Hellenist Christian sources, perplexed at how to distinguish Hellenist "bad guys" from Hellenist "good guys," have waxed extensively and imaginatively attempting to describe Nikolaitans as apostate while retaining their Hellenist (Christian) doctrines as "good." Historians, by contrast, acknowledge that quite little is known about them. Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius assume that they are 2nd-century Ophite-Gnostics tracing back to "Nicolas—from Antakya, Turkey—the Deacon." However, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and Theodoret, who also condemn the Nikolaitans as Gnostics, do not trace them back to "Nicolas the Deacon" ("Nicolaitans," Smith & Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography (New York: AMS, 1974), Vol. IV, p. 41).
It seems clear that the former group assumed the non-existent connection because of a similarity of names. This may be attributable to a misreading of verses 14-15, in which an element of that congregation ("you have those") had assimilated into licentiousness, the main congregation ("you") similarly assimilated, but in a somewhat different direction—of the Nicolaitans. The latter do not logically inherit the attributes of the former.
Νικολαιτων (Nikolaiton; Nicolaitan) is a play on words. It's literal meaning is Νικο (Niko; conqueror of) [the] λαιτων (laiton; laity); the significance of which soon becomes clear (explained below). Moreover, cast as the opposite to Antipas (see note verse 13), the primary legal adversary of Herod Antipas (e.g. in his legal disputes with his brother Archelaus) was Nicolas of Damascus (B.C.E. 64). The primary attribute of the Nicolaitans, therefore, was their adversarial role against Herod Antipas—i.e. the Nicolaitans were primarily distinguished by their opposition to the Hellenist pro-Herod Antipas Hellenist Herodian-Boethusians.
Although promoted to priesthood by Herod, the Boethusians were a non-priestly family—laity; a lay element that predominated the 1st-century, Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoqim (Hellenized to "Sadducees," see NHM note 3.7.2)—Ko·han·ei′ hâ-Rësh′ a
Thus, the clearly Hellenist author was rebuking the Hellenist Turkish congregation for sympathizing with those who opposed the Hellenist (Herodian-Boethusians) pseudo-Tzәdoqim. (See also NHM note 22.16.1.)
 |
|
 |