Untrue Jews and Synagogue of Satan (15 min to read)
(The following material comes from a lecture that is a part of the “Book of Revelation in Its Jewish Context” LIVE online course. Available exclusively through Israel Study Center. Registration will open within one month. Classes will begin in October. Stay tuned!)
By Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
Rev.2:9 I also know the slander against you by those who call themselves Jews…
The second affirmation of Christ’s intimate acquaintance with the difficulties of Jewish and God-fearing followers of the Way in the city of Smyrna had to do with a slander against them. (Slander is a criminal action of making a false, usually spoken statement damaging to a person's or group of persons’ reputation.) Was Jesus right that the self-proclaimed Jews of Smyrna were not Jews at all? Were the translators right to translate this group as “Synagogue” of Satan? The answer to the first question is a yes, and to the second is a no.
Traditional Interpretation
Traditional interpretation of this passage suggests the Christian Church at Smyrna suffered at the hands of the Jews. The Jews thought they were the people of God but were actually the representatives of Satan. Christians were now the People of God just as Jews once were. Why were these people said not to be the Jews then? It is simple, the traditional theory posits - they were Jews by race and religion only. But they were not spiritual children of Abraham. Paul made the point in his writings that: “A man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit” (Rom.2:29). The Christian Church now was the Israel of God, the “true circumcision” and “the true Jews”, who worshiped God through Christ Jesus.
But there are all kinds of misconceptions and anachronisms that are present in this common and usually unchallenged reconstruction of what took place in the city of Smyrna. This reconstruction that I sought to briefly present above is usually offered together with a story of the martyrdom of the great man of God, Polycarp (“bishop” of Smyrna), disciple the Apostle John. When he was offered life in exchange for a public denial of Jesus and acceptance of Roman Emperor as Lord he uttered now his iconic words: “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He has never done me wrong; how, then, can I blaspheme my King and my Savior!”
If you would be so kind as to write a brief review on one my books, please, click HERE.
Problems with traditional interpretation
The story of Polycarp’s martyrdom, though being one of the greatest stories that inspired millions of Christians for a greater commitment to the Lord, may not be entirely reliable historically. At the very least its authenticity is significantly weakened by the lack of early sources. The earliest manuscripts are dated to the tenth century CE and come across as full of inspirational Christian interpellations. This becomes clear when the story in the Martyrdom of Polycarp is compared to the account as told by Eusebius in his Church History written in the fifth century CE. The differences are considerable. There are other issues like literary parallels with the passion of Christ that are doubtfully coincidental. Moreover, by the fifth century CE Christ-followers have already developed what can be called Historic Non-Jewish (and often-times anti-Jewish) Christianity and therefore it is doubtful that documents coming from under the feather of fifth century Christian historians such as Eusebius can be trusted completely, especially when they involve the Jews.
My point here is not that nothing in Eusebius’ account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp is true. But that we simply do not have ideologically independent and reliable sources to establish the details of martyrdom, especially involving the Jews of the city of Smyrna, claiming that they led the way and encouraged the murder.
The accuracy of Eusebius's account has been called into question many times both today and in the ancient times. For example, in the 5th century, the Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus described Eusebius as writing for “rhetorical finish” and for the “praises of the Emperor” rather than the “accurate statement of facts.” (Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 1.1) The so-called historical methods of Eusebius have been criticized by many modern scholars as well.
My suggestion, therefore, is to leave the story of the dating and the authenticity of these materials to the scholars of later periods and not to allow those accounts of Polycarp (whether they are true, false or only partially so) to influence our reading of a much earlier text of Revelation. We need to be able to read the Letter of Revelation as a first century literary work without borrowing insights and inspiration from later often-times anti-Jewish theology.
If you would be so kind as to write a brief review on one my books, please, click HERE.
A Different Angle
… and really are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
The translation choice of the overwhelming majority of Christian translations of the Book of Revelation for the Greek συναγωγὴ τοῦ σατανᾶ is a synagogue of Satan. This a perfect example of inconsistent and clearly anti-Jewish (though most of the time without any malicious intent) translation. By inconsistency I mean that in the cases when the word synagogue is positive or neutral in meaning it is translated as a “congregation” or as “assembly” (James 2:2 “For if a man comes into your assembly (συναγωγὴ) with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes…”), but in the cases where it is negative, as in this one, it is translated not as congregation or assembly of Satan, but rather something that in modern minds evokes strictly a Jewish affiliation – “the synagogue”.
If we read this text as is normally done in the context of Christian Polycarp being murdered in the mid-second century by the Jews, we will not be able to see any other interpretive options here at all. If we follow traditional trajectory (that the persecuting party were local Jews), we would have to disregard Jesus’ words (that they were not). Jesus says that those who slander his followers in Smyrna were dishonest about being Judeans. They were not Jews. They pretended be so.
One way to look at it is as we discussed before. That is these people are Jews in ethnicity and religion only, but not really in their hearts. But what if Jesus was right literally?! What if these people slandering the Jewish believers in Jesus and those who joined them in following the Jewish Christ were not Judeans/Jews at all? What if they were recent converts to the Judean life-style package from the Romans – a well-known and problematic phenomenon in the Roman Empire? Incidentally, the utter religious zeal is very much characteristic of a religious convert.
A Greco-Roman writer Epictetus who was a Stoic Philosopher residing in Asia Minor at the time of the composition of the Book of Revelation wrote the following: “Why, then do you call yourself a Stoic, why do you deceive the multitude, why do you act the part of a Judean, when you are a Greek? Do you not how each person is called a Judean, a Syrian, or an Egyptian? And when we see someone vacillating, we are accustomed to say, “He is not a Judean, but he is just pretending.” But when he takes up the state of mind of one who has been baptized and made a choice, then he is a Judean in both reality and name. So also we are falsely baptized, Judeans in word, but indeed something else, not in harmony with reason, far from applying the principles we profess, yet priding ourselves for being people who know them (Dissertations 2.9.19-21 = Stern no. 254).”
At the very least we must entertain this as an interpretive possibility and not import into the earlier text our preconceptions and conclusions from the later theological works. It once said that “we are most times blinded not by the lack of knowledge, but by what we think we know so well”.
If you would be so kind as to write a brief review on one my books, please, click HERE.
(The following material comes from a lecture that is a part of the “Book of Revelation in Its Jewish Context” LIVE online course. Available exclusively through Israel Study Center. Registration will open within one month. Classes will begin in October. Stay tuned!)
By Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
Rev.2:9 I also know the slander against you by those who call themselves Jews…
The second affirmation of Christ’s intimate acquaintance with the difficulties of Jewish and God-fearing followers of the Way in the city of Smyrna had to do with a slander against them. (Slander is a criminal action of making a false, usually spoken statement damaging to a person's or group of persons’ reputation.) Was Jesus right that the self-proclaimed Jews of Smyrna were not Jews at all? Were the translators right to translate this group as “Synagogue” of Satan? The answer to the first question is a yes, and to the second is a no.
Traditional Interpretation
Traditional interpretation of this passage suggests the Christian Church at Smyrna suffered at the hands of the Jews. The Jews thought they were the people of God but were actually the representatives of Satan. Christians were now the People of God just as Jews once were. Why were these people said not to be the Jews then? It is simple, the traditional theory posits - they were Jews by race and religion only. But they were not spiritual children of Abraham. Paul made the point in his writings that: “A man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit” (Rom.2:29). The Christian Church now was the Israel of God, the “true circumcision” and “the true Jews”, who worshiped God through Christ Jesus.
But there are all kinds of misconceptions and anachronisms that are present in this common and usually unchallenged reconstruction of what took place in the city of Smyrna. This reconstruction that I sought to briefly present above is usually offered together with a story of the martyrdom of the great man of God, Polycarp (“bishop” of Smyrna), disciple the Apostle John. When he was offered life in exchange for a public denial of Jesus and acceptance of Roman Emperor as Lord he uttered now his iconic words: “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He has never done me wrong; how, then, can I blaspheme my King and my Savior!”
If you would be so kind as to write a brief review on one my books, please, click HERE.
Problems with traditional interpretation
The story of Polycarp’s martyrdom, though being one of the greatest stories that inspired millions of Christians for a greater commitment to the Lord, may not be entirely reliable historically. At the very least its authenticity is significantly weakened by the lack of early sources. The earliest manuscripts are dated to the tenth century CE and come across as full of inspirational Christian interpellations. This becomes clear when the story in the Martyrdom of Polycarp is compared to the account as told by Eusebius in his Church History written in the fifth century CE. The differences are considerable. There are other issues like literary parallels with the passion of Christ that are doubtfully coincidental. Moreover, by the fifth century CE Christ-followers have already developed what can be called Historic Non-Jewish (and often-times anti-Jewish) Christianity and therefore it is doubtful that documents coming from under the feather of fifth century Christian historians such as Eusebius can be trusted completely, especially when they involve the Jews.
My point here is not that nothing in Eusebius’ account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp is true. But that we simply do not have ideologically independent and reliable sources to establish the details of martyrdom, especially involving the Jews of the city of Smyrna, claiming that they led the way and encouraged the murder.
The accuracy of Eusebius's account has been called into question many times both today and in the ancient times. For example, in the 5th century, the Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus described Eusebius as writing for “rhetorical finish” and for the “praises of the Emperor” rather than the “accurate statement of facts.” (Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 1.1) The so-called historical methods of Eusebius have been criticized by many modern scholars as well.
My suggestion, therefore, is to leave the story of the dating and the authenticity of these materials to the scholars of later periods and not to allow those accounts of Polycarp (whether they are true, false or only partially so) to influence our reading of a much earlier text of Revelation. We need to be able to read the Letter of Revelation as a first century literary work without borrowing insights and inspiration from later often-times anti-Jewish theology.
If you would be so kind as to write a brief review on one my books, please, click HERE.
A Different Angle
… and really are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
The translation choice of the overwhelming majority of Christian translations of the Book of Revelation for the Greek συναγωγὴ τοῦ σατανᾶ is a synagogue of Satan. This a perfect example of inconsistent and clearly anti-Jewish (though most of the time without any malicious intent) translation. By inconsistency I mean that in the cases when the word synagogue is positive or neutral in meaning it is translated as a “congregation” or as “assembly” (James 2:2 “For if a man comes into your assembly (συναγωγὴ) with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes…”), but in the cases where it is negative, as in this one, it is translated not as congregation or assembly of Satan, but rather something that in modern minds evokes strictly a Jewish affiliation – “the synagogue”.
If we read this text as is normally done in the context of Christian Polycarp being murdered in the mid-second century by the Jews, we will not be able to see any other interpretive options here at all. If we follow traditional trajectory (that the persecuting party were local Jews), we would have to disregard Jesus’ words (that they were not). Jesus says that those who slander his followers in Smyrna were dishonest about being Judeans. They were not Jews. They pretended be so.
One way to look at it is as we discussed before. That is these people are Jews in ethnicity and religion only, but not really in their hearts. But what if Jesus was right literally?! What if these people slandering the Jewish believers in Jesus and those who joined them in following the Jewish Christ were not Judeans/Jews at all? What if they were recent converts to the Judean life-style package from the Romans – a well-known and problematic phenomenon in the Roman Empire? Incidentally, the utter religious zeal is very much characteristic of a religious convert.
A Greco-Roman writer Epictetus who was a Stoic Philosopher residing in Asia Minor at the time of the composition of the Book of Revelation wrote the following: “Why, then do you call yourself a Stoic, why do you deceive the multitude, why do you act the part of a Judean, when you are a Greek? Do you not how each person is called a Judean, a Syrian, or an Egyptian? And when we see someone vacillating, we are accustomed to say, “He is not a Judean, but he is just pretending.” But when he takes up the state of mind of one who has been baptized and made a choice, then he is a Judean in both reality and name. So also we are falsely baptized, Judeans in word, but indeed something else, not in harmony with reason, far from applying the principles we profess, yet priding ourselves for being people who know them (Dissertations 2.9.19-21 = Stern no. 254).”
At the very least we must entertain this as an interpretive possibility and not import into the earlier text our preconceptions and conclusions from the later theological works. It once said that “we are most times blinded not by the lack of knowledge, but by what we think we know so well”.
If you would be so kind as to write a brief review on one my books, please, click HERE.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário