|
|
PSCO Minutes
March 10, 1988
"The Influence of Genesis 6.1-4 on Demonology"
Presentation by Elaine Pagels
Elaine Pagels from Princeton University presented a portion of her
larger project on the interpretation of Genesis in early Christianity
(ultimately published as Adam, Eve and the Serpent). She opened her talk
with a quote from Peter Brown's The Making of Late Antiquity: "For
Justin and his contemporaries, the story of the mating of the angels
with the daughters of men and so forth was not a distant myth, but it
was a map on which they plotted the disruptions and tensions around
them." In her work studying the readings of Genesis, she was interested
in how the gnostic myths were related to the issues and choices that
faced the people who told these stories, and the connections between the
kind of society and the kind of stories they tell, and relationship of
all of that to power. In tracing out interpretations of Genesis,
though, she came to the use of these texts by the apologists.
She found that Justin uses Genesis 6 a great deal, using the demons as
an explanation for the evil behavior of the Roman pagans around him. The
prevalence of the demons in his argument was a fact that she had never
really noticed before. In fact, she presented evidence of a claim in
scholarship that Christians were indifferent to Roman institutions and
approved of Roman politics, and were essentially rationalistic. However,
in her reading she kept bumping up against Justin talking very seriously
about the demons, and this made her doubt the claim that Christians
rejected the spirits and the powers, and in so doing were more
rationalistic than pagans.
Pagels, in fact, argued that Christians were not apolitical, nor were
they simple philosophical dissidents. They were dissidents, but they
were also more radical they were in some sense religious fanatics. At
first, when attempting to understand what was happening with the
persecution of Christians she had seen it as a terrible
misunderstanding, that the two groups were just talking past each other
and not understanding each other's metaphors (such as in the Gospel
account of Pilate asking Jesus if he was a king, and his comment to his
followers that his kingdom was in heaven). Rather, the conflict between
Christians and pagans was extremely serious, and goes to the heart of
issues like social order and power.
She thought that Justin's understanding of demons is directly related to
his idea of the contemporary world, such as what's happening in the
courts to the Christians. Imperial propaganda at that time was focused
on claims to a family relationship between the emperor's family and the
gods. They were expanding the ideology of imperial power, showing their
legitimacy on the basis of claims to divinity. Justin and the emperor,
then, are really speaking in the same terms. He is not just a simple
citizen, although that is one of rhetorical poses he is offering a
damning inversion of imperial propaganda. In fact, as Pagels sees it,
the Christian perspective on power is very complex. They view the
government as coming from God, but people like Justin argue that this
God-given institution has been usurped by demons. Justin's overall goal
is not to please the authorities, but to please God, and in that he is
more hostile and dangerous to Roman social order than we might have
thought. The judges who condemned him understood that this kind of
attack on the gods and the Roman power structures would be extremely
serious and dangerous, if believed.
In fact, what Justin is doing is attacking the whole theology of power.
Christian attacks on the Gods are connected to social, cultural, and
political attitudes. For example, calling the god Jupiter a pederast and
an adulterer in a city filled with images of the emperor enthroned as
Jupiter was definitely not without risk. Also, she reminds us that in
the Roman Empire the political and religious are not separate things at
all.
The subversive message is inherent in the Christians, unlike other
philosophical dissidents. The Christians always referred to their
enemies by name, and show themselves as different kinds of critics. The
didn't just talk to other philosophers, they spoke to the masses. They
were also not just attacking the structures of Empire, but also offering
a positive message. For example, Clement says that the emperor is not
the image of God on earth, but rather God is present in the mind. If all
are created in the image of god, he asks, why should we worship a
tyrant? Christians are making a radical argument about the nature of
liberty. Unlike the Stoics, who saw freedom as living under a good
emperor, the Christians saw liberty as freedom from oppression. The
Christians even offered a hostile critique of history rather than the
claim that the Romans were helped by the gods to become the most
powerful on earth, the Christians said they won because they were brutal
and worshipped demons, who helped them with conquer the world.
See also the presentations by George Nickelsburg and
David Utz and the ensuing
Discussion with Nickelsburg, Pagels, and Utz
For related materials,
consult other PSCO presentations and discussions on the topic for
the 1987-1988 seminar,
"Principalities and Powers:
Demons and Angels in the World of Late Antiquity".
|