NICOLAITANS
scourging of Jesus, but is really nothing else than His being led before Pilate, as described in Evangel. Nicod., with the obeisance of the footman and the miracle of the standard. The influence which Ussoff alleges to have been exercised by our Gospel upon the miniatures of the Codex Ros- sennenela is certainly rightly questioned by Hase- off.
See, further, art. PILATE (ad /in.).
LirgraturE.—G. L, Brunn, Disquisitio hist.-crit. de indole, @tate, et usu libri apocr. vulgo inscripti Evangel. Nicod., Berlin, 1794; Minter, Wahrscheinliche Zusatze zu Christi Lei eschichte nach Nicod, Evangel., 1816; Thilo, Codex apocr, NT, i., 1882, cxviii-clx, 487-800; A. Maury, Nouvelles recherches sur 0 ἃ laquelle a été composé Pouvrage connu sous le titre d’évangile Nicod?me, 1850; R. Hofmann, Das Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen, Leipzig, 1851, Pp. 334- 471 (an abstract in German, with commen after Thi the same writer’s art. in Hauck’s PRE® i. Tischendorf, Pilati circa Christum ead qu ex Actis Pilati, Lips. 1855; Scholten, De oudste getuigenissen
aande de Schriften des Niewwen Testaments, 1866; R. Lipsius, Dié Pilatus-Akten kritisch untersucht, Kiel,
(21886); Fr. Huidekoper, Indirect testimony of history to the genuineness the Gospels (Works, 1887, il. 106 ff.), Acts of Pilate from ἃ transcript of the Codex designated by Thilo as Paris Ὁ (the g of above article), 1887 (tb.); H. v. Schubert, Die Compos. des trin. Evangelien - Fr ta, 1893 (has also ap {n English), p. 175 ff.; Ad. Harnack, Gesch. ἃ.
altchrist. Litt, τ, 21-24, 865, 907, 922, m. i. 603-612; G. Kriiger, Geach, ἃ. altchrist. Litt. 86; Ad. Graf zu Erbach-Fiirstenau, ‘|’ Evangelo di Nicodemo’ in Archivio storico dell’ arte, ii. 3 (1896), 225-237 ; Haseloff, Codex Rossanensis, 1898, p. 9 ff.; J. Rendel Harris, The Homeric Centones and the Acts of Pilate, London, 1599 (reviewed by the present writer in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1899, p. 888 ff.). von DogscHUtz.
NICOLAITANS (Nixodairal).—Twice mentioned in the NT (Rey 2°: 15) as a sect whose works were hated by the ascended Lord and by the Ephesian Church, but whose teaching was upheld by some professed Christians of Pergamum, and apparently tolerated by the Church there. Nicolaitan doctrine is asso- ciated with ‘the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, (inducing them) to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication’ (Rev 219. As Nicolaitan teaching is said to be held ‘similarly’ (ὁμοίως), we may conclude that the Nicolaitans were a kindred antinomian sect, who abused the doctrine, emphasized by St. Paul, of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic Law. In defiance of that apostle’s warnings (1 Co 6-* 8% 1° 10%)* as well as of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Ac 15%), they permitted participation in heathen feasts con- nected with idolatry and in the fornication which frequently accompanied such feasts. The Nicolai- tans Sy Jaseabe a more advanced and aggressive stage of antinomianism than that which was found in the Corinthian Church. They are organized into a sect, with a ‘doctrine,’ and stand in a nearer relationship to the ‘false teachers’ referred to in Jude * 1-13, 2 P 91. 3. 14.15, who ‘turned the grace of God into lasciviousness,’ ‘denied even the Master’ (probably through countenancing idolatry), and ‘followed the way of Balaam,’ ‘ running riotously in his error.’
It has been doubted by some writers whether any sect actually called Nicolaitans existed. The Bk. of Rev, it is argued, is allegorical, and Νικό- Aaos, ‘conqueror of the people,’ may be regarded as a symbolical name, the Greek equivalent of Balaam (oy>2), which is held to signify either ‘destroyer of the people’ (from oy ans ya) or
* The supposition that the reference in Rev to the Nicolaitans embraces acovert attack on St. Paul or Paulinism (Baur, Renan, Volkmar, and others) is foreclosed by the apostle'’s own testi- mony, although it is ible that certain Nicolaitans professed to be his followers. St. Paul, while not condemning those who bought in the market, or partook of, at an ordinary friendly meal, food which might have been previously sacrificed to idols, is careful to disallow any such participation as would either involve the countenance of idolatry, or ‘ cast a stumbling-block * before any Ohristian brother (see Farrar, Barly ys of Thristianity, i. 243 ff.).
NICOLAITANS 547
‘lord of the people’ (oy and 53, contr. from ys).* But, apart from the fact that the two names are not ate equivalent, and that the Balaamites and Nicolaitans, although associated, are not identi- fied, the numerous early references to the sect and to its claim to have a real Nicolas as its founder (see next article), indicate that the writer of Rev describes heretics really so called. According to Ireneus, they lived ‘lives of unrestrained indul- gence,’ teaching that ‘adultery and eating things sacrificed to idols’ are a matter of ‘ indifierence’ (adv. Her. i. 26). Clement of Alex. speaks of their souls as ‘ buried in the mire of vice’ (Strom. ii. 20). Tertullian stigmatizes them as destroying the happiness of sanctity in their maintenance of lust and luxury (adv. Marc. i. 29, ef. de Pudic. 19). In the Apost. Const. vi. 8, ‘those falsely-called Nicolaitans’ are characterized as ‘impudent in uncleanness.’ ‘Ignatius’ Ganger recension) brands them as ‘impure lovers of pleasure,’ and as ‘addicted to calumnioust+ speeches’ (Trail. 11, Phil. 6). So far, we have merely an echo of what we read in Rev; but other early references indicate that, in addition to immorality, the Nicolaitans were tainted with incipient Gnosticism. Trenzus states (adv. Her. iii. 11) that the Cerin- thian doctrines of a Demiurge distinct from the Supreme God, and of a Doketic Incarnation, had already, before Cerinthus, been disseminated by the Nicolaitans, whom accordingly he describes as a ‘fragment (ἀπόσπασμα) of the Gnosis falsely so- called.’ Tertullian (de Pres. Her. 33) writes of the Cainite Gnostics of his time as modern Nicolai- tans.t Hippolytus also (Ref. Her. vii. 24) and Philastrius (de Her. 88) include the Nicolaitans among Gnostics.