The Social History of Satan, Part II PDF

Journalof theAmericanAcademyof ReligionLXII/1
The
Social
Part
History
of
Satan,
Satan in the New Testament Gospels

Elaine Pagels
THE NEWTESTAMENT
gospels all place the story of Jesus in the
context of cosmic war. As the evangelists tell it, the story shows
how the power of God acts throughJesus to challenge the evil
forces that dominatethe presentworld. Eachof the gospelsframes
its narrative,first at its beginning and then at its climax, with episodes depicting the clash of supernaturalforces that the evangelists see played out throughJesus' life and in his death. Mark,for
example, opens his gospel describing how the spirit of God
descended upon Jesus at his baptism, and ". . . immediately drove
him into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days
being tempted by the devil (hypo tou satana) and was with the
beasts, and the angels ministeredto him" (Mark1:12). From that
moment on, Markrelates, even afterJesus reenteredhuman society, the powers of evil challengedand attackedhim at every turn,
and he attacked them back-and won. Matthew and Luke both
adopt and elaborate this stark opening scene, and, apparently
using Q, turn it into a dramaof threeincreasinglyintense confrontations between Satanand God'sspirit actingin Jesus. Lukeshows
how the devil, defeated in his attempts to overpowerJesus, prudently departedfrom him "fora time"(Luke4:13b). Lukegoes on
to say explicitly what Markand Matthewimply-namely, that the
devil returned in person, so to speak, in the passion narrative,to
destroyJesus. Thus at the climax of the story Lukesays that "Satan
entered into Judas Iscariot"to finish his work by initiatingJesus'
betrayal,arrest, torture,and execution. The New Testamentgospels, then, (with considerablevariation)depict the passion narra-
ElainePagelsis Professorof Religionat PrincetonUniversity,Princeton,NJ 08544.
17
18
Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion
tive as the culmination of the cosmic war engaged at Jesus'

baptism.
The gospel of John at first seems an exception to this pattern,
since its author omits the opening temptation scene. Yet, as Raymond Brown (1961) points out, its author has replaced it with
analogous conflict stories that do, indeed, depictJesus and his followers engaged in conflict with persons whom John depicts as fulfilling the devil's will. At the climacticmoment of the arrest,John
has Jesus identify the forces arrestinghim with the "rulerof this
world"(14:30) who is about to be "castout" (12:31). In all of the
gospels, then,Jesus' crucifixionseems to signal the victory of what
Luke calls the "powerof darkness"(22:53b). Yeteach of the evangelists insists that, on the contrary,it actuallyheralds the ultimate
annihilation of the forces of evil and ensures God's final victory.
How, then, does the figure of the devil, here usually called
Satan, function in the New Testament gospels? Many liberally
minded Christianshave preferredto ignore or minimize the presence of such blatant supernaturalism.Yetas the evangelistssee it,
the story they have to tell would make little sense apart from the
context of cosmic war. For how could anyone claim that a man
betrayed by one of his own followers and brutally executed on
charges of treason against Rome not only was, but in fact still is,
God's divinely appointed Messiah-unless his capture and defeat
were (as the evangelists insist) only a preliminaryskirmish in a
vast cosmic conflict now envelopingthe universe? As Jesus warns
the high priest at his interrogation(Mk 14:62 par.), soon he shall
be vindicated and triumphantwhen the "Son of Man"returns in
glory.
For the purpose of this sketch, I intend to leave aside certain
traditionalapproachesalreadywell investigatedby other scholars:
for example, approaches involving exploration of the historical,
cultural, and literary background (as Neil Forsyth recently has
done). I intend to leave aside as well approachesprimarily concerned with psychologicaland theologicalinterpretation(such as
those of WalterWink and JeffreyBurton Russell). Instead I propose to explore in the gospels what I have come to call, half jokingly, the "social history of Satan."
This approachmay seem at first both odd and unpromising.
Indeed, as Russell has said, it is precisely "generationsof socially
oriented theologians"who have tended to "dismiss the devil and
demons as superstitiousrelics of little importanceto the Christian
Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II
19
message." Against this view, Russell himself argues,quite rightly,

that "onthe contrary,the New Testamentwritershad a sharp sense
of the immediacyof evil,"and he proceeds to take his argumentin
a theologicaldirectionin orderto conclude that "thedevil is essential in the New Testamentbecause he constitutes an important
alternativein Christiantheodicy"(222).
With this statement, as indicated above, I agree. But here I
intend to take a different approach;that is, to investigatespecifically social implications of the figure of Satan in the New Testament gospels. For the evangelists'sense of "theimmediacyof evil"
by no means involvesonly-nor perhaps even primarily-elements
of cosmology. On the contrary, the theodicy of the evangelists
intends to locate and identify specific ways in which the forces of
evil have acted throughcertainpeopleto effect violent destructionabove all, in Matthew'swords, "therighteousblood shed on earth,
from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariahthe son
of Berachiah"(23:35)-violence epitomizedin what the evangelists
regardas the culminationof the greatestof all evils, the execution
of Jesus.
What I have set out to explore is how, in particular,the figure
of Satan serves to characterizehumanopposition to Jesus and his
followers. What I discoveredis this: that while the New Testament
gospels never identify Satan with the Romans, they consistently
identify him with Jesus'Jewishenemies.' This researchhas led me
to conclude that, by casting the story of Jesus into the context of
cosmic war, the gospel writersexpress in varyingways their identification with an embattledminority againstwhat each sees as the
apostasy of the majorityof Jesus' (and, of course, by extension,
their own) Jewish contemporaries.As I have shown in a previous
article (1991), Jesus and his followersdid not inventsuch demonization of their enemies, although,as we shall see, they (and Muslims after them) carried it considerably further than others had,
and with enormous consequences.
1I am grateful to Professor Wayne Meeks for pointing out to me that this statement requires
qualification in the case of the Fourth Gospel. For while John explicitly identifies "theJews"
as the devil's offspring who "seek to kill" Jesus (8:40-44) and describes the devil entering
into Judas to initiate the betrayal (13:2; 18), the author may implicitly include Roman forces
along with Jewish ones as agents of "the ruler of this world" whose energy lies behind Jesus'
arrest and crucifixion (14:30). For a different view, see the work of Alan Segal, who argues
that in the fourth gospel "the Ruler of the World is part of one of the strongest anti-Jewish
polemics in the New Testament" (44, 441-75).
20
What the previous article shows, briefly stated, is that the figure of Satan as leader of a supernatural army hostile to God
emerged in certain Jewish pseudepigraphicsources from c. 165
B.C.E.-200C.E. Specifically,it emergedas a way of characterizing
not Israel'straditionalenemies, "thenations"who conquered and
ruled the nation,2but fellowJews whom certain sectarian groups
regardedas their "intimateenemies." In works like 1 Enochand
Jubilees, stories adapted from Genesis 6 or Isaiah 14 came to
describe how the "watchers,"prominent leaders in the angelic
army, rebelled against their commander in chief and finally
became his enemies. Other stories, like the one relatedin the Life
of Adamand Eve,depictedSatanas Adam'solder brother,provoked
to ragingjealousy by God'spreferencefor his human sibling. Such
stories explained,in effect, how "one of us" could become "one of
them";that is, how relativesand colleagues could become the bitterest of enemies. Such stories, I suggest, found their deepest
resonances among certain groups of "dissidentJews"(Smith) convinced that the majorityof other Jews had turned against themand so (as the Essenes put it), against God.
Intra-Jewishconflict need not, of course, and most often did
not, excludehostility toward"thenations." Certainof the Qfmran
authorscharacterizethe foreignenemies along with the majorityof
Jews who collaboratedwith such "evilempires"as fellow agents of
diabolic forces. Followersof Jesus often expressedthemselvessimilarly. Wayne Meeks suggests that the authorof John may include
Romanforces along with Jewish ones as agents of the "rulerof this
world" who effects Jesus' crucifixion (although Alan Segal disagrees;see note 1; personal communication,1992). Certainlythe
authorof Revelationgraphicallydepicts the powers of Rome in the
animalistic and monstrous imagery adopted from prophetic tradition while simultaneously denouncing certain groups of Jewsapparentlythose who rejectedhis claims aboutJesus-as the "synagogue of Satan"(2:9).3
Yetwho actually wereJesus' enemies? What we know historically suggests that his enemies were the Roman governorand his
forces who condemned and executedJesus on grounds of sedition
against Rome. In all probability,as the gospels indicate,Jesus also
had enemies among his own people, especially among those of its
20n traditional characterization of the "alien enemies," see Levenson.
3For discussion, see Collins (85), Schilssler Fiorenza (116-119), and Merideth.
21
leaders who regardedhis activity as threatening and potentially

dangerous. Yet had Jesus'followers identified themselveswith the
majorityof otherJews,theymighthavetold his storyverydifferentlyand with considerablymorehistoricalplausibility.Specifically,they
might have told it in a style ratherlike that of Maccabees,as that of
an inspiredJewish holy man martyredby Israel'straditional"alien
enemies."
At this crucial juncture, however, for reasons too complex to
summarize here, the evangelists chose to dissociate themselves
from the Jewish majority,and to focus instead upon intra-Jewish
conflict-and so, simultaneously, upon their own quarrel with
those who resistedtheir claims aboutJesus. Within the gospel narratives,the figureof Satantends to correlatewith-and to expressthat dramaticshift of blame from "thenations"onto members of
Jesus' own people. The variations in each of the gospels as each
depicts the activity of the demonic opposition (and, correspondingly, those they perceiveas enemies) express, I suggest, a variety
of relationships-often deeply ambivalent-betweenvarious groups
of Jesus' followers and these Jewish groups each regardedas its
primary opponents. We must be careful to avoid oversimplification. Yetit is probablyfair to say that in every case the decision to
cast the story of Jesus into the context of God's war against Satan
tends to exempt the Romans and to place increasingblame upon
the "intimateenemies." By the time of the gospel of John, as we
shall see, those the author often designates simply as "theJews"
have become, in effect, a kind of diabolusex machina.4
Beforewe look at the characterizationof Satan in each of the
gospels, let us make one preliminarynote about the decision to
start this investigationwith the gospel narratives. Were our concern to unravelthe problemsof source and redactioncriticism,we
would have to begin, of course, with the earliest extant sources,
such as the lettersof Paul,and whateverother constituentelements
of gospel traditionwe might reconstruct,5including,some scholars
believe, the gospel of Thomas. But since our aim is different-to
observe how the theme of cosmic war, and the correspondingdivision in society, dominates those traditionswhich the majorityof
Christians (c. 70-200 C.E.) affirmed as "canonical"-we begin
4For discussion of the much debated meaning of the term Ioudaios in John, see infra.
5For an outstanding recent discussion, see Koester.
22
instead with those portraitsof Jesus that provedmost influentialin

shaping all subsequent orthodox tradition.
Let us consider first, then, the gospel of Markand the Q source,
the importance of these two reinforcedby the way that Matthew
and Lukereworkedboth into theirlaternarratives. Severalinfluential scholars recently have suggested that certain earlier components of Jesus tradition lacked the theme of cosmic war. In his
recent study of Ancient Christian Gospels, Helmut Koester has
shown, for example,how certain sayings traditions,including sections of the Gospel of Thomas,predatethe canonicalgospels. John
Kloppenborg,followingthe lead of Koesterand Robinson,has analyzed the Q source, and claims to be able to separate"theformative
component in Q,"which he identifieswith six "wisdomspeeches,"
from what he regardsas later additions,including the apocalyptic
sayings, the polemic against the present "evilgeneration,"and the
diabolical temptation scene.
What matters for our present purpose, whatever we assume
about earlierand later strataof Q, is to observe that such "wisdom
sayings"came to be included in canonicaltraditiononlywhen they
are framed-and thus interpreted-by the theme of cosmic war.
Although certain of the Q sayings attributedto Jesus may sound
"sapiential,"in my view they differradicallyfrom the Egyptianand
Greek collections to which Kloppenborgcompares them. As he
himself notes, the "confrontational,paradoxical,and hyperbolic"
tone of Q is antitheticalto the conservativeattitudes expressed in
pagan collections. Furthermore,as Kloppenborgalso observes, the
Q sayings are dominatedand shaped by expectationof the coming
judgment.
Most significantly, the sayings divide human society into two
groups-notso much"thewise and thefoolish"as a righteousminority
rangedagainsta wickedmajority.Wisdom tradition,by definition,
presupposesan essentialcontrastbetweenthe wise and the foolish.
But the Q sayings (including those Kloppenborgclassifies as the
"inauguralsermon" and "sayingson anxiety")presuppose a very
differentcontrast. In the former,for example,the speaker'sinjunctions to "loveyour enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless
those who curse you; pray for those who abuse you," etc., implicitly warn his hearersthat, in effect, "manypeople areyour enemies;
they will curse, abuse, beat, and rob you; they will rejectyou and
try to kill you." Unlike wisdom traditions,which intend to make
"thewise" feel (and, one hopes, become) superior to "the foolish"
Pagels: The Social Historyof Satan, Part II
23
(Beardslee),these sayings involvefar more than contrast;they presuppose active, hostile, even lethal opposition. Yet, as we noted
already,even those sayings that can be construed as "sapiential"
only survive into orthodox traditionin the context, Kloppenborg
argues, of cosmic war. Consequently, they interpret all human
conflict in terms of this cosmological strife.
Turningto Mark,we can see that his gospel, as James Robinson
has observed, "is anything but a straightforward historical
account"(63). Markopens his narrativewith the account of John
baptizing Jesus and relates that, at the moment of baptism, the
holy spirit descended upon Jesus, and "avoice spoke from heaven,
saying 'This is My beloved son."' From that moment, all humans
disappear from Mark'snarrative: "Immediatelythe spirit drove
(Jesus) into the wilderness, and there he remained for forty days,
temptedby the satan (tou satana) and he was among the wild animals, and the angels ministeredto him." Recountingthis episode,
Markdoes not intend to departfrom events in the human, historical world, but rather,as Robinson notes, to interprettheir cosmic
significance. The same pattern pervades the entire narrative.
Let us glance, then, at the "story line" of Mark's gospel.
Directlyafterthe spirit infusesJesus with power,drawinghim into
combat with Satan in the desert, he emerges announcing the new
situation (1:15), heraldingGod's imminentvictory over the forces
of evil. When he enters the synagogue at Capernaum,a demonpossessed man, hearing him preach "with authority,"screams as
the demon within him recognizeswhat Jesus' activity means and
tries to overpowerhim: "Whatis there between us and you, Jesus
of Nazareth. Have you come to destroy us?" (1:24). In this first
public confrontationwith a demon,Jesus commandsthe evil spirit
to leave, and forces him out; the demon convulses the man and
shrieks "with a great voice" as he departs. All who witness this
contest, struck with astonishment,ask each other "Whatis this?
New teaching! With power (exousian)he commands the unclean
spirits, and they obey him!"(1:27).
As Marktells the story, then,Jesus' power manifestsitself especially in action, since Markdoes not, here, recordJesus' teaching.
Even in the first public challenge to the forces of evil, Markshows
how Jesus' power sets him in contrast-and soon into direct conflict-with the scribes commonly reveredas religious authorities,
for, as he explains,Jesus "taughtwith authority,and not like the
scribes"(1:22).
24
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Throughoutthis opening chapter,Markemphasizes that Jesus

"drove out many demons," healed demonically induced illness
(1:34; 39), and traveledthroughoutGalilee"preachingin the synagogues and casting out demons," for, as he explains to his disciples, "thatis what I came to do" (1:38). Simultaneously,as Mark
tells it, the scribes immediatelytook offense at what they took to
be his arrogatingdivine authority. Within the opening chapters,
then, as Robinson has shown, Markpresents cosmic war on three
interrelatedfronts: the holy spirit against Satan;the "son of God"
against the demons; Jesus of Nazareth against his human
opponents.6
For Jesus has barely engaged Satan's power before his opponents' hostility turns murderous. Directly after witnessing Jesus
healing on the Sabbath, the Pharisees, Mark says, began to plot
with the Herodians"howthey might destroyhim"(3:6). Afterthis
powerfulcoalition has united against him, Jesus retaliatesby commissioning a new leadership group, "the twelve,"orders them to
preach, and gives them "powerto cast out demons"(3:13).
This escalation of spiritualwar immediatelyevokes escalating
opposition. For,Marksays, next "thescribeswho came down from
Jerusalem"charge that Jesus "is possessed by Beelzebub;by the
prince of demons he casts out demons!"Jesus objects: "Howcan
Satan cast out Satan?... If Satan is in rebellion against himself,
he is divided and cannot stand, and that is the end of him" (3:2326). Accordingto Mark,Jesus characterizedSatan (cf. Isaiah 56:7)
as a powerfullord, the rulerof a kingdom,or the masterof a house,
upon whom Jesus openly declares war. He is out to "bind this
enemy and to plunder his house." Jesus throws back upon his
accusers the accusation of being demon-possessed,charging that
in saying this they themselvesare sinning so deeply as to seal their
own damnation (3:28-30). Later,telling the parableof the sower,
Jesus specifically identifies Satan as the enemy who frustratesthe
efficacy of his preaching:
6Robinson, "We have identified three levels of Markan language ... summarized schematically as follows: the Spirit and Satan; the Son of God and demoniacs; Jesus and his opponents" (80). "The debates, too, ... are the actions of Satan ... the debates with the Jewish
authorities are designated peirasmai" (93). "Jesus and the church are engaged in the same
cosmic struggle against the same demonic force of evil" (111). See also Nineham (34,
passim).
25
comesandsnatchesawaythe
Whentheyhear,Satanimmediately
wordwhichis sownin them.(4:14)
From this point on, Jesus sharply discriminates between those
whom he has chosen, the inner circle, and "those outside."
Althoughhe often criticizesthe disciples7-in 8:33 he even accuses
Peter of playing Satan's role-Jesus shares secrets with them that
are hidden from outsiders. For the latter, he says, quoting Isaiah,
are afflicted with impenetrablespiritual blindness. Thus the first
four chaptersof Markdemonstratehow the theme of cosmic warfare intertwines with that of conflict between the tiny group of
Jesus' intimates and the various and powerful groups ranged
against them.
At first glance, one might assume that Markhere adopts and
follows a pattern we observed in the literatureof those various
groups sometimes called "dissidentJews."8 To some extent, he
does; yet despite Mark'saffinity with such groups, his own viewpoint is actuallyfar moreradical. Forthe formerattemptto reform
or renew Israel by going back with increased devotion to traditional ways of maintaining holiness-observance of Sabbath, for
example, or kashrut. Mark,by contrast,depictsJesus both accused
and apparentlyguiltyof violating strict observanceon both counts.
Criticizedby the scribes, the Pharisees, and even, apparently,by
the "disciplesof John,"Jesus rejectsthe implied criterion: "Icame
not to call the righteous,but sinners, to repentance."
Unlike other "sectarian"texts, then, the gospel of Mark does
not address those who are especially "righteous." I Enoch, for
example,is addressedto the "holyones"among humankind,while
Jubileesand the Qfimrantexts are addressed to a "righteousremnant"within Israel. Mark,on the contrary,places such "reform"
parties as the Pharisees (and possibly the Essenes as well) among
Jesus' primary critics, and so finally among his enemies.
What criteria remain, then, to discriminate-within Israelbetween the people who belong to God and those who follow
Satan? Mark makes his primary criterion discernmentof spirits.
7See the work of Weeden and Tolbert for recent critical interpretation; I find more persuasive the forthcoming study by Shiner.
8Note Smith's more precise attempt at definition: "Those first-century Jewish groups, both
in Palestine and in the Diaspora, both before and after the destruction of the Temple, that
sought to develop a notion of community, principles of authority, sources of revelation, and
modes of access to divinity apart from the Jerusalem temple, its traditions, priests, and cult"
(2.701); see also Murray (1982:194-208, 1985:263-81).
26
Who recognizesthe spirit acting in Jesus as holy, and who regards

it as demonic? According to Mark, the answer to this question
reveals, in each case, whether a person stands on God's side or
Satan's. Here the mutual accusations of demon possession effectively define the identity of Jesus' followers,on the one hand, and,
on the other, that of theirJewish opponents. Strikingly,however,
as we noted above,Marksees the evil "rulerof this world"personified not so much in Israel's traditional"alien enemies" (in this
case, the Romans) so much as in the "intimateenemies." Mark
charges the Jewish leaderswith virtuallythe full responsibilityfor
enacting Satan's purposes on earth. For according to Mark, as
Jesus leads his terrified followers towardJerusalem,he tells them
explicitly whom they are to blame for his impending death: "The
chief priests and scribes ... will condemn (the Son of Man) to
death, and hand him over to the nations, and they shall mock him
and spit upon him, flog him and kill him" (Mark 10:33).
AfterJesus' public demonstrationin the temple outrages the
temple officers, Mark again repeats that "the chief priests and
scribes sought to destroy him" (11:18). When both groups,
together with the elders, demand to know by what authority he
acts, Jesus refuses to answer. Insteadhe retells Isaiah'sparable of
God's wrath against Israel (12:1-12) in a way so transparentthat
even the chief priests, scribes, and elders themselves recognized
that he was telling it "againstthem"(12:12). The following scenes
show Jesus contending first against the Pharisees and Herodians,
who fail to trick him into making anti-Romanstatements (12:1315), and then against the scribes (12:35). Chapter14 begins with
the statement that "the high priests sought by deceit how they
might overcome him and kill him," while the people remain on
Jesus' side (14:2). Shortly afterward,Judas Iscariot, obviously
awareof the hostilityJesus had aroused-and among which influential people-"went to the chief priests in orderto betray(Jesus)to
them, and when they heard it they were glad, and offered him
money" (14:10-11). Mark'stheology, as is well known, paradoxically inverts the ordinarymeaning of the event he relates. In his
conviction thatJesus' death will become a means of destroyingthe
powers of evil, Markdepicts Satan himself-momentarily appearing in the person of Peter-actually attemptingto obstructthe passion (8:31-33)!
The sacred mysterythey claim lies hidden in Jesus' death does
not, however, exonerate those who successfully conspire to kill
27
him. And while Markdoes not explicitly introduceSatan into the

passion narrative,from the first chapters (as we noted above) he
has described those scribes, Herodians, Pharisees, and chief
priests who seek "to destroy (Jesus)"as people acting in concert
with the powers of evil.
Finally, then, as Mark'snarrativedarkensinto the events leading to the crucifixion, the reader senses those forces closing in,
their presence manifest through the increasinglyhostile and dangerous machinations of Jesus' "intimate enemies." We noted
alreadythat Satan appearedshortly beforeJesus' arrest, not only,
as Luke and John will have it, in the form of Judas Iscariot'sdecision to betray Jesus, but even in Peter's instinctive attempt to
defend him. Possessedby the convictionthatJesus "hadto die"for
mysterious reasons which he does not presume to fathom, Mark
depicts Peter himself "tempting"Jesus to evade his divinely
ordained death (8:31-33).
Far from acquittingJesus' enemies of blame, however,Mark's
account (possibly following earlier traditions) significantly shifts
the blame from the Romans to the Jewish leaders. We need not
rehearsehere certain obvious reasons for deflecting responsibility
for the crucifixion from the Romans. As Paul Winter points out,
the evangelist,writing in the turmoil surroundingthe disastrous
Jewish war against Rome, wished ". .. to emphasize the culpability

of the Jewish nation, particularly of its leaders . .. for . .. the death
of Jesus. His motives are defensive, not aggressive;to avoid mentioning anything that would provoke Roman antagonism toward,
or even suspicion of, the ideas forwhich he stood ... the evangelist
tried to conceal thatJesus had been condemned and executedon a
charge of sedition"(144).
By contrastwith John, Mark(like Matthewand Luke following
him) mentions no participation by Roman soldiers. Instead he
insists that Jesus was arrested by soldiers sent "from the chief
priests and the scribes." It is certainly likely that Jewish authorities, having secured Judas' cooperation, may have sent Temple
police to participatein the arrest;but Mark chooses to mention
only Jewish officers-despite what he records of Jesus' protest at
being arrested at night, and so treated "like a rebel" (h6s lestes,
14:48).9
90n the use of lestesforJewishnationalists,see Horsley(1981).
28
The most effectivemeans Markuses to shift responsibilityonto

Jesus' "intimateenemies," however, is to introduce the so-called
"trialbefore the Sanhedrin,"and to juxtapose this with the contrasting "trialbefore Pilate." For Markgoes on to tell a dramatic
story of Jesus' immediate arraignmentthat night before the high
priest, in whose presence "allthe chief priests and the elders and
the scribes were assembled"(14:53). Markelaborateseach detail
of this alleged "trial,"where, he says, after hearing a series of
trumped up charges and lying witnesses, the chief priest pronounced Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and the entire assembly "all
condemned him as deserving death."'1
1oNewTestamentscholarsfromthe time of DibeliusthroughBarnabasLindarsand Edvard
Schweizter,to the morerecentstudiesof Linneman,Marxen,Peros,and Donahueagreethat
this criticallyplaced"trialbeforethe Sanhedrin"is historicallyimplausible,most likely constructedby the evangelist.As buildingblocks for the scene, scholarssuggestsuch passages
as Isaiah 53, which Markapparentlytook as propheciesconcerningan innocent sufferer,
falselyaccused,who saysnothingin his own defense,in spite of being beaten,mocked,and
spat upon. Donahuehas pointedout how these and othermajorthemesof this narrativeall
characterizethe situationofJesus'followersat the time Markwas writing. It is theywho are
accused of devaluingthe temple,and of predictingits downfall;it is they who contestJesus
as "Messiah,Son of the BlessedOne";and, third,Markhopes, it is they who will emulate
Jesus' calm acceptanceof condemnationand torture.
Markcomposed this narrative,then, to encourageJesus' followersfacing interrogation
and sentencebeforeJewishand paganauthoritiesc. 70-80 C.E. ByjuxtaposingJesus'comconfessionwith the scene of Peter'sterrifieddenialwhen a serposure and straightforward
vant tries to identify him as Jesus' follower,Markintends to exhort his fellow believers,
when on trial,to imitatetheirLordand shun the cowardicethat Peterdisplays. Intendingto
demonstratethat the Romanauthoritieshave no quarrelwith Christians,Markshifts the
burdenof blamevirtuallyentirelyfromthe Romansto theJews. His accountof the subsequent"trial"beforePilate,by contrast,is abruptand incomplete.ThereMarkmentionsonly
the single chargethat would interesta Romaninterrogator:thatJesus had claimed to be
"Kingof theJews."Yetthis second Marcanaccounthardlydeservesto be calleda trial,since
it lacks elements central to Mark'sfictitious "trialbefore the Sanhedrin"-includingthe
appearanceof witnesses and the pronouncementof sentence!
Markgoes on to elaboratehow Pilateofferedto releaseJesus, "forhe recognizedthat it
was out of envy that the chief priestshad deliveredhim up"(15:10). As Marktells it, Pilate
expresses scrupulous concern to avoid unjustly executing an innocentJewish prisoner,
while attemptingin weakand futilegesturesto appeasethe crowd. Thosewhom Markpreviously had describedas Jesus'defendershe now depictsas a bloodthirstymob screamingfor
crucifixion. Pilate,of course, finallycapitulates,and-never havingpronouncedsentencehe "delivered(Jesus)to be crucified"(15:15b)! LaterLukewill follow Markbut go farther,
exculpatingPilateby revisingthe story to show that PilateactuallydeclaredJesus innocent
no less thanthreetimesand triedthreetimes-in vain-to releasehim before"hegave(Jesus)
up to their(theJews!)will"(23:24). Matthewadds the episode of Pilatewashinghis hands
"in innocence,"and Matthewalone adds the terriblecurse the Jewish people invoke upon
themselvesand upon all their progeny("Hisblood be upon us and upon our children";
27:25). StilllaterJohnwill implythat Pilateonly allowedJesus to be beatenand mockedin
orderto evoke compassionfrom the onlookers.
29
Without rehearsingall the argumentshere, I agree with those

scholarswho have arguedthat Mark'saccountof this so-calledtrial
was a construction of the writer (or of his sources) designed to
make an apologeticpoint. Thereby,as one scholar observes, Mark
evades ". . . the indisputable fact .
that (Jesus') final trial and

sentence were the work of a Romancourt.""11Comparewith this
. .
the equally artificial"trialbeforePilate,"in which, as Marktells it,

Pilate barely interrogatesthe accused, never sentences him, but
instead acknowledgeshis innocence, and finally, only aftertrying
in vain to defend him from the shouting mob, acquiesces in their
demands. The French biblical scholar Loisy has, indeed, "gotten
the point" of these two juxtaposed accounts: Mark intends ". . . to
makeus understandthatthegovernordid not condemnJesus,but that

he merelyallowedhim to be put to deathin accordancewith the sentenceof the Sanhedrin,after havingtried in vain tofree himfrom the
hatredof his enemies"(1.1031). At first Markidentifies these enemies with the chief priests and scribes, but by the end of the story
they also include "thecrowd"whose response previouslyhad protectedJesus. Thus Markeffectivelyconcludes that the majorityof
Jesus' fellow Jews served Satan's purpose in helping to destroy
Jesus.
From this quick sketch drawn from Mark,let us turn to Matthew to see how the theme of supernaturalconflict serves to characterize the relationship between Jesus' followers and those they
saw as their primaryenemies. Here, too, the relationshipremains
implicit, not explicit. Unlike Mark,who describesJesus' baptism
as the primaryevent in which God's spirit descended upon Jesus,
Matthewdeclares-and emphasizes-that this divine powerentered
Jesus from the very moment of his conception. Indeed, according
to Matthew,the spirit actuallyinitiatedthat conception: "Shewas
discovered to have a child in her womb through the holy spirit"
(1:18). Thus the angel explains to Joseph that her child "wasconceived through the holy spirit"(1:21).
As Matthewtells the story, then, Jesus even as a newborn was
royaland divine, alreadyGod'sdesignatedfuture"Kingof theJews"
(2:2). Matthewproceeds immediatelyto show how Jesus' earliest
history echoes and recapitulatesthe story of the infant Moses'
escape from the murderous acts of an evil tyrant. Many have
11Winter(33-4);Nineham,especially368-403: "Theindisputablefact that he died by crucifixion shows that his trial and sentencewere the work of a Romancourt"(403).
30
observed that MatthewpresentsJesus' birth as a typologicalparallel with Moses' (Brown,1977:214-225). But no one yet, so far as I
know, has noted how Matthew simultaneously departs from his
typological scheme by reversingtraditionalroles. Certain devout
people among his subjects,including, of course,John the Baptist,
regardedHerod'scredentialsas suspect. He was, after all, an Idumean; his family lived in a notoriously Gentile way (despite their
religious professions);and, as the Baptistpointed out, he lived in
open violation of Jewish law.
Shockingly,Matthewcasts the Jewishking, Herod,into the villain's role traditionallyreservedfor Pharaoh. Throughthis device,
Matthew turns the "alien enemies" of Israel's antiquity into the
"intimateenemies,"as Matthewperceivesthem, including the chief
priests and scribes, alongwith all the inhabitantsof Jerusalem. For
Matthewsays that not only was Herod "troubled"to hear of Jesus'
birth, but so was "allJerusalemwith him"(2:3). Matthewintends,
no doubt, to contrastHerod,Idumeanby background,and from a
suspect dynasty, with Jesus, whose legitimately Davidic (and so
royal)lineage Matthewproclaims. Here it is Herod-not Pharaohwho ruthlessly orders the mass slaughterof Jewish male infants.
Thus (as RaymondBrownalso notes in his masterfulstudy) even
in the infancy narrativeMatthewforeshadowsthe terrible climax
of the passion (1977:183). Accordingto Matthew,no sooner was
Jesus born than the "chiefpriests and scribes of the people"assembled, unwittingly aiding Herod's attempt to "searchfor the child
and kill him" (2:13).
While transposing the Jewish king into Pharaoh'straditional
role, Matthewsimultaneouslyreversesthe valences of Israel'ssymbolic geography. Egypt, traditionallythe land of slavery (and so
traditionallysynonymouswith oppression)now becomes forJesus
and his family a sanctuary-a place of refugeand deliverancefrom
the slaughterorderedby the Jewish king! In its shock value, this
reversalof imagery nearly matches that in the book of Revelation,
which refers to Jerusalemas the place "allegoricallycalled Sodom
and Egypt,where our Lordwas crucified"(11:8)! Later,of course,
Matthew will go on to have Jesus favorablycompare Tyre and
Sidon-and even Sodom-with the local towns of Bethsaida,
Chorazin,and Capernaum(11:20-24).
Since Matthewclaims thatJesus receivedGod's spirit from the
moment of his conception, he sees Jesus' baptism as merely confirming, not conveying,his receiptof divine power. The spirit con-
31
tinues to direct the subsequent action, leading Jesus into the

wilderness for the purpose of undergoing temptations "by the
devil." Apparentlytaking his cues from the Q source, Matthew
describes Satan challengingJesus' divine identity ("Ifyou are the
Son of God. . ."). But failing twice to induce Jesus to prove his
divine power and authority,Satan offers him "allthe kingdoms of

the world and their glory"(which Satan here claims as his own) in
exchange for worship. Thus Matthew, following Mark's lead,
implies that political success and power are evidence of affiliation
with the devil-certainly not, as many of Matthew'scontemporaries would have assumed, marks of divine favor!
Throughouthis gospel, Matthewsustains both the reversalof
alien enemies with intimateones and the correlatedreversalof Jewish vs. Gentile territory. Here, after the arrest of John the Baptist,
Jesus went, as Isaiah had prophesied,to the "landbeyond the Jordan, the Galilee of the Gentiles"(Isaiah 9:1-2, cited in Matthew
4:15). Subsequentlyhe heals a leper outcast from Israel,and then
he performsa healing for a Romancenturionwho recognizesJesus'
divine power and appeals to him to use it on his behalf. Astonished to hear a Roman officer express faith "greaterthan any"he
has found in Israel,Jesus immediatelydeclares, "I tell you, many
shall come from east and west and sit down with Abrahamand
Isaac andJacob in the Kingdomof God, while the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness"(8:11-12a).
As Sean Freyneobserves,Matthew,himself contendingwith his
fellow Christiansagainstthe rivalparty of Pharisees,tells the story
of Jesus as a polemic between Jesus and the Jewish leaders
(1985:117-144; 1988:67-132). For this purpose, Matthew seems
simultaneouslyintent on "correcting"what apparentlywas a common impression-that Jesus simply ignoredtraditionalJewish concerns with righteous obedience to Torah. Thus, instead of
beginning, as Mark does, by showing how Jesus' mighty worksand thus his implicit arrogation of divine authority-bring him
into conflict with religious leaders,Matthewopens Jesus' ministry
with his "new Torah."Thus Matthewpreparesthe reader for the
chargesof Jesus'laxity in Sabbathand kosher observanceby insisting that Jesus acts on the basis of a greaterrighteousness (5:20),
not a lesser one. Accordingto Matthew5 and 6, Jesus demands an
enormous increasein religious scrupulosity: the traditionalTorah
is not half strict enough for him! Simultaneously,Matthewinsists
that Jesus' critics, "thescribes and the Pharisees,"use mere hypo-
32
critical "observance"as a cover for violating what Jesus here proclaims to be the Torah'scentral commands of love for God and
neighbor (6:1-18).
Matthew thus leads the readerinto the controversiesbetween
Jesus and his opponents by way of Jesus' teaching.12And unlike
Mark, as we noted already,Matthew casts the Pharisees, not the
scribes, into the role of Jesus' primaryantagonists.'3 Thus here it
is the Pharisees who, at a crucial moment, charge Jesus with
demon possession ("He casts out demons by the prince of
demons";9:34). Having warned the Pharisees that by false "discernment of spirits" they commit unforgivableblasphemy, Matthew's Jesus insists that supernatural conflict creates two
separate-and opposing-communities: "Whoeveris not with me
is against me, and whoever does not gatherwith me scatters."
Distressed to see Israel lacking spiritualleadership,Jesus then
designates the twelve and gives them "authorityover unclean spirits, to cast them out" (10:1). While warning them that the people
"will deliver you up to sanhedrins, and beat you in their synagogues"(10:17), Jesus warns them to anticipatemurderoushatred
within their own households (10:21) as well as from "everyone"
(10:22); for, as he says, "ifthey have called the masterof the house
Beelzebub,how much morewill they malign those membersof his
household?"(10:24).
After the Pharisees "went out and took counsel against him,
how to destroy him" (12:14), Matthew'sJesus replies in Isaiah's
words, claiming that God himself has said of him, "Ihave put my
spirit upon (my servant),and he shall proclaimjustice to the Gentiles .
. .
and in his name will the Gentiles hope" (12:13-21).
At this turning point in the story, Matthewreports that Jesus

healed and exorcised a blind, mute man who was demon possessed (might he representthe Gentiles to whom Jesus has just
declared he is to minister?).'4Seeing this, and seeing the crowd's
admiringresponse, Matthewsays, the Phariseesrepeattheir charge
of demon possession: ". . . all the people were amazed, and said,
'Can this be the Son of David?' But when the Pharisees heard it,
they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub,the prince of demons, that this
12Seethe recent study by Garland.
13Cf Overman.
14Notethe perceptiveand, I believe,correlatedcommentsbyJackson,"The(Roman)centurion is the counterpartfor Mark'sintendedreader"(20), as he is in Matthewas well.
33
man casts out demons.'" To this accusation,Jesus responds, as in

Mark,with the counterchargeof blasphemy and warns that they
are liable to damnation.
The bitter hostility expressed in Matthew23 has attractedconsiderable comment, notably including recent discussions by D.
Garlandand A. Overman. LukeJohnson has attemptedto ameliorate the bitterness by showing, quite accurately, that rhetorical
vituperationtypically characterizeddebate between rival teachers
in antiquity. But Johnson fails to note that demonicvilification
occurs extremelyrarely. In the wide range of examples he offers,
only Essenes and Christiansactually escalate conflict with their
opponents to the level of cosmic war. Indeed, as Matthew'snarrative proceeds, the antagonism between Jesus and his enemies
comes to be described-as in the literatureof the Qtfmransectarians-as a war between those whom Jesus calls "sons of the kingdom" (13:38a) and the "sons of the evil one" (13:38b). FirstJesus
repeatsJohn's denunciation to them: "you are evil" (12:34). Next
he predicts that despised foreignersshall "ariseat the judgment of
this generation and condemn it" (12:41). Finally he implicitly
accuses his opponents of being hopelessly demon possessed, telling the parable of a man who, once exorcised, experiences a new
invasion of "seven other spirits more evil" than the first, ". . . so
that the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So
shall it be also with this evil generation!"(12:45).
Later,Jesus explains privatelyto his followersthat the generation he addresses-except for the elect-already has been judged
and condemned;his opponents'refusalto receivehis preaching,he
says, evinces Satan'spower over them. In terms of the parable of
the sower,Jesus identifies the "evil one" as the "enemy"who has
"snatched away"the seeds he has planted and so preventedhis
preaching from bearing fruit among his own people (13:19).
ImmediatelythereafterJesus tells the parableof the weeds, explicitly interpretingit so as to identify his opponents as the offspring
of Satan: ". .. the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy
who sowed them is the devil!"(13:38-39).

Jesus, finally recognizedby his disciples as Messiah,tells them
that now, by the authority of God's spirit, he is establishing his
own assembly,which shall triumphover all the forces of evil. This
signals that God has replaced Israel with a new community: as
Nicklesburg observes, by Matthew 16 "the qahal 'Ysraelhas
become 'my church' (mou ten ekklesias)"(174).
34
YetJesus' conflict with the Pharisees has not yet reached the
climax impending in the passion narrative. Hultgren(67-131) has
shown how Matthewconsistently turns earliertraditionsinto conflict stories that pit Jesus against those he denounces seven times
as "scribesand Pharisees,hypocrites,"and even calls "childrenof
hell" (23:15)! He goes on to call down divine wrath upon "this
generation,... that upon you may come all the righteous blood
shed on earth, from the blood of the innocent Abel to that of
Zechariah, son of Barachiah,whom you murdered between the
sanctuaryand the altar"(23:35). Throughthe parableof the sheep
and the goats Jesus proclaimsa direct and powerfulmessage: that
everysingle response a person makes towardhim-here interpreted
as, in effect, anyone in need, hungering, thirsting, sick, naked,
imprisoned-takes place within the context of this cosmic battle
between God's spirit and Satan. For Matthew, this apparently
means that Jesus in his futurerole as Son of Man shall judge the
whole human race, inviting some to enterinto God's kingdom and
ordering all who ignore his commands "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"(25:41).
Consistent with these themes is Matthew'sgreater emphasis
throughoutthe passion narrativeon Pilate's innocence and upon
the consequently greater guilt of Jesus' Jewish contemporaries.
Althoughwe need not here repeatthe work of those who have analyzed the Mattheanpassion narrativein detail (Dahl), let us note
some of the uniquely Matthean features: the story of Pilate's
handwashing,an episode apparentlyadded to echo Jewish practice
as mentioned in such passages as Deut 21:6-9 and Ps 26:6; Pilate's
implicit recognition of Jesus' innocence (27:18) and his consequent refusal to pronounce sentence; and, finally, his reluctant
acquiescenceas "allthe people"acknowledgetheir blood guilt and
invoke God's curse upon themselves and their children (Mt.
26:28). As Matthewtells the story, evenJudas Iscariothimself-to
say nothing of Pilate'sown wife-declares Jesus innocent! Finally,
it is Matthewalone who adds the story that the "chiefpriests and
the Pharisees,"following the crucifixion, solicit Pilate to secure
Jesus' tomb with a guard,lest his followerssteal his body in order
to fake a resurrection. Matthew'sstory concludes with the wellknown story of the Jewish authoritiesbribing the soldiers to start
the false rumor that "hasbeen spread among the Jews to this day"
(28:15).
35
As the gospel ends, then, MatthewclearlydissociatesJesus' followers from these hostile and lying "Jews"and depicts the resurrectedJesus announcingto his followersthat now, having received
"allauthority,on heaven and on earth,"he ordersthem to "go and
make disciples of all nations"(28:19). Thus the end of the gospel
echoes the beginning: the traditional"alien enemies" have now
become those fromwhom, along with a remnantfrom Israel,God's
spirit shall gather the new "qahal"-Jesus'ekkl1sia.
The gospel of Luke makes considerablymore explicit the pattern we are callingthe "socialhistory of Satan."Accordingto Luke,
it is the holy spirit (or its agents, the angels) who initiates every
one of the uniquely Lucanopening anecdotes,fromJohn's miraculous conception to Simeon and Anna'sgreetingto Jesus in the Temple. LikeMatthew,Lukeshows that the momentJesus appearsas a
full grown man, "fullof the holy spirit"to challenge the forces of
evil, Satan immediatelyappearsto challengehim. Finding himself
thrice defeated, "the devil departed from him for a time" (4:13).
This does not mean, as Conzlemannimagined, thatJesus' activity
until his betrayalwas "Satan-free."As I read the gospel, I agree
with certain more recent commentatorswho contend that Luke's
entire narrativedemonstrates the opposite.'5 Now, however, the
devil works underground-or, more accurately, on the groundthrough human undercoveragents.
What first suggests this is his juxtaposition of two conflict stories in Luke4. For directlyfollowinghis account of Jesus' conflict
with the devil, Luke narrateshis first public appearance-a scene
that ends in sudden and nearlylethalviolence. HereJesus appears
in the Nazarethsynagogue readingpassages from Isaiah and proclaiming their fulfillment. Favorablyreceived at first, Jesus then
predicts that his own townspeople shall reject him, and declares
that God intends to bring salvation to the Gentiles. His words so
outrage his audience that "... hearing these things, all those in the
synagoguewere filled with rage, and they rose up to throwhim out

of the city, and led him to the edge of the hill on which their city
was built, in order to throw him down headlong"(4:28-29). But
Jesus quickly departs, and so he escapes this first attempt on his
life.
15See,for recentdiscussion, Garrett.
36
AfterJesus' townspeoplehave respondedto his first appearance

by trying to kill him-and thus to accomplishthe devil's purposeLuke shows the religious authorities beginning to plot against
Jesus. At first they suspiciously watch him, hoping for an opportunity "to make an accusation against him." When they find one,
seeing him heal on the Sabbath, "... they were filled with insane
rage (anoias) and discussed with one anotherwhat they might do

to Jesus"(6:11). Fromthe beginning of Jesus' public activityto its
end, Luke intends to show that it is Jews,Jesus' intimate enemies,
who willingly play Satan'srole.16Yeteven in Lukethis theme is not
a simple one; here, as some scholars have noted, Jesus' encounter
with the Jewish leaders often seems to indicate intra-Jewish
polemic rather than anti-Jewishpolemic.17While Luke castigates
the Pharisees for having set themselves,in effect, against God (cf.
16:13-14), he simultaneouslycharacterizesJesus' followersin language reserved for the "righteousremnant." From the opening
scenes in the TempleinvolvingJesus' infancy and adolescence to
the wordswith which Lukecloses the gospel (the disciples "wentto
Jerusalem,and were continuallyin the templepraisingGod")Luke
depicts Jesus and his associates as deeply loyal to the Temple-as,
perhaps, the only genuine Israelitesleft in Jerusalem.
Internal conflict often is, of course, the bitterestof all. When
Jesus proceeds to teach and heal, "castingout a demon that was
dumb,"Luke says that "someof the people"accuse him of possession by Beelzebub. Luke, like Matthew, quotes the Q sources,
acknowledgingthe divisions his coming arouseswithin the "house
of Israel":"Donot think that I have come to bring peace on earth,
no, rather division; from now on in one house there shall be five
divided, three against two and two against three; they will be
divided, father against son and son against father,mother against
daughter and daughter against her mother.
." (12:51-55).
Spiritualwarfarebetween God and Satan-and so, simultaneously, betweenJesus, his followers,and their "intimateenemies"intensifies throughout the gospel. As his enemies harden their
opposition, certain PhariseeswarnJesus (in an episode unique to
Luke) that "Herodwants to kill you." Jesus' contemptuousanswer
suggests that what reallyunderliesHerod'shostility (as well as that
of others) is thatJesus challengesSatan'spower: "Goand tell that
160n many points I tend to agreewith Sanders'discussion;see especially 1-83.
170n the work of other scholars,see Sanders.
37
fox, 'todayand tomorrowI cast out demons and heal, and the third
day I finish my course. . ."' (13:31-32). Yet after the seventy apos-
tles he sends out return astonished and triumphantat their power

over demons, Jesus exults, foreseeing Satan's impending defeat:18
"Isaw Satan fall like lighteningfrom heaven: Behold, I have given
you powerto treadon snakes and scorpions,and upon everypower
of the enemy"(10:18-19).
Directly before this supernatural "enemy"enters into Judas
Iscariot to initiate the betrayal,Luke has Jesus warn-in parablehow he himself shall return as king to annihilatehis enemies. At
the very moment he begins his final journey to Jerusalem,Jesus
tells the story of "acertain nobleman"who travelsto a distant land
"in orderto claim his kingly power (basileian)and return"(19:11).
When he has accomplishedthis and returns in triumph, his first
act is to demand the immediateexecution of his enemies: "Asfor
thoseenemiesof mine, who did not want me to rule over them, bring
them here and slaughterthembeforeme"(emphasis added; 19:27).
Lukehighlightsthe significanceof these ominous words as follows:
"while saying these words, Jesus travelledbefore (the disciples),
going up to Jerusalem."Arrivingthere,he orderedhis disciples to
preparefor his royalentry into the city (cf. Zech. 9:9). Lukealone
inserts the words "theking"into the Psalmist'sacclamationhe says
the disciples shouted at Jesus' arrivalin Jerusalem:"Blessedis the
one, the king,who comes in the name of the Lord!"(Ps 118:26; Lk
19:38).
As the passion narrativeproceeds, Luke increasingly emphasizes the culpabilityof those Jews who "didnot want (him) to rule
over them" and so reject their anointed king. As Luke tells the
story, "Satan entered into Judas Iscariot,"but neither this nor
God's preordained plan absolved Judas from bearing his guilt
(22:22). Intendingto betrayJesus,Judaswent not only to the chief
priests but also, Luke adds, to "theTempleofficers"to arrangefor
the arrest. UnlikeJohn, Lukementions no Romansoldiers among
the arresting party. Later, describingJudas' arrival in Gethsemane, Lukesignificantlyomitsthe saying common to Markand Matthew, that "the Son of Man is betrayedinto the hands of sinners
(=Gentiles)"(Mk 14:41 par). Instead,Jesus here addresses "the
chief priests and temple officers and elders who had come out
18Cf.Garrett.
38
against him," and identifies these very persons as, in effect, Satan
incarnate: "Haveyou come out as against a robber,with swords
and clubs? When I was with you in the temple every day, you did
not lay hands upon me. But this is your (pl.) hour,and (that of) the
power of darkness(he exousia tou skoutos)"(22:52-53; emphasis
added).
Lukegoes much furtherthan eitherMarkor Matthewhad-and
makes a much less plausible story-by depictingJews not only as
responsible for arrestingand sentencingJesus, but even, perhaps,
the carryingout his execution. Without discussing in detail Luke's
version of the "Trialbefore the Sanhedrin,"we note that, in Sanders' words, this evangelist ". .. portrays the Jewish religious leaders
as presentingobviously false politicalchargesto Pilate,chargesthe

falsehood of which is immediatelyclear to any readerof the gospel
who pays attention. As Luketells the story, theJewishleaders are a
cohesive group capable of manipulatingthe Romanauthoritiesfor
the purpose of getting rid of Jesus for very murky reasons"(7).
Lukeadds to the account of Pilate'sinterrogationthe statement
that Pilate specifically pronounced Jesus innocent: "I find no
cause (aition = i.e. = for prosecution) in this person" (23:14). Yet
"the chief priests and the crowds" (who here are clearly Jews)
object, Luke says, and insist that Jesus is guilty of disturbing the
peace, "fromGalilee to this place"(23:5). Luke alone claims that
Pilate, hearing this, sends Jesus to Herod. Having interrogated
Jesus and having failed to elicit from him any information,"Herod
with his soldiers abused and mocked him" (23:11) and sent him
back. Here Herod, acting as an official working under Roman
jurisdiction, agreeswith Pilate,and in this sense fulfills Luke'spurpose by effectivelyacquittingJesus of any political chargesagainst
him. Luke also diverges from Mark and Matthew in attributing
Jesus's mockery and abuse to Herod's-not Pilate's-officers
(23:11).
Pilate then receives Jesus back and calls together "the chief
priests and the rulersand the people"(23:13). These threegroups,
previously divided at least between the leaders and the people,
now presents a united front againstJesus. Pilate formallydeclares
Jesus innocent for the second time, adding that Herod has agreed
with this verdict. But hearingPilate declarethat he now intends to
release Jesus, Luke says, "they all cried out together"(23:18) for
Jesus' execution and for Barabbas'release. When Luke presents
Pilate'sprotestationof Jesus'innocence foryet a thirdtime, he says
39
that ". . . they cried out in loud voices that he should be crucified,
and theirvoicesprevailed,and Pilate commandedthat theirdemand
might be granted . . . and he gave Jesus over to their will" (23:25;

emphasis added). Immediately following, Luke writes, ". .. they
led him away . .. and when they came to the place called the Skull,
they crucified him." Previously,Lukehas followed tradition,indicating that it is the Gentilesto whom Jesus' people deliveredhim
(18:31-34); later Lukewill note the presence of a Romancenturion
at the crucifixion. These clues, along with his account of the written charge, surely indicate that Luke knew that Romans actually
had pronounced the sentence and carried out the execution.19
Nevertheless, as Sanders points out, Luke recounts the story in
such a way that not only allows but perhaps intendsfor the reader
(especially one unfamiliarwith the other gospel accounts) to infer
that, aftera Jewishcourt alone had condemnedJesus, it was Jewish
soldiers who actually crucified him.
Luke'saccount seems to confirm these shocking inferences in
what follows. He relates, for example, that the Roman centurion
present at the execution, seeing Jesus die, "praised God" and
exclaimedthat "certainlythis man was innocent." Thus the foreign
officer confirmed what the Roman governor already had stated
three times. Luke offers further confirmation in the charges
hurled by Stephen and Peterin the early chapters of Acts, where
Peterspecifically addressesthe "menof Israel,"chargingthat "you
crucified and killed" the righteous one whom God had sent to
Israel. Shortly after, Peter again addresses the "men of Israel,"
preaching of Jesus, ". .. whom you delivered up and denied in the

presence of Pilate, when Pilate had decided to release him . . . you
denied the holy and righteousone, andyou asked insteadfor a murderer to be grantedto you" (3:13-14).
When the high priest and the sanhedrin accuse Peterand his
companions of "intend(ing)to bring this man's blood upon us,"
Peterboldly repeats the charge: "Youkilled Jesus by hanging him
on a tree." Stephen,of course, takes up accusations familiarfrom
certain propheticsources and amplifiedamong "dissidentJews":20
it is theJewish people-the apostatemajority,that is-who bear the
responsibilityand the guilt forJesus' death, as for those of his fol19This 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.
40
lowers. As Loisy says, accordingto Luke/Acts, "theJews are the

authors of all evil"(787); thus Lukeindicates that those who reject
Jesus' messiahship accomplish Satan's will and Satan's work on
earth.
What about the gospel of John? GustaveHoennicke,analyzing
"DieTeufelsideein den Evangelien,"declaresthat "mostof what we
read in Christiantheology about the devil goes back to the evangelists" but locates this theme specifically in the synoptics. Hoennicke says that in Markand Luke the demonology is particularly
marked,while in John der Teufelsideeganz fehlt"(208). Far more
accurateis RaymondBrown'soppositeassessment: that in the gospel of John, no less than in the synoptics, the whole ministry of
Jesus is a strugglewith Satan, culminatingin the final struggle of
the passion (1966, especially 364-476).
What promptsHoennicke'scomment,no doubt, is his observation that the Johannine author depicts the devil quite differently
than do the synoptic authors. The most obvious differenceis that
John omits the synoptics'opening "frame"-thescene of the desert
temptation-and so omits as well many of the statements that
evince the presence of constant demonic opposition throughout
Jesus' ministry. Hoennicke characterizesthis differenceas a contrast between what he calls the synoptics'"mythological"representation of the devil and its "ethical"representationin John: "Auch
Joh. 8, 44 ist der TeufelVaterderJuden nur in ethischenSinn... In
den MenschenHerzenherrschtder Teufel."But this alleged contrast
between "mythological"and "ethical"representationsof the devil
fits neither the synoptics norJohn-nor, for that matter,any of the
Jewish literatureknown to me from c. 165 B.C.E.-100C.E. From I
Enoch's Bookof the Watchersto the Martyrdomof Isaiah,from the
Lifeof Adamand Eveto the synoptic gospels, the figureof the devil
functions simultaneously mythologically and ethically. What
Hoennicke says of John-"the devil reigns in human hearts"-is, as
we have seen, as true of Mark,Matthew,and Luke as it is of John.
Thus, I suggest, Hoennicke's observation inadvertentlyconfirms
the basic point of this article-that the devil serves, as one of its
severalpurposes, to characterizehumanopposition.
YetJohn does alterearliercharacterizationsof Satan in striking
ways. Here, significantly,Satan does not appearas a supernatural
characteracting independentlyof humanbeings,as he does in the
synoptic temptation scenes. Thus the latter does not occur in
John-neither in the stark confrontationMarkdescribes nor in the
41
drama in three acts that Matthew and Luke recount. At first

glance, then, we might assume that the story of three diabolic
temptations is entirely absent from John; but, as Brown has
pointed out, this is not so. InsteadJohn transposesthis scene-and
its underlying theme of cosmic war-into a new key.
Let us observe, then, what John puts in place of the synoptic
temptationscene. First,beginningwith the prologue,John substitutes as a "frame"for the narrativethe cosmological theme of the
conflict betweenlight and darkness. Echoingthe grandcosmology
of Genesis 1, the prologueidentifies the logos,God's energy acting
in creation with life (zie) and light (ph6s), that is, the "light of
human kind"(ph6stOnanthrip6n).Anticipatingthe message of his
entire gospel, John declares that "thelight shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcomeit." John goes on to specify
that this divine presence,"thelight of humankind,"finally came to
shine in and throughJesus of Nazareth,revealedto be the Son of
God.
ThusJohn recasts the elements separatedin creation(light and
darkness) into the form of human drama, now interpretingthem
simultaneouslyin religious,ethical,and social terms. Accordingto
John, this divine "light"not only "became human, and dwelt
among us," but also becomes the spiritualprogenitorof those who
"becomethe children of God"(1:12). (Laterin the gospel he says
that those who believebecome "sons of light"(12:35).) Simultaneously, too, the crisis of Jesus' appearancereveals others as the
"sons of darkness." Thus Jesus explains to Nicodemus that "...
this is the judgment: that the light came into the world and people
loved darknessratherthan light, because their deeds were evil ...
but whoever does the truth comes to the light. . ." (3:19-21).
By the end of the gospel, Jesus' epiphany shall have accomplished in human society what God accomplishedcosmologically
in creation: the separationof light from darkness-that is, of the
"sons of light"from the offspring of darkness and the devil. Having placed the story of Jesus within this grand cosmological frame,
John then sets it entirely within the dynamics of this world, the
world of human interaction: "thestory of Jesus in the gospel is all
played out on earth"(Meeks 1972:50). The frame, nevertheless,
informs the readerthat bothJesus' coming and all his human relationships are elementsplayedout in a supernaturaldramabetween
the forces of good and evil.
42
Furthermore,every one of the three traditional "temptation

scenes,"as Brownpoints out, has an analoguein the fourthgospel.
Here no disembodied Satan appears to contend against Jesus;
instead, it is other people-first members of Jesus' audience, and
then his own brothers-who play the tempter'srole (Brown 1966).
A contemporaryreadermight be inclined to interpretthis as a psychologizingof the temptation account; yet John intends by this
means to interprethuman conflict theologically.Just as God has
become incarnate in Jesus, so Satan too becomes incarnate in
Jesus' human opponents. We have seen this occur implicitlyin the
synoptics; now John makes it explicit, and carries it out with a
programmaticconsistency.
Let us recall, in the first place, what Lukerelates as the devil's
second temptation (4:5-6) and Matthew as the third (4:8-9), in
which Satan challenges Jesus to claim power over earthly kingdoms. Accordingto John, a parallel "diabolictemptation"occurs
when "the people" try to seize Jesus and forcibly make him king
(6:15). Here, as in the synoptics,Jesus resists the temptation;thus
he eludes the crowd and escapes. Second, while Matthew and
Luke, following Q, relate that the devil challengedJesus to "make
these stones into bread"to prove his divine authority,John says
that those who witnessed Jesus' miracles-and in particular his
multiplication of the loaves-then challenged him to perform
anothermiracle to prove his messianic identity. Like the devil in
the synoptics, "the people" in John quote the Scripturesas they
urgeJesus to producebreadmiraculously:"... so they said to him,
'What sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What
work do you perform? Our fathersate mannain the wilderness;as
it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat'" (6:30-31).
Jesus resists this second temptation as well, and he answers his
human temptersjust as the synopticJesus had answeredthe devil,
with a metaphoricalresponse about spiritualnourishment. The
third episode, which Matthew and Luke describe as the devil
temptingJesus to displayhis divine powersin public, finds its parallel in John 7:1-9 when Jesus' own disbelievingbrotherschallenge
Jesus to "goto Judea,"to "showyourself to the world"in Jerusalem,
where, as he and they are well aware,his enemies seek to kill him
(7:1). This third temptation,too, Jesus rejects.
Accordingto John, Jesus himself reveals the "social history of
Satan"-or, to be more accurate,the social identityof Satan. For
Jesus, hearingPeterdeclarethat "we(disciples) believethat you are
43
the Messiah,the Son of God,"responds with these brusquewords:

"'HaveI not chosen you twelve,and one of you is a devil?' He spoke
of Judas Iscariot,the son of Simon, for it was he that would betray
him, being one of the twelve"(6:69-71; emphasis added).
At the scene of his betrayal,Jesus again identifiesJudas, along
with his accompanyingposse of RomanandJewish soldiers, as his
supernatural enemy appearing in human form-indeed, in the
form of his most intimate enemy. While according to Matthew,
Jesus signals Judas' arrivalwith the words, "Rise;let us be going;
my betrayeris coming"(12:46), John has Jesus announce instead
that ". . . the ruler of this world is coming; .
. .
rise, let us be going"
(14:30-31). Soon afterwards,Jesus accuses "the Jews who had

believed in him" of plotting murder: twice he charges that "you
seek to kill me." When they find his words incomprehensible,
Jesus proceeds to identify "theJews"who had previouslybelieved
in him as Satan'sown: "Youare of your father,the devil; and you
want to accomplishyour father'sdesires. He was a murdererfrom
the beginning . . ." (8:4-11). Brown comments that in these
passages ". .. for the first time the fact that the devil is Jesus' real
antagonist comes to the fore. This motif will grow louder and
louder as the hour of Jesus approaches, until the passion is
presented as a struggle to the death between Jesus and Satan
(1966:364).
Such remarks,howeveraccurate,remain confined to the relatively safe terrain of theology. What do these passages mean in
terms of human conflict? Many commentators,along with perhaps the vast majority of Christian readers, have agreed with
Rudolph Bultmann'sblunt, unself-conscious assessment: "There
can be no doubt about the main point of the passage, which is to
show that theJews'unbelief,with its hostility to truthand life, stems
from their being children of the devil" (319; emphasis added).
Bultmannadds thatJohn, like Matthewand Luke,in effect charges
theJews with "intendedmurder"(321). (As we shall see, Bultmann
elsewhere makes statements bearing very different implications.)
During recent decades, of course, these passages have elicited a
flurry of discussion and argumentation,often from Christiancommentators insisting that they do not-or morally cannot-mean
what most Christiansfor nearly two millenniahave taken them to
mean.
Manyscholarshave observedthat the term "Jews"occurs much
more frequentlyin John than in the synoptics and that its use often
44
indicates that the Johannineauthorregardshimself and his fellow

believers standing at an even greater distance from the Jewish
majoritythan do the other evangelists.21 Sometimes,of course, the
use of the term coincides with that of the synoptics (and for that
matterwith general contemporaryusage) in passages that simply
describe people who are Jewish and not Gentile. Yet in John the
term has a range of interrelatedconnotations. Brachterlists four
types of usage (365-409). Besides the simple descriptivesense, the
term may specifically designate, in a specific group of passages,
Judeans,that is, people who live in Jerusalemand its vicinity. In a
third group of passages, the term clearly serves as a synonym for
the Jewish authorities. Finally,a considerablenumber of passages
apparentlyuses the term simply to characterizepersons hostile to
Jesus.
Variousscholarshavechosento emphasizeeach of these connotations. C. J. Cuming,for example,chooses the second and

thirdoptionsand so concludeshis researchby declaringthat"...
the Jews in the fourthgospel whom the evangelistregardswith
such hostilitydo not representthe nationas a whole. Forhim the
word has a special associationwithJerusalem:It meansJudeansas

opposed to Galileans"(290-2). This interpretationenables Cuming to conclude that "the indictment is not directed against the
whole Jewish nation, but against its religious leaders"(292). Malcolm Lowe, intending to sum up scholarlydiscussion in the mid1970s, argues that the secondmeaning dominates the Johannine
gospel. Lowebases his discussion primarilyon passages in which
this meaning is indisputableand proceeds from these to claim that
the term Ioudaiosshould regularlybe translated"Judeans"
because,
in his words, the "philologicalerror"of translating the term as
"Jews"".. . has provided, in practically all modern translations of
the gospels, a constant excuse for antisemitism,whosefurtherexistence cannotbe permitted"(130; emphasis added).
Thus Lowe seems to equate what he calls "philologicalerror"
with moral unacceptability. Urban von Wahlde, on the other
hand, presents a comparativesurvey of Johannineresearch(33-60)
and then charts the occurrenceof the term in the gospel in orderto
argue that the Johannine author intended the term "for the religious authoritiesexclusively."
21Shepherd, for example, counts 70 occurrences (96); Meeks counts 71 (180).
45
While each of these argumentsbears a certain validity, I find

each limited primarilyto the specific groups of passages on which
each scholar chooses to focus. Althoughvon Wahlde's argument
may work in certain passages, others, as I read them, use the term
"Jews"in a more generalized way to mean "persons hostile to
Jesus"-without the qualifications that von Wahlde and others
wish thatJohn had added. I agree,then, with WayneMeeksthat "it
is undeniablethat in the fourth gospel 'theJews' in generalis used
in an alien, even hostile, sense, particularlyin the notes, evidently
by the hand of the evangelist,that 'the Jews persecutedJesus,' or
'theJews sought to kill him,' and in the repeatedphrase, 'because
of the fear of the Jews'" (1975:181).22
Neutraluses of the term give way to increasinglyhostile uses as

the gospel narrativeprogresses,23especially from the moment of
Jesus' arrest. At this point, the author clearly marks himself and
those with whom he identifies as separateand distinct from "the
Jews." While it is true that in theJohanninegospelJesus himself is
twice called "aJew,"both occur as descriptiveterms used by outsiders, first by the Samaritanwoman and secondly by Pilate. By
the time of Jesus' execution, as Meeks says, ". .. the Jesus of the
Fourth Gospel is also distant from 'theJews,' even though (or just
because) they are 'his own' who rejecthim, and even though what
Pilate 'has written' stands ineffaceable, that he is 'King of the
Jews"' (1975:181).
Many scholars who acknowledgethis theme in the Johannine
gospel neverthelessinsist on interpreting"theJews"only symbolically. Rudolph Bultmann sometimes mitigates his other statements by insisting that "theJews"merelysymbolizeho kosmos;"the
Jews in their totality are the representativesof unbelief' (59, my
translation). Erich Grasserdevelops this theme, describing ".
ein in der Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums unbestrittener
Tatbestand; namlich die Synonymitatder Begriffe kosmos und
IoudaiosDenn kosmosund loudaiossind in gleicherWeiseChiffren
22See also Meeks (1972:22-70; cf. especially 35 and 70); Brown (1966:70, LXXXIV):
"John's attitude toward 'the Jews' is not missionary but apologetic and polemic. The violence of the language in chapter eight, comparing the Jews to the devil's brood, is scarcely
designed to convert the synagogue, which in Johannine thought is now the 'synagogue of
Satan'" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9).
23See, for example, Townsend (72-97). For an opposing view, see von Wahlde (47): "There
is no sign of an increase of hostility throughout the gospel; rather, their reaction is unified
and monolithic."
46
fiur den Unglauben schlechtin" (88-89; latter emphasis added). H.
Schneideradds that
TheJewssymbolizefleshlymanin his oppositionto God... From
ofJesusby menin theearlychapters,the
a generalnon-acceptance
opposition is more and more identifiedwith a group. . ., with the
Jews. Ultimatelythe groupstandsforthe forcesopposedtoJesus,
which are the forces of darkness. It is obviousthatwe are not dealing with an ethnicgroup,but with a dramatictheologicalsymbol...
Wewouldmiss thefull significanceof thissymbolif we consideredthe
Jew in Johnonly as an historicalfigure. .. "TheJews"are an everpresentrealityand threatto any worshipof Godin spiritand in truth.
(347-351;emphasisadded)
Yet other commentators,including the Jewish scholar Samuel
Sandmel,find such conclusions anythingbut obvious. Discussing
both the argumentsthat "theJews"means differentthings in different Johannine passages, and that ". . . 'Jews' does not really mean
Jews, but is rathera term for all human opaquenessaboutJesus ...

or ...
the general evil in the world," Sandmel suggests that such
interpretersare, in fact, attempting"to exculpate the gospel from

its manifest anti-Semitism"(117). Most telling is Sandmel'sobservation thatJohn does not charge"humanity"or "theworld"in general for actively seeking Jesus's execution, but specifically "the
Jews."24
It is not my purposehereto speculate,as othershave,uponthe

complexsituationthatgaveriseto theJohanninepassionnarrative.
Letus simplyacknowledge,
first,the historicallikelihoodthatcertain Jewish leaderscollaboratedwith the Romanauthoritiesto
engineerJesus'arrestand execution.Letus acknowledge,too, the
pointwell explicatedby LouisMartynand others,that theJohannine author reads into his story conflicts he is experiencing
betweenhis own groupand thosehe calls "theJews."The author
probablymeans by this term primarilythe Pharisaicleadersof
Jewishcommunitiesknownto him (c. 90-100C.E.),togetherwith
the majorityof theirfollowers.Grantingthese generalpremises,
ourpurposehereis not thatalreadyundertakenby so manyscholars,25to definehis use of the termprecisely.Insteadourpurpose
24See Martyn; Sandmel (115).
25For an abbreviated list of these, see, for example, Grasser (74-79); Fortna (58-94);
Brachter (401-409); von Wahlde (33-60); Cuming; Brown (1966:1xx-1xxiii); Meeks
(1975:103-186); and Culpepper (273-288).
47
is much simpler: to show how, in John as in the synoptics, the

mythologicalfigure of Satan coincides with specific human opposition, implicatingJudas Iscariotin the first place, then the Jewish
authorities,and finally "theJews"collectively.
My previousresearch(1973) on the languageof the fourth gospel inclines me to agreewith those who insist on "symbolist"interpretations. Nevertheless, to maintain an exclusively"symbolist"
view which denies the practicalimplicationsof his use of the term
seems to me not only an evasion of John's message but
"Jews,"'26
also an attempt at apologetic sleight-of-hand. For this author's
decision to make an actual,identifiablegroup-both amongJesus'
contemporariesand his own-into a symbol of "all evil"27 obviously bears religious,social, and politicalimplicationsthat provide
the potential for arousing and even legitimating anti-Judaism-a
potentialwhich, as ReginaldFullersays, "hasbeen abundantlyand
tragicallyactualizedin the course of Christianhistory"(37).
From the beginning of the gospel, then, as we have seen, the
Johannineauthor,like his predecessorsat Qumran,draws the battle lines between the "sons of light"and those whom Jesus' coming
provesto be sons of darknessand the devil. Followingthe scene in
which "theJews" attempt to stone Jesus for speaking words they
take as blasphemy (claiming,in effect, the divine name, 8:59), he
declares that "I must do the work of him who sent me, while it is
day; the night is coming, when no one may work. As long as I am
in the world, I am the light of the world." Moving quickly toward
the passion narrative,which here comprises half of the entire gospel, John, like Luke,makes explicit the chargeimplicitin Markand
Matthew-that Satan himself initiated Judas' treachery: "During
supper, the devil had alreadyput it into the heart of Judas Iscariot,
the son of Simon, to betray him. .. Then after the morsel, Satan
enteredinto him. Jesus said to him, 'Whatyou are going to do, do

quickly'... So afterreceivingthe morsel, [Judas]immediatelywent
out; and it was night"(13:2, 27-30). BecauseJohn wants to insist
that Jesus, fully aware of the future course of events, remains in
complete control of them, he relates thatJesus himself givesJudas
the morsel that precededSatan'sentry (thus fulfillingthe prophecy
of Ps 41:9). Jesus then actually directsJudas' subsequent action
("do quickly what you are going to do"). At that fateful moment
26See,for example,Lutgert.
27SeeLoisy (787).
48
which initiatesJesus' betrayal,John, like Luke, depicts the "power

of darkness"(cf. Lk. 22:53) eclipsing the "lightof the world":hence
his stark final phrase, en de nux.
John, like Luke, seems intent on suppressing all traces of
Romaninitiativein Jesus' execution. In nearly every episode,John
goes to the point of "bizarreexaggeration"to insist that the blame
for initiating, ordering,and carryingout the crucifixion lies upon
Satan's offspring,Jesus' intimateenemies.
Apparentlyusing at least one source independentof the synoptics, John reports that beforeJesus' arrest the Pharisees and chief
priests convened, having heard about Jesus' popular appeal, and
concluded that ". . . if we let him go on thus, everyone will believe
in him, and the Romanswill come and destroyboth our holy place
and our nation" (11:45-48). Concluding the meeting, they plot
"howto put him to death"(11:53). After"Judas,procuringa band
of (presumablyRoman)soldiers, and some officers from the chief
priests of the Pharisees,"(18:8) betrayedJesus, the arrestingparty
seized and bound him and led him to Annas, "fatherin law of the
high priest,"who, afterinterrogatinghim, "senthim bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Reutherrightly observes that John here
intends to suppresspolitical chargesagainstJesus in favorof a religious one, despite the fact that John's prior account of the chief
priests' meeting had described their plausible and pragmaticconcern to protecttheir own constituencyfrom Romanreprisals,even
at the possible cost of a wrongful execution.
AlthoughJohn reportsno other trial by anyJewish tribunal,he
leaves no doubt that the chief priests want Jesus killed. When
Pilate inquires about the charge, their answer manages to be at
once evasiveand self-righteous:"Ifthis man were not a malefactor,
we would not have broughthim to you"(18:30)! When Pilate, still
having heard no charge,answers,in words apparentlyeither indifferent or contemptuous, "Takehim yourselves and judge him by
your own law," the "Jews"answer:"It is not lawful for us to put
anyone to death" (15:32). Reflecting upon the scholarly debate
about the historicalaccuracyof this statement,Winter argues that
the Romans, following their policy of allowing subject peoples to
govern internal disputes, did, in fact, accord to Jews the right of
adjudicating capital cases before 70 C.E. Whether or not he is
right, the point John wants to make is clear enough: that although
Romanswere known to have carried out Jesus' execution by their
49
own peculiar method (see 19:32), they did so only because "the
Jews"forced them to do so (Sandmel:115).
When Pilate does questionJesus about an apparentlypolitical
charge ("Areyou a king?"),Jesus parries the question, and Pilate
retorts, "AmI a Jew? Yourown nation and the chief priests have
handedyou over to me: what have you done?" (emphasis added;
18:35). Werehis kingdom an earthly one, Jesus declares,"myservants would fight so that I might not be handed over to theJews"
(18:36)-an ironicJohanninereversalof the synoptic charge,which
repeatedly describes the Jews "handing Jesus over" to "the
nations"!
Like Luke, John shows Pilate three times proclaimingJesus
innocent, and proposing three times to release him; but each time
"theJews" cry out, demanding instead that Pilate "crucifyhim"
(19:6, 15). John "explains,"too, that Pilate had allowed his
soldiers to scourge and tortureJesus only for the purpose of evoking the crowd'scompassion (19:1-4), and so to placate"theinsatiable fury of the Jews."28John adds that when they protested that
Jesus had violated their religious law, and therefore"deserves to
die," Pilate was "moreterrified"(19:8). Returningto Jesus as if he
still hoped to find a basis to acquit him, Pilate instead receives
from the prisonernear exonerationof his own guilt. Speakingas if
he himself were Pilate'sjudge, Jesus declares to the governorthat
"the one who deliveredme to you has the greatersin." When the
crowdthreatensto chargePilatehimself with treasonagainstRome
(19:12), Pilate makes one more futile attempt at release and then
gives in to the shouting, blood-thirstymob. Finally, having pronounced neither sentence nor any order of execution, Pilate
"handed(Jesus)overto them to be crucified"(19:16). Throughout
this scene, as John tells it, ". . . the priests exert unrelenting pres-
sure, while the governorturns and doubles like a hunted hare."29

Thus John, like Luke,leads the readerto conclude that "the crucifixion ...
comes from the Jews" (Winter:88). Indeed, after Pilate
hands Jesus over to theJews,the narratorgoes on to say that "...

theytookJesus ... to the place called in HebrewGolgotha,... there
they crucified him, and with him two others"(19:17).
Afterthe crucifixionscene, designed to demonstratehow Jesus'
ignominious death fulfills prophecyin every detail,John adds that
28See Nineham (412).
29See Dodd (97).
50
Nicodemus, "forfear of the Jews"(19:38), secretly petitions Pilate

to allow him to recoverJesus' body and to bury it at enormous
expense, using "a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloe." Many
scholars have discussed the author's motives for thus depicting
"the innocent Jesus whom Pilate wishes to free"against the Jews
who here become not only the "villains, but the ultimate in
villainy."30
Pilate, as John depicts him, does retainto some extent his traditional role as "alienenemy." But in the "concludingframe"of the
passion narrative,as we have seen, John, like Matthewand Luke,
adds and alters details that suggest increased concern to mollify
Romansuspicion of Christians. As we observe changes in the trial
account from one gospel to the next, we can see that it comes to
serve severalpurposes at once. First, it representsChristians,like
their leader, as innocent people falsely accused, who present no
real dangerto the Romanorder;second, it representsPilate acting
as Christianshopedto persuadeagents of imperialauthorityto act,
as benign rulers,zealous to preservejustice; and, third(whereboth
of these failed), it offers Christians under arrest, torture, and
impending execution as exemplaryparadigmsof martyrdom. In
the process of reworkingthe trial narrative,the Pilate we know
from history disappears. For those contemporaryreports we do
have of Pilate completely contradictthe evangelists'characterization of him. Philo describes the governoras a man notorious for
his "inflexible,stubborn, and cruel disposition,"and lists as typical features of his administration"violence,robbery,assault, abusive behavior,frequentexecutionswithout trial"(Legatioad Gaium
301-302). Josephus recordsincidents that illustrateeither Pilate's
indifferenceor, morelikely, his contempt,for his subjects'religious
convictions. Josephus also notes the quick and brutalaction Pilate
characteristicallytook to terrify angry crowds into submission.
One episode tells how Pilate, ignoring his Roman predecessors'
respect for Jewish religious sensibilities, violated precedent by
orderinga Romangarrison to enterJerusalemdeliberatelydisplaying-instead of covering-the army standardsthatJews considered
idolatrous. Anticipating the massive resistance he would meet
30Thescope of this articledoes not allow us to include an accountof the much-discussed
questionof theJohanninecommunity,whichwould haveto considerits sectariancharacter,
the situationof increasedhostilityand separationbetweenJesus'followersand theirJewish
opponents which this gospel indicates, and, finally, the Roman suspicion of Christians
(Winter).
51
from the population, Pilate alreadyhad orderedhis soldiers to surround the Jewish crowd, three men deep, and to kill anyone who
expressed outrage or offered resistance.31 In another incident,
Josephus tells how Pilate decided to finance aqueducts forJerusalem by illegally appropriatingmoney from the Templetreasury,"an
act of sacrilegeeven from the Romanpoint of view, since the Temple tax had been made sacrosanct by Rome" (Smallwood:162).
This time, too, fully anticipating the resistance he encountered,
Pilate had orderedhis soldiers to minglewith the crowdin disguise
until he gave a signal for them to beat everyone who protested.
Josephus adds that "many died from the blows and many were
trampledto death by their fellows. The fate of those who died terrified the rest into silence." Even Luke, despite his flattering portraitof a wholly differentPilate,neverthelessalludes to an episode
involving certain Galileans"whoseblood Pilate mingledwith their
sacrifices" (13:1). Smallwood notes that rounding up Jews suspected of anti-Romanactivity"wasa commonplacein Judea"during Pilate's time (164). Pilate's political tenure abruptly ended
when the legate of Syria finally responded to repeated protests
from Pilate'ssubjectsby strippinghim of his commission, and dispatching one of his own staff to serve as governor. Pilate, ordered
to return to Rome at once to answer the charges against him,
apparently never returned. It is remarkable,then, that as Paul
Winter observes, according to the gospel account ". . . The stern
Pilate grows more mellow from gospel to gospel ... [fromMarkto

Matthew, from Matthew to Luke and then to John]. The more
removed from history, the more sympathetic a character he
becomes" (Winter:88-89).
In regardto the "intimateenemy,"a parallelprocess occurs, but
in reverse. Where MarkdepictsJesus' bold initial challenge to the
power of evil, he showsJesus coming into increasinglyintense conflict first with "the scribes,"then with the Pharisees and Herodians, until crowds of his own people, in a conflict depicted
essentially as "intra-Jewish,"
persuade reluctant Roman forces to
execute him. Matthew,as we saw, writing some twentyyears later,
depicts a far more bitter and aggressiveantagonismbetweenJesus
and the majorityof his Jewish contemporaries,even to the point of
transforming the role of Pharaoh into that of the Jewish king,
Herod. Indeed, no sooner wasJesus born than he arousedthe sus31See BellumJudaicum II. 169-177; Antiquities XVII. 55-64, 84-87.
52
picion of Herod and "allJerusalemwith him."Matthewgoes on to

depict the Pharisees as "sons of hell," the devil's own offspring,
destined, along with all who rejectJesus' teaching,for eternal punishment in the "firereserved for the devil and all his angels." Yet
we may agreethat even Matthewdepicts, in effect, a battle between
rival reform groups of Jews-each insisting upon its own superior
righteousness, and each depicting the other as demon-possessed.
Luke, as we have seen, goes considerably farther. No sooner
has the devil appearedto temptand destroyJesus than the whole of
Jesus' townspeople, hearing his first public address in their synagogue, aroused to fury, attemptto throwhim down a cliff. Only at
the climax of the gospel will Satan enterintoJudas and so to direct
the operation that ends with the crucifixion.
John, finally, writing c. 100 C.E., dismisses the device of the
devil as an independent supernatural character (if, indeed, he
knew of it, as I suspect he did). Instead, as John tells the story,
Satan, like God himself, here appearsin the form of incarnation.
First he becomes incarnate in Judas Iscariot, then in the Jewish
authoritiesas they mount opposition to Jesus, and finally in those
John calls "theJews"-a group of Satan's allies now as separate
fromJesus and his followersas darknessis fromlight, or the forces
of hell from the armies of heaven.
Each of the evangelists'various depictions of the devil progressively correlateswith the "socialhistory of Satan"-that is, with the
history of increasingconflict and oppositionbetweengroupsrepresentingJesus' followersand their opposition. By presentingJesus'
life and message in these various forms of polemic, the evangelists
probably intended (as Kloppenborg says of the Q source) to
strengthen group boundary and self-definition. In the process,
they shaped, in ways that were to become incalculablyconsequential, the self-understandingof Christiansfor millennia to come.32
32For their generous help and learned criticism in preparing the present draft of this article, I am grateful to colleagues and friends, including especially Professors John Gager, Kent
Greenawalt, Howard Clark Kee, Wayne Meeks, Vernon Robbins, James Robinson, and Alan
Segal.
Pagels: TheSocialHistoryof Satan,PartII
53
REFERENCES
Beardslee,W.
1970
"Uses of the Proverb."Interpretation24/9:61-73.
Brachter,Robert "'TheJews'in the Gospel of John." PracticalPapers

G., trans. for the BibleTranslator26/4:365-409.
1975
Brown,Raymond "IncidentsThat Are Units in the Synoptic Gospels
E. But Dispersed in St.John."CBQ23:143-160.
1961
1966, 1970 TheGospelAccordingtoJohn,29, 29A. GardenCity,
NY:AnchorBible.
1977 The Birthof the Messiah. GardenCity: Doubleday,
and London:GeoffreyChapman.
Bultmann,Rudolf Das EvangeliumJohannis.
G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck
1941 and Ruprecht. The Gospelof John: A Commentary.
Trans. by G.R. Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia:
WestminsterPress.
Collins, Adela Crisis and Catharsis:The Powerof the Apocalypse.
Yarbro Philadelphia:WestminsterPress.
1984
Conzelmann,Hans Die Apostelgeschichte.The Theologyof St. Luke.
1961 Trans.by G. Buswell.New York:Harperand Row.
Cook, MichaelJ. Mark'sTreatment
of theJewishLeaders.Leiden: E.J.
1978 Brill.
Culpepper,R. Alan "The Gospel of John and the Jews." Review and
1987 Expositor,84:273-288.
Cuming, G.J. "TheJews in the FourthGospel." ExpositoryTimes
1948-9 60:290-2.
Dahl, N. Jesusin theMemoryof theEarlyChurch.Minneapo1976 lis: Augsberg.
Dodd, C.H. Historical Traditionin the Fourth Gospel. Cam1963 bridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Journalof theAmerican
Academy
of Religion
54
Fitzmeyer,Joseph "Crucifixionin Ancient Palestine,Qumran LiteraA. ture, and the New Testament."CBQ40:493-513.
1983
Forsyth,N.
1987
The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth.

Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Fortna,Robert "TheologicalUse of Locale in the Fourth Gospel."

1974 AnglicanTheologicalReviewSupplementarySeries
3:58-94.
Freyne,Sean "Vilifyingthe Other and Defining the Self: Mat1985 thew's and John's Anti-Jewish Polemic in Focus."
In "ToSee Ourselvesas OthersSee Us": Christians,
Jews, "Others"in Late Antiquity,93-116. Ed. by
Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico:
ScholarsPress.
1988 Galilee,Jesus, and the Gospels:LiteraryApproaches
and HistoricalInvestigations.Philadelphia:Fortress
Press.
Fuller,Reginald "'TheJews' in the Fourth Gospel." Dialog 16:37.
1971
Gager,John The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward
1983 Judaismin Paganand ChristianAntiquity. Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Garland,D.
1979
The Intentionof Matthew23. Leiden:E.J.Brill.
Garrett,Susan The Demise of the Devil. Minneapolis: Fortress

1989 Press.
Gowler,David B. Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraitsof the
1991 Phariseesin Lukeand Acts. New York:PeterLang.
Grasser,Erich "Die antijiidische Polemik im Johannesevange1964-1965 lium." New TestamentStudies10-11:74-79;88-89.
Grundmann,W. "Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte in
19?? seinem theologischen Sinn." Studia Evangelica,
2:429, 473.
55
Hoennicke, "Die Teufelsideein den Evangelien."In NeutestaGustave mentlicheStudien:FiirGeorgHeinricizu seinem 70,

1914 208. Leipzig:J.C. Hinrichs.
Horsley,Richard "Josephusand the Bandits."JSJ 10:37-63.
A.
1979
1981 "AncientJewish Banditry and the Revolt Against
Rome, A.D. 66-70." CBQ43:420-424.
1985 Bandits,Prophets,and Messiahs:PopularMovements
in the TimeofJesus. Minneapolis:Winston.
Hultgren,Arland Jesusand HisAdversaries:TheFormand Functionof
1979 the ConflictStoriesin theSynopticTradition.Minneapolis: Augsburg.
Jackson, H., "TheNew Testament:Anti-JewishSlanderand the
and LukeT. Conventionsof Ancient Polemic."JBL 108/3:419Johnson 441.
1989
Kloppenborg,J.
1987
TheFormationof Q. Philadelphia:FortressPress.
Koester,H. AncientChristianGospels:TheirHistoryand Devel1990 opment. London/Philadelphia:TrinityPress International.

Koester,Helmut, TrajectoriesThroughEarly Christianity. Philadeland James M. phia: FortressPress.
Robinson
1968
Levenson,Jon D.
1980
Creationand the Persistenceof Evil: The Jewish

Drama of Divine Omnipotence. San Francisco:
Harperand Row.
Levine, Amy-Jill TheSocialand EthnicDimensionsof MattheanSocial

1988 History. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
Loisy, AlfredF. Les EvangilesSynoptiques.Ceffons pres Montieren
1907-1908 Der: Chez l'auteur.
Lowe, Malcolm "Who Were the 'loudaioi'?" Novum Testamentum
1976 XVIII/2:101-130.
56
Academy
of Religion
Lutgert,Wilhelm "DieJuden im Johannesevangelium."In Neutesta1914 mentlicheStudien:FiirGeorgHeinricizur seinem70.

Leipzig:J.C. Hinrichs.
Martyn,J. Louis Historyand Theologyin the FourthGospel, 2nd edi1978 tion. Nashville:Abingdon.
Meeks, Wayne A. "The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarian1972 ism."JBL,91:22-70.
1975 "'AmI a Jew?':Johannine Christianityand Judaism." In Christianity,Judaism, and Other GraecoRomanCults, 103-186. Edited by Jacob Neusner.
Leiden:E.J. Brill.
1985 "BreakingAway: ThreeNew TestamentPictures of
Christianity'sSeparationfrom the Jewish Communities," In "ToSee Ourselvesas Others See Us":
Christians,Jews, "Others"in LateAntiquity,93-116.
Edited by Jacob Neusher and Ernest S. Frerichs.
Chico ScholarsPress.
Merideth,Anne "The Figure of Satan in Revelation 2-3," unpub1992 lished paper.
Murray,Robert "Jews,Hebrews,and Christians: Some Needed Dis1982 tinctions." Novr 24:194-208.
1985 "'Disaffected Judaism' and Early Christianity:
Some PredisposingFactors."In "ToSeeOurselvesas
OthersSee Us": Christians,Jews, "Others"in Late
Antiquity,263-81. Edited by Jacob Neusner and
Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico: ScholarsPress.
Nicklesburg, "TheGenreand Functionof Mark'sPassion NarraGeorge tive." HarvardTheologicalReview73:153-184.
1980
1985 "RevealedWisdom as a Criterionfor Inclusion and
Exclusion: From Jewish Sectarianism to Early
Christianity." In "ToSee Ourselvesas Others See
Us": Christians,Jews, "Others"in Late Antiquity,
73-92. Ed. by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico: ScholarsPress.
Nineham, Dennis The Gospelof St. Mark. Baltimore:PenguinBooks.
Eric
1967
57
Overman,J. Matthew'sGospeland FormativeJudaism. MinneapAndrew olis: Augsburg/Fortress.

1990
Pagels,E. TheJohannineGospelin GnosticExegesis.Nashville:
1973 AbingdonPress.
1991 "TheSocial Historyof Satan,the 'IntimateEnemy':
A PreliminarySketch."HarvardTheologicalReview
84/2:1-23.
Robinson,J. M. The Problemof Historyin Mark. London:SCM.
1957
Russell,J. B. The Devil: Perceptionsof Evil from Antiquity to
1987 PrimitiveChristianity.Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.
Reuther,R.R. Faithand Fortitude:The TheologicalRootsof Anti1974 Semitism. Minneapolis: SeaburyPress.
Sanders,Jack T.
1987
TheJewsin Luke-Acts.Philadelphia:FortressPress.
Sandmel,Samuel Anti-Semitismin the New Testament.Philadelphia:

1978 FortressPress.
Schneider,H. "TheWordWas MadeFlesh: An Analysisof Revela1969 tion in the Fourth Gospel." CBQ31:344-356.
Schiissler, TheBookof Revelation:
JusticeandJudgment.PhilaFiorenza,E. delphia:FortressPress.
1985
Segal, Alan F. The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity. Atlanta:
1987 ScholarsPress.
1991 "Matthew'sJewish Voice." In The SocialHistoryof
the MattheanCommunity.Minneapolis: Fortress
Press.
Shepherd,Massey "TheJews in the Gospel of John: AnotherLevel of
H., Jr. Meaning."AnglicanTheologicalReviewSupplemen1974 tary Series 3:96.
Academy
of Religion
58
Smallwood,E. TheJewsunderRomanRuleFromPompeyto DiocleMary tian. Leiden:E.J.Brill.

1981
Smith,JonathanZ. "Introductionto 'ThePrayerofJoseph.'" In OldTes1985 tamentPseudepigrapha,
2.701. 2 vols. Ed.byJames
H. Charlesworth.New York:Doubleday.
1985 "Whata DifferenceMakes."In "ToSee Ourselvesas
OthersSee Us": Christians,Jews, "Others"in Late
Antiquity,3-48. Ed.byJacobNeusnerand ErnestS.
Frerichs. Chico: ScholarsPress.
Tilborg,Sjefvan TheJewishLeadersin Matthew. Leiden: E.J.Brill.
1979
Tolbert,MaryAnn SowingtheGospel:Mark'sWorldin Literary-Histori1989 cal Perspective.Minneapolis:FortressPress.
Townsend,John T. "TheGospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a
1979 Religious Divorce." In Antisemitismand the Foundations of Christianity, 72-97. Edited by Alan
Davies. New York:PaulistPress.
Via,Jane E. "Accordingto Luke,Who Put Jesus to Death?" In
1983 PoliticalIssuesin Luke-Acts,122-45. Editedby R.J.
Cassidy and P.J.Scharper. Maryknoll:Orbis.
von Wahlde, "TheJohannine'Jews':A CriticalSurvey."New TesUrban C. tamentStudies 28:33-60.
19??
Weeden Theodore "Recoveringthe ParabolicIntent in the Parableof
J. the Sower (Mk 4:3-9)." Journal of the American
1979 Academyof Religion47:97-120.
Wink, W.
1986
Unmaskingthe Powers: The InvisibleForces That

DetermineHumanExistence.Philadelphia:Fortress
Press.
Winter, Paul On the Trialof Jesus,2nd ed. Berlin:De Gruyter.

1974

The Social History of Satan, Part II PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Social History of Satan, Part II PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journalof theAmericanAcademyof ReligionLXII/1

Satan in the New Testament Gospels

ElainePagelsis Professorof Religionat PrincetonUniversity,Princeton,NJ 08544.

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

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

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II

message." Against this view, Russell himself argues,quite rightly,

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II

leaders who regardedhis activity as threatening and potentially

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

instead with those portraitsof Jesus that provedmost influentialin

Pagels: The Social Historyof Satan, Part II

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Throughoutthis opening chapter,Markemphasizes that Jesus

Pagels: The Social Historyof Satan, Part II

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

Who recognizesthe spirit acting in Jesus as holy, and who regards

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II

him. And while Markdoes not explicitly introduceSatan into the

Jewish war against Rome, wished ". .. to emphasize the culpability

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

The most effectivemeans Markuses to shift responsibilityonto

Pagels: The Social Historyof Satan, Part II

Without rehearsingall the argumentshere, I agree with those

that (Jesus') final trial and

the equally artificial"trialbeforePilate,"in which, as Marktells it,

makeus understandthatthegovernordid not condemnJesus,but that

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

Pagels: The Social Historyof Satan, Part II

tinues to direct the subsequent action, leading Jesus into the

divine power and authority,Satan offers him "allthe kingdoms of

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

and in his name will the Gentiles hope" (12:13-21).

At this turning point in the story, Matthewreports that Jesus

Pagels: The Social Historyof Satan, Part II

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

who sowed them is the devil!"(13:38-39).

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

Pagels: The Social Historyof Satan, Part II

synagoguewere filled with rage, and they rose up to throwhim out

15See,for recentdiscussion, Garrett.

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

AfterJesus' townspeoplehave respondedto his first appearance

rage (anoias) and discussed with one anotherwhat they might do

170n the work of other scholars,see Sanders.

Pagels: The Social Historyof Satan, Part II

tles he sends out return astonished and triumphantat their power

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

as presentingobviously false politicalchargesto Pilate,chargesthe

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II

and theirvoicesprevailed,and Pilate commandedthat theirdemand

might be granted . . . and he gave Jesus over to their will" (23:25;

preaching of Jesus, ". .. whom you delivered up and denied in the

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

lowers. As Loisy says, accordingto Luke/Acts, "theJews are the

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II

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

Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion

Furthermore,every one of the three traditional "temptation

Pagels: The Social History of Satan, Part II

the Messiah,the Son of God,"responds with these brusquewords: