Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:27:22.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Social Setting of the Revelation to John

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Thomas B. Slater
Thomas B. Slater
Affiliation:
Dept of Religion, University of Georgia, Peabody Hall, Athens, GA 30602–1625, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Revisionists have argued that no empire-wide persecution of Christians occurred in the late first century and that Domitian was neither a persecutor of Christians nor an evil, incompetent ruler. This essay agrees with those points but also argues that a closer examination of extant Roman and Christian late first/early second century writers demonstrates that Christians were held in low esteem and suffered in Roman society because of their religious convictions. This study argues that Revelation was a Christian response to religio-political pressures by indigenous Asian pagans upon Christians to conform to traditional social practices in Roman Asia.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 232 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E.g., Kiddle, M., The Revelation of St John (MNTC; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1940) xxxix–xl;Google ScholarGlasson, T. F., The Revelation of John (CBCNEB; Cambridge: CUP, 1965) 6–9;Google ScholarLadd, G. E., A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 8;Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 458–62, 466–9;Google ScholarMounce, R. H., The Book of Revelation (NICNT 17; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 32–5.Google Scholar Cf. Price, S. R. F., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: CUP, 1984) 197–8.Google Scholar

2 Ọύδὲ γὰρ Πρὰ Πọλλọῦ χρόṿọụ έωράθη, ᾀλλὰ σχεδὸṿ έΠὶ τῆς ῄµετέρας γεṿεᾶς, Πρὸς τῲ τέλει τῆς Δọµετιαṿọῦ ᾀρχῆς (Neque enim ante multum temporis visum est, sed pene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii [PG 7:2, 1208]). See also Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 – ca. 215), Quis Dives Salvetur? 42; Victorinus (third century CE), Apoc. 10.11 and 17.10; Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 255), In Matthaeum 16.6; Jerome (ca. 342 – 420), De vir. illus. 9; Eusebius (ca. 260 – ca. 340), H.E. 3.18–25, whose primary sources were Irenaeus and Clement.

3 R. H. Charles is probably the first to note religious laxity as a central motif in the letters (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Revelation of St John (2 vols.; ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1920) 1.43–7.Google Scholar Others have taken his observation further: see Sweet, J. P. M., Revelation (TPINTC; London: SCM, 1979, 1990) 21–35;Google ScholarBauckham, Richard, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: CUP, 1993) 1–22;CrossRefGoogle ScholarThompson, Leonard L., The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: OUP, 1990) 95–197.Google Scholar

4 E.g., Thompson, 95–197. Collins, Adela Yarbro, Crisis and Catharsis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 54–110;Google ScholarKrodel, Gerhard A., Revelation (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 35–9;Google ScholarWall, R. W., Revelation (NIBC 18; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 10–12.Google Scholar

5 Pleket, H. W., ‘Domitian, the Senate and the Provinces’, Mnemosyne 14 (1961) 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I am indebted to the Revd. Canon John Sweet of Cambridge University for directing me to Pleket (cf. Sweet, 26–7). See also Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (2 vols.; Princeton: Princeton U., 1950) 1.566–92;Google ScholarReicke, B., The New Testament Era (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) 272;Google ScholarJones, B. W., The Emperor Domitian (London: Routledge, 1992) 114;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Krodel, 37.

6 Thompson is a member of the SBL seminar ‘Reading the Apocalypse: The Intersection of Literary and Social Methods’. Other members of this seminar who concur with Thompson's position concerning the social setting include D. E. Aune, D. L. Barr and J. C. Wilson.

7 Thompson, 115.

8 Thompson, 95–115.

9 Thompson, 171–201. For reviews of Thompson, see Collins, Yarbro, JBL 110 (1991) 748–50Google Scholar and my own review in Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 20 (1992–1993) 139–1.Google Scholar

10 Viscusi, P., ‘Studies on Domitian’ (PhD. diss.; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1973) 94.Google Scholar

11 Mili quoque profecto poterit ignosci, si, quod initio, quo primum hanc materiam inchoavi, non feceram, nunc omnes in auxilium deos ipsumque in primis, quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis propitium numen est, invocem, ut, quantum nobis expectationis adiecit, tantum ingenii adspiret dexterque ac volens adsit et me qualem esse credidit faciat (LCL text and translation).

12 LCL translation.

13 Krodel, 38.

14 Cf. Price, 123–6, 197–8; Boring, M. E., Revelation (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1989) 8–23.Google Scholar

15 E.g., Charles, 1.43–7; Sweet, 26–7; Bauckham, , Theology, 12–17.Google Scholar Inprivate discussion, I have learned that Thompson, Aune, Barr, and Wilson hold similar views concerning the function of the letters.

16 Scobie, C. H. H., ‘Local References in the Letters to the Seven Churches’, NTS 39 (1993) 606–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar D. E. Aune comes to similar conclusions concerning the letters, but he fails to discern the implications for an investigation of the social setting (Aune, D. E., ‘The Form and Function of the Proclamation to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2–3’), NTS 36 [1990] 182–204).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Bauckham, , Theology, 14.Google Scholar

18 It is quite possible that the Christians to whom John wrote saw themselves in some way connected to the synagogue. We are not certain when Jews and Christians became separate organizations and there is no reason to believe that it occurred at the same time in every region of the Roman Empire. The fact that the Asian Jewish community feels a need to contest the Christian community indicates that the Jews themselves saw the Christians as being related to them in some way (cf. Collins, Yarbro [Crisis, 85–7]Google Scholar and Wall [10] who have similar arguments). Even Rev 2.8–11 then, from John's perspective, might be an internal matter.

19 Josephine Ford makes a helpful distinction between persecution and oppression. She says persecution refers to an official state programme of systematic and consistent discrimination and harassment, while oppression is an unofficial, localized crisis (SBL Seminar, Reading the Apocalypse: The Intersection of Literary and Social Methods, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Nov. 18, 1995). I find this distinction helpful in general and will use oppression, suppression and repression as references to a regional maltreatment of Christians by Jews and Gentiles alike.

20 Elliott, J. H., A Home for the Homeless (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 21–58.Google Scholar

21 Other examples throughout the New Testament include Matt 24.9; Luke 21.12; John 15.21; Acts 5.41 and 1 Pet 4.14. While most scholars would argue that Matthew and Luke employ common sources, most scholars would also argue that John, Acts and 1 Peter incorporate different, independent traditions.

22 Other examples include James 1.2–3; Heb 12.3; 1 Pet 1.6–7; 4.12 and Rev 7.14.

23 Cf. Rev 5.9–10.

24 On the dates of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Ephesians, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation, see, for example, discussions in the following works: Marxsen, W., Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968);Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975);Google ScholarKoester, H., Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982);Google ScholarFreed, E. D., The New Testament: A Critical Introduction (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1986);Google ScholarSpivey, R. A. and Smith, D. M., Anatomy of the New Testament (5th ed.; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).Google Scholar

25 Those who argue for a pre-70 date include Kelly, J. N. D., A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (HNTC; New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1969) 27–30;Google ScholarMiller, D. G., On this Rock: A Commentary on First Peter (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1993) 40;Google ScholarGrudem, W., I Peter (TNTC; Leicester/Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity/Eerdmans, 1988) 35–7.Google Scholar Those who argue for a post-70 date include Beare, F. W., The First Epistle of Peter (2nd ed., rev.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958) 9–19;Google ScholarElliott, , Home, 78–84.Google ScholarGoppelt, L. (Erste Petrusbrief [MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1978] 43, 62–5)Google Scholar and Balch, D. L. (Let Wives Be Submissive [SBLMS 26; Chico: Scholars, 1981] 137–8)Google Scholar are among those who date the book between 65–90.

26 Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Nature and Purpose of 1 Peter’, NTS 3 (1956–1957) 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Cf. Reicke, B., The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB 37; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964) 69–75;Google ScholarBest, E., I Peter (NCB; London; Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971) 36–9;Google ScholarDavids, P. H., The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 7–9;Google ScholarPerkins, P., First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1995) 15–16;Google ScholarMiller, , Rock, 35;Google Scholar Selwyn, 53; Balch, 137–8; Moule, , NTS 3,1–11;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kelly, 27–30.

28 Elliott, , Home, 78–84.Google Scholar

29 Elliott, , Home, 21–58.Google Scholar

30 Price, 197–8; see also 123–6.

31 Price, 220–3.

32 Price, 197; see also 78–100.

33 I realize completely that the more intense literature need not be the later of the two and I am open to an earlier date. In either case, the parallels between 1 Peter and Revelation are not changed and the conclusions concerning the social setting are not changed significantly either.

34 E.g. Collins, Yarbro, Crisis, 84–110;Google Scholar Boring, 8–23; Krodel, 35–42; Wall, 10–12. See also the work of the classicists Price, 197–8; Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) 772–87.Google Scholar

35 E.g., Ramsay, W. M., The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1893);Google ScholarHardy, E. G., Christianity and the Roman Government (2nd ed.; London, 1906);Google Scholar Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny.

36 Sherwin-White, 780–1.

37 Sherwin-White, 696, 781–4.

38 The Annals of Imperial Rome, 15.44, Loeb translation.

39 Cf. Sherwin-White, 694–6.

40 Boring's, M. E. translation (Revelation [Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1989] 14—15).Google Scholar

41 Elliott, , Home, 78–84.Google Scholar

42 See, e.g., the lists of virtues and duties in Cicero The Ends 19–20; The Duties 1.2.7– 1.3.10; 1.17.53–8; Epictetus Discourses 2.10.7–23; 2.14.13; 3.7.26–7; see, e.g., Rom 13.1–7; Mark 12.13–17; Eph 5.21–6.9; Col 3.18–4.1; 1 Tim 5.1–6.2; 1 Pet 2.13–17. I have chosen the Romans Cicero and Epictetus because they reflect the types of ethical mores common to their culture and, also, because Cicero pre-dates Christianity and Epictetus' life and career overlaps the writing of Revelation. They represent established expectations of social behaviour, modes of behaviour which Christians shared with the broader society.

43 Heller, A., ‘Toward a Sociology of Knowledge of Everyday Life’, Cultural Hermeneutics 3 (1975) 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Cf. Price, 197–8; Collins, Yarbro, Crisis, 100;Google Scholar cf. Rowland, C. C., The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982) 412–13.Google Scholar

45 E.g., Collins, Yarbro, Crisis, 84–110;Google Scholar Boring, 8–23; Krodel, 35–42; Wall, 10–12; Price, 123–6; Sherwin-White, 772–87.

46 See Wilson, S. G., Related Strangers (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995) 1–35.Google Scholar I am appreciative to Graham N. Stanton for directing me to this study.

47 Cf. Rowland, , Open Heaven, 409.Google Scholar

48 Price, 123–6.

49 E.g., Pliny, Letter 10.96–7.Google Scholar See also Stark, R., ‘The Class Basis of Early Christianity from a Sociological Model’, Sociological Analysis 47 (1986) 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 See Price, 123–6; 197–8; 220–2.

51 See, e.g., Dittenberger, W., ed., Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae (OGIS) (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903–5) 54, 212, 245;Google ScholarHunt, A. G. and Edgar, G. C., eds., Select Papyri (2 vols.; LCL; London: William Heinemann, 1932–4) 208;Google ScholarPlutarch, Lysander 18Google Scholar and Dion 29; Walbank, F. W., The Hellenistic World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1982) 209–26;Google Scholar Price, 25–47. This is not to say that there was an unbroken, identical tradition between the Hellenistic ruler-cults and the Roman imperial cult without any differences. Rather, I am here referring to continuities between the two (cf. Price, 23–5).

52 Roman Histories 51.20.6–7; cf. SEG XXIII.206.

53 Reynolds, J. M., ‘Further Information on Imperial Cult in Aphrodisias’, St. Cl. 24 (1986) 109–17.Google Scholar

54 IK 88; IGRR 4.1608c; see also Kokkinos, N., Antonia Augusta: Portrait of a Great Lady (London: Routledge, 1992) 158–62.Google Scholar

55 Price, 123.

56 See, e.g., Price, 24–5, 249–74; Ferguson, J., The Religions of the Roman Empire (Surrey: Thames & Hudson, 1970) 93–8.Google Scholar

57 See Price, xxii–xxvi; 64–5, n. 47; 66–7; 249–74.

58 Price, 25, 51–2, 56–8, 171, 225–7, 239–48.

59 Sherwin-White, 774; Price, 123–6; 97–8. Many NT commentators hold a similar view concerning 1 Peter (e.g., Selwyn, 52–6; Kelly, 5–11; Balch, 138; Elliott, , Home, 87;Google Scholar Davids, 7–9; Perkins, 15–16.

60 Cf. Sherwin-White, 696, 780–4.

61 See n. 42 above.

62 E.g., OGIS 54, 212, 245; SEG XXIII.206; IK 88; Tacitus, Annals 15.44;Google ScholarPliny, Letter 10.6–97;Google Scholar Sherwin-White, 772–87; Price, xxii–xxvi; 123–6; 197–8; 220–2; 249–74; Ferguson, 93–8; Kokkinos, 158–62; Collins, Yarbro, Crisis, 84–100Google Scholar; Boring, 8–23; Krodel, 35–42; Wall, 10–12; Elliott, , Home, 78–84;Google Scholar Balch, 137–8.