tinction between concepts and instances” (1996, 22). This may be so. But
it is difficult to shake the feeling that, in drawing such a straight line
between Diaspora Judaism in the Roman Empire and Diaspora Judaism in
post-emancipation Europe, one is inevitably overlooking cultural and social
differences that are far from trivial. Similar reservations have been expressed
by Harry O. Maier, who suggests that Stark’s network analysis would have
benefited from a closer study of the hierarchical structure of ancient soci-
ety. In Maier’s words, “The application of general laws or concepts to
account for particular behaviours ignores context-specific determinants of
differing historical phenomena” (1998, 331).
Let us leave these reservations aside, however, in order to consider
whether the substance of Stark’s argument regarding the appeal of Chris-
tianity to marginalized Jews can be supported from the Gospel of John; or,
conversely, whether it can shed light upon the Johannine community. The
Gospel of John implies a division between the Jewish leadership, which is
centred in Jerusalem, and the Jewish populace. In John 7, for example, this
division is expressed by the crowds in Jerusalem, who speak of their lead-
ers in the third person: “Now some of the people of Jerusalem were saying,
‘Is not this the man whom they are trying to kill?’ And here he is, speak-
ing openly, but they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really
know that this is the Messiah?’” (7:25–26). A similar division is implied in
John 12:10, which records the chief priests’ plan to execute Lazarus, “since
it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were
believing in Jesus” (12:11). The Pharisees and the chief priests use their
power to question John the Baptist (1:19–25), to exclude from the synagogue
the parents of the man born blind (9:22), to interrogate Jesus and to deliver
him to Pilate (18:19–28). The crowds, on the other hand, are attracted to
Jesus (12:19), weigh the arguments for and against Jesus’ Christological
claims (7:25–43), and even believe in him (12:11). Among those sympathetic
to Jesus, only Nicodemus has some position within the authoritative group
(3:1; 7:50); his association with Joseph of Arimathea suggests that his pro-
Jesus sympathies are not directly known to others within his social group
(Tanzer 1991, 285–300).
On a two-level reading of the Gospel of John, it might be argued that
these divisions demarcate two groups of Jews, with the Jewish authorities
representing mainstream Judaism based in Jerusalem and the crowds rep-
resenting marginal, accommodated Diaspora Judaism attracted to the
Christian message. This has been argued, for example, by van Unnik, who
accounts for the presence of both positive and negative characterizations
of the Jews in the Gospel of John by suggesting that “there is a distinction
Rodney Stark and “The Mission to the Jews” 207