White, J.-anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul- An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation

7/27/2019 White, J.-anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul- An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation

1/29

nti-lmperial ubte 'ts in Paul:n tt mpt at Building a Firmer oundation

\Vithin the la t de ade 01 o intel'e t ~ n o-cal l d a n t i - i 1 n p e r i a ~ ' o,."po t oloniar' readings of Paul has grown imrn n ly in ngl -Ameri n cholarly circle . Though they een1 to have e peciallyflouri hcd in the political climate of the Bu h ra, it i lik ly that tht pie \viii continue to be of inte!re . t ainong the!ologians in the! Engli. hpcaking \.Vorld foi- orne tirn to o r n e ~ not Jen t due to the feet that the

t nn m p i ~ is no long r h jng u ~ d in iL\ con\ ,ent'onal politicalen e. Rathe it ha becon1e a atchword for any po\ver tructure

d cmcd h gcmonic and harn1fuL \Vh thcr spiritu., 1, cconomiecol gjcal 01 otherwi e. The 'anti-imperial P a u r ~ i like! to findhim. elf fighting any number of battles the real Paul ncv r cv nirnagin d: again:t globalization and hedg funds: for gay marriage andpolar b a r ~ . Thus, a 0 reat dt;al i. at stake i11 the: d bate about Pauliandm1pi1c.On ' po. ition ha. implication. for whole ho. t ofqu . tion..

I. Problen1 confrontin the the i of an a n t i - i m p e r i a r PaulJ. La k ofDirect Anti-Rornan Rhetorh

Jn on1e quarter the di cu ion proceed a i f it \Vere an'itablish d fa c that P ul articulated an anti-imperial tht:ologyt hutvalid que tion ren1ain. Luke certainly doe not pre ent Paul a aub crs1v f i g u r ~ in f ct he i at pain to dcfl'.nd Paul again thcharges brought aguinsl him a ~ ~ t n t i - R o m ( u 1 agitator. I n d e e d ~ heportra hi m a '- Ro1nan citizen \Vho i very in ich a\.\d'C of theben fit Rom h;ts sto\\'ed on him. Yet , . n if on dis ounts Lukportrait of Paul a a tendentiou piece of propaganda de igned to

r e h a b ~ l i t a t e hi hero in Roman ey , \Vear till confronted by'- fack ofC! plicit statements by Paul that could be construt'd us , ubversi e.1t tnay well be argued that \YOuld be unrea o n a b l e to expect the1n.

Authoritarian regimes Ii e Rome simply do not tolerate that sort of1hetoric and 110 per on who availed hin1 elf of public fora in the(') Cf. . Ruo1cH, Politic"/ Di. sitle1ue wuler ero. The Price of i ~ intilation (lorn.Jon 1993) 2-12: nth baJancc of ev idence, the Julio' laudit n r e ~ i m

...


2/29

3()6 Joel \VhiteRoman En1pi11 c uld ha\' la ted long if h r or d to it. That Pauln1ade uch taternent wa .. of cou e . the very line ofattack pur ued bhi enemie \ ithin the Jewi h community. According to Luke. Paurbrief hnpri. onment in Philippi re. ulted f10111 c arge . that he wa . , infact i \'otved in anti-Ro1nun ~ e d i t i o n cf. ct 16.21 ). an accusationchat follo cd him to Thes,alonikj, a: well cf. Acts 17.7)1 and his longimpri onmcnt in C a ~ s u n a w.i dut to the polit ical in trigue: of variouRoman officials ho wen.: n : ~ p u n b for . k t ~ n n i n i g ~ h c : t h c r Puulbud bi.: n guilty of h ~ ~ u m ~ crim in Ji;nJ u1i;m (cf. Act-.. 2: .2 2 9 ~2 5 . 8 9 . 1 8 9 ~ 26.3 l). Th fac t tha Paul wns not c o n d : a n n ~ d foredition until the latter part of . ero, reign . when th e ip ror wabecoming in re ingly capl'iciou and dange rou . den1on trate hocareful rhe Aposde mu chave been to avod O\'ert re t ark that could beco ~ r u e d a. an t l- om n f) .2. P a 1 1 1 Positive Vien'ofthP Romarr late (Rn111 13,1-7)

Sti ll , Paurl\ caution can ot e plain the act chat he. eem to lendunequi c x : a l support to Rnm as a divin 1 y 1.ianction d authority in then .. pnssag.. in hich h actu1Hy discuss ~ th r huionship of

ChrisLan: to the imperial state: Rom 11 1.7. From Lime to timt.: it ha.b en argu d that Paul s favorable \ icw of th R m,an go\' mmcnt hcfi conditioned by the tin1e at which h ~ wrote it: in th fir t half ofNero's reign. when it till ee1ned likely that ero \J ould. underSeneca' and BurTu influen e. develop i11 to a ,-.,be and humanerule \ . P a u l ' ~ ~ f e r e n e to che H a u t h o s t i e ~ ( ~ o u a i a 1 , however,likely trans late the Latin par stales, a t rm that referr d ro a hr adra gc of Roman fticiab ). T h u ~ , Paul ~ prer. Rt mc 11. Nc:ro. >.iij : ..I ir t.J \j r i t e ~ and Ot'J.l of the epoch were

a 1ua I L1Ware n f the fod that h ~


3/29

A1lt i-lmperial . ub text in Pi.lu ld aling with th mpcror at all . but about th int ractio of av rageChri ti an with Ron1an magi trate at the local lev 1 where both heand hi 1eader would have been well aware of the potential for abu e.That L not to .. U}. thou h. that the pa . age L orily relevant to the.pecific situation in Rom e. Paur. ar uinent reflect. a bro d Je, Lhpcrspcctive conceming the suhordin-tion ot'' ll humun government loth div ine will C). Thul\"' r gardl :s of h ~ t h r one\\ i h ~ t o r .-d Rom13 1-7 narnn 1) \ ithin its bi. toric:al cunlcxt or broadly us a re flectionof .t a r g ~ r lh ologicul principle. il s c m ~ in principle uL . ; u ~ to uffinntheGod-gi \'cn authori ty of the Roman tat .Thi do not n1 an. of course. that Rom 13 .1-7 i a theologicalcane bhuidu! for any and all u e (or abu c of go\'ernment pO'A'e1'. Infact. it admi 'ab ly circum. cribe s tl e power of the tate by stte .. i11g iL. uh. ervience to God, leav i g little rooln for the ~ e J f - a g g r a n d i z i n giinpe riaJist vi ion of Rom . On this bJ.tsis some n: cnt interprett!r\ huvesugg . , . that Rom 13.l 7 i ac tually quit \Ubv p ~ i vc in int nt. NeilEll iott argu tnat a u inj unctio1110 submit to Rome i ..re markablya t n b i ~ alenf and that it iddcn m ' age 1s: T h e Empire i: asdangerous a. c ha. ve1 been. othin e;: h a ~ changed. e l ' c i ~ ecalttionl ). J w tt beli e ~ that. by attributing th origin of Romanmagisterial govenunent to God. Paul i making revolutionarytatemenf' that wou ld have certain I been viewed a ~ u b v e r ! ) i v e had

..the Ro rnans only n d e r ~ t o o d it "). ltimately. thou this line ofarg lt1 cntation see1ns somewhat contrived. The fa l is that Ro i I 1, J7clearly r cogmiL ' \ rh legitim1cy of th Romm gov rnm "nt. n d ~ dlth preceding p ricop '" injunction to "li ve at p ace '"'ith all m n1 asfar as pos ible" (Ro1n 12, 18). seem to implicitly recogni1e theb e n e f i t ~ the pa.r roma 'w a ~ be . towed upon Ch "st;an.. In any c a ~ e . itren1nm. to e pro\en that Pau s ttnpuL to p r e ~ c r b e Hm t. on Ro nel : ecutiv\; power. even by uppt:uling Co God would huvt! bct:n vic.:wcda . b v c ~ i v c by Roman t n u g i ~ t r a anc.I la\\ t : r ~ . Rome's iJluslriou:

r ~ p u b l i c a n t adition: had 1 a tcr a ll . not b e ~ n ultogetl er forgouen.

}Ct . . K IM. Ch ri. 1 uf PauJ aaitl Lule (Gr.uHJ Rapic.h. t l 20 }8) 37-3 .

f') 'J . ; lOT1 . tra gJC '\ or ~ Wn HiddC'lf Trmf{Cript \ and1lu1 A r t ' ( ~Rt' isUmt e. Apply ing 1th \Vork of James C. con to Jcs u nr1d PatJ I ed. A .lloRSLtY H Se 1neiu t u t . J e ~ 4K: AclanLtL G .. 04) 121.( ) .I ,\\. F.1T, Rmt: WI\ , 1 Q790.


4/29

Joel \! 1hice3. The D(lficulry in ldentij)ingAntf-lmpRrla/Sttbte_'f/., in Puul

in \ J c \ of the ubi-,cnc of direel cvidcnc . proponents o am an lii1npi.:riul Pau l hav .. lum c.l h a t t ~ n t i o n to cxum ining the ubt xt ofPaul \Vriting. Thi i . of cour unobj 'Ctionablc in principle, at I a tjnce modern litera1 0.rrf'l.1ov (" , 811caocn '>v11 ( 11). Ploc/1.rto1 r.t. ( rindrrnpcH>crta(1.:} . o unc r g u c ~ lhis caS(; mofi iunaba:hcdly thun Di l.:h;r

G ~ o r g i in his discus ion of Pwl' Lcll r to th Romun :b. J\'i:ry pttgc or the lcUcJ' con a i ~ in


5/29

Ami -Imperial , btext in Paul 309G orgi hn Ii c ntly g ; r n r d trong upport from Rob rt J w tt. In

hi ma , i e and erudite commentary. Je\ ett argue that Roman i an ~ a n t i - i m p e r i a l i t letter that c o m p r ~ the anti the i of offich1Ip1opaganda about Rome ,uperior piety. ju. uce, ar1d ho 1or' ( 4 Theletter of Romans, far from being a theological tre ati. e, b 1 ot ing J e sthan Paul's answer to Rome\ u'Uf!Xltion of God: rightfuJ po\Jcw,c;tl. like G orgi. i oonvinc d that the vocabulary or Romans. withili-i paralk ls in Ro1nun imperial propaganda makes l h i ~ ab ndandycl ar

By fa r th ' m o ~ t 1n1portant term ecn b) 01ne cholar a ant iin1perial in it in tent i KUpto;. HaiTi on note that th te11n wa u edfrom the tinle of Augu tu in propagating the itnperial cult (1 '). For\\/right thi fact take on trenlendou importance. \Vh ile he doe . riote lect the inipottant OT e ~ o n a n c e s of ch term in Paul, he arg es thath calling J ~ u s Kl)p1oc;, Pau1 i c o n ~ c j o u , l y and w&th tquul conv icti onmaintaining tha l ('a saris 1101 th .. K11>p10.; ("'). Trnis Jin .. of n a oning isfollo\v d by many oth rs. and it would c rtainly o n ~ t i utc primafariecvidcno in favor of th th . that Pau l w a ~ trying to u b v e n R o m e ~ i fit could be prov n.

The argument from o c a b u a r y ~ ho\1 ever. labor under veralproblem : Fir::.t every one of the term 1 lentioned b Georg i ha a rkheptu intal traditio1 . ~ n euny RU1k T\Ote51 *'it is t l l t H ' l i f e ~ t 1 y lear thatP u1 !\election of tenns t$ drive in Jarge part by hi. inter ce \\ i h the

Scriptur s' ( " . Indeed. it hard to ~ c how anyone wancing toproclaim in Gr . k the m ~ ~ " ' g th att J s u ~ of nznr th rcpr s nt d theculmina tion of OT proph tic p elation collld ha\ don so withoutrccour c to that vocabulary. And i f one wanted to bring J MIS into theclo:e t of as .ociation: wtth lsrae ' God. a' Bauc am(''' andHurtado( ) have demon. trated it w a ~ e a r l t e ~ Christianity\ d e ~ i r e to


6/29

310 l'hiteT i l ad to a cond probl n1. inc rnuch of th vocubulny in

que tion ' a already par1 of the early Chur h idiolect before Pau 1took urp hi pen . The term r i p ~ was certainly already being u ed withre eren e to Je, u. in t e Jeru. c.1lem church ' ), and ' t L difficult toi1nagine tha t it or other term in U there in . Cr. and 4(fs 'Were hO!ovellfor their a ti-impcri,d imp1i


7/29

Ant i-Im( eri:il.. bte. t io Puul 31 Ib 'dd d l xt11 ) which i by no m an elf- vid nt. Th ''re manife tlydifferent te tual phe omena. Clearl y_ more work i needed.

Among other nece ary rnea ure I would argue that Poppercri terion of falsifiability('") . hould be rigorou. ly applied to ntii1nperi 1re ding of PauL Proponents of .uch readjng . mu st delin ateh ~ circwms tanc ~ under ' h ich term used hoth hy P ~ u and Rome

should not vicy,: d ts anti-imp "rial in lh ir force. A cross ch.;ck of h ~data in o h ~ r sc>urci:i-. would also b ~ useful. D e x : ~ lhc u c of the tcnns inqui.;stion by oth r ~ w i h wri t rs (Phi lo. for example) n; "Ul tbut t h ~ yar ' inhcrJtntly anti -imperial. Do other Je\ i h wri ter who ~ ' r e mora1nenabJe to Rome (Jo phu ome imn1ed iate1y to mind) a\.oid th nifor r e c i ~ e y that rea on? r u pect that the an wer in both a e i no.4. Anti m p ~ r i a l Exegesi . ofPllrdi11e Texls: l l Bri f s ~ e ~ s m e 1 1 1

Lack of methooological rigor ha led to identi fication of omeunH ely Pauljne pa . age. a.\ . ubve ive in theit intent ~ al l andKee maat argue. for jn. tance. that Pau l's m e phon al .caten1 nt tlhachoth his (Jospel (Col I 6) and the C'n1clssi:ins faith (Col 1 10) arc""b "aring fruit and i m c ~ a ~ i n g is SLJhv rsi\ . h ctu: it d ni s thn tRornc.: is tht.: source.: of fruilf il abundance . RicharcJ Dt:Ma1i s hasrecently po itcd that wuler b a p l ~ m in Corinth V ' t ~ a u b Y c r ~ v c ytnbolthat function ..d a Ha respon c to Ro1nan h c g ~ m o n c control ofwater"(! '"). Such reading em mor ind bted to a pred terminationthat Paul lettern must be fu l I of ubve ive conten t rather th n to acareful i f i n g of thee idence.It ' ould. h we\ er. oolish o d i ~ r e g a r d t h ~ po.. ibil i.ty thac

~ u h rsiv suht ts are pres t he\ rt: in Paul. Thr ~ 1 \ s a g e ! - t inparticular, hH\' b c:n th ubj c t of int n post-coloninl scrutiny andsc m worthy of o r e ~ riou con id ration. The fi n.t two l l f \ ; fou nd inI The sa lonian the one letter that eYen ~ o m keptic view aamenab)e to anti-imperial readi11J!. ofPau l : ).

( - I Ct. K. I PttL . "Fal ifikationi mu oder K o n v e n t j o n ~ l i f i l l ... K t ~ r lPapper l..t"\ebuC'h. uitgt!wiih ht:: Text !! ~ u ~ . 1 1 k c n n n i ~ L h c o r Philoi-uph ie tlcrNah,i rwi. . c:nM:hoften. ~ 1 e . . t p h y : s i ' k , v ~ t l p l 1 1 0 s o p h (ed. D. iftt.LF.R) (UTR2 0 : TUbingcn l 97 L 7- 134 ...( ' l er. B. Wt\t."11 - s. K ITSMA T. Cofo.nit.m\ R mfat(/. U b \ e r t i n ~ cbeFmpirc ( I) w n c ~ Gr v II 001) 70.

( J R.B. DEM \RI ~ , , . T f ! r ; J a m ~ m in R;mal World (London 200 ' J50.( ')Cf. 1.\V. PAUL. Pmrl, th G'>. pdwu.f Empitt . . ~ j k ! t pre nte


8/29

312 Joel \\'hiren I Th , 4, I: - 17We begin with P u u r ~ c.ks


9/29

Am i-Imperial .. bte t. ill Paul 313b) I Th 5.3T h ~ s cont.I pus. age to b considered i. 1 h e ~ s . , : \ hen th "Y

say, "pt;UCI.! and ~ c u r i t y ' dcstruc:Lion wi ll


10/29

314 Joel V hiceplau iblc ca .cnn b " madi.; for a /1adirion.\"l'. chirhtliche link itncr tothe OT proph tic tradition(- ore, n to J u hin1 e l f ( ~

c Ph i l 3.- 0A third le t thuc play' an imporcnnt 11 le in potr-coJon ial read ing. of

Paul is Phil :' .20: ""For our plaoc of ci tizenship (100Ai t f ' \ J ~ t c l is inh av n. and 1t i" from th r" that w ag rl y a\J a1t Ollr a 1or. th LordJe u ~ Ctirisf".The tcn11 noA.i 'tucxcan r fer to the citiz nry. the tate ofb in a. citi1en\ or the place of cit izen. hap, with t e latter being 010 . tlikely. picy no t s that it wa. most cor111nonly used to denote "anotgunit.ulion of' citizen. rn' the sun1 plaPlO


11/29

Ami-lmpel'i.il bte h in Paul 315according to Luk both a citizen of Tarsu and a citiz, n of Rom ~ a n dther i no rea Olfl to b lieve that Ron1e ' ould ha e found hi dualc'ti7e r hip problematic. Thu . a claim to cit17.en hip in heaven mightJave. truck Ro 1an ofticiaJ. odd. but probably noc. in and of it elf.a an un u ceptable ompeting loyalty. urther emu. tn c forge t thatvcn in Philippi, m o ~ t m nih -- rs of th church pro ably d id not havand n ver wou ld have Roman citi7..enship bccaus Rnme \\'Ouldn tthink of rant ing it to the1n. and it not . elf -evident that Rorne \ v o u ~ dha e been bothered by the fact that they Ja1111ed itizen h'p el. ewhere.. . Jn ettrch of ll Righi a#ratiL1e

There then no conipelling e a ~ o n or thin in , that Paul\ e t t e10 the Th ssalonian-.; is particularly sub, rsivc in it int and \l hil Phil 3,-0 make u e o a political m ~ t u p h o r . it i not clear that Paul wa oying to ndennine the Roman empir by means of it. Th i doe notlllean,. however, that propo1enb of a atlt i -arnperiul Paul areco1npfrtdy wro1 eon if tht:y have: o v ~ t s t u ~ d thei rue. or it c ~ 1 nhardly be


12/29

316 Joel \! 'hirecentury wou ld hav adily aue t d ( '') . \Vh il Paul "ffirn1 d th i nan-ativ it did not originate v.ri th hi111. My the i . then. i that Paul'theology doe indeed contain anti-in1peria ele111ent but that the e areOlOfe a fu t ctiot of the fundnment, l1 Jewi. h ap calyptic . tructure ofhi e ~ c h a t o o y tba o hb own signamre t1 eolo y and that the ,treLhercfor i.: less salil!nt than th other\l i ~ c might he. l hy no means\\ i!ithlo d()\\inplay th radictl x t nt lo which P a u l ' ~ Christ logy n1odificdhi: apocalyptic ~ A p ~ c t a t i o n ~ ( ' ) nor do I den., thaL any number of unti

m p ~ r i a i m p l i c a i o n ~ follow fro1n h i ~ Christology. l maintain.howc.;\' r. that what 1nay be COlll ide rc.;d anti-imp 1al in Paul ha it de p e ~ t root not i hi 1Chri tology. which wa no el per


13/29

A m i - m p e t ' i ~ I btexh i11 Poul 317p riodpcrc ivcd R o n ~ o b e t h i r ( u n d t h u G o d ~ ) u 1 t m 1 n a t n my "'}.and further. that they beli ved God would ov rthrow Ron1e. the generale pectation e i n ~ that thi would happen during the eriod \Ve ca ll thee rly Rot uu1 nlpire 1)_ \Vhile che ba . ic .hape of eady Je,vL he chacologkaJ e peel o n ~ can be craced to v a r i o u ~ oracle. of tl'lec. nonical Proph1.:ts, con ictjons with r g: rd Lo lh tjming of the n> u i h l i ~ h m nt of th r ign ofGod w lh ir surprising stli nglh dmo t

~ 'dushl!ly to the influence of tht: boo of a n i ~ t 'I establish thi:point I will bridly rcvic\ tbc W'irk1111gsKe.')cf1i IJte of t h n ; ~ Dani lie

h e m e ~ in early Judai m,I. Daniel H i < n i ~ t/u> Four Ki11gdo111s (Dan , 7, )

In Dan - . w r -.ad th to1 of how Dani I wa abk both to recountKin g ebuchadnezer, drean1and to interpret it. The ing aw a !>tatuewith a head made of gold. che t and a lade of ilver, mid ~ c t o nand t l i i g h made of bton1.e 1 leg. made of iro ; and feet rnnde of itorimi ed with clay. s the ki g as \Vatching. a huge . tone . lammed i tothe f l of the stat e and puh eriLCd i t 1 he st n ~ grew ~ n t o a g ~ armountnin tha fill d th \ hol nrth (vv. 3 1-35). Dani I proc ds toexplain lhc dream: The d iffcn;nl a r t of tht: statue n : p r c ~ ~ n t tli1TcrcnLearthly kingdom , 'lnd Lhc stom; y m b o l i ~ God's 1crnul kingdom(\ v. "6-45 ). Daniel pe.c ifically idcntifi" t h ~ head of th> ta tuc withN buchadn zer) kingdon1, but h doe not reveal the identity of the!>e ond. thi rd. 0 1fourth kingdom .

(' J"fhj, c 'itllthe Jew-.;' intrial a-.., ,sn ent of R m '"'hich ~ sttuitcp o ~ i i\ e. I ?\,1 8 re I hnw J u d ~ ' Mal'.cabeu!i. ht:ar


14/29

118 Jool \\lh iceDan 7 r o u n t ~ a vi ion fron1 th fir t year of B 1 hazzar r ign

that lo ely one pond to l\ebuchadne:r.er' drean1. Four be-a t comeup ou of the ea. The fi t three re emble a I ion. a bear. and a leopard .re. pectively. The fourth one de 1e. de cripdonT except for the fact thatit \\as dreadful.and strong and po. e ed huge iron teeth and ten homs.mong the horn:. o c in pani ul.ur i : i n g l c d out for uncmtion. At h i ~juncture the ncicnt rDay , p p e a r ~ . and th fourth bcust i. d :troycd.Tht: dominion of all the x : u ~ t ~ tu.lcn U\ ay and gi c11 to ~ o n e lill: theSon of tan (v. 13 . Daniel a l an ang lus interpres to cxp Juin to himlhc meaning of the vi ion, and it i r v e a l e d to him thal th' fou r bca t1 pre ent four k ingdom The analogy to Dan - readi I,, apparent in 1town right. i thu n1ade e plidt. Daniel a k 1 lore abo it the foui1h

b e a s t ~ which he fi t d especiall terrifying. Tie i told that the fou11hbea!'tt represents a kingdonl that wi ll bring the whole earth underdominio .Dm d scrih 'l \ i!\ion a ~ s i g n d to the third y ar of B s h a L z . c n - ~ sr ign of a r"m \ it.h tv:o horns that O\' rpow n d by a mal goat withone great horn. The larg horn b ~ a k s and i replaced by four horn n>of \vhich d fil thi.: temple. h ~ angel G(brid i l rpn;'t t h ~ vi ionfor Dani I: The nun with two horn repre n t ~ the i n g of tedia andPer ia. The male ,g at i Greece or more preci ely. the a edonianeoipite: the g1 at hol'n b clear'ly A le a1lde ). Though Oabdel does l\Ot

~ a y s e p ici tly the four horns undoubcedJ represent t e Diadochi.The littl h o n 1 ~ w ich gto\ !\ up a111d ulti1natel t defiles the t ple,ohviously ~ y m b o z s. th S l ucid kingdom, mor sp ificallAntiochus Epiphan IV.

Within th book of D a n i e l ~ at lea t in its canonical forn1. hefollowino o T e ~ p o n d e c e are t h u ~ o b t a e d ( '

( ) Tht!re ha..s been. of coun.e, a greal of i M . : u ~ ~ i o r i Lo which l in::dmtharc ~ c t l H l l l y mc..nt in the originaJ contc:-;t of D;in 2 n i 7. I different a o t h o ~ha\e tiJ'ri\'ed ac vecy d1ffei nc condu io11 e p e n < l i n ~ upo11 their the 1 of tJ1eu11 ity an


15/29

Am i- lmperi:il. bte t in Paul J 19I { 11':< IXJ\1 D \:"\ I L ::!

I. HJb) lon o k i e n he u2. '1cdi 1-P, !f"Si:l sil\crct.c'll and

-------leu\'.JtJlinpdnm ----------Iesp. Ant. [piph-r1.1 imn le -.: irn11...

d1u J..1y foetl111erpre i11n e \f'lidt in ( iel

D A l\ I I 7Ill n i lh a ! ! l c\ ' I 11.t'bc.1rkl>parJ

. 0,\\111 l .- - - -r.1m with t'\\ o

Illm le ..it \\ iehlar ch ( m- - - - - - - - ~ - ----o 1r horn-.-------- --------

dn.: ful bca. ."1ll1 m t c : ~ l h

hlt le b1m Lhat"K'W 13r .,c'"

b v 1 o u ~ the id ntification of the iron I g of Dan _ a111d the irontoothed-bea. t in Dan 7 with Rorne L ne;ther e plidt nor logicallynece . .ary. The au tho r or aut o . tnay 'Nell have had t e eJeucid1'in do1n in rnind, and there is no reason \\ ithin he conte l otcanonical Daniel for p r ~ f r : r r i n g ~ H n c t h ~ r intl.!rpli Lu.Lion . NC\>l!r

h i ; l c ~ 1 by the t.:nd of the, i.:cond Tcn1pl period, t h ~ id nLificution ofRome \.\ ith he fourth kingdom of Dan 2 and with the fo trth b\!a t ofDan 7 had b com con11non fare. as a brief glance at th Jewi hI terature of the tin1c re\ieal C).a. The Te tament of Mo prov d a co 111pact overvi w of I rael,

hi tory through the fil' t th ird of die fi r t century c. . ~ ) I n t e b riefh mrHc ectionof th i_ \ 01 we and che.e \\Orel. (T. Mo . 10.7-8):.( ") f c lUrM!. n I all fi1'C-ccnlury rcl! ilati of l ~ r : d \ nislory followDaniel':-. "chctne. The fourth I cok ol the jb llin O r n d c ~ . h o u ~ h t h a v ~ enupdatetl about 0 c.r:. to reflet.:C cnnlempon11ry 1.'.0ncl itiun . r e ~ - o u the.! p r o c e ~ s oof five world pow r tcro the tngc of hi t ry - A yrfo . t v t c d P ~ r s 1.

M[;jcoooniu, and Rome p "stbly lolJ :Y..lfl!? a (1 ing


16/29

120 Joel \! 1hiceFor God lo'l t\igl v.. ill surg for1h. t c Ert;r "11On alon1;.In fuJl view will he com r P s inforrns hitn that th s vcn

h e a d ~ of the beast are even hills and al!\o seven rulers. Th re can

G. R . E, Die G 'hi hlCI hri ei{ iii d('r A uj}u.Hmf:' r t u h ~ r r Jud 111rrm r. EineUnccrsudw1t1? dcr nen ~ m n un


17/29

Anti-Imperial . ubtext. in Puul 321b Jittt doubt that thi i a rci renc to th \V 11 -known Roman

~ m p e r i a l motif of the godde Ron1a itting on the seven hlll ofRome, Thu 1 the intratextual and intertextual allu ion in the booko Revelation n ake it abundantly clear that author idenrifie. the

b e a ~ t \\ith rhe fourth kingdom of Daniel on the one hand and \VilhRome on thl: olhcr.c. Jos phus picks up the story ofDaniel in Bo k 10ofhis Antiquities.He n : l a l t : ~ Danid inlcrprclation of cbuchadncLcr \ c.ln.:arn q itc

xt 11 ivcly in Ant. l . 2 0 3 2 1 0 xplaining that the; St: ondkingdon111 pre n t ~ h\o l ing who will destroy Nebuchadnezcr 1 kingdom Dariu a11d Cyru . Their k ingdon1 will be overTun bythat of, 1uler from the \Ve t Alexander ~ a n d hi kingdom\ ill inturn be de. troyed by the fou1tt kii1gdom whkh. Jo ephu. r1otes. irepresented by iron. It e c o m e ~ su eciently c ear that he as oc iate .Rome '"1ith t h fo trth kingdom ' tt n \ e juxtapose t h i ~ t xt \\ ichJ o s c p h u ~ accountof the vi,ion of th ' rnm and th mal goat of Da

in A11t. 10:-69--76. There Joscphu outlin "S the ucccs,ion ofkingdon1 a ' we have iterated thc1n a b o v e ~ r >fi ning e>.plicitly lo

h ~ tcdes. P ~ r s a n Greek . and Antiochu Epiphan IV. Thi i fo llowed b} the tatement thal "in the asne 1nanner Daniel al owrote about the Roman go\e1nment. na111ely. that [our country)would be de troyed by thern" ( nl. 10: 76b . ow nt'ochuEpiphanes JV the end of the sto a ~ far a ' D n 8 is co cetned, oif Jos phu: s convi cec that Dani I had. in fact. proph !-iied ahoutRom. particularly that Jud 'a would h rl s t r o y ~ r l y Rom. it iscl ar th'lt this notion could only hav .. be 'n g 'n rated by J o ~ phus'reading of Dan 2 and 7. Jo ephu rductanct: to xplicitly i d ~ n t i f yRome whh Daniel. fou1th kingdom b unde1sta11dable. given that

h i ~ m d m n a!\\ ell. wil b destroyed by God\ eten1al kin dor .That not a r n e ~ a ' C thal would have sal well with J o c p l ' l u ~ 'Fla ian benefa tors, a11d it L not urprbio that he co11 . htent1y~ u p p r e s s e ~ the. pare of h ~ prophec_, .

d. Fourth Ezra's n m o u ~ v i ~ o n of an eagle! coming up out of Lhe sea (E-:,.r


18/29

322 J o \Vhicetudy of th ymboli n1 nnd int rp 1"tjon i th id ntific..ution of

the three head H C'>) . 111e 1ajority opinion holds that th detail.. be tfit the Flavian emperors. a cl ain1 the prepo11derance of evidencewould ee , to . pport J, an case. all are agreed t at on1e

c o n ~ t e l l t tion of oman e m p e - o r ~ in vie\ . In ../ i ~ r a l 2 Ezraprays for an int r p r ~ u u i o n or h ~ visio . God acq i c s < . : c = ~ le) Et.nf .f qu l anh1jcy of he Seventy ~ V e e k l (Dnn 9)Diln 9 i ct in the fi r l y..:ar of th ' n;ign of Dariu und rclat' ho'

D a n ~ e l was m ditating on J r e m a h ' ~ prophec} that I rael would sp ndeve, ty 11 ea r i11 exile cf . Da 9 ~ - with Jer -9.10). In tile lengthypra er thatfollO\\.' (Dan9. -I .naniel ' yearningfortheendofex ile

i. pa lpable, and it i. dear that he believe. tbe prophesied .eventy yea .mu . t be nearing t ci r complet ion. As Dan ie pray!-.. h o w e v e r ~ the an elGnhriel appears lo him an d rev als Lo him that the: en t . y ars art! tob und rstood ass n1y w ~ k s of y ars (Dan 9.24): in oth r words,490 years. P t . : r h a p ~ no other single prophecy so cuplun;


19/29

Ami-li1l( erial . btext in Puu l 3 2 ~Al I th i ha b n c:tr"'fully document d by B c k with imd oth r owe \v ill only revie\ a few of the n10 t a ient e 'ample of theillu trious Wirk,.ng gescfiichte of Dan ~ 2 --7:a. 11Q1 3 ( 11 Q elch) reveal the trong tendency to\s.-'ard thepedocHza tion of i ~ t o r y into cen Jubilee periods and cleurly allude.to L>,tn 9.24 in line: 6-7: ... nd li ht!rty \V iJJ h pvoclaimed forLh\,;m .. .in the fin;t week of thi; jubilee which follo\vs the nine

j u b i h ; l ! ~ . l \ c.l the Du} of A L o n ~ m ~ n l the end of the tenthjubil c .. :-b. 4Q:'90 4Qp Mos de rib th return from e ~ i l c , l amc>ntingthat the retun1ee did evil int e Lord ye ~ e x c e p t for those w obuilt the ten1ple. The author d1en e plain that Hin the eventhjub ilee of the devastatiori of the land they ill forget the law. thefe tlval the Sabbath. a d the covenant: nd rhey \vilJ di .obey

erything a rid ill do \ V h ~ t c i i in my y e ~ ...and t ere \J illcom th .. dominiom of Behal upon th m Lo d li \'Cr th m up Lo Lh

~ ' ord for a ' c k of y ar .. 4 Q 3 9 0 1 ~ 7 - 9 ; II .34). This obviou al l ion to t c ix;riod of H JI niz.ation in the early :ccond centuryu.c.t:... and the tumulltuou reign of Antiochu . p1phane. J isa igned to the venth Jubl e p riod.

c. The Te tan1en t of Le i i even more detai led. Jn T. Le\ I t theauthot explicitly di ides D a n e .. eventy \I eeks inco te11Jubileeperi d . A ~ ~ n 4Q 90. the! reign of ncio h u ~ piphane. I i.a ~ s g n c d co the : venth JubH period. T Levi I7.10 pla ' then: cdication of th .. ' ..n1pl. ill th. fifth \ .. k or the s \' nth Juhil.p riod. and ,.._, " kmow that that v "nt took plnc in J64 R.C' . . .Following thi ti1netable, the author would have plac d th end ofthe ~ e \ ' e n t y \I eek: at appro imately 4 B.C.

d. A ter de. cribrn the fa JI o Jeru .ulen1 1d the destruc tion of tbte1nple in great dt!la1l in Bool 5 of i ~ Bel/um judllicunz. Jo .ephu:tries to...: pJajn to hi Roman autlicnci: w ) the Jews u ~ u c d Lhcir

n a 1 1 j f e ~ c l y foolhardy .:truteoy of war with Rome to the biUer end.V.'hat spurned them on the: mo,t, ace rding to J o ~ e p h i s, was an"4imbigUOll\ onacl .." XPTlOOnte Jcv. n k ~ mh J. ' . 6:313). le tloubtf I thumunv Jew. red 1h: t "i "" ..


20/29

114 ~ J \Vh iceoonc med th tin1 a t \\hich th world rul r would appear toge th rwith Jo ephu tat ment noted above that Daniel aLon an1ong theprophet gave indication a to\ hen the event he prop e ied \ ouldoccur n1a 'e 1virtual ly certain that] e had Dan 9.24-27 im miAd.These r e f e r e n c e ~ ~ u p p o r t Beck\vith '. concent ion. referred to ahov .

that in the la te Sc ond l cmplc period J w: of a r i o u ~ ideological bent'1u mpl d to c.-lcuhtc tn im of the 1pp aranc nf the Mc t h b n ~ don Lhl:i r n:ading ofDan 9 4-27. he ' c l l - d o c u m c n ~ d hcighLcning ome ia11ic xpc


21/29

Anci-lmpel'i.il .. bte h i11 Puul 325,. racity. Th y und r tood th tat ni nt a a r ti r"nc to Dani t'prophecy (thi i of cour e\ e plicit in 1atthew whkh theybelieved h dyet to be fulfilled. According t Luke. who handl ingo t e rnaterial L quite dffferent fron1 tt at of ~ a t t h e w and ~ a r kLuke 21,20-21 . this would happen when urmie . urroundedJcrusakm. '\ riling when h " did, t:ilhcr immt:diatcJy hcfor .. or i

the (tflcnn' th r he falJ of J rusa l m. th f i cun b no qu ~ l i o n th1tLuke und r lood the c n n ~ to be pasian I gions.

c. Eu cbiu relate in hi account of the fal l of Jerusakn1 that .. thep op e of the htuch in Jerusalern had been commanded by arevelatio11, vouch . ufed to appro\.ed rnen the1e before the \\ ar. coleave the city and to w ~ l l in a . : ~ r a n town of Perea a l l ~ d P e l l a ~ 'Hist. eccl. 3.5.3). ~ hik it cannot be d ~ f i n i l i v d y proven that ther littion h m n t o n ~ js idcnticnl with th ~ y n o p L c logion.

Eu cbiu "" account do ~ . a t th v ry l a t. pT> '\Uppo. the pres ncof an authoritative tradition in the Jc111 alcn1 church on the ba i ofwhic a direct ive to leave the city\ olllld Ila e en taken. el'iou.Thb brief o o at the irktmgsgeschichre o three prophetic

r a d i t i o n ~ fr m the hook o Ua11id sho ~ h o w profound their in11uence\Va: un the c ~ c h a o l o g i conceptions of J c ~ in t h ~ lali; Sc o n dTemple period. This should n.;mind us thut the contcn1poraric ofJ su and Paul did not cul a new c chatological nurTativc out of \vhole cloth.One wa already firrn ly in l a c e ~ and it ould not be o n f u ~ e d \\ ith theoften apolitic, 1 e ~ c h a t o l o ical 0 1ception of mode n We!>ten1C h t a n F i l ' ~ t - en tur.,, Je\ ~ b e l i e v e d they\ e ~ Ii it' dm in the

m ~ o D a n i ~ r s fourt kingdom. which the ide1 tjfied wi th Ro1ne.Th y a g e r y awaited th nd Clf R()mC 'sh gcmony and it r p :1 1n nth (1od's "tcrnal ingdom and \Vl"f convinc a that th .. Ii 1 al Iott d flyGod for Dami r fourth ldngdon1 was drawing to its conclusion, Th

f o l l o w ~ r s of Je u c h ~ r L hcd a prophetic logion th y l i c v ~ d to bfronl un wa ling them to bewa1e o f a future n a n i f e ~ t a of the bon1ination of desolatjon u 1d r ~ t o o d a ~ th d e ~ e c t u t i o n o thcruplc. and h ~ y o b ~ l ! r 1etl Ron1e 's cn


22/29

326 Jool \l 1hite. w Ti ~ u n nt th ology hav b n or ar being re xmnincd a ar uh . The current intere t in Pau1 pol iti al theolog owe itimpetu at lea tin p a r t ~ to the e de' elopment and it i 1110 t cetainlyto be \Velco t e d It a. not h o \ \ i e v e r ~ a]wa . een app1'eciated t at

t h e ~ e concept directly and profolJndly i tluenced Paur o\\ineschatology t )i. In fact. th latter h o w s vidcncc of sc; cra l points ofrmtlri111t\ ( m:P:1g 7: C 111 gcvill 1 P 19


23/29

oc i-1m[ eri:il . bte t. in Pau l 327a un1ption h mak ar . in xplicabl on th .. ba i of tho t x.tsalon e. I \\ ould argue tha t at lea t two of then1 are traceable ex lu ivelyto Oan 7. One i the eternal ubor-Oination of the on. which neitherPs 8 nor P. J10 det and. especially when they are read in ~ u c h ahJ atan tly bri stoJogical man et. lnde d, they 1night 1nore naturally bet,tll!n to imply parity be t \\.'C n the Fathc-r and th Son. It is. on the otherhand. comp r;,rativ "I)' .. y to c how the id a of ubordination c ndd beinferred from lhc approach of lht: one lilt: the on of tun to the throneof th Ancient of a y ~ in D ~ m 7. l 3. The other ;ls mption Pal.ill makesmight b t rmed. for want ofa bett r word. the aran f rability,, of thekingdon1. Thi lie at the heart of what i go ing on in Dt n 7 TI1eeverlasting kingdon'H intrigllingl change hand a couple of timewithin t1 e oara ti\e ftoo1God to tie 0 11 of fan to the . aints arldback). and it no t al vay. e a ~ ) co foUow '"who e'' the kingdom i. arany gi 'en mom nt (Dan 7, J4. 1.27). Perhaps thi' ac ou ts fo r ch(unchuract r i ~ t i c a l l y Paulln ) absolut u ~ of jSnatA.dn of in I CorI ...24 not d abov( (cf. n . 64 . In an) ca , the thco1ogy I C o r i n ~ h a n scvo e thi: \ery dynamic: God' reign i: currently being c h a e n g ~ d bythe e r ~ of thb wo Id ( l Car -.8 ~ b u t the . amnts will reign with Chri:t(I Cor 4.8) until all authorit,, and pow er ha e b n ubjugated to himand t h ~ la!>l enem) h been defeated ( I Cor t5.- -25). at \\'hi h tin1ethe Son\\ ill gi e over the l ingdon1 to God 1C r 15.28).2. Paul'. Expectati()ll that the Sai11ts will Judge the U'nrld

Tn I Cor ~ 2 Pau l rcbu es the Corir1thiar1 C h r i s t i a n ~ for su ing eachot er i Ro1nJ1l h1\ courts. sing an " maiare ali niinu rhetori alst ci t gy . h Ii mind s th m that they -..hou ld be ab l co deal ' ith : u hconflicts wi thin the chur h1 \in .... th :uint will judg th, world'. (oi/iytol 1ov "'Ocrov Kptvo"' cr t ). Th way h introduc thi a i o n""don't you know... n (OUK OlOCXtt Otl ... ) make it clear tliat Paula. . utlled tile o r i n t h i a n ~ \i ou ld. in act1 b familiar with thb tenant1po ibly b a u ~ e h had e'pounded on t ~ u b j ct during his one and ahal f yea sojourn in Corinth f'" ). Though there have been !>Onle

d s ~ e n t a n oi e. ('"), the 1najo1ity of sc holars b e l i ~ v e that Paul i., .. l Thi nccc i t . ~ t c m it If, however. neither th. view of C ~ L l : L M r \ N ~ .Korimhtr. 133, ll' ltl Lhc C l ! ~ h ~ " ~ a Ldlr'ilUt: de) r \ . ' . 1 1 r i ~ i d i e n K a t o c h i ) m u ~ ...nor that of . 1\ Jcs11s. nyings or /JP 1, ' that tile fo rm11ln m d i c ~ s

t e ~ c t u n g ' ofJc u t tit ~ u l per onally convcy(:d to the orinthianch l1rch.(' )Cl. :\ .C. Trnst.:u l : \ , The First f:.in.,Jfe to th'-Corimhiwax (NIGTC: GtwltJR Ml .0 ) i2. -427.


24/29

. 28 Jck!I \! ' hitealluding to a wid prcad apocal)plic tradition cone ming th rol ofth le t in the h, ton ~ t Thi trad ition ha it root in atraightt'orward reading of Dan 7\22 that the Anc ie nt of day I gavejudgrnet t to the . aint of the \.to, t llig H tn Kpiot , to ~ t O i ~ a y i o t ~

-ro\j uviat-OU) (.').The breadth of t t e ~ t a o n for thb ttadition in earlJi.; vish lit r u l u r ~ md the otl .hnllded mann r in which Paul r e f c n ~ ltttr . Th Sub tructurc o 'cwTe-.tamcnt . c l52) It B .. Rns,LR. Plml 'eri11Wfv; ~ P t \ ' o \ J p e v ) i

l e ~ ~ dear., . ) \Vl l lTH. Er\1lil1K'R"bt'. J.,.J -156. There I dtl!UOO tllat P a u l ' s a U i c u d ~ \! ithregard to the tim ing or tllC P M ' O U ~ i : may be b c ~ t described noc t l ' tn ... uceNahctwnrtung '-O U. St: Ju l:.LL P a u l ~ U!bt1i wul D JJl..t'IT (Berlin 200.l 7_- t1e 41\ a ~ o n t e n l t : t d n ! w u r t u n ~ " Rv thu I 111eunt imtJ I


25/29

Anc i- lmpet'ial . btext io Paut 129our c ~ t he plain why t h i rh ca . For our purpo th th maticinclu lo that frame the explanation i ofgreate t intere t. In v ....q Paultate that ~ t h e critical titne ha been h o t 1 e n e d ~ ~ (6 Katpoc;auvootaA.tvo


26/29

J30 Joel 'hite. c at logical urgcnc., (Dan 8. 17. l 9; I l .35 C'''). With rcgc.rd to thecond metaphor in " 1-a. few doubt that Pnu ha a very pecific

~ d a y H in mind: the "'day of the I ;Qrd Je. u Chri t'" (1 Car I .8) whicl inPaul. thi nkin de1 oted the detnarcation point between the end of heptesent ge and the final e'tabJi,hment of God\ rei n in Christ ( .PauJ .. h l J ~ Lr,t\'Cr ing familiar arly h r i ~ n terrain in rcr r r i n g to th.n amcs of th Purousia ofChri t (Phil 45 ; J'ts 5 . 8 ~ 1 Pct ~ 7 } .

c Ro1n 16. OuTh re as been ~ 0 1 1 1 e dt us.1ot1 ru to wh ther Paul\ hortatorrc1nurk in Rorn 16 20u ..The God of e a c e ~ i l l ~ on c . : r u ~ h Satan wulcryour eef' (o 0 Bto tfl ttpt\v 1c; auvtpi.yt:t tov cratuvuv U1to t o u ~

n o S u ~ U ~ W \ ' t:.v tuxn) f c i r ~ to lhe final C'schatological triwuph OVC'.Satan or ~ i m p l y ~ o t c defcat of the fahc t a c h c r ~ in Ron'le, a g a i n ~ t' ho1n P ~ t u l word in th tion imm ditt ly pn c ding h i ~ v rs ar 'dir ct d. Th imilari ty of thi"i tt t n1 nt to on in various roughlcomten1porary Jewi h t xt that prcdlict the do\-..nfall of the demonicrealn1 (Jub . 23.-9: J En. 10. : I.. i 1-2; E n . 7 ~ 1 - 3 ~ T. A.1o . tO. I : T. Levi18. 12 7. Siln. 6 b l 1 VD,. : I I I ~ l ) would ~ e e i n to indicate thatc.he fonner \i i!I. n1ori.: I'k ly corrl!ct, h t perhap. Schreiner b tight' hen he argue thut the two v i e w ~ n ~ ~ d not he c o n ~ i d c f ' l ' d mutual lycxclusi ~ ). l n d ~ c d , then; i 'Ln1pl1; ~ v d ~ n c c ' lCTO s a brotd ~ p c c t r o mof early Jewbh and Chri tiun liti.;ratun.; that the e m e r g t : n c ~ of fal L uchcr \Va " gtird d u ~ one of th ~ r . ~ i g n s that th ' end of thepr n1 age wa n ar .lub. 23J 2 ~ 4 E . ~ r u 5. 1 I En. 9 l 3 - 8 ~ 9.3.8- 10:I T im 4. - ~ ~ 2 Titn 3.l 2 Pe t 3.3: I John 2 . 18). If that i t rue . then Rom

( ) Thi doc n t. m .tnd of 1hclf. inc.Heat llb,crsivc intent on Pa r part.Dt1nidc n pt' mtobe h i n < J l ~ u r p tt l\\;\tcwotth \t ' tcinRom L t l -7 (sci! al o \e . , p e ~ i a l l h s s ~ teruen in Rom IJ, l b rh=tt there no ~ O \ ~

h o r i t ~ that doc" not ul timately oru?imttc wi c God n I thlt t c c ~ h t i n gau thoritie" h a \ ~ ecn appoinetl ) Gcxl (cf. Dao :!.'.! I: 4.17 .25.52: 5.2 S al cDunr. R 1 m , t m ~ < -16. 770-77 1. 1 1 , ~ , ~ . in cum, me Led jn OT ..111


27/29

At l m p e r bte t in Puu l 33116.-0a rv a on m o ~ indication that Paul vi wed th pr s nt agof H,>i/..ge .iclurhl(' a having aln1 t exhau t d it elf.Other text from the di puted Paul' ne epi tle could be rnu e r e d ~but thec;e . llffice to show that Paul under. tood hint el f to be Ii ing nearthe end of the pre.ent age. T e imminent return of Chri't would bringto an end the current ag and u:h r in h ~ C\c aton. \ve av. , thi:con ichon is ba \;d1 uhov all. on the early Jc'A'lsh u d rstanding ofDani.;1 s prop ccic .4. Pt7rt/'s AJl11.,io12 to Dt1nielic Traditi"n. in 2 Tires., 2.3-4

lh c uuthorshipof2 .Thc ~ u J o n i a n c o n b n u c ~ to be: a much-debutedtopic, but it mu t no\v b ackno\ l c d g ~ d that no n1all numtxr ofscholars on both id of the Atlantic regard the k tte r a auth ntic 0).One rea on for the w i l l i n g n e ~ to recon ider a que tion 1nany regardeda ettled by the t u d i e ~ of Vlrede ( ) and Trilling r 1) i p e t h a p ~ .pl'edsely the apocalyptic fl a\or of thi .. ection of the Jetter. This wn. .. en as a clear contra-indication of Pau line au horship by an earlierg nention of scholars, hut the ew appr iation for th thoroughlyJcwi:h apocalyptic nature of Pnu rs theology ha I d many to mo\ thisargunlcnt to t h ~ "'pro side of the.; tal1} >ard. ] huvc u r g u ~ d cl. c \ \ h c r ~that lh o h ~ r major urg rmcnt urc not trong ~ n o 1gh Lo p r ~ c l u d c

( I . \\'.G. Kr MMTI ' f infertum: in rftH A ~ u ., I W 1 f ~ r r t ( H c i < l ~ I rg I 980}:!28-2.l:!. f.F . BIH E ~ I & _ 71tt! .mlm i


28/29

Juel ~ 1hitegiving 2 Th alonian th n fi t of th doubt in favor of P;mJinau thor hip !). though v.ri th Em t Be t I would \1 ant to 'widen theconcept of authenticity to include autho hip by a con1panion of Paul\ riting at hi behe. t (and not one of hi co 1panions or someone froma Pauline' . chool writing aft rhi,deathr'c l).

The ; ~ a , J ; 1 i o n . n f e . ~ c h i c / 1 1 e hc hind 2 I h s ~ 2 . ~ ..4 is comple and wewi ll not cxamin it thonn ghly hen. IL i: sufficknl for our purpos tonott.: Lhut scvcrctl ~ t r a i n . o though t running lhrough t h i ~ t xLhuvcan t '


29/29

Ami-Imperial . btext in Paul 33Jthe in1pr 1\ ' parn11el that xi t b ti,.v ~ n .. Th 2,3-4 and variou Dani l ie motif .

*ln t h i ~ article, I ha c tried to show thu l th proponent of un antiimperial P a u r ~ have not convincingly establi h ~ d tht! i ~ t e n c e of

U b v e r ~ i v e ~ u b t e -t in h letter . Specifically. they have not been able tohow that PaursChril)tolo y u ~ c o n ~ iou ly formulated with the intentofsub\'ertin Ro1ne . authorit) nnd p \ er. e\ r t h d e ~ ~ . the sub e r ~ i v e4uul,ty ofPaul1s Gos d c.:an ardly be denied, and I have endeavored loprove rhat lhis is mot d in his J wish-apoca lyptic. more !-lpc ifica l yDanielic. conception of" hi:tory. u ~ , n i e \ as w c J J - 1 ' n o ~ 1n and broadlyacccpk d hy Jews in Lhc Second T mph; ricld. not l among th mPnll. who d n1on,tratc famil iarity wi4h ~ narn1liv and implicit lyaffirms ~ t a t cral point . Thi i - one clear area of continuity bctwc,n

c e n t u r y Judm . n1 and tile p o ~ t l e or. to put it another way. b t\J e nt e p -Darnascu Saul and the p o s t - D a n 1 u ~ s Pa I. Whale th standal'dJewish apocalyptic fra e ~ or w a ~ tl r o u ~ b l ) 1nod1fied b) the p o ~ t l eto account fo r the ~ n t r u pluct: he ctm1c to assign Christ i11 God ~ p l a n of

: u l v a t i o n ~ it ba!-lk structur 11 m;iin d t : ~ ! - i c n t i a y th sami;. pi.;cifically.Paul h a r ~ d the Yi \ of his Jewish cont 1 1 1 p o r a r i c ~ thnt th ntirc worldorder of that day, \Vhich wa don1inated by Rome in nearly all fl e t ~ ofli f Ji pr s n d the p nultimat stag of e i l s ~ P ~ c h i r h t e Rom wasDan iel's fourth i n g d o n 1 ~ and at the in1p nding Par-ousia of the 1c siahJe:tJ. the Roman world order \Vou ld be de. troyed ( I Car 2.6). It wm. in

a c t ~ already t the process of di.appearin from the . tu ( 1Car 7 . I ).T h ~ final u I o H1il;ge;(hich1e u det:idedl) non-Ro1nan on . wasalready breaking uax>1 h ~ . e n c .

F1-eie h e o l o g i ~ c h e H o c h ~ h u l e Gie ~ e nRathe nau tra se 5-70-3539 G"e. e n ~ Get'1nany

S U ! v l ~ A R Y

Joe W11r l :.

This ar6de , g u ~ s that tl10W'h j t C ' ~ l J ~ 1 1 o t be

White, J.-anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul- An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation

Documents

Transcript of White, J.-anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul- An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation