator26/4:365-409.

"Incidents That Are Units in the Synoptic GospelsBut Dispersed in St. John." CBQ 23:143-160.

1970 The Gospel AccordingtoJohn, 29, 29A. Garden City,NY: Anchor Bible.

1977 The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City: Doubleday,and London: Geoffrey Chapman.

Das EvangeliumJohannis. Gottingen: Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht. The Gospel of John: A Commentary.Trans. by G.R. Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia:Westminster Press.

Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse.Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

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

Mark's Treatmentof theJewish Leaders. Leiden: E.J.Brill.

"The Gospel of John and the Jews." Review and

Expositor, 84:273-288.

"TheJews in the Fourth Gospel." Expository Times60:290-2.

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

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




54 Journal f theAmerican cademyf Religion

Fitzmeyer, JosephA.

1983

"Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Litera-

ture, and the New Testament." CBQ 40:493-513.

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

Fortna, Robert1974

"Theological Use of Locale in the Fourth Gospel."Anglican Theological Review Supplementary Series3:58-94.

Freyne, Sean "Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Mat-

1985 thew's and John's Anti-Jewish Polemic in Focus."In "ToSee Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians,

Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, 93-116. Ed. byJacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico:Scholars Press.

1988 Galilee, Jesus, and the Gospels: Literary Approachesand Historical Investigations. Philadelphia: FortressPress.

Fuller, Reginald1971

Gager,John1983

Garland, D.

1979

Garrett, Susan1989

Gowler, David B.

1991

Grasser, Erich1964-1965

Grundmann, W.19??

"'TheJews' in the Fourth Gospel." Dialog 16:37.

The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward

Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

The Intention of Matthew 23. Leiden: EJ. Brill.

The Demise of the Devil. Minneapolis: FortressPress.

Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of thePharisees in Luke and Acts. New York:Peter Lang.

"Die antijiidische Polemik im Johannesevange-lium." New TestamentStudies 10-11:74-79; 88-89.

"Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte inseinem theologischen Sinn." Studia Evangelica,2:429, 473.

54 Journalof theAmericanAcademyof Religion



Pagels: TheSocialHistory f Satan,Part I 55

Hoennicke,Gustave

1914

Horsley, RichardA.

1979

"Die Teufelsidee in den Evangelien." In Neutesta-

mentliche Studien: Fur GeorgHeinrici zu seinem 70,208. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.

"Josephus and the Bandits."JSJ 10:37-63.

1981 "Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt AgainstRome, A.D. 66-70." CBQ 43:420-424.

1985 Bandits, Prophets,and Messiahs: PopularMovementsin the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis: Winston.

Hultgren, Arland Jesus and His Adversaries: TheFormand Function of1979 the ConflictStories in the Synoptic Tradition. Minne-

apolis: Augsburg.

Jackson, H.,and Luke T.

Johnson1989

Kloppenborg, J.1987

"The New Testament: Anti-Jewish Slander and theConventions of Ancient Polemic." JBL 108/3:419-441.

The Formation of Q. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

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

national.

Koester, Helmut,and James M.

Robinson1968

Levenson, Jon D.1980

Levine, Amy-Jill1988

Loisy, Alfred F.1907-1908

Lowe, Malcolm1976

Trajectories Through Early Christianity. Philadel-

phia: Fortress Press.

Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The JewishDrama of Divine Omnipotence. San Francisco:

Harper and Row.

The Social and EthnicDimensions of Matthean Social

History. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.

Les Evangiles Synoptiques. Ceffons pres MontierenDer: Chez l'auteur.

"Who Were the 'Ioudaioi'?" Novum Testamentum

XVIII/2:101-130.

Pagels: The SocialHistoryof Satan, PartII 55




Lutgert, Wilhelm1914

Martyn, J. Louis1978

"Die Juden im Johannesevangelium." In Neutesta-mentlicheStudien:Fur GeorgHeinrici zur seinem 70.

Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.

History and Theologyin the FourthGospel, 2nd edi-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" n LateAntiquity, 93-116.Edited by Jacob Neusher and Ernest S. Frerichs.Chico Scholars Press.

Merideth, Anne

1992

Murray, Robert1982

1985

Nicklesburg,George

1980

1985

Nineham, DennisEric

1967

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

"Jews,Hebrews, and Christians: Some Needed Dis-tinctions." Novr 24:194-208.

"'Disaffected Judaism' and Early Christianity:Some Predisposing Factors." In "ToSee OurselvesasOthers See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" n Late

Antiquity, 263-81. Edited by Jacob Neusner andErnest S. Frerichs. Chico: Scholars Press.

"The Genre and Function of Mark's Passion Narra-tive." Harvard TheologicalReview 73:153-184.

"RevealedWisdom as a Criterion for Inclusion andExclusion: From Jewish Sectarianism to EarlyChristianity." In "To See Ourselves as Others SeeUs": Christians, Jews, "Others"in Late Antiquity,73-92. Ed. by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Fre-

richs. Chico: Scholars Press.

The Gospel of St. Mark. Baltimore: Penguin Books.




Pagels:TheSociaZ istory f Satan,Part I 57

Overman, J.Andrew

1990

Pagels, E.19731991

Robinson, J. M.1957

Russell, J. B.1987

Reuther, R.R.1974

Sanders, Jack T.

1987

Sandmel, Samuel1978

Schneider, H.

1969

Schiissler,

Fiorenza, E.1985

Segal, Alan F.19871991

Shepherd, MasseyH.,Jr.1974

Matthew'sGospeland FormativeJudaism. Minneap-olis: Augsburg/Fortress.

TheJohannineGospelin GnosticExegesis. Nashville:

Abingdon Press."The Social History of Satan, the 'Intimate Enemy':A Preliminary Sketch." HarvardTheologicalReview

84/2:1-23.

The Problemof History in Mark. London: SCM.

The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity toPrimitive Christianity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-

sity Press.

Faith and Fortitude: The TheologicalRoots of Anti-Semitism. Minneapolis: Seabury Press.

TheJews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Anti-Semitism in the New Testament. Philadelphia:Fortress Press.

"TheWord Was Made Flesh: An Analysis of Revela-tion in the Fourth Gospel." CBQ 31:344-356.

The Bookof Revelation:Justice andJudgment. Phila-

delphia: Fortress Press.

The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity. Atlanta:Scholars Press."Matthew'sJewish Voice." In The Social History ofthe Matthean Community. Minneapolis: FortressPress.

"TheJews in the Gospel of John: Another Level ofMeaning." Anglican TheologicalReview Supplemen-tary Series 3:96.





Smallwood, E.

Mary1981

TheJews under Roman Rule FromPompeyto Diocle-tian. Leiden: EJ. Brill.

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

H. Charlesworth. New York:Doubleday.1985 "What a Difference Makes." In "ToSee Ourselvesas

Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" n Late

Antiquity,3-48. Ed. byJacob Neusner and Ernest S.Frerichs. Chico: Scholars Press.

Tilborg, Sjefvan1979

Tolbert, Mary Ann

1989

Townsend, John T.1979

Via, Jane E.

1983

von Wahlde,Urban C.

19??

Weeden Theodore

J.1979

TheJewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: EJ. Brill.

Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World n Literary-Histori-cal Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

"The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a

Religious Divorce." In Antisemitism and the Foun-dations of Christianity, 72-97. Edited by Alan

Davies. New York: Paulist Press.

"According to Luke, Who Put Jesus to Death?" InPolitical Issues in Luke-Acts,122-45. Edited by R.J.

Cassidy and PJ. Scharper. Maryknoll: Orbis.

"TheJohannine 'Jews': A Critical Survey." New Tes-tament Studies 28:33-60.

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

Academyof Religion 47:97-120.

Wink, W. Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces That1986 Determine Human Existence. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press.

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

58 Journalof the AmericanAcademy f Religion

Documents

Satan in the New Testament Gospels