Greek (SBLGNT): Οἶδά σου
τὴν θλῖψιν καὶ τὴν πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ πλούσιος εἶ, καὶ τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐκ
τῶν λεγόντων Ἰουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτούς, καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν, ἀλλὰ συναγωγὴ τοῦ
Σατανᾶ. μηδὲν φοβοῦ ἃ μέλλεις πάσχειν. ἰδοὺ μέλλει βάλλειν ὁ διάβολος ἐξ ὑμῶν εἰς φυλακὴν ἵνα πειρασθῆτε, καὶ ἕξετε θλῖψιν ἡμερῶν δέκα. γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου, καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς.
See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2%3A9-10&version=SBLGNT
Revelation 2:9-10 constitutes part of the resurrected Christ's direction to the seven congregations: the ecclesia and "angel" he now addresses is Smyrna. The city was in Asia Minor (now Izmir, Turkey), "about forty miles north of Ephesus." See the extended note in C. Koester, Revelation, 271-273.
Strabo writes: "the distance from Ephesus to Smyrna is a journey, in a straight line, of
three hundred and twenty stadia, for the distance to Metropolis is
one hundred and twenty stadia and the remainder to Smyrna, whereas the
coasting voyage is but slightly short of two thousand two hundred" (Geography XIV.1.2).
One source defines stadia (plural of stadium) as "an ancient Greek and Roman unit of length," with a stadium equaling approximately 607 feet (185 meters). See https://www.wordreference.com/definition/stadia
With some of the historical context in mind, I will now provide a translation and analysis of 2:9-10, drawing on numerous NT sources (books, journal articles, and lexica).
Οἶδά σου
τὴν θλῖψιν καὶ τὴν πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ πλούσιος εἶ-"I know your tribulation and poverty, but you are rich"
Beckwith, Apocalypse, page 453: θλῖψιν, tribulation : the context shows that persecution of some kind is meant ; the meaning cannot be restricted to the sufferings of poverty. That the poverty of the Smyrnaean Christians was due to the confiscation of their property and so was a part of their persecution (the view of some com.) is without intimation here, though it is conceivable. —πλούσιος, rich: i.e. in spiritual possessions, cf. [Rev] 3:18, 2 Co. 6:10, Mt. 6:20. For the writer's habit of inserting a parenthesis see p. 243.
τὴν πτωχείαν conveys the idea of extreme poverty and destitution--being completely impoverished (Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ).
David Aune (Revelation 1-5, WBC) says the Smyrnaean poverty is literal, " but it is used in opposition to πλουσίος, 'rich,' understood figuratively, probably in terms of eschatological wealth (Luke 6:20 = Matt 5:3; Matt 6:19–21 = Luke 12:33–34; Luke 12:21; 2 Cor 6:10; Jas 2:5). The Stoics also used the Greek and Latin terms for 'wealth' figuratively (Seneca Ep. 62.3). Philo was dependent on the Stoic paradox that only the wise and virtuous person was really 'rich' (Philo, Praem. 104; Som. 1.179; Plant. 69 [here he uses παραδοξολογεῖν, 'paradox']; Sob. 56; Fuga. 17; Quod Omn. Prob. 8, 'You call those rich [πλουσίους] who are utterly destitute'; Arnim, SVF 1, § 220; 3, § 589–603). The term πτωχοὶ, 'poor,' is used literally in 13:16 (in opposition to πλουσίοι, 'rich') but figuratively in 3:17. The fact that no mention is made of the economic poverty of the other six Christian communities suggests that the situation of this congregation is unusual."
καὶ τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐκ
τῶν λεγόντων Ἰουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτούς-"and the blasphemy by those saying they are Jews" (claiming themselves to be Jews)
Beckwith (Apocalypse) has "reviling, calumny" for βλασφημίαν. He adds these observations:
ἑαυτούς: for this use of the reflex. pron. in the acc. with an infin., especially εἶναι, whose subject is the same as that of the governing word (λεγόντων), cf. 3:9 Ac. 5:36, 8:9; see Blass § 72,2. Usually a certain emphasis is given to the pron., but that is not the case here.
See Jan Lambrecht. "Jewish Slander: A Note On Revelation 2,9-10."
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, vol. 75.4, 1999, pp. 421-429.
καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν, ἀλλὰ συναγωγὴ τοῦ
Σατανᾶ-"and they are not, but [they are] a synagogue of Satan"
Robert H. Mounce (The Book of Revelation): The hostile Jews of Smyrna were, in fact, “a synagogue of Satan” (the latter term is Hebrew and means “adversary”; its Greek equivalent means “slanderer” or “false accuser”). Regardless of their national descent, they had become, by their bitter opposition to the church and its message, a synagogue carrying out the activities of God’s supreme adversary, Satan.
William Mounce defines Σατανᾶς as "an adversary, opponent, enemy"; it has special reference to Satan the Devil in the GNT. Compare Revelation 12:9-10; 20:2.
According to Ranko Stefanovic, emperor worship was mandatory and persecution from the local Jewish population was at fever pitch in the late first century: he also points to the slander that early Christians reportedly endured (Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 118).
μηδὲν φοβοῦ ἃ μέλλεις πάσχειν-"Do not fear the things you are about to suffer"
μηδὲν is accusative singular neuter of μηδείς ("no one, not anyone").
Grant R. Osborne (Revelation): They are not to fear ἃ μέλλεις πάσχειν (ha melleis paschein, what you are about to suffer). Their “suffering” is imminent and unavoidable. Radl (EDNT 2:404) points out that in this book the two categories of μέλλω in the NT epistles are combined: imminent persecution and the anticipation of the eschaton, as “martyrdom is connected with the end” (2:10; 3:10; 6:10–11; cf. 1:9; 8:13; 10:7; 12:4–5; 17:8). Their lot was not a pleasant one, but God assures them that he will be with them.
G.K. Beale (The Book of Revelation) notes that the μηδὲν φοβοῦ formulation comes from Isaiah. See Judges 6:23; Isaiah 41:10, 13; 43:1, 5; 44:2; 54:4; Lamentations 3:57; Daniel 10:12, 19.
ἰδοὺ μέλλει βάλλειν ὁ διάβολος ἐξ ὑμῶν εἰς φυλακὴν ἵνα πειρασθῆτε-"Look, the Devil will throw (cast) some of you into prison that you might be tested"
Osborne on ἰδοὺ: The imminent persecution is now further clarified by imminent imprisonment. John introduces this segment with his characteristic ἰδού (idou, behold), a term found twenty-six times in the Apocalypse, six times in the seven letters, where its purpose is to draw attention to a particularly crucial point, here the extent of the suffering awaiting them.
Moses Stuart points out that ἵνα could be telic ("in order that") or ecbatic ("so that"): he prefers the telic sense here, which might signify Satan's reason for tempting the Smyrnaean Christians. See A Commentary on the Apocalypse, page 472.
καὶ ἕξετε θλῖψιν ἡμερῶν δέκα-"and you will have tribulation ten days"
Beale: That they “will have ten days of tribulation” is an allusion to Dan. 1:12–15, where the “testing” of Daniel and his three friends “for ten days” is repeated twice. Most commentators seem to concur that ἡμερῶν δέκα represents a short period of time. See Stuart, page 472; Jurgen Roloff, Revelation, pages 48-49.
γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου, καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς-"be faithful to death, and I will give you the crown of life"
γίνου is present middle imperative second singular of γίνομαι (see 1 Timothy 4:12; Revelation 3:2): the verb form occurs 5x in the GNT. It has the sense here of "prove to be, be found, show yourself to be" (BDAG 199).
Trench (Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, pages 146-147) argues that ἄχρι θανάτου "is an intensive, not an extensive, term." In other words, he believes the focus of Christ's utterance is not temporal, but it focuses on the quality or degree of suffering imposed on the Smyrnaeans (i.e., be faithful even unto death).
θανάτου likely signifies a "violent death" (Stuart) or the death penalty (ultimum supplicium).
"He who died and lived again will bestow upon them the crown of life, the crown of the kingdom, incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."See Milligan, William. The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 742-743). Kindle Edition.
For δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς, see also 1 Corinthians 9:24, 25; Philippians 3:14; 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 3:10; 4:4. Robert L. Thomas explains τῆς ζωῆς in this verse and others: "A genitive of apposition, 'the crown which is life,' renders a more satisfactory sense for the expression" (Revelation 1-7, page 173). See how the NET Bible renders Revelation 2:10.
In the scholarly literature, there has been some discussion about the "crown of life." Margaret Barker offers this information (Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 105): "Peter exhorted the church elders to tend their flocks: 'And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory' (1 Pet. 5.4), and the Community Rule at Qumran promised to the faithful 'healing, great peace in a long life and fruitfulness together with everlasting blessing and eternal joy in life without end, a crown of glory and a garment of majesty in unending light' (1QS IV). It has been suggested that this image derived from the victor's crown at the games, but it is more likely to be a reference to the high priest's golden diadem which was worn around his turban (Ben Sira 45.12; 1 Macc. 10.20)."
BDAG: award or prize for exceptional service or conduct, prize, reward fig. (LXX; ApcEsdr 6:17, 21 p. 31, 26 and 31 Tdf.; as symbol of victory ANock, ClR 38, 1924, 108 n. 11). In 1 Cor 9:25 (ref. to incorruptibility) and 2 Cl 7:3 (s. 1 above) the ref. to crown or wreath is strongly felt, but in the pass. that
follow the imagery of the wreath becomes less and less distinct, yet
without loss of its primary significance as a symbol of exceptional
merit (Ael. Aristid. 27, 36 K.=16 p. 397 D.: τῶν ἀθανάτων στ.; PSI 405, 3 [III b.c.]; Danker, Benefactor 468–71). Obj. gen. τ. δικαιοσύνης for righteousness (recognition of uprightness is a common topic in Gr-Rom. decrees; s. δικαιοσύνη 3a; on the implied exceptional character of the wearer of a crown s. LDeubner, De incubatione capitula duo, 1899, 26) 2 Ti 4:8 (on posthumous award s. New Docs 2, 50; cp. Soph., Phil. 1421f of glory after suffering). W. epexegetical gen. (this is the sense of στ. δικαιοσύνης EpArist 280; TestLevi 8:2) ὁ στέφ. τῆς ζωῆς (s. ζωή 2bβ) Js 1:12; Rv 2:10; cp. 3:11; ὁ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας στ. MPol 17:1; 19:2; ὁ ἀμαράντινος τῆς δόξης στ. 1 Pt 5:4 (cp. Jer 13:18 στ. δόξης; La 2:15; cp. 1QS 4:7; 1QH 9:25; τῆς βασιλείας στ. Hippol., Ref. 9, 17, 4).—ἐλευθέριος στ. AcPl Ha 2, 31.—MBlech, Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen 1982 (lit.).—Schürer III/1 103f, n. 60 (lit). Pauly-W. XI 1588–1607; Kl. Pauly III 324f; BHHW II 999f.—New Docs 2, 50. DELG s.v. στέφω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
See Ralph Earle, Word Meanings, page 459; Trench, Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, pages 146-150; Roloff, Revelation, page 49.
6 comments:
Very interesting, as you know the work I've done in my two books has focused a lot on the eschatological reversal in terms of social class, so my eyes light up every time I see it around.
I can't remember where I read it, but I remember reading a theory about the synagogue of Satan being a Pauline community, whereas the author of Revelation being a "Judiazer," I don't buy it, but it was a interesting argument.
There are parallel thoughts with regards to the eschatological reversal in 1 Cor 4:8, where it's as though the reversal has already happened.
Margaret Barker is a fascinating scholar, I don't think many have followed her in her reconstructions, but I always enjoy reading someone who approaches the issues in a novel and interesting way, even if they end up being wrong they are gems to be found along the way.
BTW, there have been some discussions as to whether or not Revelation (and other apocalytpic literature) is really about cosmic prophetic revelations, or thinly veiled political agitation ... by own idea is that in the apocalyptic ideology, the cosmic and otherworldly simply WAS earthly and political and the early and political WAS cosmic and otherworldly, so it's both and.
Yes, I do remember that emphasis/focus in your books and I came across a number of views on the "synagogue of Satan" part, even one explanation that I thought was not in the ballpark at all. However, I don't remember the example you mention. It sounds interesting but doesn't seem plausible to me at this point.
I appreciate Margaret Barker's observations too: her Revelation commentary is like no other and filled with references upon references from various sources. On the other hand, I think she tries to impose temple thinking upon almost everything, but Barker is not alone in this regard.
I don't agree with Richard Bauckham on many things, but his Climax of Prophecy persuasively argues for the prophetic element of Revelation. I've always been attracted to the idea that Revelation is countercultural and I like to study the rhetorical aspects of the book. I know you've previously talked about ancient politics versus modern politics and I agree that they're not the same, but I usually resist the tendency to explain Revelation as political ideology, etc. Admittedly, this all depends on how terms are defined: yet IMO, it's just important to remember the focus as laid out by John (e.g., Rev. 1:1-3; 19:10 and so forth). If not careful, all the side analyses can take us down rabbit holes. I love analyzing Revelation, but try not to lose the bigger picture.
Let's also not forget the metaphorical aspects of Revelation :-)
I do think revelation is prophetic, I haven't studied enough on that book to be confident on any historical argument though. I would love to get more into Revelation as it's one of the most lively and colorful books in the new testament.
Margret Barker has a very strange take on the development of Israelite religion, it relies on some playing with the Hebrew text (which she claims was redacted), she argues that you had a Mosiac like largely pushed after Josiah, and an older line with a mother goddess that was more focused on the temple ... it's a rather convoluted reconstruction, but she does notice interesting things here and there.
The Synagogue of Satan as Pauline I first ran across with David Hart, who was citing someone else who I forget.
When it comes to Apocalyptic literature in general, I don't think it could be treated as a kind of 1:1 political text (like 2 Maccabees or something), but I do think it is often associated with political crises, and sort of functions as a contextualizing of them, i.e. "things look really bad now, but there are much larger forces at work and in the end YHWH's purpose will prevail."
Christopher Rowland's "Open Heaven" is among the best treatments of apocalyptic literature I've read, he's very balanced, and he doesn't rule out genuine visionary experiences by the apocalyptic sages, in fact he argues from internal evidence (along with anthropological evidence) that many of them actually were (including the NT apocalypse).
I used Barker's book about Israel's angel when writing my angelomorphic thesis, and while it's useful in some ways, I reject the speculative aspects of her overall theological framework. In general, I find most (all?) redactional schemas for the OT/NT to be highly speculative. I say this to the redaction critics: either show me textual evidence or temper your redactional claims. Wellhausen is one of the worst offenders :-)
Thanks for mentioning Hart; I did read his remarks on Rev. 2:9-10 in his NT translation. We have many attempts to reconstruct the "synagogue of Satan," but no historical evidence remains for a suitable reconstruction.
I agree with you about Rowland. A highly recommended work.
I agree with the redaction criticism, I do sometimes think it's necessary to posit (I still basically hold to the two source theory of the synoptic gospels, but I'm torn between Maurice Casey's chaotic version, where basically "Q" is a collection of sayings both written and oral rather than a coherent document, and the more standard Q as a sayings gospels version .... although I do think that the logoi of Matthew in Papias is something like Q).
However, there are some who get carried away with it, I'm not familiar with Hebrew scholarship, so I can't comment on that, but the Q people often go a little crazy, I remember researching for Jesus's Manifesto and finding all kinds of bizzare arguments for cutting it up into redaction layers, and they all end up basically assuming that if one notices a slight variation in focus, or a variation in framing, or a variation in topic, it must be due to a redactor. However, if one just reflects on how normal people talk, and how normal authors write, there are almost always many many layers of meaning, people shift between various modalities, people move from the macro to the micro and back again. So once you allow for the writers to have complex thinking, (and even the historical Jesus), you remove the need to posit all this redaction. A lot of these guys will assume if what's being talked about is "earthly concerns" that's original, but if it's "otherworldy" that's later redaction .... yet at the same time they will admit that the ancient mind did not distinguish the two as the modern mind does ... so why not just start out with assuming that it's possible for the authors to chew gum and walk at the same time :).
As always, your input is valued here. Regarding the GNT, I like Paul Anderson's critique of Bultmann's form-critical approach to GJohn. He exposes much of the speculation in Bultmann and unwarranted assumptions he makes. Speaking of redaction layers in the GNT, it's not only the Gospels but also the Epistles like 1 and 2 Corinthians. It's hard to keep up with all the suggestions for those books.
On the Hebrew Bible/OT side, the big issue has been source criticism with the Documentary Hypothesis being the big attraction. Try keeping up with the JEPD stuff: scholars finally started to question it, in earnest.
On your last remarks, I watched a YT video the other day where the presenter said Paul couldn't have written Hebrews, then he backtracked a little, but he said Paul was smart and a clever fellow--however, the presenter stated that the writer of Hebrews was highly educated and wrote a highly refined style of Greek.
While the observations about the quality of Greek in Hebrews are correct, I see no reason why Paul could not have written that type of Greek too. Linguists speak about "register," which usually varies depending on one's social location. Here's a quick definition of register from simple Wikipedia:
"A register, in linguistics, is the way people use different words, spelling or grammar—talk or write differently—to different people, in different situations. They might be more polite to strangers, for example. Or they will be more respectful to their boss at work. Formality scale."
So, I speak differently at home or in the Kingdom Hall than in the classroom. Different registers, same person.
Post a Comment