James R. Harrison Paul and The Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica & Rome. A Study in The Conflict of Ideology 2011 PDF

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament

Herausgeber I Editor
Jorg Frey (Miinchen)
Mitherausgeber I Associate Editors
Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg)
Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford)
James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala)
Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)
273
ARTIBUS
1801
James R. Harrison
Paul and the Imperial Authorities

at Thessalonica and Rome
A Study in the Conflict of Ideology
Mohr Siebeck
JAMES R. HARRISON, born 1952, 1976 BADipEd; 1989 MA; 1997 PhD; Head of School of Theology, Wesley Institute, Sydney, Australia; Honorary Associate, Macquarie University Ancient
History Department.
ISBN 978-3-16-149880-0
ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament)
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed
bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
2011 by Mohr Siebeck, Tiibingen, Germany.
This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by
copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tiibingen using Minion typeface, printed on nonaging paper by Guide-Druck in Tiibingen and bound Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier.
Printed in Germany.
Preface
This book began during my doctoral research at Macquarie University (19911996). In investigating Paul's understanding of grace in its Graeco-Roman context ('Language of Grace', 2003), I read the seminal work of Dieter Georgi on
the intersection of Paul's gospel with the Julio-Claudian propaganda (Theocracy,
1986; cf. 'True Prophet', 1986). This led to an exploratory article on how Paul's
eschatology contrasted with the Augustan age of grace in Romans 5:12-21 (Harrison, 'Augustan Age of Grace', 1999). Discussions of the first-century Thessalonian context by Edwin Judge ('Decrees of Caesar', 2008) and Edgar Krentz
('Roman Hellenism', 1988) stimulated an investigation of the imperial terminology employed in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 (Harrison, 'Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki', 2002). Already the idea of exploring the extent to which Paul's gospel
ideologically engaged with the Julio-Claudian propaganda in the Greek East and
Latin West, focusing on the Thessalonian and Roman epistles, was beginning to
take shape.
The design of the book achieved its final form when I returned to the roots of
my undergraduate teaching under Edwin Judge at Macquarie University (Harrison, 'Introduction', 2008). Edwin's exposition of the Roman nobles' quest for
glory (Judge, 'Roman Literary Memorials', 2008) and Augustus' conception of
history in the forum Augustum (Judge, 'Eulogistic Inscriptions', 2008) provided
me with an entry point for considering how Roman believers, living in the capital, might have originally responded to Paul's letter in its imperial context.
I am deeply grateful for the support that Mohr Siebeck has given the book
from the outset when I broached the possibility of a new publication. Professor
Jorg Frey, the editor of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,
has warmly accepted the book's inclusion in this highly regarded series and I
register my gratitude to him for his commitment to its publication. Dr Henning
Ziebritzki, Theology Editor at Mohr Siebeck, has provided help in bringing the
editing of the book to its conclusion. I am thankful for his patience during this
protracted process and for his enthusiasm for the book's completion. Last, I
would also like to acknowledge the invaluable help of Tanja Mix, Production
Department of Mohr Siebeck, on manuscript issues.
Many people should be thanked for their help with the contents of this book.
Above all, I would like to highlight the very substantial contribution of Edwin
Judge. He read Chapter Four and sections of Chapters Five and Six. He has been
VI
Preface
unstintingly generous with his time and advice on the documentary and literary
evidence, as well as with his knowledge of the customs and politics of the Roman
world.
Brad Bitner (Macquarie University) prepared the Indexes, with the exception
of the Subject Index. I am indebted to him for his professionalism in completing
this task, as well as for his friendship and encouragement.
Four scholars have made the completion of the book easier by their generosity
in sharing with me unpublished copies of their manuscripts: namely, Neil Elliott,
Joseph Fantin, Bruce Fisk, and John Barclay. Many scholars have helped me to
strengthen the book's argumentation by their responses to my conference presentations or by their discussions with me of various issues: namely, John Barclay,
Ben Blackwell, Lukas Bormann, Cilliers Breytenbach, Joseph Fantin, Beverly
Gaventa, Eleanor Ghey, Robert Jewett, Mark Reasoner, Ken Sheedy, and Larry
Welborn. Any errors that remain in the book are mine.
In terms of the visual evidence, Walter Holt - numismatist at the M.R. Roberts
Wynyard Coin Centre, Sydney, Australia - provided me with the image of the
Neronian silver denarius referred to in Chapter 4 n. 61. The image is reproduced
with his permission in the Appendix.
Chapter 3, revised and slightly expanded, originally appeared as 'Paul and the
Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki', JSNT 25/1 (2002): 71-96. It is reproduced here
with the permission of Sage Publications. The discussion of the Roman evidence
on 'glory' in Chapter 6 appeared as 'Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory in the
Epistle to the Romans', in U. Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (Leuven:
Leuven University Press I Uitgenerij Peeters, 2009), 323-363. It is reproduced here
with the permission of Peeters Press, but the discussion of the Jewish evidence
relating to glory in Chapter 6 ( 6.4) is an addition to the original publication.
Last, special mention has to be made of the support of my wife, Elisabeth. She
has been patient, encouraging and understanding during the entire writing process and this book is dedicated to her with all my love.
James R Harrison
Sydney
December 2010
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
Abbreviations .................................................... XIII
Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate:
A Survey of Its Proponents and Critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate
in Romans and in the Thessalonian Epistles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Modern Scholarship on the Imperial Cult and Its Relevance
for the Thessalonian and Roman House Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.1 The Literacy of First-Century Believers and Their Reception
oflmperial Propaganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.2 The Issue of'Hidden Transcripts': Discerning Paul's
Political and Pastoral Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.3 The Imperial Cult as a Cult among Other Cults: Avoiding
Monolithic and Undifferentiated Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.3.1 New Testament Studies and the Imperial Context:
Karl Galinsky's Case for a Nuanced Approach . . . . . . . . . . .
The Issue of Appropriate Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Issue ofldeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Difference between the Imperial Cult at Rome
and in the Greek East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.3.5 The Limitations of the Ancient Evidence Regarding
the Imperial Cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 The Aim and Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
8
14
19
19
28
34
34
35
37
40
42
44
VIII
Table of Contents
Chapter 2: Paul and the Imperial Gospel at 1hessalonica . . . . . . . . . . . 47

2.1 Scholarly Debate on the Eschatology of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 . . . .
2.2 Jewish and Roman Conceptions of Rule in 1 Thessalonians . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2 7tapoua[a and mcpaveta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3 UTIUVTTJ<Jl~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.4 eip~VTJ Kal aacpaAeta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.5 <JWTTJp[a and EATI[~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Paul's Critique of the Augustan Ideology of Rule and Apotheosis
Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
51
51
56
59
61
62
63
68
Chapter 3: 'The Ultimate Sinner': Paul and the Anti-Christ

in Political Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.1 Introduction to the Modern Scholarly Debate......................
3.2 Jewish Precedents for the 'Man of Lawlessness' in the
Intertestamental Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Caligula's Attempt to Defile the Jerusalem Temple (AD 40) . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Does Paul Speak of Caligula in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8? . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1 Paul and the language of epiphany (2 Thess 2:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.2 Paul and the language oflawlessness (2 Thess 2:3, 7, 8) . . . . . . . . .
3.4.3 Paul and the language of deity (2 Thess 2:4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
75
78
85
86
90
93
94
Chapter 4: Imperial Conceptions of Rule and Paul's Reign of Grace . . 97

4.1 Defining the Roman Sense of Time in Relation to Imperial Rule . . . . . .
4.1.1 Saeculum and the Centenary Celebrations at Rome . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2 The Advent of the Golden Age of Saturn in the Reigns of
Augustus and Nero ........................................
4.1.3 The amici and clientes of Augustus and the Erection of
Monuments and Inscriptions to AION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.4 Augustus' horologium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Paul, Jewish Eschatology and the Reign of Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Roman Conceptions of the Rule of the Caesars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Princeps a diis electus......................................
4.3.2 The 'Age of Grace' from Augustus to Nero ....................
4.3.3 The Ruler as 'Cosmic' Benefactor ............................
4.3.4 Providentially Defining Events in the Reigns of the Rulers . . . . . .
4.3.5 The Ruler as triumphator: The Roman Ideology of Victory . . . . . .
97
97
101
105
106
108
118
118
121
123
128
133
Table of Contents
4.3.6 The virtus of the Ruler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.7 The Titles of the Ruler and the Language of'Newness' ..........
4.4 The Triumph of Christ as Eschatological Ruler in Romans . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Paul, Messianic Prophecy and the Golden Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2 Paul, Redemption and the 'Newness' of the Julio-Claudian
Dynasty .................................................
4.4.3 Paul, the Redemption of Creation and the Ruler ...............
4.4.4 'More Than Conquerors': The Triumph of God's Love
over the Ruling Powers ....................................
4.4.5 Paul, the Crushing of Satan and the Empire of Rome ...........
4.5 Conclusion ...................................................
IX
138
142
144
146
153
156
159
161
163
Chapter 5: Paul's 'Dishonoured Benefactor' in Augustan

and Neronian Context ....................................... 165
5.1 Political Factionalism and the Mid-Fifties House Churches of Rome ..
5.2 The Forum of Augustus and Imperial Eschatology at Rome . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Anti-Augustan Propaganda and Imperial Ideology at Rome . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Ovid and the Rhetoric oflmperial Exile ...........................
5.5 Paul's Dishonoured Benefactor and the Imperial Gospel in
Romans 5:1-11 ................................................
5.5.1 Preliminary Comments ....................................
5.5.2 Peace, Grace, the Hope of Divine Glory, and Love: The Rhetoric
of Paul's Gospel in Its Imperial Context (Rom 5:1-5) . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.3 The Death of Christ and Imperial Rhetoric (Rom 5:6-9) ........
5.5.4 Divine Reconciliation and Imperial Rhetoric (Rom 5:10-11) ....
5.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
165
170
177
183
185
185
186
190
195
197
Chapter 6: Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory in the Epistle

to the Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
6.1 A Scholarly Oversight in the Study of Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 The Roman Nobiles and the Quest for Ancestral Gloria . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 Defining Gloria ...........................................
6.2.2 Sallust and Cicero on Gloria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2.1 A Survey of Sallust's Understanding of Gloria . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2.2 A Survey of Cicero's Understanding of Gloria . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.3 The Scipionic Elogia and Gloria .............................
6.2.4 Funeral Processions and the Commemoration of Ancestral
Gloria ...................................................
6.2.5 Roman Boasting Culture: the Duilius Inscription and Plautus . . .
201
205
205
209
209
212
219
221
223
Table of Contents
6.3 The Concentration of Gloria in the House of the Caesars . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3.1 The Application of Gloria Terminology to the Caesars and
the Decline of the Traditional Cursus Honorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4 Paul and the Jewish Ideal of Glory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.1 Paul's Theological Inheritance: The Jewish Context of Glory
and Its Impact on Paul's Thought in Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.1.1 Glory in the LXX ...................................
6.4.1.2 Glory in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Rabbinic Literature ........
6.4.2 Case Studies of Glory in Jewish Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.2.1 The Perspective of Philo and Josephus on Glory .........
6.4.2.2 Ben Sira on Ancestral Glory in Sirach 44:1-50:29........
6.4.2.3 Divine Glory and the Roman Conquest: The Perspective
of the Psalms of Solomon ............................
6.4.3 What Would Jewish Auditors Have Made of Paul's Ideal
of Glory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5 Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.1 What Would Roman Auditors Have Made of Paul's Ideal
of Glory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
225
225
232
232
232
237
242
243
247
251
254
262
262
268
Chapter 7: Did Paul Found a New Concept of State? .............. 271

7.1 A Survey of Recent Scholarship on Romans 13:1-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Greek and Roman Political Theorists on Submission to the Ruler .....
7.2.1 Greek Political Literature on the Ideal Ruler ..................
7.2.1.1 The Pythagorean Political Theorists ...................
7.2.1.2 Dio Chrysostom on Kingship and Tyranny .............
7.2.1.3 Musonius Rufus on Kingship and Philosophy ...........
7.2.1.4 Plutarch on Rulers and the Nature of Statecraft . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2 Roman Political Literature on the Ideal Ruler:
Seneca's De Clementia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.3 Conclusion ...............................................
7.3 Jewish Perspectives on Submission to Gentile Rulers ................
7.4 Setting Romans 13:1-7 in Its Imperial Context .....................
271
277
279
279
287
289
290
292
299
300
308
Chapter 8: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

8.1 The Issue of Appropriate Methodology for Studies of Imperial
Ideology and Its Relation to Paul's Epistles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
8.2 Paul's Gospel and Imperial Thessalonica: Issues of Ideological
Conflict in the Greek East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
Table of Contents
XI
8.3 Paul's Gospel and Imperial Rome: Issues ofldeological Conflict

in the Latin West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
8.4 Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
Appendix: Neronian Numismatic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Index of Passages .................................................
Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Apocrypha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pseudepigrapha ................................................
Rabbinic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Qumran .......................................................
New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Index of Ancient Non-Literary Sources ..............................
Index of Ancient Literary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
373
373
377
378
380
381
382
395
400
416
424
Abbreviations
ABSA
AFP
AHB
AJT
ANRW
ARW
Annual of the British School at Athens

Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum
Ancient History Bulletin
American Journal of Philology
Asia Journal of Theology
Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welted. H. Temporini
Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft
BCH
BFCT
Bib
BJRL
BMC
BMI
BTB
Bulletin de correspondance hellenique

Beitriige zur Forderung christlicher Theologie
Biblica
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester
Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum
Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum
Biblical Theology Bulletin
CA
CBQ
Classical Antiquity
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, et al., ed. W. Dittenberger
Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, ed. J.B. Frey
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
Classical Journal
Classical Philology
Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, ed. V. Tcherikover
Classical Quarterly
Classical Review
Currents in Theology and Mission
AlP
CIA
CIJ
CIL
cr
CPh
CPJ
CQ
CR
CurTM
DocsGaius
Documents Illustrating the Reigns ofAugustus and Tiberius,

eds. V. Ehrenberg and A.H.M. Jones
Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero,
DOP
Dumbarton Oaks Papers
BTL
ExAud
EvQ
Exp
IG
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

ExAuditu
Evangelical Quarterly
Expositor
Inscriptiones Graecae, et al., ed. W. Dittenberger
DocsAug
ed. E.M. Smallwood
XIV
Abbreviations
HSCPh
HTR
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

Harvard Theological Review
I.Cret.
!.Delos
I.Eph.
IG
IGRR
I.Hadrianoi
I.KosPH
ILS
!.Magnesia
I.Mylasa
Inscr. !tal.
!.Olympia
!.Pergamon
I.Priene
Int
Inscriptiones Creticae, ed. M. Guarducci

Inscriptions de Delos, et al., ed. A. Plassart
Die Inschriften von Ephesos, et al., ed. H. Wankel
Inscriptiones Graecae, et al., ed. F.H. von Gaertringen
Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, et al., ed. R. Cagnat
Die Inschriften von Hadrianoi und Hadrianeia, ed. E. Schwertheim
The Inscriptions of Cos, eds. W.R. Paton and E.L. Hicks
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau
Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander, ed. 0 Kern
Die Inschriften von Mylasa. I. lnschriften der Stadt, ed. W. Bliimel
Inscriptiones Italiae, ed. A. Degrassi
Die Inschriften von Olympia, eds. W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold
AltertUmer von Pergamon, eds. M. Frankel and C. Habicht
Die Inschriften von Priene, ed. F. Hillier von Gaertringen
Interpretation
JAC
JBL
JGRChJ
JHS
JRS
JSNT
JTS
Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum

Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
Journal of Hellenic Studies
Journal of Roman Archaeology
Journal of Roman Studies
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Journal of Theological Studies
MAAR
MDAI
MH
Michel
Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome

Mitteilungen des Deutschen archiiologischen Instituts
Museum Helveticum
Recueil d'inscriptions grecques, ed. by C. Michel
Neot
New Docs
NIDNTT
NovT
NTS
Neotestamentica
New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity,
eds. G.H.R. Horsley (vols l-5); S.R. Llewelyn (vols 6-9)
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown
Novum Testamentum
New Testament Studies
OGIS
Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger
PBA
P. Lond.
P.Med.
P. Oxy.
P&P
Proceedings of the British Academy

Greek Papyri in the British Museum, et al., ed. F. G. Kenyon
Papiri Milanesi (P. Med.), ed. S. Daris
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, et al., eds. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt
Past and Present
JRA
Abbreviations
REL
RTR
ResQ
RevExp
RhW
RHR
RIC
XV
Revue des etudes latines

Reformed Theological Review
Restoration Quarterly
Review and Expositor
Rheinisches Museum
Revue d'histoire des religions
Royal Imperial Coinage
SB
SEG
Select Papyri
SIG 3
Str-B
Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten, et al., ed. F. Preisigke

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
Select Papyri in Five Volumes, eds. A.S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar
Sylloge lnscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, eds. H.L.
Strack and P. Billerbeck
TAM
TAPA
TBT
TDNT
TLZ
TZ
TynBul
Tituli Asiae Minoris, et al., ed. E. Kalinka

Transactions of the American Philological Association
The Bible Today
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Theologische Literaturzeitung
Theologische Zeitschrift
Tyndale Bulletin
UPZ
USQR
Urkunden der Ptolemi:ierzeit, ed. U. Wilcken

Union Seminary Quarterly Review
VerbEccl
VoxEv
vc
Verba Ecclesia
Vox Evangelica
Vigiliae Christianae
YCS
Yale Classical Studies
ZPE
ZSTh
ZTK
Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie
Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This book will argue that Paul's eschatological gospel engaged the Julio-Claudian
conception of rule. The ruler's propaganda, with its claim about the 'eternal' rule
of the imperial house over its subjects, embodied an idolatry of power that conflicted with Paul's proclamation of the reign of the crucified, risen and returning
Son of God over his world. The 'symbolic universe' of the Julio-Claudian rulers
stood at odds with the eschatological denouement of world history, which, in
Paul's view, culminated in the arrival of God's new creation upon Christ's return
as Lord of all.
Paul's narrative theology, with its Jewish eschatological and apocalyptic roots,
unfolds the wider parameters of this ideological conflict. The election of the ruler
by the Roman gods and his providential appointment to rule was countered by
Paul's meta-narrative about God's electing grace being extended through Israel
to the nations. God's justification of Abraham, the father of the nations, led
inexorably to the eschatological gathering of a 'counter-imperial' family of nations ruled over by the messianic Root ofJesse. In a paradoxical inversion of the
imperial reciprocity system, Christ the dishonoured Benefactor had defeated the
ruling powers of sin and death, with the result that his powerful death on behalf
of his ungrateful dependants transferred to them the 'glory' and 'righteousness'
that had become the preserve of the Julio-Claudian house. Moreover, the Roman ruler was held hostage to the Adamic reign of sin and death and would face
divine judgement along with the rest of humanity. Thus the Senate's decision to
apotheosise some of the Julio-Claudian rulers and their family members upon
their death was an honorific accolade without any reality.
The reign of Christ's grace and the newness of his Spirit filling the church represented an overflow of beneficence in the present age that not only outstripped
the iconic Augustan age of grace but also rendered obsolete its much feted revival
under Nero. While the Roman ruler was to be obeyed and honoured by believers, Paul, in line with the Jewish scriptures, demoted the ruler to 'servant' status.
Concomitantly, Paul elevated the Body of Christ in importance over Nero's 'body
of state', transferring to the risen and ascended Jesus many of the ruler's titles and
to the Body of Christ many of the ruler's functions. In particular, the emergence
of the Body of Christ as a 'benefactor' community not only provided believers
with the opportunity of winning the ruler's praise through their civic beneficence
but also usurped one of the ruler's traditional avenues of securing clients loyal
Chapter 1: Introduction
to his house. In sum, Paul's eschatological gospel collided ideologically with the
Julio-Claudian conception of rule in ways that fundamentally challenged the
mores of first-century Roman society and which transformed its hierarchical
social relations within the Body of Christ.
In outlining these points of collision between Paul's gospel and the JulioClaudian propaganda, I am not suggesting that the apostle's apocalyptic theology
was primarily constructed as a pastoral and social response to the imperial conception of rule. Nevertheless, the imperial cult, with its concentration of power
in the ruler and in the Roman gods, represented one prominent case of GraecoRoman idolatry that Paul exhorted his Gentile believers to avoid, even though
they were to submit to the Roman authorities as God's appointed servants. In this
regard, the LXX and the writings of Second Temple Judaism powerfully shaped
the apostle's theological worldview as he responded to the challenges of imperial
cult. We have to allow, therefore, for Paul's versatility as an apocalyptic thinker as
he worked seamlessly with Jewish and Roman motifs, bringing each ideological
tradition into dialogue with the gospel of Christ crucified.
Although some scholars have recently questioned the ability of New Testament
exegetes to detect objectively whether there are imperial allusions within Paul's
epistles( 1.1), this book will argue that the imperial context of the Roman and
Thessalonian epistles has to be taken seriously, as much the contexts of Second
Temple Judaism and the Graeco-Roman indigenous cults, or the internal epistolary evidence regarding the house churches themselves. Rather than dismissing
any appeal to the imperial evidence as another misguided case of 'parallelomania', it should be recognised that a nuanced understanding of the Julio-Claudian
world can contribute richly to exegetical method. This is especially the case where
the relevant local evidence (literary, documentary, numismatic, iconographic and
archaeological) is discussed responsibly in relation to Paul's writings and where
his distinctive emphases- the Jewish scriptures, the Jesus tradition, and his own
apostolic teaching - are respected and accounted for exegetically. 1 We turn to a
discussion of modern scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' debate and later an
exposition of the methodologies employed in the book.
1.1 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics'

Debate: A Survey of Its Proponents and Critics
Any investigation of modern scholarship on the 'politics' of Paul should begin
with the famous claim of A. Deissmann that that there was a 'polemical parallelism' between the language of the cult of the ruler and the cult of Christ. The early
1 A good example of this approach is J. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical
Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul's Letter (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
believers, Deissmann argued, reserved for Christ honorific 'words that had been
transferred to the deified emperors (or had perhaps even been newly invented in
emperor worship)'. The intersection of competing traditions can be seen in the
fact that many of these words had currency in the LXX and the Gospels. 2 Thus,
for the early believers, 'abhorrence of emperor worship' formed 'an upper line of
demarcation'. 3 However, although Paul demonstrated an interest in politics, he
was nonetheless a political conservative. In Deissmann's view, this was because
the social constituency of the early Christian movement was drawn almost exelusively from the lower classes. 4 In an important methodological caveat to his
discussion, Deissmann warned scholars against assuming that polemical intent
against the ruler cult could be determined merely on the basis of the coincidence
of terminology. 5 Thus the issue of how one detects imperial allusions in Paul's letters must be addressed in our study( 1.4.3.2). But several important questions
still remain unanswered from Deissmann's study. Are we merely witnessing here
the collision of Paul's gospel with the honorific terminology of the imperial cult
and its idolatry? Or is Paul's critique of the imperial conception of rule more
incisive than Diessmann allows? What are the social consequences of such a
critique if Paul is moving in this direction? And what alternative does the apostle
articulate for those dependent on the ruler's patronal networks?
Since Deissmann's study, New Testament scholars have commented on Paul's
political stance from a variety of perspectives. The continuous stream monographs on the topic at the present - provoked to some degree by the excesses
of American foreign and economic policy under Presidents Ronald Reagan,
George H. W Bush and George W Bush6 - began with a trickle of publications
2 A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts from the Graeco-Roman World (2"d ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927: rpt.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 342. For discussion of the terminology, see id., ibid., 343-378. Note
the earlier study of H. A. A. Kennedy, 'Apostolic Preaching and Emperor Worship', Exp 7 {1909):
289-307. One year later a major study of Paul's use of one of the terms discussed by Deissmann
(Kupto<;: cf., ibid., 349-362) appeared: K. Priimm, 'Herrscherkult und Neues Testament', Bib 9
( 1928): 19-31. See now the methodologically and exegetically nuanced study of]. D. Fan tin (The
Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, A Challenge to Lord Caesar? [unpub. PhD thesis: University
of Sheffield, 2006], forthcoming Sheffield Phoenix) which skilfully covers the Kupto<; language in
Paul's letters. See also the earlier studies ofJ.L. White, The Apostle of God: Paul and the Promise
of Abraham (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 172-206; P. Oakes, Philippi: From People to Letter
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 147-174.
3 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 338-339.
4 Ibid., 339-340. For evaluations of Deiss mann's social analysis of the early Christian movement, see J. R. Harrison, 'Introduction', in E. A. Judge (ed. J. R. Harrison), The First Christians in
the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 17-20.
5 Ibid., 342-343.
6 Note the comment of N. T. Wright ('A Fresh Perspective on Paul?', B!RL 83 [2001]: 28):
'There is a danger - and I think Horsley and his colleagues have not always avoided it - of ignoring the major theological themes in Paul and simply plundering parts of his writings to find help
in addressing the political concerns of the contemporary Western world'.
in the 1950's and 1970's. E. Stauffer and D. Cuss investigated the intersection of
imperial honorific terms and motifs with the gospel of the early Christians. 7 Each
book was characterised by sensitivity to the various genres of imperial evidence.
Surprisingly, Stauffer bypassed the imperial context of Paul's letters, contrasting
the apostle instead with Rabbi Akiba, 8 whereas Cuss discussed the overlap of
Paul's terminology with the honorific accolades of the ruler (e.g. 'lord', 'Son of
God', 'epiphany')_9
But it was D. Georgi's work on how Paul's theocracy interacted with the imperial propaganda that grabbed the attention of New Testament scholars in the
late 1980's. 10 The momentum of interest unleashed has continued unabated to
our day. Several significant thematic and exegetical studies have appeared since
Georgi's seminal publication. J. L. White, for example, has discussed the imperial
themes of 'lordship', 'fatherhood' and 'household' in relation to Paul's epistles. 11
B. Blumenfeld's innovative work focused on how Paul's gospel related to the
'kingship' ideology of the Pythagorean political theorists. Although Blumenfeld
concentrates on the ideology of the Hellenistic ruler cult, his work throws indirect light on how the imperial cult in the Greek East built upon the conception
of rule articulated in the Pythagorean sources. 12 J.D. Crossan and J. L. Reed have
produced a wide-ranging examination of the imperial context of Paul's letters,
employing different genres of evidence and adding to our understanding of the
first-century background. 13 Finally, several stimulating exegetical works examining the imperial context of individual epistles of Paul have appeared in 2008. 14
7 E. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars (London: SCM, 1955); D. Cuss, Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New Testament (Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1974).
8 Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars, 192-204.
9 Cuss, Imperial Cult, 63, 70, 140-144.
10 D. Georgi, Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991, Gmn.
org.1987). Georgi's essay ('Who is the True Prophet?', HTR 79 [1986]: 100-126) also stimulated
strong interest in the intersection of the New Testament with the imperial cult.
11 White, The Apostle of God, 135-172, 207-249. On related themes, see also J.R. Hollingshead, The Household of Caesar and the Body of Christ (Lanham: University Press of America,
1998).
12 B. Blumenfeld, The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001).
13 J.D. Crossan and J. L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire
with God's Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul's Words and World (San Francisco: Harper Collins,
2005).
14 N. Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008); M. Gill, Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1-7 (New
York: Peter Lang, 2008); J. Hardin, Galatians; D. C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining
Paul's Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008); B. Kahl, Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the
Eyes of the Vanquished (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). For a general coverage of politics in the
New Testament writings, see W. Carter, The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential
Guide (Nashville: Abingdon, 2006). For a succinct coverage of the scholarly literature in the field,
see Gill, Jesus as Mediator, 55-70.
A series of seminal essays have further contributed to our understanding of

Paul and Empire. Three volumes of essays, edited by R. A. Horsley and published
from 1997 to 2004, were influential in exposing New Testament scholars to the
ways in which historical, postcolonial and exegetical studies mutually informed
each other in regards to Paul's political context. 15 In a fine study overlooked by
New Testament scholars, J. Meggitt explored the methodological issues relating
to the responsible use of the imperial evidence in New Testament studies. 16 Our
own discussion of methodology for imperial studies( 1.4.1- 1.4.3) continues
down the path ventured by Meggitt.
Before we turn to modern scholarship on the imperial context of Romans and
the Thessalonian epistles, two significant studies should be mentioned because of
the challenge they issue to the position taken in this book. First, in an important
paper delivered at the SBL 2008 Annual Meeting, Boston, (Nov 22-25), Professor
John Barclay debated Dr Tom Wright regarding the state of scholarship on 'Paul
and Empire'. 17 Barclay challenged the coalition of scholars represented by Wright
regarding their use of 'code' and the criteria of Richard Hays for detecting allusions within the Pauline texts. He proposed that, in contrast to Hays' detection of
Jewish allusions in Paul's letters, Wright is working subjectively from nothing explicit in the text. Along with several other scholars, Barclay dismissed the idea of
Goodenough's 'code' as inappropriate for Pauline studies. He also differentiated
Scott's sociological understanding of 'hidden transcript', in which subordinate
peoples spoke discreetly before their oppressors for personal protection, from the
situation of political openness in which the early house churches operated. More
generally, Barclay argued that Paul attributes the Rome Empire little significance
because it was coopted under the range of powers (sin, death, flesh) that hold
humanity enslaved. Rather than opposing the Empire in code, Paul is establishing
Christ-imitating communities of grace that embody the powers of the new Creation (the resurrection life and the Spirit). The Empire belongs to the idolatry of
15 R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1997); id. (ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor ofKrister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000); id. (ed.),
Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2003). Most recently, see
id. (ed.), In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance (Louisville: Westminster I John Knox, 2008 ). See also the essay of R. Saunders, 'Paul and the Imperial
Cult', inS. E. Porter (ed.), Paul and His Opponents: Pauline Studies (Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2005),
226-238. An entire edition of JSNT (27/3 [2005)) was also devoted to imperial studies.
16 J. Meggitt, 'Taking the Emperor's Clothes Seriously: The New Testament and the Roman
Emperor', in C. Joynes (ed.), The Quest for Wisdom: Essays in Honour ofPhilip Budd (Cambridge:
Orchard Academic, 2002), 143-169.
17 I am thankful to Professor Barclay for passing on to me a copy of his paper, titled 'Why the
Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul'. The paper will appear in a Mohr Siebeck collection
of Professor Barclay's writings on social issues. The volume, to be published in the future, has
not yet been assigned a title.
Chapter I: Introduction
the old creation that is passing away: it is merely a 'bit-part' player in the salvation
drama being enacted on the world's stage.
Second, S. Kim has argued that the idea of Paul as the 'anti-imperial' apostle
to the Gentiles is fundamentally misconceived. 18 Although Paul was aware of
the inadequacy of the Pax Romana, he did not promote the church as the replacement of the Roman Empire. Indeed, Paul was confident that the Roman
authorities would act justly, as were the later Church Fathers who also did not
advocate rebellion against Rome. Paul's mission in the eastern Mediterranean
basin is predicated precisely on this assurance. Therefore the attempt of New
Testament scholars to portray the apostle as a subversive agent in relation to
Rome, Kim claims, involves them in a grave-self contradiction. Consequently,
they resort to the device of'coding' and simplistic proof-texting. Moreover, they
fall into the trap of 'parallelomania' by overemphasising the significance of the
overlap of Paul's terminology- drawn mainly from the LXX- with the imperial
honorific terminology. Last, the imperial cult was less pervasive in the Greek
East than is commonly assumed, with Paul not referring to the imperial cult in
1 Corinthians 8-10.
In reply, it needs to be pointed out that Barclay relies on secondary discussion
(i.e. M. Niehoff, infra n. 129) for his criticism of 'coding' rather than engaging
directly with the primary source evidence. The same criticism can also be levelled
against Kim. Our discussion of the primary and secondary sources relating to
'coding' seeks to address this issue comprehensively( 1.4.2; 7.3). Barclay points
to the politically open context of the early house churches, but he forgets that
in the case of Rome the authorities had no problem in differentiating the early
Christians, by virtue of their social distinctiveness, from the Jews in the persecution of AD 64. Presumably, the authorities in the capital had been monitoring the
perceived threat of the Roman believers to the mas maiorum ('custom of the ancestors') for some time prior to their arrests( 1.4.1 nn. 153-154; 7.4). In other
words, Barclay overestimates the degree of political openness at Rome, as the
various expulsions of the Jews from the capital attest. Further, Barclay is correct
in arguing that Paul is an apocalyptic theologian whose emphasis is on enslaving
powers such as death rather than on the ruler. But Barclay overlooks the fact that
these powers have localised expressions that varied from church to church, as the
difference between living under the Neronian 'reign of death' at Rome (Rom 5:14,
17, 21; 4.2) and coping with the unexpected deaths of believers at Thessalonica
(1 Thess 4:13) illustrate. The interpretative significance of the imperial context still
has to be assessed exegetically epistle by epistle, even if the imperial cult is generally coopted by Paul under the reigning powers of sin and death (Rom 1:23a),
along with the other idolatrous cults (1 :23 b). Barclay also comes close to assertion
18 S. Kim, Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and
Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 3-71.
in claiming that the coalition of scholars represented by Wright work subjectively

from nothing explicit in Paul's texts. To cite one example, the interplay of imperial and LXX motifs in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:11 ( 2.2), carefully charted by
several scholars, deserves more serious consideration than Barclay allows. In sum,
Barclay has contributed helpfully to the debate by focusing our attention again
on Paul's apocalyptic thought in discussing the ruler as a player on the historical
stage. But Barclay has underestimated the impact of the Julio-Claudian ideology
of rule that Paul and the early believers had to engage, city-by-city, in their proclamation of the eschatological reign of Christ. It is historically and theologically
na"ive to assume that that Paul did not intend any political implications in his
eschatology, whereas his far more prescient auditors at Thessalonica and Rome
would have been able to draw such conclusions for themselves from his epistles.
In regards to Kim's critique, it is true that Paul does not promote the Church as
the replacement of Empire. Nonetheless, we will argue that the apostle demotes
the status of the ruler, transfers to the Body of Christ many of his honorific titles
and functions as a ruler, and radically critiques the mores of imperial society.
Undoubtedly, as Kim argues, Paul did not advocate rebellion against Rome. But
Paul, by fulfilling his divine vocation to call out the obedience of the nations to
the risen Son of God 'in power' (Rom 1:4-5), intended that the Body of Christ
would exemplify, through its community life and message, a transforming alternative to the hierarchical and self-serving social relations of Nero's 'body of
state' (Rom 12:1-15:33). Although the eschatological glory of the 'new creation'
was Paul's constant hope (Rom 8:18-23; cf. 2 Cor 4:16-5:10; Phil1:23; Col3:4),
nevertheless for Paul the crucified Christ had engaged with and triumphed over
the powers of the world through his atoning work and resurrection ( 1 Cor 2:6, 8;
Gal4:3-9; Eph 1:20-23; Col2:14-15). As a result, the Body of Christ emerged,
precisely because of the cross (Rom 8:32, 34-35, 39), 19 as the 'super-victor' over
all powers (8:37-39), including the threat of the ruler's sword (8:35; cf. 13:4).
In terms of methodology, like Deissmann and Sandmel before him, Kim warns
against the danger of'parallelomania'. 20 But, if wielded in an uncritical way, the
charge of'parallelomania' can be used to stifle any discussion of historical context
because of its perceived dangers. We require a more balanced assessment of the
overlap of LXX and imperial terminology than Kim presents. Although Kim's
warning against proof-texting is well taken, he himself overlooks inconvenient
'proof-texts' that undermine his contention that Paul ignored the imperial con19 Kim's bald assertion (Christ and Caesar, 67) that Paul's conception of salvation is 'a transhistorical and transcendental reality' overlooks Paul's emphasis on the historical contingency of
the incarnation culminating in the cross and, arising from its paradigm, the suffering of believers
on behalf of Christ.
20 On 'parallelomania', see S. Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', JBL 81 (1962): 1-13. N. T. Wright
('Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire', in Horsley, Paul and Politics, 162) is well aware of the
danger.
text of idolatry (e.g. 1 Cor 8:5-6).21 Kim's approach is therefore too sharply polarised, notwithstanding his methodological caution. In sum, Barclay and Kim are
justifiably reacting to the writings of Elliott, Horsley, and Wright which, to some
extent, portray Paul's theology as a reaction to the imperial cult and its ideology
of rule. However, their own scholarly overreaction poses as many exegetical,
historical and theological questions as the stance of their opponents.

in Romans and in the Thessalonian Epistles
But what have New Testament scholars been saying about the imperial context
of the Romans from the 1980's onwards? D. Georgi provided a brief but suggestive account of how Paul's Jewish missionary theology critiques Roman political
theology. 22 The work of Georgi opened up new vistas for scholars: the collision of
Paul's eschatology with the Julio-Claudian propaganda; 23 the triumph of Christ's
resurrection over imperial apotheosis (Rom 1:3-4);24 the solidarity of Christ as
princeps with his enemies (5:6-10); 25 the superiority of Christ as a benefactor
over the saeculum of Augustus and Nero (5:6-11, 15-21);26 the contrast of Paul's
suffering creation (8:18-25) with the idyllic pastorals of imperial propaganda; 27
and, finally, Paul's demotion of the ruler and eternal Rome (13:1-13). 28 All subsequent interpretations of Paul's 'political' theology in Romans stand, to some
extent, on the shoulders of Georgi.
J. Taubes has posited that Romans represented 'a political declaration of war
on the Caesar'. However, Taubes' case for Romans being a 'war' document does
not convince because, in contrast to Georgi, he pays very little attention to the
Julio-Claudian literary and documentary sources. 29 More incisive is N. Elliott's
distillation of the theology of the Roman Empire and, conversely, his portrayal of
Paul's rejection of imperial ideology. 30 Elliott investigates Romans 13:1-7 against
21 For discussion of the anti-imperial rhetoric in 1 Cor 8:5-6, see Fantin, The Lord of the
Entire World, 209-212.
22 Georgi, Theocracy, 79-104.
23 Ibid., 81-85.
24 Ibid., 86-87.
25 Ibid., 97-98.
26 Ibid., 99.
27 Ibid., 101-102.
28 Ibid., 102.
29 J. Taubes, The Political Theology of Paul (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004; Gmn.
orig. 1993), 16; cf. 24-25. Apart from a few general references to Seneca and Juvenal (ibid., 16,
19), as well as to several Roman rulers (ibid., 16, 23), Taube does not engage with the imperial
world of Paul.
30 N. Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 181-230, esp. 184-190. Note especially how Elliott (ibid., 3-19) seeks
1.2 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate in Romans
the backdrop of Roman imperialism and anti-Semitism, 31 proposing that Paul's

prophetic-apocalyptic theology 'did not enjoin unqualified obedience to the authorities'. 32 In later publications, Elliott drew heavily upon the research of E. R.
Goodenough to argue that Paul's rhetoric in Romans 13:1-7 was really a coded
warning to Roman believers about the danger posed by the ruler and his officials
( 7.4). 33 But Goodenough's arguments have not commanded the support of several prominent classical scholars. Before we endorse the idea that Paul has used
a coded rhetorical stratagem in speaking about the authorities, we will have to
assess the strength of Goodenough's arguments, as well as the sociological model
(Scott's 'hidden transcripts') often cited in support.
J. R. Harrison has suggested that Paul's language of overflowing grace ln Romans 5:12-21 drew upon the benefaction parlance of the Augustan 'age of grace'
in order to establish the superiority of the apocalyptic 'reign of grace' in Christ. 34
Further, Harrison proposed that Paul's metaphor for Christians as obligated
beneficiaries in Romans 6:12-23 was drawn from the familia Caesaris. 35 Harrison
also argued that Paul's language of covenantal election, applied to all believers,
would have spoken powerfully to Roman Gentile auditors familiar with the
Julio-Claudian propaganda of the princeps a diis electus. 36 Instead of election
being the preserve of the Roman ruler, it was now democratised throughout the
Body of Christ. However, the collision of Paul's eschatology in Romans with the
Julio-Claudian conception of rule needs to be examined as well. In this regard,
the 'new age' of Augustus and Nero should be understood against the Roman
understanding of'time' rather than speaking misleadingly, as Harrison does, of a
Roman 'eschatology' competing with Paul's gospei.3 7 While such language might
be useful for New Testament scholars unfamiliar with the first-century Roman
world, it is conceptually inaccurate for the ancient historian.
N. T. Wright has contributed stimulating articles on the imperial context of
Paul's gospel in Romans 38 and on the intersection of imperial ideology with Jewto liberate Paul from various modern imperialistic contexts spanning the historical period
1709-1992.
31 Elliott, Liberating Paul, 214-226.
32 Ibid., 225.
33 For Elliott's most recent discussion of hidden and public transcripts, see id., The Arrogance
ofNations, 30-57.
34 J.R. Harrison, 'Paul, Eschatology and the Augustan Age of Grace', TynBul 50/1 (1999):
79-91.
35 J. R. Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tiibingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2003), 234-242.
36 J. R. Harrison, 'Paul, Theologian of Electing Grace', inS. E. Porter (ed.), Paul the Theologian:
Pauline Studies Volume III (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 77-108.
37 Harrison, 'Augustan Age of Grace'.
38 The first two essays of Wright below are substantially the same publication with different
introductions: N. T. Wright, 'Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans', in C. Bartholemew
(ed.), A Royal Priesthood: The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically (Carlisle: Paternoster,
10
ish critiques of 'pagan' empires and Paul's 'counter-imperial' theology. 39 Wright

insists that the unresolved debate about the 'New Perspective' in Pauline studies needs to be supplemented by a fresh appreciation of the imperial context
of Romans. Romans 1:1-17, in Wright's view, is a parody of the imperial cult,
whereas Romans 15:7-13 - with its provocative citation of Isaiah 11:10 (Rom
15: 11) - represents a direct challenge to Caesar as the ruler of the nations. This
critique stems from the Jewish traditions that were reshaped around Paul's gospel, culminating in his high Christology and robust doctrine of justification.
Wright depicts Paul as sponsoring a balanced eschatology that asserted Jesus'
lordship over Caesar, while simultaneously creating a 'community owing imitative allegiance to the crucified and risen Jesus'. 40 The eschatological tension between the present and the future provided the dynamism for the transformation
of imperial society by means other than revolution or anarchy. As a brief aside
to Wright at this juncture, B. W Winter's presentation of Paul as a radical critic
of Roman society in Romans 12-15 better represents, in my view, the apostle's
agenda oftransformationY While Wright has well captured the balance of Paul's
eschatology in an imperial context, he tends to overestimate the ubiquity and
power of the imperial cult. 42 He also reads into some texts of Romans an antiimperial allusion where the Paul's imagery is capable of another construal. 43
Finally, two major works have been recently written on the imperial context
of Romans that have opened up new panoramas for Romans studies. 44 First,
I.E. Rock's unpublished thesis investigates the exordium of Romans 1:1-17 and
2002), 173-193; id., 'A Fresh Perspective', 21-39. See also Wright, 'Paul's Gospel and Caesar's
Empire', 160-183, esp. 170-173.
39 N. T. Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives (London: SPCK, 2005), 59-79.
40 Wright, 'A Fresh Perspective', 38.
41 For an excellent discussion of this theme, see B. W Winter, 'Roman Law and Society in
Romans 12-15', in P. Oakes (ed.), Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster.
2002), 67-102. Also useful is the discussion of M. Tellbe (Paul between Synagogue and State:
Christians, Jews and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians [Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001], 141-209), though he concentrates on Romans 13:1-7.
42 On this issue, see the recent challenge of K. Galinsky to New Testament scholars ( 1.5.3.1).
43 On the (alleged) anti-imperial 'fighting talk' of Paul's 'regnal' imagery in Romans 5 (Wright
'A Fresh Perspective', 35 n. 17), see the alternative suggestions of Harrison, Paul's Language of
Grace, 228 n. 62. The publication of the Augustan essays ofJudge (The First Christians, 1-345)
provide New Testament scholars with a rich resource for reconstructing the Augustan conception of rule.
44 Mention, too, should be made ofR. Jewett's magisterial commentary on Romans (Romans:
a Commentary [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007]) which is continually sensitive to the imperial
context of the letter in its exegesis. See also Jewett's excellent essay entitled 'The Corruption and
Redemption of Creation: Reading Rom 8:18-23 within the Imperial Context', in Horsley (ed),
Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 25-46. S. K. Stowers (A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews,
and Gentiles [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994], 42-82) has also explored the
theme of self-mastery, with reference to Romans and the Jewish literature, against the backdrop
of the moral politics of the Augustan revolution.
11
explores its counter imperial ramifications throughout the rest of the epistle. 45
Rock sketches adeptly the themes and ideological impact of Virgil's Aeneid in the
Roman Empire, with a view to assessing Paul's exposure to the popular imperial
propaganda. But, in my opinion, the likelihood of Paul's exposure to this type of
aristocratic literature needs fuller assessment on Rock's part( 1.4.1). In conclusion, Rock's careful exegesis, aided by his literary and sociological perspectives,
makes a very important contribution to the field.
Second, N. Elliott has recently published a seminal discussion on Paul's critique of imperial rule, grouped around several motifs of the Julio-Claudian propaganda: namely, imperium, iustitia, dementia, pietas and virtus. While traditional
exegetes might regard such an approach as imposing a foreign grid upon Paul's
text, nevertheless we do gain a sense of how first-century auditors, with their
preconceptions about empire, might have perceived the social and political implications of Paul's theology. Elliott argues that Paul wanted to steer non-Judean
believers in Rome away from regarding their fellow Judeans in the same arrogant
and dismissive way that the Romans adopted towards those they had conquered.
The book is a fine example of the new insights that arise from the text of Romans
when diverse genres ofJulio-Claudian evidence are pressed into the service of
exegesis. Another major strength of Elliott's work, though probably considered a
deficit by his detractors, is his sensitivity to the excesses of American imperialism
and how that illumines, to some extent, the rhetoric and strategies of empire in
the first -century context.
Nonetheless, in my opinion, an important omission weakens the force of Elliott's work. If the focus of Paul's gospel was Christ 'crucified' (1 Cor 1:23), in
terms of its soteriological and social outcomes (1:18ff; 5:7ff; 6:9ff, 19ff; 8:llff;
10:14ff; 11:23ff), how did this cruciform message undermine the rule of the
Julio-Claudian house and their clients (2:6b, 8)? It is disappointing that Elliott
does not explain how texts in Romans referring to the death of Christ (3:23-26;
5:6-10; 6: 1-10; 7:4; 8:3, 32; 14:15; 15:7-8) might have engaged imperial ideology.
The reason for his omission is clear enough. In Elliott's view, Paul's theology in
Romans is kyriarchical: that is, it points to the resolution of history under Christ
as KUpto<;. As Elliot elaborates,
Though I intend to show that some aspects of Paul's rhetoric in Romans were subversive of
some of the claims of imperial propaganda, I recognise that Paul never provides a systematic or comprehensive critique of the emperor (whom he never names) or of the empire as
such. The empire as such is never his direct target: his goal is to lay claim on the allegiance
of his listeners with which the rival claims of empire inevitably interfered.... In so far as
his thought was shaped by the contestation over power that surrounded him, and in which
imperial themes and tropes were dominant, Paul resembled his Judean contemporaries.
45 I. E. Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology for an Exegesis of Paul's Letter to
the Romans: An Ideological Literary Analysis of the Exordium, Rom 1:1-17 ( unpub. PhD thesis
University of Wales, Lampeter, 2005).
12
In strictly historical terms, then, I consider it anachronistic to read Romans as an early

specimen of Christian theology. The letter is rather one expression of the range of Judean
response to the Roman empire. 46
Furthermore, according to Elliott, 'kyriarchical' rhetoric dominates Romans

because the ascendant Gentile believers in the mid-fifties Roman house churches
had a strong attachment to imperial ideology. 47 Traditional theological paradigms are therefore deemed by Elliott to be historically 'anachronistic' in assessing Paul's response. Whether this includes the 'atoning' and 'propitiatory' dimension of Christ's death is never explicitly stated, but Elliott's neglect of the death of
Christ is clear enough. 48 For Elliott, Paul works within the rhetorical conventions
of first -century Jews who were struggling with submission to the Roman Empire.
However, I will be arguing, on the basis of Paul's rhetoric in Romans 5:6-10,
that the advent of the crucified Christ is the decisive eschatological event of salvation history which undermined Augustus' twin claims to have fulfilled Roman
history and to be the yardstick of all future leadership ( 5.2). The death of Christ
on behalf of his enemies secured reconciliation with the Father and incorporated
into the household of his risen Son those who had been marginalised and excluded from imperial favour. 49 In other words, what Elliott terms- somewhat
anachronistically in the case of Paul - 'Christian theology' is at the very core of
Paul's critique of Empire.
In sum, there has been no major investigation of the collision between the
Julio-Claudian conception of rule and Paul's eschatology in Romans. Although
some scholars have discussed Paul's eschatology in Romans in relation to the
imperial cult, their discussions have not been properly articulated against the
backdrop of the Roman understanding of time. Further, not only has the republican and imperial context of glory been ignored - apart from Harrison's recent
study-5 - but also the theme of eschatological glory itself in Romans remains
largely unexplored. As noted, the cruciform nature of Paul's gospel has to be
brought into conversation with the imperial propaganda rather than being quietly subsumed under Paul's 'kyriarchical' theology or bypassed as 'traditional' or
Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, 15.
As Elliott (ibid.) argues, 'I read the letter not as a Christian critique of Judaism, or a defence
of Gentile Christianity, but of a Judean critique of an incipient non-Judean Christianity in which
the pressures of imperial ideology were a decisive factor'.
48 In terms of traditional 'justification' language, Elliott (The Arrogance of Nations, 59-85)
interprets 'righteousness' (~ <'itKatO<HJVT]) as 'justice' and relates it to the injustices done to Jews
by the Romans, with the result that the 'justice of God' (~ <'itKULOaUVT] TOU ewu) intervenes on
behalf of his chosen people.
49 See especially Georgi (Theocracy, 93-100) who relates the death of Christ in Romans to
imperial ideology.
50 J. R. Harrison, 'Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory in the Epistle to the Romans', in U.
Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgenerij Peeters,
46
47
2009), 323-363.
13
'anachronistic' theology. This study seeks to rectify these important lacunae in

modern scholarship on Romans and Empire.
In the case of the Thessalonian epistles, there has been so far no full-scale
monograph devoted exclusively to the intersection of the Julio-Claudian propaganda with Paul's eschatology in the Thessalonian letters. E. A. Judge devoted a
study to the imperial background of the decrees of Caesar that the early believers
had purportedly violated at Thessalonica (Acts 17:7). 51 K. Donfried has endorsed
Judge's conclusion, to cite one prominent example, 52 but others, as we shall see,
have demurred. The unpublished thesis of H. Hendrix provided keen insight into
the Romanisation of Thessalonica through his examination of the activities of
its Roman benefactors,53 as well as the honouring of the ruler at Thessalonica. 54
Several studies touch briefly on the imperial context of the Thessalonian epistles
and Pauline eschatology in discussions of conflicts, internal and external, within
Paul's house churches in various cities, 55 or in Thessalonica itself. 56 J. R. Harrison
has discussed Paul's rebuttal of Julio-Claudian propaganda in 1 Thessalonians
4:13-5:11 _57 Harrison highlights how Paul, through his use of common LXX and
imperial language, called the Thessalonian believers back to a commitment to the
house of David and its risen messianic Son of God, as opposed to the house of
Caesar and its apotheosised Son of God. Recently, P. Oakes has opposed Harrison's construction, positing that Paul's Christological and eschatological conflict
with Roman ideology more centres on the remapping of the imperial universe
than on the overthrow of the ruler or on participation in the imperial cult. 58
Last, A. Smith has proposed that in 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 'Paul criticises proRoman Thessalonian aristocrats who have persecuted his assembly through an
E. A. Judge, 'The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica', in id., The First Christians, 456-462.
K.P. Donfried, 'The Cults ofThessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence', in id.,
Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2002), 21-48, esp. 31-38.
53 H. Hendrix, Thessalonicans Honor Romans (unpub. PhD thesis Harvard University, Cambridge Mass., 1984).
54 Ibid., 283-318.
55 C. S. de Vos, Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and the Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities (Adanta: Scholars,
1997), 123-177; T.D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbours (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 260-266; Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue and State, 118-130.
56 C. vom Brocke, Thessaloniki: Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus (Tiibingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001). See also the attention devoted to the imperial cult at Thessalonica in the
commentary of G. L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),
passim. Most recendy, see C. Steimle, Religion im romischen Thessaloniki: Sakraltopographie, Kult
und Gesellschaft 168 v.Chr.-324 n.Chr. (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).
57 J.R. Harrison, 'Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki', JSNT 25/1 (2002): 71-96.
This article, slighdy revised, is reproduced with permission in Chapter 2 infra.
58 P. Oakes, 'Re-Mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians', JSNT27/3 (2005): 301-322, esp. 315-318.
51
52
14
implicit comparison with the pro-Roman aristocracy in Judea'. 5 9 In conclusion,

my preliminary work on the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 needs to
be revisited in light of Oakes' response and Kim's recent critique. 6Further, the
possibility that Paul alludes to Caligula's attempted profanation of the Jerusalem
Temple (AD 40) in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, touted in several commentaries, has
not been properly addressed in light of the ancient sources( 3.3).
At the same time that this explosion in studies on the imperial context of Paul's
writings was occurring, seismic shifts were also shaking the foundations of classical scholarship on the imperial cult. Why has an appreciation of these new trends
become increasingly important for New Testament scholars?
1.3 Modern Scholarship on the Imperial Cult and Its Relevance

for the Thessalonian and Roman House Churches
A Copernican revolution occurred with the publication of S. R. Price's monumental work on the imperial cult in Asia Minor. 61 It represented a significant
shift in the methodology and perspective of 'ruler cult' studies. Before Price's
book appeared, most scholarly investigations of the imperial cult were confined
to surveys spanning the period from Augustus to Diocletian or Justinian. They
focused either on the empire as whole, 62 or a province, 63 or a period of imperial history. 64 However, much of this research was not sufficiently sensitive to
the genuine religiosity driving the cult and its worshipers in the provinces.
Works covering the transition of ruler cult from the Hellenistic Age to the Ro-
59 A. Smith, "'Unmasking the Powers": Towards a Postcolonial Analysis of 1 Thessalonians',

in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 47-66. See the criticism of Smith by
Kim, Christ and Caesar, 9-10.
60 Kim, Christ and Caesar, 8-9.
61 S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985).
62 E. Beurlier (Le culte imperial: son histoire et son organization depuis Auguste jusqu' afustinien [Paris: E. Thorin, 1891]) concentrates mainly on the forms that the imperial cult took in the
provinces. For an early chronological account of the development of the cult from 48 BC-AD
14, see H. Heinen, 'Zur Begriindung des romischen Kaiserkultes', Klio 11 (1911): 129-177.
63 R. Etienne, Le culte imperial dans Ia peninsule iberique d'Auguste aDiocletien (Paris: Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran.;:aises d'Athenes et de Rome, 1958); E. G. Huzar, 'Emperor Worship in
Julio-Claudian Egypt', ANRWII 18/5 (1995): 3092-3142. Although Huzar writes after the publication of the seminal work of Price (Rituals and Power), she discounts elements of religiosity
in the imperial cult (ibid., 3102,3104, 3110-11). Conversely, a singular exception to this trend
before Price is Etienne's meticulous inscriptional analysis of the provincial priests and the various imperial cults in the Iberian peninsula (Le culte imperial, 121-349). Etienne points to the
devotion of the ruler's provincial subjects and observes that this cannot be dismissed as merely
the imagination of the court poets or the flattery of courtiers (ibid., 349; cf. 523).
64 K, Scott, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (New York: Arno, 1975).
1.3 Modern Scholarship on the Imperial Cult
15
man Empire followed the same 'chronological' paradigm. 65 Several significant

studies before Price also investigated the divinity of the ruler and its Hellenistic
antecedents. 66 Although these studies were valuable, they were more interested
in the perspective of the ruler than in the responses of his provincial clients.
They concentrated on the evidence of aristocratic literature at the expense of the
ancient documents, numismatics, iconography and archaeology. Moreover, the
sweeping surveys of historical periods characterising the early scholarship of the
twentieth century resulted in analyses of the imperial cult that lacked particularity - a problem for New Testament scholars whose documents are riddled with
historical particularity because of their occasional nature. What, then, was so
innovative about Price's book?
Price exploded the scholarly consensus that the imperial cult was 'unworthy'
of ancient Roman religion because of its (alleged) insincere flattery of the ruler. 67
By contrast, Price argued that the phenomenon of the imperial cult was securely
located within Roman religion. According to Price, the provincial subjects of
Rome enthusiastically embraced the cult for the considerable benefits it brought
65 L. Cerfaux et J. Tondrian, Le culte des souverains dans Ia civilisation Greco-Romaine (Paris:
Tournai Desc!ee & co, 1957). See also the chronologically based approach of the essays in W
den Boer (ed.), Le culte des souverains dans /'Empire Romain (Vandceuvres-Geneve: Foundation
Hardt pour !'etude de l'antiquite classique, 1973). Another example of the same is A. Wlosok
(Hrsg.), Romischer Kaiserkult (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978).
66 L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown: American Philological Association, 1931 ); A. Nock, 'Religious Development From the Close of the Republic to the Death
of Nero', in F. E. Adcock and M.P. Charlesworth (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 10: The
Augustan Empire, 44 BC-AD 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), 481-489; id.,
'The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year', in Z. Stewart (ed.), Essays on Religion and
the Ancient World by Arthur Darby Nock. Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 778-781;
G. W Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 112-121; id.,
'The Imperial Cult: Perceptions and Persistence', in B. F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders (eds.), Jewish
and Christian Self-Definition. Volume III: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World (London:
SCM, 1982), 171-182; J. R. Fears, Princeps A Diis Electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a
Political Concept at Rome (Rome: American Academy at Rome, 1977); K. Moller, Gotterattribute
in ihrer Anwendung auf Augustus: Eine Studie iiber die indirekte Erhohung des ersten Princeps in
der Dichtung seiner Zeit (Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner Verlag, 1985). The works ofNock ('Religious
Development', 'The Roman Army') and Bowersock (Augustus) underestimate the religious
dimension to the cult. However, the magnum opus of S. Weinstock (Divus Julius [Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1971)) was a seminal work methodologically in the discipline.
67 Price, Rituals and Power, 15-19. For recent studies of Roman religion correcting the
imbalanced approaches of early last century, see J. Riipke, Religion of the Romans (Cambridge:
Polity, 2007; Gmn. orig. Miinchen, 2001); J. Scheid, An Introduction to Roman Religion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003; Fr. orig. Paris 1999); J.P. Davies, Rome's Religious
History: Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus on Their Gods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004); J. B. Rives, Religion in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007). See especially M.
Beard (et al., ed. ), Religions of Rome. Volume 1: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998); id., Religions ofRome. Volume 2: A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998). Before the appearance of Price (Rituals and Power), however, there were scholars
emphasising the religiosity of the imperial cult: e.g. H. W Pleket, ~n Aspect of the Emperor Cult:
Imperial Mysteries', HTR 58 (1965): 331-47; Etienne, Le culte imperial.
16
to the cities of Asia Minor and to the clients ofJulio-Claudian house. 68 An important methodological feature of Price's book was its attention to a wider selection
of the genres of evidence relevant to the imperial cult - literary, documentary,
numismatic, iconographic and archaeological sources - than was normally the
case in previous studies. 69 Price also drew upon modern sociological models to
understand the reciprocal relationships between the ruler and the provincial
elite. 7 Finally, Price demonstrated how Christianising assumptions about the
imperial cult distorted scholarly perceptions regarding its operations? 1
Price's book found a sympathetic partner in D. Fishwick's multi-volumed
project on the imperial cult in the Latin West. 72 Fishwick's corpus of research
is a valuable counterpart to Price's discussion of the imperial cult in the Greek
East and, like Price, draws upon a wide variety of genres of ancient evidence.
The gratifying result of Price and Fishwick's approach has been the production
of studies that explore the operation of the imperial cult in specific localities and
which throw light on the complex interplay occurring between the ruler and his
subjects?3
Price, Rituals and Power, 66-67,72-73,75-77, 128-131.

Ibid., 65.
70 Ibid., 11-15.
71 Ibid., Price's work is not without its weaknesses. For a succinct assessment of Price, drawing
on S.J. Friesen's appraisal of his work, see Gill, Jesus as Mediator, 31-42.
72 D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western
Provinces of the Roman Empire Volume I, 1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987); id., ibid., Volume I, 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987); ibid., Volume II, 1 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991); id., ibid., Volume!!, 2 (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1992); id., ibid., Volume III: Provincial Cult, Part 1: Institution and Evolution (Leiden:
Brill, 2002). See also id., 'The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western Roman Empire', ANRWII 16/2 (1979): 1201-1253. Additionally, see S.J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros:
Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Leiden/New York: E.J. Brill, 1993); S.
Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993),
100-117. On the limitations ofFishwick's work, see Gill, Jesus as Mediator, 43-44.
73 See also A. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Number 17, 1996). The
recent unpublished doctoral thesis of B. B. Rubin ([Re ]presenting Empire: The Roman Imperial
Cult in Asia Minor, 31 BC-AD 63 [unpub. PhD thesis University of Michigan Ann Arbor, 2008])
68
69
has challenged the consensus, arguing that the interaction between ruler and subject is more
complex than formerly supposed. Rubin questions the scholarly assumption that in Asia Minor
the imperial cult was more an outgrowth of the Greek ruler cult than a melding of Roman and
Anatolian traditions. As Rubin concludes (ibid., 26-27), 'By its very nature, Roman imperialism
in Asia Minor was a dialogic process, which resulted in the melding of Roman and provincial
cultures. The Roman imperial cult was both a product and catalyst of this ongoing cultural
dialogue. Anatolian elites worked together with Roman administration to develop a shared
set of cultural codes (i.e., art, architecture and rituals), which they could use to articulate and
negotiate the new social realities of Roman imperial rule. As a result, the ideological program of
the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor was neither truly Greek nor Roman, but rather a hybrid
synthesis of the multiple cultural systems'. Further, Rubin (ibid., passim) also draws attention to
the wider cultural influences of the ancient Near East in this process of dialogue. It is beyond the
scope of this work to enter into extended dialogue with Rubin, but he is correct in emphasizing
1.3 Modern Scholarship on the Imperial Cult
17
This recent focus on the particularity of locale as opposed to generalised

chronological surveys is a boon for New Testament scholars who want to reconstruct how the early churches interacted with the 'symbolic universe' of the
ruler in specific cities of the eastern Mediterranean.74 In discussing the imperial
conception of rule at Thessalonica and Rome, scholars need to be sensitive to
the subtle local differences between the imperial cult in the capital of the empire
and its operation in the Greek East. There have been considerable advances in
understanding the imperial context ofThessalonica ( 2.2.1). However, discussions of the epistle to the Romans have been largely dominated by the debate
as to whether Jewish believers were included in Claudius' expulsion of the Jews
in AD 49, with its implications for the social constituency of the Roman house
churches. 75 An exhaustive investigation of the early imperial conception of rule
in the capital - which takes seriously its distinctive features in the Latin West as
opposed to the Greek East - has not yet been undertaken. This book seeks to
remedy this scholarly oversight by investigating the Julian conception of rule in
the forum Augustum and bringing it into dialogue with the evidence of Romans
( 5.2).
New works on the relationship of the ruler to the Roman gods have continued
to appear since Price,76 including the pioneering publication of J. Sheid on the
priestly college of the Arval Brethren, as well as his invaluable translation of
that imperial studies need to be conducted city by city, region by region, if an accurate assessment of what was happening is to be attained.
74 M.E. Hosk.ins-Walbank, 'Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth', in
Small, Subject and Ruler, 201-213. See also E. A. Judge, 'The Eulogistic Inscriptions of the Augustan Forum: Augustus on Roman History', in id., The First Christians, 165-181, for the Augustan
conception of rule in the capital.
75 For debate as to whether a garbled reference to 'Christians' was intended in Suetonius'
cryptic reference in Claudius 25.4 (impulsore Chresto ), see the discussions ofS. Benko, 'The Edict
of Claudius of AD 49 and the Instigator Chrestus', TZ 25/6 (1969): 406-418; M.D. Nanos, The
Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 41-84,
372-387; H. D. Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (Atlanta 1997); S. Spence, The Parting of the Ways: The Roman Church as a Case
Study (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 308-311; N. Elliott, 'Disciplining the Hope of the Poor in Ancient
Rome', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Christian Origins: A People's History of Christianity. Volume 1
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 177-197; A.A. Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2007), 149-202; E. A. Judge, 'The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution?', in
id., The First Christians, 442-455. The consensus of most Romans commentators is that Jewish
believers were included in Claudius' expulsion of the Jew from Rome in AD 49: e.g. J.D. G. Dunn
(Dallas: Word, 1988), J. A. Fitzmyer (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992 ), B. Byrne (Collegeville:
Michael Glazier I Liturgical, 1996); T. R. Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998 ); B. Witherington
III (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); R. Jewett (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). Although the issue is not central to our discussion, I remain sceptical about the viability of the consensus view.
76 D. N. Schowalter, The Emperor and the Gods (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); M. Clauss, Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult im romischen Reich (Miinchen/Leipzig: K. G. Saur, 2001); J. Scheid,
'Augustus and Roman Religion: Continuity, Conservatism, and Innovation', inK. Galinsky (ed.),
Age of Augustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 175-193.
18
the inscriptions of its annual protocols. 77 This has culminated in the paradigmshifting publication of I. Gradel on the imperial cult. 78 Gradel investigates the
emergence of ruler worship in Rome, concluding with acts of deification in state
religion. Although Gradel adopts a chronological approach, he concentrates on
the literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence. Gradel takes issue with the
Christianised dichotomies of past scholarship that depicted the ruler as either
a 'man' or a 'god'. 79 In Gradel's view, this distorts the operation of the benefaction system in which honours were given in exchange for benefactions. 'Divine
honours' represented the highest accolade in a descending scale of honour, with
worship of the ruler being expressed in sacrifices at altars before temples, including worship of his Genius and numen. 80
Instead of viewing the Ruler cult as an eastern corruption of late republican
religion at Rome, Gradel argued that there were already intimations of this in Roman religious practice: the triumphator dressed in the garb of Jupiter, the power
of the paterfamilias, the cult of the Genius, and so on. 81 Here we see the continuing impact of Price's work on new scholarship. In Gradel's view, Augustus was
worshipped across the social classes as a living ruler outside of the capital in the
Italian municipal cults. But this worship was never practised in the state religion
at Rome itself, apart from post-mortem deification. 82 This policy was perpetuated
under the conservative Tiberius. 83 However the policy changed somewhat under
Caligula, through the worship of the living ruler's numen in a private vestibule at
the Palatine, 84 and also under Claudius, with the official insertion of the worship
of Genius into the state cult. 85
For New Testament scholars investigating the collision of Paul's eschatology
with the imperial conception of rule, several important questions emerge from
Gradel's stimulating discussion the 'deity' of the ruler. Was Philo was correct in
depicting Caligula's attempt to defile the Jerusalem Temple in AD 40 as another
77 J. Scheid, Romulus et ses freres: le college des Freres Arvales, modele du culte public dans Ia
Rome des empereurs (Rome: Ecole Franyaise de Rome, 1990); id., Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium Qui Supersunt: Les copies epigraphiques des protocols annuels de Ia Confrerie Arvale (21
AV.-31 AP. f.-C) (Rome: Ecole Franyaise de Rome, 1998).
78 1. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002).
79 Ibid., 4-8.
80 Ibid., 27-32,36-44,77-81,99-100, 115-130, 132-142, 162-197,234-250.
81 Ibid., 34-44. See in regards to the triumphator, M. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge,
Mass. !London, 2007), 219-256.
82 Ibid., 72-108, 261-371. See also the important study ofS. Price, 'From Noble Funerals to
Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors', in D. Cannadine and S. Price (eds.), Rituals
of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987), 56-105.
83 Ibid., 140-141.
84 Ibid., 141-146.
85 Ibid., 164. This is not reflected in the extant Claudian inscriptions of the Arval Brethren
(Scheid, Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium, 17-23), but worship of the Genius of Nero is certainly attested (ibid., 24, 26, 27, 28).
1.4 Methodological Issues
19
attempt to impose worship of the living ruler? Is Paul alluding to this event in
2 Thessalonians 2:4? Does the apostle engage in a critique of imperial power in
2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 ( 3.4)? Was Paul's bold presentation of the return of
Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, with its anti-imperial elements ( 2.2), a
contributing factor to Thessalonian eschatological enthusiasm (2 Thess 2:2-3:
3.4.2 n. 67)?
However, there are several pressing methodological issues, arising out of contemporary scholarship, which must be addressed before we advance any further.

1.4.1 The Literacy of First-Century Believers and Their Reception of Imperial
Propaganda
An important methodological issue that bears on Paul's interaction with the
Julio-Claudian conception of the rule is the extent of literacy within the Roman
Empire. Paul's letters were read out aloud to audiences who, if W V. Harris is
correct regarding literacy rates in antiquity, 86 were mostly illiterate. This opens
several important questions regarding the familiarity of Paul's audience with the
imperial cult for New Testament scholars. To what extent did the imperial propaganda penetrate the base of the Roman social pyramid if literacy was largely
confined to the educated social elite? 87 Would the early Christian movement
have been exposed to the written media of imperial propaganda in any significant
way? 88 Is the spread of literacy in the house churches analogous to the rest of
Roman society in this regard? What other media of imperial propaganda would
have registered with the illiterate? And to what extent would Paul have been
familiar with the literature and inscriptions touching on the Julio-Claudian conception of rule in ministering to his house churches throughout the Greek East?
86 On ancient literacy, see W V. Harris, 'Literacy and Epigraphy, 1', ZPE 52 (1983): 87-111;
id., Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989); M. Beard (et al., ed.),
Literacy in the Roman World (Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary
Series, No.3, 1991); A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf, Literary Power in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); G. Woolf, 'Literacy', in A. K. Bowman (et al., ed.),
The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 11/2: The High Empire AD 70-192 (2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000), 875-897; C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine
(Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); WA. Johnston and H. N. Parker, Ancient Literacies: The Culture
of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
87 On the 'trickle-down' effect of the aristocratic literature to the base of the social pyramid,
see F. G. Downing, 'A Bas Les Aristos: The Relevance of Higher Literature for the Understanding
of the Earliest Christian Writings', NovT 30/3 (1988): 212-230.
88 On the literacy of Christian communities, seeP. J. J. Botha, 'Greco-Roman Literacy as Setting for New Testament Writings', Neot 26 (1992): 195-215; J. Dewey, 'Textuality in Oral Culture:
a Survey of Pauline Traditions', Semeia 39 (1994): 47-54; H. Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in
the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).
20
Undoubtedly, illiteracy was widespread in the first-century world. C. Hezser

has argued that only 10% of Jews in Roman Palestine could sign their names
or read simple texts. 89 V. K. Harris posits that approximately 10% of Western
antiquity (i.e. classical Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman imperial civilisations) was
literate and that literacy never exceeded 15-20% of the population as a whole. 90
Could Paul assume that his audiences would be familiar with the imperial propaganda and its terminology if they were unable to read the court poets, assuming
for the moment their availability, or, alternatively, the honorific inscriptions
eulogising the ruler? The answer to this question is not quite as important if Paul
is primarily writing for the members of the educated elite of the house churches
who were in leadership positions, as C. D. Stanley argues. 91 In Gamble's view,
however, the spread of literacy in the house churches would have been largely
commensurate with the rest of Graeco-Roman society, being ordinarily not more
than 10-15% and probably less in the smaller and provincial congregations. 92
But the public reading of Paul's letters to the assembled house churches presumes
that the apostle expected the whole audience, to varying degrees, to engage with
what he is saying (Col4:16; 1 Thess 5:27). Thus the apostle would have probably
assumed a basic knowledge of the imperial cult and its propaganda on the part of
his audience, whether that was derived through reading or, more likely, by other
means (aural, visual, theatre).
However, a measure of caution is apposite here lest we overstate the extent of
illiteracy in antiquity. N. Horsfall has convincingly agued that literacy was more
widespread than formerly supposed and that there was more extensive recourse
to the practice of writing than Harris allows. 93 The latter point is given credence
by the appearance of graffiti in Pompeii in social contexts where one would not
normally expect the appearance of writing: 94 namely, the eighty three pieces of
graffiti left by the foreman and workers on a peristyle that was being remodeled
by the architect Crescens at the time of Vesuvius' eruption (CIL IV. 4706-85); 95 or
89
Hezser, jewish Literacy, 473, 496.
For varying estimates for differing places and civilisations, see Harris, Ancient Literacy,
141, 272, 327-330.

91 Recently, C. D. Stanley ('Literacy and Illiteracy in Early Christianity', www.lamp.ac.uk/trs/
research_institute/ conferences/stanley_illiteracy_paper) has argued for this position in an unpublished paper delivered at University ofWales (Lampeter, Wales, October 2007) and Highland
Theological College (Dingwall, Scotland, December 2007).
92 Gamble, Books and Readers, 5, 10. Gamble (ibid., 6) observes: '... the large majority of
Christians in the early centuries of the church were illiterate, not because they were unique but
because they were in this respect typical. The ancient world had virtually no system of education'.
93 N. Horsfall, 'Statistics or States of Mind?', in Beard, Literacy, 59-76.
94 See J. L. Franklin, Jr., 'Literacy and the Parietal Inscriptions of Pompeii', in Beard, Literacy,
77-98, esp. Franklin's conclusion (ibid., 97 -98). See also the discussion of the graffiti of Roman
Britain in G. Woolf, 'Literacy or Literacies in Rome?', in Johnston and Parker, Ancient Literades, 54-56.
95 Ibid., 92-97.
21
the one hundred and twenty pieces of graffiti at a brothel, including those of the
prostitutes and their clients (CIL VII. 12. 18-20);96 or the graffiti of the glamorous
womaniser, the gladiator Celadius Crescens, at the gladiatorial academy. 97 Additionally, as G. Woolf has argued, 98 Roman imperial expansion coincided with
a rapid increase in the variety of writing practices because of the need for greater
document use - generated by state bureaucratization - among the subjects of
the Roman Empire. Even total illiteracy did not necessarily stymie the ability
of people to access information. As F. W Danker observes regarding the public
monuments, 99 there would have always been somebody around to read out aloud
or to expound the honorific inscriptions to the illiterate. 100 Thus, while illiteracy
was the norm in antiquity, there were interesting local variations that meant that
the reading of texts did not always remain the preserve of the educated elite.
In the case of the early Christians at Rome, the fact that there were slaves from
the familia Caesaris and from the households of prominent freedmen among
Roman believers (Phil4:22; Rom 16:llb; cf. 5.1 n. 15) provides another important local variation. Slaves in these high profile households kept complex
accounts (rationes: cf. Suetonius, Aug. 101), maintained records of their master's
property, taught his children, transcribed literary compositions, and wrote business letters. 101 They also sought honour and on their tombstones boasted in their
Ibid., 97.
Ibid., 89-90. CIL IV. 4397: suspirium puellarum Celadus tr:; 'Celadius the Thracian makes
the girls sigh'; cf. CIL IV. 4345, 4356.
98 Woolf, 'Literacy or Literacies', 48-49.
99 F. W Danker ('On Stones and Benefactors', CurTM 8/6 [1981), 352) writes: 'when such a
communication appears on stone, everyone knows that Rome means business. An inscription
is meant to be read or heard- there's always someone around to clue illiterate folk on the latest- by every citizen, temporary resident, slave, or tradesperson'. Plutarch (Mor., 395A) mentions the professional guides of Corinth expounding the inscriptions.
100 However, see Franklin's fascinating comments ('Inscriptions of Pompeii', 86-87) on why
the most important reading of an inscription 'was visual, not literate'. Note especially Franklin's
comments on the immediate visual clues (ibid., 86):' ... first one noted that it was an honorary
inscription, for it was on an honorary inscription, for it was on an honorary gate and identified
with an impressive statue; secondly, a capable reader noted the name of the honoree, which
could be read rapidly without stopping; finally, the interested (normally an educated preserver
of or striver for social status) could pause to decipher the detailed and abbreviated cursus'. See
also the B. Burrell's excellent discussion of the Gate of Mazaeus and Mithridates at Ephesus
('Reading, Hearing, and Looking at Ephesos', in Johnston and Parker, Ancient Literacies, 72-75).
Burrell (ibid., 74-75) shows how the monument's visual presentation gave an indication to its
viewers about the way Greek and Latin inscriptions should be read.
101 Woolf, 'Literacy or Literacies', 52. R. J. Karris (A Symphony of New Testament Hymns [Collegeville: Liturgical, 1996] 25), drawing upon the inscriptional research of S.R. Joshel (Work,
Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions [Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press, 1992]), argues that slaves in upper-class urban households - and I would add
the familia Caesaris - were musicians and composed many of the various hymns found in the
New Testament. Seven Latin tides found on first and second century AD inscriptions belonging
to slaves, freed slaves and unprivileged freeborn citizens point in this direction: (a) cantor-trix:
singer; (b) citharoedus: lyre player and singer; (c) hymnologus: singer of hymns; (d) musicus:
96
97
22
acquisition of administrative posts in the imperial cursus honorum in the same

manner as the senatorial class. 102 That there were literate 'bureaucrats' among the
believing slaves at Rome is difficult to prove definitively, 103 but it remains a strong
likelihood. Members of the familia Caesaris were not only located in the capital
but were also stationed throughout the empire, including cities such as Corinth
and Ephesus where Paul ministered. This means that the illiteracy statistics of
Harris and Hezser for the Roman Empire, cited above, have less relevance for
the overall educational level of the first believers when one takes into account the
social composition of the early house churches city by city.
More importantly, the legitimate objection that a literary and documentary
approach to the propaganda of the imperial cult does not reach sufficiently to
the illiterate base of the social pyramid is overcome if we incorporate the architectural and visual evidence of the first century AD in our enquiry. The ideology
of the imperial cult was architecturally conveyed by its symbolic use of public
and sacred space, 104 including standardized images of the ruler in varying contexts (e.g. cult, ritual, asylum). 105 Moreover, ideology was symbolically conveyed
by ruler's numismatic propaganda, 106 as well as by the imperial iconography of
musician; (e) philosophos: philosopher; (f) poeta: poet; (g) symphoniacus: musician. Again, this
demonstrates a more culturally sophisticated slave constituency in the early Christian movement than we have hitherto supposed.
102 J. E. Len don, Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (rpt. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2002), 102.
103 On the familia Caesaris, see P.R. C. Weaver, Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).
104 See J. Charbonneaux, L'Art au siecle d'Auguste (Lausanne: La Guilde du Livre, 1948); Price,
Rituals and Power, 133-169; H. Hanlein-Schiifer, Veneratio Augusti: Bin Studie zu den Tempeln
des ersten riimischen Kaisers (Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1985); N. Hannestad, Roman Art
and Imperial Policy (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988); P. Zanker, The Power of Images in
the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990); C. Gates, Ancient Cities:
The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece and Rome (London I
New York: Routledge, 2003 ), 335-380; P. J. E. Davies, Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial
Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Austin: University of Texas Press,
2004); D. Favro, 'Making Rome a World City', inK. Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to the Age of Augustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 234-263. Price (Rituals
and Power, 135) refers to 'the enormous amount of architecture which kept the emperor ever
present in the eyes of his subjects'.
105 Price, Rituals and Power, 170-206. Bowersock ('The Imperial Cult', 173-174) notes that
most people would have known of the ruler through his bust or statue. These sacred images
visually dominated the games, sacrifices and processions associated with the imperial cult. See
also T. Stevenson, 'Visual Images of Augustus', in B. Marshall (ed.), Res Romanae: Essays on Roman History (Macquarie University: Macquarie Ancient History Association, 2009), 153-180.
106 See R. E. Oster, 'Numismatic Windows into the Social World of Early Christianity', JBL
101/2 ( 1982): 195-223; id., "'Show me a denarius": Symbolism of Roman Coinage and Christian
Beliefs', ResQ 28/2 (1985-1986): 107-115; L.J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996). Fears ('The Cult of
Virtues', 945) asserts that the numismatic evidence is superior to the literary evidence for the
investigation of imperial ideology, citing the coinage of Trajan as a case in point: 'The literary
23
statues, reliefs and private gems. 107 Additionally, certain providentially defining
events in the rule of various Julio-Claudian rulers had acquired such an iconic
status in popular oral culture that it is hard to believe that their ideological impact
did not reach the base of the social pyramid ( 4.3.4): namely, Augustus' victory
at Actium (31 BC); Tiberius' execution of Sejanus (AD 31); Claudius' invasion
of Britannia (AD 43); and the visit of Tiridates to Rome in Nero's reign (AD
66). Nor should we forget the 'theatre' of the imperial cult: the elaborate victory
processions of the triumphator, the funeral of the ruler and of his family members, and Nero's carefully chosen roles in his theatrical performances, with their
well-known mythical allusions. Such public performances manifested aspects
of the Julio-Claudian ideology of rule. 108 Also the mythological presentation
of the public execution of criminals and prisoners of war in the amphitheatre
( 4.2 n. 53) promoted the imperial culture of'death' and the virtus ('manliness')
of the ruler. In sum, the ubiquity of these types of evidence would have meant
that the illiterate in Paul's house churches and those from the lower echelons of
Roman society would have been familiar with the imperial conception of rule
to some degree. Finally, the early Christian movement would have had indirect
exposure to the working of the imperial household through the believing slaves
that belonged to the familia Caesaris and to the households of powerful imperial
freedmen at Rome( 5.1 n. 15). Given the variegated media of imperial propaganda, the first auditors of the Thessalonian and Roman epistles would have been
sources are secondary sources; at their best, they are idiosyncratic, and at their worst they consciously distort the deeds and intentions of individual emperors. Thus we will never know much
of what 'really' transpired under Trajan, and nothing at all of his actual intentions. Through the
coinage, however, we know an inordinate amount about what the Roman government wanted
its citizens and subjects to believe happened and how it wished the person and deeds of Trajan
to be perceived by those citizens and subjects. The coinage was a medium of propaganda. Its
purpose was the creation and propagation of a belie It is the medium by which we can best
approach the ideology of the imperial system'.
107 Charbonneaux, L'Art; Zanker, The Power of Images; Kreitzer, Striking New Images. We
might legitimately ask whether the propaganda of the private gem evidence of the Julio-Cludians
ever reached the base of the social pyramid. Natalie Kampen, one of the editors ofJ. Ginsburg's
unfinished book on Agrippina (id., Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in
the Early Roman Empire [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006] 96-97) states of the cameo
evidence: 'The cameos go beyond sculpture and coins in the complexity of their iconography
and the richness of their references and thus remain difficult to interpret. Even their status as
'private' objects is a complicated matter, given the expectation that elite and court life should be
open to the view of all. The cameos use dense layers of myth and genealogy to convey messages
oflegitimacy and stability, but these are, in the end, the same messages purveyed by coins and
sculpture as well. As Paul Zanker suggests, ideas embedded in Roman representation may be
complex, but the repetition of a fairly small number of elements, no matter how open to diverse
readings, eventually created a clear language that, on one level or another, became accessible
to most people'.
108 M. Beard, 'The Triumph of the Absurd: Roman Street Theatre', in C. Edwards and G.
Woolf(eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 21-43. See
also Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, 40-43.
24
sufficiently sensitive to the providential, prophetic and 'messianic' dimensions of

the Julio-Claudian conception of rule that they could ponder how its symbolic
universe interacted with Paul's eschatology.
But to what extent was Paul exposed to the literary, inscriptional, architectural and visual evidence relating to the imperial cult? First, as far as significant
documentary evidence, J. K. Hardin has recently drawn attention to the fact that
a Latin copy of Augustus' Res Gestae existed at Pisidian Antioch, visited by Paul
on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:14-50). 109 Whether Paul as a Roman
citizen had any facility in Latin is unknown, though his intention to evangelise
in the Latin West perhaps points to a rudimentary ability in the language on his
part (Rom 15:24). 110 S. E. Porter, for example, has recently argued that Paul might
have had a spoken command of some Latin. 111 But whether the apostle had the
ability to read Latin at any more than a very basic level is an entirely different
(and unanswerable) question.
But we are making an unwarranted assumption here in thinking that Paul only
had access to a Latin translation of the Res Gestae at Pisidian Antioch. The strong
likelihood is that there was also a Greek translation of the text in the city, even
though the remains of this monument do not survive. 112 All our extant copies
of the Res Gestae come only from provincial Galatia: there is a Latin version at
Pisidian Antioch, a Greek-inscribed pedestal at Apollonia, and the temple at
Ankara is inscribed in Latin and Greek. It is clear from clues in the Greek version of the Res Gestae at Ankara that the text was translated by a non-Roman
translator, more fluent in Greek than Latin, and who lived in the Greek East. 113
Hardin, Galatians, 67,71-78, 124.
Paul, of course, may have intended to seek out the three small Greek-speaking colonies
on the east coast of Spain (Jewett, Romans, 76), established prior to the Roman conquest {c. 200
BC). Notwithstanding, Paul would have faced enormous linguistic challenges in communicating
the gospel to the diverse audiences of Spain, with its four main language groups (Jewett, ibid.,
75-77, 79), as well as its pockets of Greek and primitive languages of unknown origin.
111 S.E. Porter, 'Did Paul Speak Latin?', in id. {ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (Leiden:
Brill, 2008), 289-308.
112 The bronze original of the Res Gestae at Rome (Suetonius, Aug. 101.4) did not survive.
113 D. W. Wigtil ('The Translator of the Greek Res Gestae of Augustus', AJP 103/2 [1982]:
189-194) sets out the evidence for a non-Roman translator of the Greek east: i.e. alterations to
the Greek text from the Latin original; misspellings; the difference between the Greek of the Res
Gestae in Galatia and the Greek used in the various versions of senatus consulta produced in
Rome. I am indebted to Professor E. A. Judge for this reference. See also the excellent discussion in A. E. Cooley, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary {Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009), 26-30. More generally, see D. W. Wigtil, 'The Ideology of the
Greek "Res Gestae"', ANRW II 30/1 (1982): 624-638. For the documentary evidence of the extant Galatian inscriptions of the Res Gestae, see J. Scheid, RES GESTAE DIVI AUGUST!: Hauts
Faits du DIVIN AUGUSTE (Paris: Les Belles letters, 2007), clxi-ccxxxiv. See also the discussion
of R. Ridley, The Emperor's Retrospect; Augustus' RES GESTAE in Epigraphy, Historiography and
Commentary (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 3-24. Rubin ([Re]presenting Empire, 137-138) agues that
the Res Gestae was only erected in Latin text at Pisidian Antioch as a potent symbol, in the case
of illiterate viewers, of the superiority of the Roman ruler and Rome's gods.
109
110
25
The text was rendered even more comprehensible for an eastern populace by
the addition of an appendix to the Latin and Greek texts of the Res Gestae. The
anonymous appendix writer summed up Augustus' legacy in simple tabulations
(impensae; temples; buildings; displays and shows; benefactions) that would be
easily understood by a provincial audience,ll 4 but which vitiated the subtlety
of Augustus' self-presentation in the Latin original at Rome.ll 5 It would seem
almost indisputable that this officially commissioned Greek translation, erected
prominently in provincial Galatia, would have been rendered in bilingual text
in each location (Pisidian Antioch, Apollonia, Ankara). Thus Paul would have
access to the Augustan conception of rule in the Greek version of the Res Gestae
at Pisidian Antioch. This bilingual inscription would have been a major tourist
attraction that visitors to the city could hardly have missed.
More importantly, however, Paul would have had access to the Greek honorific
inscriptions, erected in prominent locations, eulogising the ruler and his clients
in the city-states of the eastern provinces. But the extent to which the inscriptions
provoked Paul's attention is also uncertain (pace, Acts 17:23)_1 16 But, precisely because of Paul's familiarity with the LXX and the wider currents of Second Temple
Judaism, Paul must have given some thought as to how his Jewish soteriological
and messianic language intersected with similar motifs in the imperial cult, if
only to distinguish his eschatological understanding of Christ's rule from the
propaganda of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Surely some of Paul's Gentile converts
would have posed questions about the overlap of terminology and motifs to their
apostle? Further, the Corinthian question regarding food offered to idols (1 Cor
8:1a; cf. 7:1a) had an imperial context {8:5-6; cf. 8:10; 10:7, 14-22) that had to be
addressed as much as the idolatry and immorality associated with the Corinthian
cults and private associations. 117 In sum, there were pervasive pastoral issues for
Paul's converts, involving the ubiquity and social influence of the imperial cult,
which would have forced Paul's hand theologically.
Second, the exposure that Paul might have had in the eastern Mediterranean
basin to the writings of the imperial poets is another issue altogether. Rock argues
that Virgil's Aeneid, the cornerstone of imperial ideology, was widely circulated
and recited at public readings (e.g. Tacitus, Dialogue 13.2), as well as translated
114 For evidence of the provincial perspective, note the Greek expansion ('in Italy and the
towns of the provinces') to the Latin text in Res Gestae, Appendix 4. See E. A. Judge, 'Augustus
in the Res Gestae', in id., The First Christians, 222.
115 For discussion, see Judge, ibid., 223.
116 H. Hendrix ('On the Form and Ethos of Ephesians', USQR 42/4 [1988]: 3-15) argues that
the length of the Greek sentence in Ephesians 1:3-14, with its three intricate participial clauses,
is explained by the fact that Paul is imitating the grand rhetorical style of the honorific decrees
inscribed on monuments in public places. Paul, therefore, was likely a reader of the most prominent visual medium in antiquity: the eulogistic inscriptions.
117 For discussion, see B. W Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics
and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 269-286.
26
into Greek for the eastern Mediterranean poleis. 118 However, H. N. Parker has
challenged whether the very minimal evidence for public readings of Virgil's poetry has been correctly understood: 119 are they 'staged readings of Virgil's text or
mimes based on Vergilian matters'? 120 Undoubtedly, the voluminous quotations
from Virgil on the walls of Pompeii attest to his enormous popularity as a poet.121 Nevertheless, when one understands the individual purpose behind these
Virgilian graffiti in their Pompeian context, 122 we cannot claim that the Julian
focus of the Aeneid was of any concern to the graffiti scribblers and their readers
at Pompeii. Manuscript copies of Virgil's text, too, would have been prohibitively
expensive to buy. Private readings of the epic would have been confined to the
wealthy participants of the salons. 123 As a Roman citizen, therefore, Paul would
have been aware of the widespread impact of Virgil's epic and the rich traditions
concerning Aeneas: 124 but it is unlikely that he had direct exposure to the Julian
conception of rule through the text of the Aeneid, either in translation or via
public performance.
Third, the ubiquity of the numismatic evidence - disseminated by local mints
throughout the empire - would have alerted Paul to the themes of the imperial
propaganda, though its iconography would have needed to be interpreted for
those not familiar with its elaborate motifs. We must not underestimate in this regard the importance of'everyday' conversations in conveying information about
the imperial cult. Some of Paul's educated and uneducated Gentile converts
would have been equally familiar with the meaning of the numismatic propaganda. Finally, many of the cities in which Paul established house churches were
exposed to the imperial cult (e.g. Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus), 125
See Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 49-52.
Parker, 'Books', 201 n. 53.
120 Parker, ibid., 201.
121 See K. Milnor, 'Literary Literacy in Roman Pompeii: The Case of Vergil's Aeneid', in
Johnston and Parker, Ancient Literacies, 288-319; Franklin, 'Inscriptions of Pompeii', 98. There
are fifty two quotations from the Aeneid, thirteen from the Eclogues, and two from the Georgics
(Milnor, ibid., 309-317).
122 Milnor (ibid., 309) states: '... although on some level the mass of graffiti texts offers us a
kind of window onto the Pompeian populace, it cannot be forgotten that each text is unique,
written by a single hand, in a single place, at a single time. For this reason, any general assertion
about the function ofliterary literacy in Pompeii is going to be vulnerable to individual exceptions ... For these Pompeians, the Aeneid is not so much a stable, idealised cultural product, as
a means of cultural production; like graffiti generally, Vergilian quotations on Pompeian walls
are less facts than acts and are aware of themselves as such'.
123 For discussion of book sales in antiquity, seeP. White, 'Bookshops in the Literary Culture
of Rome', in Johnston and Parker, Ancient Literacies, 268-285. Note the reference to the sale of
Virgil's Aeneid in Gellius, NA 2.3.5.
124 SeeK. Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).
125 On Paul and imperial cult at Philippi, see M. Bormann, Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus (Leiden: Brill, 1995); P. Pilhofer, Philippi: Bd. 1. Die erste christliche
Gemeinde Europas (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995); id., Philippi: Bd. 2. Katalog der Inschriften
118
119
27
though only as one cult competing with other cults in the eastern Mediterranean
poleis, and, in the case of Ephesus, with the cult of Artemis eclipsing the imperial
cult in importance. 126
In sum, the imperial conception of rule would have been sufficiently known
to Paul as a Roman citizen for him to engage meaningfully with it. Its potential
pastoral impact upon believers in the mid fifties would have been obvious to
Paul because his fellow Jews had already experienced increasing tensions with
the Roman government from the late thirties to the late forties in various locales
(Alexandria, AD 38; Jerusalem, AD 40; Rome, AD 49). 127 Since the early Christians, unlike the Jews, were not afforded legal status as a religio licita, they were
vulnerable to the coercion of the ruler if they did not act astutely towards him.
von Philippi (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); C. Koukouli-Chrysantaki, 'Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis', in C. Bakirtzes (ed.), Philippi at the Time of Paul and after His Death (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1998), 5-35; P. Oakes, Philippi. For Thessalonica, see our discussion of the secondary literature in 2.1. For Corinth, see D. W Engels, Roman Corinth: An
Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago I London: University of Chicago, 1990); M. E.
Hoskins-Walbank, 'Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth', in Small, Subject and Ruler, 201-213; R. DeMaris, 'Cults and the Imperial Cult in Early Roman Corinth:
Literary Versus Material Record', in M. Labhan and]. Zanzenberg (eds.), Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und romische Herrschaft. Vortriige auf der ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies (Tiibingen: Francke, 2002), 73-91; Winter, After Paul Left
Corinth, 269-286; M. T. Finney, 'Christ Crucified and the Inversion of Roman Imperial Ideology in 1 Corinthians', BTB 35/1 (2005): 20-33. For Ephesus, seeS. J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros;
P. A. Harland, 'Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults and Associations at Ephesus
(First to Third Centuries C. E.)', SR 25/3 (1996): 319-334; R. Strelan, Paul, Artemis, and the
Jews in Ephesus (Berlin: W de Gruyter, 1996); H. Koester (ed.), Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An
Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004); P. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius
(Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).
126 On Ephesian Artemis, see R. E. Oster, 'The Ephesian Artemis as an Opponent of Early
Christianity', JAC 19 (1976): 24-44; id., 'Holy Days in Honour of Artemis', New Docs 4 (1987):
74-82; id., 'Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate, I. Paganism before Constantine',
ANRW II 18/3 (1990): 1661-1728.
127 On the ethnic cleansing of Alexandria in AD 38, see P. W van der Horst, Philo of Alexandria. Philo's Flaccus: The First Pogrom. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden/
Boston: Brill, 2003). On Caligula's attempted desecration of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 40, see
3.3. On the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in AD 49, see E. M. Smallwood, The Jews Under
Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations (Lei den: E. J. Brill, 1981 ),
210-216. Note that L. Keck (Romans [Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 324) argues that 'nowhere
Romans show any awareness of fervent Jewish nationalism in either Judaea or Rome'. This, of
course, depends on Keck (ibid., 29-30) rejecting the scholarly consensus regarding the occasion
of Romans (i.e. ethnic divisions emerging in the Roman house churches over the return of Jewish believers, exiled by Claudius [AD 49), to Rome early in Nero's reign). It ignores the fact that
Jewish 'zeal' for God and his law- misguided in Paul's view (Rom 10:3-4)- had nationalistic
implications from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes through to the Roman hegemony.
28
1.4.2 The Issue oj'Hidden Transcripts': Discerning Paul's Political

and Pastoral Intent
Recently New Testament scholars have agued that behind Paul's rhetoric in Romans 13 there is the presence of'hidden transcripts' that critique imperial power
in a subtle manner. Two types of evidence have been recruited to substantiate
this position. First, E. R. Goodenough has argued historically that Philo encodes
criticism of the Roman rulers in De Somniis 2.83-92 (cf. 7.3). In that text, Philo
speaks about the foolishness of provoking kings and tyrants by unrestrained
speech and provocative actions. In what Goodenough considers a coded reference to the Roman authorities, Philo advises that it is better to be quiet and to
regard dangerous 'beasts of burden' with 'fear', choosing instead to mollify them
with a caress. According to Goodenough,
the entire allegory of Joseph is a clever piece of double entendre, a fierce denunciation of
the Roman character and oppression, done in a way, and in a document, which would give
it fairly wide currency among Jews, but would seem quite innocuous if, as was unlikely, it
fell into Roman hands. 128
Elliott, in particular, has appealed to Philo's coded critique, as propounded by

Goodenough, as a model for understanding Paul's anti-imperial rhetoric in
Romans 13:1-7. 129 However, Elliott has paid little attention to the fact that two
famous classical scholars of the past did not subscribe to Goodenough's 'coded'
interpretation of De Somniis. 130 Is the concept of'code', therefore, an appropriate
methodological tool for understanding Paul's summons to the Romans to submit
to the imperial authorities (Rom 13:la, 5)? 131 Notwithstanding, it is important
to realise that the evidence for coded behaviour and dissimulation towards the
Roman authorities is not confined to Philo alone. Parrott appeals to the evidence
of Plutarch, Seneca and Epictetus in this regard, 132 while there is also Roman
128 E. R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo fudaeus: Practice and Theory (New Haven: Yale
University, 1938), 21 (original emphasis).
129 N. Elliott, 'Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda', in Horsley, Paul and
Empire, 184-204; id., 'Paul and the Politics of Empire', in Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics, 32-33;
id., 'Disciplining the Hope of the Poor in Ancient Rome', in Horsley (ed.), Christian Origins,
187-190; id., The Arrogance of Nations, 36-37.
130 In this regard, M. Niehoff (Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture [Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2001], 6-7 n. 18) cites the book reviews of A. H. M. Jones (JTS 40 [1939): 182-185) and A. Momigliano (JRS 34 [1944): 163-165).
131 S. Kim (Christ and Caesar, 32-33, 68) criticises New Testament scholars who 'betrayed
their arbitrariness or desperation by appealing to the device of"coding'" (ibid., 68). Remarkably,
Kim does not discuss Philo's evidence - or any other evidence for that matter- on which these
arguments are based.
132 R. L. Parrott, Paul's Political Thought: Rom 13:1-7 in the Light of Hellenistic Political
Thought (unpub. PhD diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1980), 126, 143, 154-155. Parrott (ibid.,
154) cites the much neglected text of Plutarch, Mor. 813D-F: there Plutarch gives advice about
the astute and 'coded' conduct of politics under Roman provincial administration. For the text,
see our discussion in 7.3.
29
and Jewish visual, literary and documentary evidence to the same effect( 7.3).
Additionally, as we shall see ( 1.5.4. n. 70), there emerged in the first-century
anti-imperial jokes and graffiti that functioned as 'hidden transcripts' of the
Julio-Claudian political opposition.
Second, New Testament scholars have also drawn upon the seminal sociological research of J. C. Scott to bolster the proposition that Paul covertly critiques
imperial power. Scott argued that subordinate groups, when oppressed by their
rulers or social superiors, create 'hidden transcripts' that obliquely criticise their
oppressors. 133 These 'hidden transcripts' are spoken offstage behind the backs
of the politically and socially dominant. 134 As a strategy, the role of deception
is pivotal in this process of resistance. The powerless feign deference towards
the powerful: but their ideological resistance assumes various guises (gossip,
folktales, jokes, theatre) and employs anonymity and ambiguity. 135 The proverb
of the Jamaican slaves - 'Play fool, to catch wise' - sums up the strategy. 136 Scott
illustrates his argument sociologically with hidden transcripts that range from
the slaves in the ante-bellum South to the Russian citizens at the commencement
of Gorbachev's glasnost campaign. 137 Finally, Scott posits that 'some countervailing influence' overturns 'the elite dominated public transcript' of domination,
though Scott fails to elaborate what this might be. 138
Scholars such as N. Elliott have endorsed Scott's sociological analysis as a
helpful methodology for discerning Paul's 'hidden transcript' about imperial
power, provided that it is flows from a source-based historical reconstruction of
the first-century imperial worldP 9 Elliott also asserts that for Paul the 'countervailing influence' to the public transcript of the imperial rulers is the work of the
133 J. C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven I London: Yale University Press, 1990). See also id., Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant
Resistance (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1986). For an evaluation of Scott's
importance to New Testament studies, seeR. A. Horsley (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts
of Resistance: Applying the Work ofJames C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2004).
134 Scott, Domination, 27, 33.
135 See Scott, ibid., 136-182. On the politics of disguise, anonymity, and ambiguity, see ibid.,
15, 18-19.
136 Scott, ibid., 3.
137 For class relations in a Malay village and the issue of'public transcripts' and 'hidden transcripts', see Scott, Weapons of the Weak. On the whole issue in imperial context, see Elliott, The
Arrogance of Nations, 25-56. Wright (Paul, 60) provides the example of a playwright critiquing
in code the authorities during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. On the Caribbean context, see
Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, i-iv.
138 Scott, Domination, 79. Carter (The Roman Empire, 12-13) sets out helpfully what is meant
by 'hidden transcript' in terms of the New Testament writings.
139 M.A. Stubbs, 'Subjection, Reflection, Resistance: A Three-Dimensional Process of Ernpowerrnent in Romans 13 and the Free-Market Economy', in D. L. Tiede (ed. ), SBL 1999 Seminar
Papers (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 375-403, esp. 391-392; Harrison, 'Paul
and the Imperial Gospel', 71-96, esp. 85 n. 54; Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, 21-22,27-40.
30
Spirit outlined in Romans 8. 140 By contrast, M.A. Stubbs has argued that Paul's
'hidden' transcript regarding the ruler primarily emerges in Romans 13:8-10,
although the apostle's use of 'servant' terminology for the rulers in Romans 13:4
(yap cSu1Kov6c; EO"LLV) and 13:6 (AELToupyol yap ewu Eimv) also belongs to the
same strategy. 141 Moreover, Romans 8:12, 12:1 and 13:9, Stubbs claims, are part of
Paul's 'resistance' discourse because they give priority to 'personhood in God' as
opposed to the 'hierarchical and exploitive social relations of the Roman state'. 142
However, there has been criticism of the use of a 'hidden transcripts' paradigm - more because of scholarly reservations about Goodenough's historiography than Scott's sociological analysis -in discerning Paul's (purported) antiimperial rhetoric. First, J. J. Collins has argued that Goodenough has overstated
his case regarding the extent of Philo's opposition to Roman rule. 143 Amidst
his searing critique of Caligula's attempted profanation of the Jerusalem Temple, Philo still manages to speak in rapturous terms about Augustus as saviour
(Leg. 143-147). Even the outset of Caligula's corrupt reign is described as an 'age
of Cronos' (Leg. 13). But, while this is true, Philo's rhetorical intent in such highly
adulatory passages has to be recognised. Philo, by flattering the Julio-Claudian
benefactors, past and present, seeks to persuade Caligula to pull back from the
brink and to abandon his disastrous policy towards the Jews, but without diminishing the rhetorical force of his criticism of Caligula by using such eulogistic
asides. To be sure, as Niehoff observes, Philo belonged to the provincial elite of
the Greek East, with close political and cultural connections with the Roman
overlords. 144 But it is precisely for this reason that Philo adopts a complex series of
rhetorical strategies in dealing with the Julian rulers -vituperative, honorific and
encoded- as the occasion and flow of his argument demanded in the De Sornniis
and the De Legatio ad Gaiurn. Philo wants to maintain the political status quo
for the Jewish community at Alexandria and Jerusalem and to secure continuing
diplomatic behaviour on the part of his fellow Jews towards the Romans. 145 Both
Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, 57.

Stubbs, 'Subjection', 394-398.
142 Ibid., 398.
143 J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2"d
ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 2000), 134; Niehoff, Philo, 6-7. See also R. Barraclough, 'Philo's
Politics, Roman Rule, and Hellenistic Judaism', ANRW II 21/1 (1984): 417-553, esp. 449-475.
144 Niehoff, Philo, 6-7 n. 18.
145 J. G. Kahn ('La valuer et la legitimite des activites politques d'apres Philon d'Alexandrie',
Mediterranee 16 [1998]: 122, emphasis mine), revives Goodenough's argument that Philo sometimes encoded his message because of the diverse audiences he addressed: 'Philon s'adressait au
moins a trois sortes de public: les autorites romaines et muncipales en place; des juifs assimiles,
qui connaissaient bien l'hellenisme mais malle juda'isme; des juifs tres competents, qui connaisant parfaitement la Bible et qui pouvaient comprendre une pensee audacieuse exprimee a
mots couverts'. At the very least, Kahn rightly raises the question whether Philo used different
rhetorical strategies for different audiences.
140
141
31
Goodenough and his critics are too simplistic in their overly polarised responses
to Philo's rhetoric.
Second, A. Momigliano posits that Goodenough has misunderstood the coded
passage of De Somniis 2.81-92: 'The sense of the whole passage is, therefore, that
one must resist the tyrant before he becomes too strong, but it is useless, indeed
irresponsible, to attack the tyrant at the height of his power'. 146 In Momigliano's
view, Philo is more opposed to individual tyrants (e.g. Sejanus or Caligula) than
Roman rule per se. 147 While this argument presents a more balanced portrait of
Philo's assessment of Roman power than Goodenough, it does not affect the fact
that Philo adopts coded language as a rhetorical strategy to warn educated Jews
to act prudently towards specific Roman 'tyrants' or (more generally) other potential tyrants in the Greek East. By contrast, A. H. M. Jones argues that Philo's (alleged) coded anti-Roman propaganda is 'so cunningly concealed' and 'so vague'
that it does not constitute sufficient evidence to establish Goodenough's case. 148
However, Philo's 'parable' of the beasts of burden in De Somniis 2.89, 91-92
is clear in its polemical intent and belongs to the wider genre of anti-imperial
propaganda that employed animal and insect symbolism to parody or criticise
the ruler. 149 Paul's auditors would have understood the coded genre, both in its
Jewish and Graeco-Roman context. Even on the occasions where the writers of
the Dead Sea scrolls spoke of the Romans in code( 7.3), with little likelihood
that the Romans would ever read such Hebrew writings, 150 we are nevertheless
witnessing how marginalised minority groups spoke rhetorically about their oppressors in situations where no direct threat actually existed at the time.
Although Paul used coded language and 'hidden transcripts' in speaking to
insiders about the limitations of imperial power in Romans 13:1-13 and in
1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, his rhetorical strategy is
fuelled by a different context and motivation than the anti-imperial propaganda
of the first-century. Paul's commitment to LXX theological perspectives explains
his coded demotion of the ruler to the status of God's 'servant' as much as his
rhetorical strategies. In this respect, Paul's approach to the ruler differs markedly
from Philo's adulatory accolades reserved for Augustus and, concomitantly, his
A. Momigliano, 'E. R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus', JRS 34 (1944): 164.
Niehoff, Philo, 6-7 n. 18.
148 A. H. M. Jones, 'The Politics of Philo Judaeus, Practice and Theory, by Erwin R. Goodenough', JTS 40 (1939): 183.
149 See the 'gnat' of ps.-Virgil's Culex( 5.3), as well as the wall painting of dog-headed apes
from a villa near Stabiae and its variations elsewhere( 7.3). Additionally, the 'Kittim'- a code
word for the Romans- are presented as insatiable eagles gorging themselves (lQpHab col. III
11. 8, 11-12). Note, too, that the writer of 4 Ezra also depicts Rome as an eagle (4 Ezra 11.37-46).
150 I am grateful to Professor John Barclay for his interaction with me at the Pauline Epistles
Session of the SBL 2007 Annual Meeting, San Diego, (Nov 17-20), and for Assistant Professor
Mark Reasoner's response in general discussion. Barclay (supra, 1.2) makes the same point in
his SBL paper entitled 'Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul'.
146
147
32
acerbic criticism of Caligula. Moreover, what Paul omits to say about the status of
the ruler in its first-century context - informed by the LXX and by his gospel - is
as significant as anything he does say in code about the ruler. Further, what Paul
says explicitly about the transfer of the ruler's prerogatives to the reigning Christ
and his church, the antitype to the Neronian 'body' of state ( 4.4.2; 7.2.2),
radically undermines the hierarchical social relations underlying the imperial
conception of rule. Last, Paul's use of 'hidden code' is less frequent than recent
scholarship suggests. The case for its use in Paul's letters has to be exegetically
argued, as opposed to its use as a 'methodology' because of its (alleged) axiomatic
status in the minds of some scholars.
Finally, Paul's use of coded language in Romans 13:1-13 is probably driven not
so much by the possible external threat of the ruler in the mid fifties - though
Paul does not dodge the issue (Rom 8:35; 13:4: ~ flUXatpa) - but by the internal
social reality that the early church contained slaves from the familia Caesaris and
from the households of powerful imperial freedmen. 151 Moreover, within the
Body of Christ at Rome there would also have been believers who were either
disenchanted with or antagonistic towards the ruler, or who were generally sympathetic to the anti-imperial propaganda. 152 We have to allow for the likelihood
that, like believers in the twenty-first century, the first Christians came down on
different sides of the political divide. Barclay is possibly correct in differentiating
the politically sensitive situation necessitating the use of 'hidden transcripts' in
highly oppressive regimes (supra, 1.2) from the more 'politically open' situation
confronting the house churches in the mid fifties. But, by AD 64, the political
situation for Roman believers in the capital had dramatically changed. Tacitus
underscores that the 'disclosures' of some the Christians arrested by Nero had led
inexorably to the arrest and execution of other believers (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; cf.
Mark 13:12a), with the inevitable recriminations that such betrayals would have
brought. Since the Romans had perceived that the early believers, to some extent,
stood at a distance from imperial society- an attitude styled by Tacitus as 'hatred
of the human race' (Ann. 15.44 [odio humani generis]; cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.96) 153 - it
151 See the carefully balanced discussion of Jewett (Romans, 788-789) regarding submission
in Romans 13:1a, as well as his comments on 13:2b, 3b (ibid., 792, 794).
152 See Jewett (Romans, 793) on the fears of Roman believers- in Jewett's view, articulated by
an imaginary interlocutor in Rom 13:3 b - regarding the brutality of the Roman regime.
153 The term odio humani generis (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44) could refer to the early believers'
self-distancing from various civic and religious ceremonies at Rome. Rhetorically, as P. Schafer
points out (]udeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World [Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1997], 191), 'Tacitus employs here the well-known accusation of
misanthropia', a charge which he had used against the Jews in Hist. 5.5.1 (adversus omnes alios
hostile odium: 'toward every other people they only feel hate'). But, while the Christians are here
being popularly stereotyped as 'inferior Jews' (Schafer, ibid.), the fact that Nero distinguishes the
Christians from the Jews demonstrates that the believers' distinctive outworking of community
relations, intramural and extramural, in the capital had provoked anxiety among the Roman
33
was easy enough for Nero to stereotype the early believers as the 'culprits' responsible for the fire at Rome in AD 64. 154
It is therefore likely that tensions between the early believers and the imperial
authorities at Rome had begun to emerge earlier than we have traditionally imagined.ISS Given that strong anti-Augustan sentiment was abroad in the mid-fifties
among the critics of imperial rule, possibly infectiJ!g some of the members of the
Roman house churches, Paul had to ensure that political divisions over the ruler
did not split believers living in the capital, as well as attitudes of ethnic superiority (Rom 11: 17-24). Because slaves in the familia Caesaris and in the houses
of imperial freedmen were totally dependent upon their patron( 5.1 n. 15), it
would be extremely unlikely that believing slaves would evince or subscribe to
anti-imperial attitudes. Thus Paul proceeds delicately with 'coded' diplomacy, so
that believers, no matter their viewpoint concerning the Julio-Claudian house,
would continue to submit to and honour the ruler, with wealthy Roman believers
winning his praise for the benefactions and believers more generally earning a
reputation for civic cooperation by their prompt payment of taxes( 7.4). But, in
so doing, Paul inculcates the very clear understanding that the risen and reigning
Lord of grace demanded the undivided allegiance of all believers over against the
claims of the imperial rulers. Paul's prescient call to unreserved commitment
to God in Romans (Rom 12:1-2) would be gloriously and tragically tested for
believers in the capital a few years later.
authorities. For other scholarly interpretations of odio humani generis, see S. Benko (Pagan Rome
and the Early Christians [London: Batsford, 1984], 16-19) and R. M. Novak (Christianity and the
Roman Empire: Background Texts [Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2001], 29-30).
154 Spence (The Parting of the Ways, 128 [original emphasis J) observes regarding the visibility
of the early Christians as a group within Neronian Rome: 'Both Suetonius and Tacitus refer to
the Christians by name and indicate that the Roman population had developed a loathing for
them. The reports of these two writers also indicate that the Roman authorities could identify
Christians for specific persecution. Such a public profile requires that the Christians be distinct
from the Jews, not as a separate faith but as a separate social community, for without social differentiation the Romans would have been at a complete loss to identify Jewish sects'. I would
also add that such 'social differentiation' could have already occurred by the mid to late fifties,
perhaps given initial impetus by Claudius' (limited) expulsion of the Jews from Rome in AD
49. See also G. Jossa, Jews or Christians? The Followers of Jesus in Search of Their Own Identity
(Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006; Italian orig. Brescia 2004), 133-134.
155 On the assumption that the consensus view is correct (supra, n. 74), see G. Jossa, ibid.,
127-131. For a full discussion on how the Roman authorities came to differentiate Roman believers from Roman Jews in the mid to late fifties at the capital, see 7.4.
34
1.4.3 The Imperial Cult as a Cult among Other Cults: Avoiding Monolithic
and Undifferentiated Approaches
Karl Galinsky's Case for a Nuanced Approach
In an important paper delivered at the SBL 2008 Annual Meeting, Boston, (Nov
22-25), the classical scholar K. Galinsky challenged New Testament scholars
writing on the imperial cult and its interaction with early Christianity to be
more methodologically nuanced in their discussions. 156 He argued that several
scholars have adopted a monolithic and undifferentiated approach in portraying
the early Christian movement as being uniformly opposed towards Rome. In
Galinsky's view, it was more likely that the early Christians, in negotiating the
imperial cult, had to create their own space within the Roman Empire. Galinsky
situates the imperial cult within the diversity of ancient cults, noting that Augustus himself had broadened civic participation in traditional religious activities.
He also points out that (a) the imperial cult was only one cult among many, not
necessarily the most dominant, but inextricably intertwined with other gods; 157
(b) the 'soteriological' and 'sonship' language of the imperial cult was not unique,
belonging to the 'Ruler' cult of Hellenistic times and to other ancient cults; and
(c) owing to the pluralism of ancient cults, it is not easy to determine whether
resistance was solely directed against Rome or whether it involved opposition to
other local cults as well.
156 Galinsky's presentation, titled 'The Cult of the Roman Empire: Uniter or Divider', was
delivered at the SBL Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue Session, Boston, November 23, 2008. For a New Testament scholar's assessment of the current debate, see P. J. J.
Botha, 'Assessing Representations of the Imperial Cult in New Testament Studies', VerbEccl 25
(2004): 14-25.
157 In an inscription from Asia Minor (I. cent. AD: R. Hodot, 'Decret de Kyrne en l'honneur
du Prytane Kleanax: The f. Paul Getty Museum Journal 10 [1982]: 165-180), Kleanax offers
sacrifices on behalf of Cyme to both the ruler and the traditional gods: 'first of all to Caesar
Augustus, his sons and to the remaining gods (ToT<; Ao[nmm8mm)'. The inscriptional evidence
of the annual protocols of the priestly college of the Arval Brethren underscores the polytheistic
nature of the imperial cult. In thirty inscriptions spanning the Julio-Claudian period (Scheid,
Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium, 1-30: 21/20 BC-66 AD), no matter what sacrifices are
offered to the ruler and his household, Jupiter remains the chief Roman deity ('very good and
very great': 5, 7, 8, 12, 22, 24). In addition to Jupiter, sacrifices are offered to a wide variety of
deities and hypostasised virtues in the Arval Brethren inscriptions: Dia, Minerva, Salus, Juno,
Concordia, Providentia, Felicitas, Spes, Honos, Aeternitas, Mars, Pax and Clementia. Offerings
are also made for the first time to the Genius of Nero( 24, 26, 27, 28: Scheid, Commentarii
Fratrum Arvalium, 24, 26, 27, 28; cf. the divine prince Nero, 22), along with sacrifices to
divine Augustus( 17), divine Augusta( 17), Tiberius Caesar and Julia Augusta( 4: 'their children and infants and the whole of their house'), divine Drusilla( 12), divine Agrippina ( 13),
divine Claudius ( 25), divine Claudia Augusta ( 29, 30), divine Poppaea Augusta ( 29,
30), and Messalina ( 30). But, as noted, offerings to the traditional Roman deities accompany
any sacrifice made to the ruler and his family. For other examples, see DocsAug. 102a, 105
in 7.4 infra.
35
However, importantly for our purposes, Galinsky acknowledges a 'charismatic'

dimension to the imperial cult, centred on the ruler, which differentiated it from
other ancient cults. In this respect, I would argue that the Julio-Claudian conception of rule was the important feature that marked off the imperial cult ideologically from the religious pluralism of its day. 158 Undoubtedly, the early believers
were able to negotiate effectively the demands of the imperial cult in individual
instances, as Galinsky and Oakes rightly propose. 159 Paul's injunction to give
honour to those worthy of honour (Rom 13:7b; cf. 5.1 n. 15) was designed to
(acilitate civic cooperation with the ruler and his officials on the part of Roman
believers, as well as to affirm the important social rituals of wider Graeco-Roman
honorific culture, both inside and outside the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:
21-26). But there would have been occasions where negotiation with the imperial
cult was very difficult for believers (1 Cor 10:14-22; Acts 17:7), especially in cases
where there was potential for the conscience of the weaker brother to be offended
by any compromise with idolatry (1 Cor 8:10; 10:6-8; 10:28).

The Issue of Appropriate Methodology
Where, then, does Galinsky's discussion of methodology leave New Testament
scholars? First, Paul's epistles confirm Galinsky's caveats regarding religious
pluralism. Paul's most explicit criticism of the imperial cult occurs in his discussions of Gentile idolatry (Rom 1:21-23 [v. 23: ELKOVO<; <p8apTOU avepwnou l;
1 Cor 8:5-6 [v. 5: AEYOflEVOL ewl E'LTE EV oupav(i> EhE f.nl y~~], 10; 10:7, 14-22; cf.
Gal4:8-10; 1 Thess 1:9), 160 of which the imperial cult was but one expression in
the religious pluralism of first -century. Second, the issue of overlapping religious
terminology in the imperial cult and in early Christianity, however, is a more difficult issue. Is there an implicit critique of Rome occurring in Paul's letters or not?
The overlap could be simply explained by the fact that the same 'soteriological'
and 'sonship' language had currency in Second Temple Judaism, or that Paul is
158 Oakes ('Re-Mapping the Universe', 306) observes: 'The imperial cult was an important
element of Roman imperial ideology. This does not make it any less a cult, but it does invest
it with forms of significance that even the worship of the "Capitoline Triad" (Jupiter, Juno and
Minerva, the classic gods of Rome) did not have'.
159 See particularly Oakes ('Re-Mapping the Universe', 310-314), who, taking issue with my
discussion of the imperial loyalty oaths (ibid., 312-313; cf. 2.1), provides examples of how
the early believers could have either avoided or participated in activities of the imperial cult,
without thereby compromising their confession of Christ. Carter (The Roman Empire, 14-26)
outlines five ways that the New Testament texts negotiated the Roman world, as well as the
various strategies (survival, accommodation, protest, dissent, imitation) that the early believers
employed as coping mechanisms.
160 Oakes ('Re-Mapping the Universe', 309) argues in relation to 1 Thessalonians 1:9: 'The
Christian failure to honour the gods would have included central Roman deities such as Jupiter,
and also the deified Caesars'.
36
employing language from prominent semantic domains, but without any intention of criticising the ruler or Rome. 161
How then do we determine methodologicallywhether a critique is happening
or not? The criteria suggested below are not exhaustive, but indicate how covert
allusions to the imperial propaganda might be responsibly detected in Paul's
writings. Where I use the words 'anti-imperial' or 'critique' in what follows, I am
not implying that Paul is advocating the demise of Rome, its ruler, or its officials.
Rather the apostle is reconfiguring the symbolic universe that undergirded JulioClaudian conception of rule. Paul places the imperial ruler and his empire under
the Kingdom of the risen, ascended and returning 'Son of God in power' (Rom
1:4). He advocates submission to and honour of the imperial authorities (Rom
13: 1-7), but transfers many of the ruler's honours and prerogatives to the Body of
Christ, with a view to winning the nations for Christ (1:5, 13-14; 15:8-12, 14-20,
28) and transforming through the Spirit of Christ the social relations of imperial
society (12:1-15:32). Several criteria for discerning an anti-imperial critique in
Paul's letters are as follows:
a) Any unusual additions to traditional formulae (e.g. the addition of tv
<'luvcq.Let to uio<; Seou in Rom 1:4; cf. 4.4.1) may represent anti-imperial polemic.
b) Discussion of motifs specific to the imperial context of the city to which
Paul's letter is addressed may indicate a critique on Paul's part (e.g. Nero and 'the
reign of death': 4.2; Paul's language of the 'ages' and 'teleology': 4.2).
c) A heavy or unusual emphasis in Paul's epistles on a theme that was prominent in the wider panorama of imperial propaganda (e.g. 'glory': 6.5.1; 'newness': 4.4.2; 'victory': 4.4.4; 'grace': 4.2) may also be anti-imperial, especially
if there is critique of the imperial version of the motif in the Jewish literature
( 6.4.2.1).
d) The appearance of a phrase in a polemical context of Paul's epistles that
is a commonplace of imperial propaganda (e.g. 'peace and safety': 1 Thess 5:3:
2.2.4) could indicate a critique of the ruler's reign.
e) The overlap of LXX and imperial terminology may be deliberate on Paul's
part and could indicate a theological critique of the Julio-Claudian symbolic
universe from the parameters of his Jewish world-view. We will therefore examine the Jewish background of Paul's imperial terminology( 2.2; 3.2; 3.4.1;
6.4; 7.3), with concentration on any LXX texts cited where relevant( 6.4.3).
Not only does this demonstrate Paul's theological versatility in communicating
to differing ethnic audiences (Greek, Roman and Jewish), it also allows us to ex-
161 Note the cautious comment of Oakes ('Re-Mapping the Universe', 315): '... Paul could
simply be expressing a version of an essentially pre-Roman eschatology (an Isaianic one, for
example), without shaping it in relation to Rome. As with Christology, we would need to find
out more details to relate the Pauline texts to Rome. Alternatively, we would need arguments that
suggested that Paul specifically had Rome in view when expressing his eschatology'.
37
plore Jewish responses to imperial power and thus better situate Paul's rhetoric
concerning the ruler.
f) Finally, N. T. Wight has suggested that R. B. Hays' methodology for detecting allusions to the LXX in Paul's letters could also be profitably applied to the
detection of Pauline allusions to the imperial context. 162 Several of Hays' methodological criteria, as reconfigured by Wright, coincide with my own, though
my criteria have been independently formulated of Wright and Hays. They flow
methodologically from my engagement of the ancient literary, documentary,
numismatic, iconographic and archaeological evidence with the texts of Paul.
1.4.3.3 New Testament Studies and the Imperial Context: The Issue of Ideology
An aspect of the imperial cult that was not devoted sufficient attention by Galinsky was the fundamental role of ideology in its operations. The focus of my book
is ideological: that is, the collision of Paul's eschatology with the Julio-Claudian
conception of rule, or to borrow Oakes' construction, 163 the remapping of the
ruler's symbolic universe.
Classical scholars have highlighted the importance of ideology in the imperial cult, a factor that, as we have seen, differentiates it from other ritual based
Graeco-Roman cults. J. R. Fears, for example, observes regarding the visual evidence of the imperial cult:
First and foremost, however, the study of the imperial image is a study in the history of
ideas: the vision of power and its conception in the social order and in the experience of
the individual. The necessity for ideology and political mythology is no figment of the
sociologist's imagination. The need is a historical fact, as demonstrable in antiquity as it is
today. All government may rest ultimately on force. Ideology is the key to its realisation,
legitimisation and institutionalisation. 164
In an important work of classical scholarship, C. Ando has argued that loyalty

to the ruler throughout the eastern and western provinces of the empire was secured by ideology in the first two centuries AD. 165 The unchallenged position of
the charismatic Augustus throughout the Roman provinces 'allowed the Mediterranean world to share a deity for the first time'. 166 In particular, the imperial cult
162 Wright, Paul, 61-62. Wright (ibid. 62) observes regarding the criteria for determining
imperial reference: 'Like everything in history and literature, they regularly include what used
to be dismissed as subjective judgements, but are none the worse for that; after all, the implicit
theories with which they compete are themselves no less subjective'. For Hays' criteria, seeR. B.
Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters ofPaul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-33.
163 Oakes, 'Re-mapping the Universe', 321.
164 J. R. Fears, 'The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology', ANRWII 17/2 (1981): 945.
See also, Fears, 'The Ideology of Imperial Power'; J.D. Crossan, 'Roman Imperial Theology', in
Horsley (ed.), In the Shadow of Empire, 59-73; Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 27-38.
165 C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). More generally, see Meggitt, 'Emperor's Clothes', 151-154.
166 Ibid., 407.
38
'continually brought the existence of both emperor and empire before the mind
of the individual provincial', with the result that Augustus' subjects saw themselves 'as a member of a larger, regularly reconstituted community'. 167 Roman
ideology was spread and established in the minds of provincial subjects by means
of(a) the documentation of the Roman bureaucracy; (b) the self-presentation of
the ruler in autobiographies and letters; 168 (c) public theatre (e.g. subject communities offering the crown gold to the ruler, the ruler's progress through provinces
and cities etc.); and (d) iconography (e.g. the imperial portraits).
Among New Testament scholars, P. Oakes has insightfully charted some of the
methodological issues relating to imperial ideology and Paul's eschatological discourse. 169 But I. E. Rock has provided so far the most extensive discussion of the
role that ideology plays in political life and how it shapes Paul's discourse. Rock
closely examines the strategies of ideology, its transcripts, and its praxis. 170 He
concludes with an investigation of its work (i.e. the formation of texts, identity,
ethics and theology), 171 as well as the contribution that postmodern ideological criticism makes to our understanding. 172 After explaining how subordinate
groups formulate their counter-ideology in response to the ideology of the dominant social power, Rock unfolds the ideological conflict that subsequently takes
place:
The counter-ideology of the subordinate group is therefore either suppressed, controlled,
or totally excluded. The group, out of its survival needs, will generate an ideological discourse that is specifically rooted in its social conditions oflife. This ideological discourse is
oppositional, and promotes and seeks to legitimise the interests of the subordinate group
by such devices as the naturalizing, universalizing and masking of its interests. In this
way, dominant and subordinate groups have their oppositional discourse, and ideology is
the sum total of the ideas and beliefs which help to legitimise the interests of the material
structure of society as a whole. 173
In Rock's view, a similar dynamic is occurring in Paul's letter to the Romans:

Ibid., 408.
Note the astute comments of J. Beranger (Recherches sur /'aspect ideologique du Principat
[Basel: Reinhardt, 1953] 281) on how works such as the Res Gestae, honours, and effusive
panegyrics promoted a transcendent view of the ruler: 'Les qualites exceptionelles de l'homme
provenaient de son origine divine, prouvee par les dites qualites; de son ascendance qui le
marquait, etre apart, predestine. II incarnait une force cosmique, instrument de Ia Providence,
accomplissement du Destin, epiphanie de Dieu infus dans Ia nature'.
169 Oakes, 'Re-mapping the Universe', 301-322, esp. 302-315. See also Wright's ('A Fresh Perspective', 28-35) 'world-view analysis' of Paul's retelling of the story oflsrael and its culmination
in Christ as Lord of all. As Wright (ibid., 35) sums up, 'Polemic against the powers, and against
the blaspheming emperor-ideology in particular, is to be expected precisely because of those
Jewish traditions to which Paul was heir and which he reshaped round the gospel'.
170 Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 10-18
171 Ibid., 18-30.
172 Ibid., 30-34.
173 Ibid.,12.
167
168
39
... if we are to consider the ideology found in Paul's letter to the Romans, a community
that for all intents and purposes existed at the periphery, consideration must be given
to the ideology expounded by the Roman imperial house, the controlling centre of the
Roman Empire ... Critical therefore is how Paul's letter not only represented historical
reality for the Christian community, but rather how it provided the ideology that helped
the community in their context to withstand the onslaught of the pervasive Roman imperial ideology. 174
The dominance of imperial ideology from the apex to the base of the social
pyramid( 1.5.1) gives extra credence to Rock's suggestion that Paul constructed
a 'counter-ideology' in Romans, with a view to engaging the Julio-Claudian
propaganda of rule.
Last, N. Lash, the contemporary theologian and philosopher, has discussed the
'grand narratives' that shape our identity, relationships, sense of place and history,
locally and globally. 175 Lash admits the possibility that 'grand narratives' may well
become 'imperialist', citing the example ofJohn L. O'Sullivan's 'Manifest Destiny'
doctrine of 1839. 176 But Lash argues that in their operation 'grand narratives'
presuppose four basic ideologies. There is (a) the materialism of thinkers such
as Antony Flew and Richard Dawkins; (b) the idealism which proposes that 'the
world of our experience is woven out of dreams, ideas, illusion'; (c) Nietzsche's
victory of the powerful over the weak; and (d) Aquinas' 'counterfactual narrative'
which asserts that the 'brute fact' of our dark world is pacified when believers, in
light of God's sacrificial giving, learn to become 'gift' in a world of divine grace. 177
What is fascinating about Lash's construction is the collision between the ideologies of'power' and 'grace' when viewed in a first-centuryimperial context. The
Julio-Claudian house asserted that it had established its own 'manifest destiny'
for eternity on the basis of its military power over the weak and by the ruler's
gift-giving to the worthy. By contrast, Paul asserted that God had established his
Kingdom for eternity by his cruciform victory over hostile powers on behalf of
the weak (Rom 8:31-39; cf. 1 Cor 1:18-31; 13:4) and by his gift-giving to the unworthy through the Body of Christ who had experienced his lavish grace (Rom
5:6-8; 12:9-21; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; 9:6-15). Thus Barclay, to resume our interaction
with his stimulating paper, 178 is right in drawing attention to the 'grand narrative'
underlying Paul's thought, but is wrong in asserting that this clash of ideologies
in their first-century imperial context was not a part of Paul's original theological intention. Barclay has bypassed the social and political implications of the
ideological clash occurring between the early believers and the Julio-Claudian
Ibid., 22.
N. Lash, Holiness, Speech and Silence: Reflections on the Question of God (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2004).
174
175
Ibid., 28-33.
Ibid., 32-33.
178 Supra, 1.2.
176
177
40
house for a more 'idealistic' construct of Paul's theology, to allude back to Lash's
discussion. 179
Above all, it is Paul who, through the rich presentation of his eschatology,
intentionally drove home the ideological collision rather than it being merely
a matter of Paul's audiences, upon hearing his eschatological gospel, creatively
drawing their own political inferences. The latter scenario credits Paul's auditors
with far too much political, social and theological prescience independent of
their apostle. Some of the early believers, especially the believing slaves of the
familia Caeasaris, had too much invested in the imperial system to think definitively about the 'shortness' of the present imperial age (Rom 13: 11-14), without
the incisive theological and social prompting of Paul's gospel beforehand.
1.4.3.4 New Testament Studies and the Imperial Context: The Difference between
the Imperial Cult at Rome and in the Greek East
Some consideration has to be given to the differences between the imperial
cult in the Latin West and the Greek East, especially since Paul's epistles to the
Romans and Thessalonians were addressed to house churches residing in the
West and the East respectively. Galinsky has noted that the imperial cult was
not centrally driven by the ruler, apart from the four Augustan provincial cults,
two in the East and two in the West, which were established at the behest of the
provincials, but with Augustus' permission. The imperial cult in the Greek East
built on the pre-existing ritual of the ruler cults of the Hellenistic kings, as well as
its 'kingship' ideology( 7.2: pace, Rubin, supra n. 73). The provincial elites of the
eastern Mediterranean city-states competed for imperial benefactions and the
prestigious priesthoods of the cult, as well as the prized status of neokoros ('temple warden') for their particular city. 180 Reciprocally, the ruler received honour
and loyalty as the benefactor and protector of his eastern provinces.
However, in a passage detailing the worship of Augustus during his lifetime at
Pergamum and Bithynia (Dio 51.20.6-8; cf. Suetonius, Aug. 52), Dio comments
that in the case of Rome and Italy no ruler, 'however worthy of renown he has
been, has dared to do this'. 181 Although there is epigraphic evidence for members
of private cults worshipping the living ruler in Rome and in Italy, 182 state worship
of the ruler while he was alive did not occur in the capital, although Caligula's
attempt to establish his cult on the Palatine certainly tests the boundaries of reLash, Holiness, 30.
See Lendon, Empire of Honour, 168-172.
181 P.A. Brunt ('Divine Elements in the Imperial Office', JRS 69 [1979]: 172) writes: 'It is very
significant that neither Augustus nor any of his successors ventured on official apotheosis while
living. The literary evidence seems to me to show that men of rank and education were indifferent or hostile to the imperial cult, but that at Rome they resented any attempt by an emperor to
conduct himself as a god rather than as the first of citizens'.
182 See the excellent discussion of Gradel, Emperor Worship, 73-80. See also L. R. Taylor, 'The
Worship of Augustus in Italy During His Lifetime', TAPA 60 (1920): 116-133.
179
180
41
ligious propriety( 3.3: Suetonius, Calig. 22.3). 183 New Testament scholars have
not sufficiently reckoned with the subtle differences between the eastern and
western conceptions of the ruler's place in history in discussing the evidence of
Romans. We will therefore investigate the conception of rule articulated in the
forum Augustum ( 5.2) so that we differentiate clearly between the Julian propaganda in the West and in the East. The 'teleological' understanding of history
evinced in the forum Augustum, culminating in Augustus as Pater Patriae ('Father of the Country'), has intriguing resonances with Paul's eschatology in Romans. This approach will allow us to see whether Paul is saying anything distinctive to Romans living in the capital regarding the work of Christ( 5.5.1- 5.5.4)
However, in discussing the imperial cult in the Latin West, New Testament
scholars have unwittingly divorced the arrival of the 'Golden Age' of Augustus
from its republican precedents. Thus an appreciation of the heated quest for
gloria ('glory') on the part of the republican nobiles ('nobles') and its eventual
concentration in the house of the Caesars from 31 BC onwards is relevant to
Paul's presentation of eschatological glory in Romans( 6.2; 6.5). Also this is
an excellent test case for investigating the intersection of 'glory' terminology in
the LXX and in Second Temple Judaism with late republican and early imperial
understandings of glory ( 6.4). If it is found that the 'glory' traditions of Second Temple Judaism interact critically with the Roman understanding of gloria
( 6.4.2.1 ), then we have reason to suspect that Paul might be operating, to some
extent, in a similar manner in Romans( 6.5).
Finally, Dio (51.20.8) concludes his discussion of the worship of the living
ruler saying that 'various divine honours are bestowed after their death upon
such emperors as have ruled uprightly, and, in fact, shrines are built to them'.
The issue of apotheosis, then, is another important feature of the imperial cult
that needs to be further explored by New Testament scholars in relation to the
evidence of Romans and the Thessalonian epistles ( 2.3). Oakes has observed
that to detect in Paul's letters actual comparisons with the imperial cult one has
'to look for details that go beyond general discourse: for example, details such
as the form of accession to power (or possibly apotheosis )'. 184 That Claudius had
just been apotheosised upon his death, joining Caesar and Augustus along with
the other Roman gods, ensured the perpetuity of the Julio-Claudian house. This
included the opportunity of prayer intercession to the iconic Augustus on the
part of the clients of the reigning Son of God at Rome, Nero. It will be argued that
this was part of the wider 'symbolic universe' that the apostle demythologised for
believers, living in the capital or in Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:9; Gal4:8; 1 Cor 8:5;
183 M. P. Charlesworth ('"Deus Noster Caesar": CR 39 [1925]: 113-ll5) argues that it was during the reign of Claudius that the phrase deus noster was able to be safely applied to the ruler.
184 Oakes, 'Re-mapping the Universe', 315.
42
Rom 1:4; 8:34) so that they might be secure in the power of the risen, ascended
and returning Christ (1 Thess 1:10; 4:14-5:13). 185
1.4.3.5 The Limitations of the Ancient Evidence Regarding the Imperial Cult
Finally, we turn to the limitations of the imperial evidence for presenting a balanced analysis of the imperial conception of rule and contemporary reactions
to it. As noted, the imperial poets present us the 'official' portrait of imperial
power sponsored by the ruler, while the honorific inscriptions register the carefully cultivated responses of gratitude of the ruler's clients in the cities across the
Mediterranean basin. 186 Since access to the literary evidence was largely confined
to the educated literate elite (though, pace, Virgil's Aeneid), 187 this evidence needs
to be supplemented, as we have seen, by the wide range of visual and theatre
evidence that would have been accessible to the non-literate base of the social
pyramid( 1.5.1).
However, while a spread of genres of evidence articulates the Julio-Claudian
conception of rule, it affords us little insight into the responses of the disaffected
critics of the imperial propaganda. New Testament social historians have paid
insufficient attention to this dimension of imperial society and its impact upon
the communities of early believers. 188 The advantages of such an approach are
twofold. First, the anti-imperial propaganda provides us a convenient yardstick
to evaluate whether there is a critique of the imperial authorities occurring in
185 For discussion of the twofold polemic in 1 Corinthians 8:5, see Fantin, The Lord of the
Entire World, 211. Fantin (ibid., 212) concludes regarding Paul's presentation: 'it seems probable
that in the midst of a challenge to the Roman religious practices, he specifically challenged the
default supreme lord of the empire'. On the anti-imperial polemic of Galatians 4:6, see Hardin,
Galatians, 125-126.
186 For discussion of the universally positive tone of the honorific inscriptions and how it
masks the darker social conflicts underlying the benefaction system, see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 37. On the poets, see J. Griffin, 'Augustan Poetry and Augustanism', in Galinsky
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion, 306-320. For the superiority of the documentary evidence
over the literary evidence in determining Augustus' motivations, see the discussion of Rock
(The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 208) comparing Suetonius, Aug. 21 with Res
Gestae 24-35.
187 It would be unwise to assume that the literary evidence of the imperial poets did not reach
the base of the social pyramid. Franklin ('Inscriptions of Pompeii', 98) carefully sums up the evidence from the graffiti of Pompeii: 'The frequent appearance of elegiac couplets and quotations
from the poets indicates education (though perhaps closer to the level of copybook, or a good
ear in an oral society, than to true familiarity). Yet caution must be exercised. The very second
word of the Aeneid was bungled. And only the last of the four writers of the famous lament on
the heavily inscribed wall ... recognised that he was producing an elegiac couplet ... But this
does not negate the view that literacy was common among Pompeii's lower classes'.
188 A major study on the anti-imperial propaganda during the Julio-Claudian period still
remains to be written by classical scholars. See, however, K. Scott, 'Humour at the Expense of
the Ruler Cult', CPh 27 (1932): 317-328. For the anti-Neronian graffiti, see E. Champlin, Nero
(Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003), 91; Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, 186 n. 76.
43
Paul's epistles and to what degree his approach diverges from the contemporary
critics. Second, it poses an important question about the diversity of political views within Paul's house churches. Presumably, as already noted, political
viewpoints were not uniform but diverse among first-century believers. In the
case of the Roman believers, if we accept the scholarly orthodoxy that Jewish
Christians were among the Jews expelled by Claudius in AD 49 (Acts 18:2),
those who returned to Rome would have been supportive of Nero's quinquennium.189 However, although Claudius' unfavourable policy towards the Jews had
been relaxed under Nero, the same Jewish believers would have strongly disapproved of Nero's apotheosised predecessor who had exiled them. Conversely,
the believing slaves of the familia Caesaris and of the households of prominent
imperial freedmen at Rome would have been loyal to their patron because they
depended on his beneficence and there were opportunities for upward mobility
for freedmen in the imperial bureaucracy. 190 Other Gentile believers would have
been influenced by the imperial propaganda or the anti-imperial propaganda,
depending on their personal viewpoint and experience of the imperial regime.
Thus in our discussion the imperial propaganda will be brought into dialogue
with the anti-imperial propaganda( 5.3; 7.3), with a view to elucidating the
complexity of the political situation Paul faced and its potential impact upon his
house churches.
Paul faced a delicate situation in re-educating believers in the Thessalonian
and Roman house churches about the appropriate political commitments that
they should continue to demonstrate, without violating their core commitment
to Christ, and without alienating the authorities by unwise words or actions. The
apostle to the Gentiles had to ensure that believers understood that the Christ's
reign of grace in the present age still awaited its culmination at his parousia in
the future, ensuring thereby that the interplay between the 'already' and 'not yet'
in his gospel was held in political and theological tension. This was necessary so
that some of the early believers at Thessalonica, for example, might not mistak189 In accepting the later historical tradition of Trajan's remark regarding the outstanding
quality of the first five years ofNero's rule (i.e. the Neronian quinquennium: 5.1), I am not suggesting that Nero's rule was without significant failings during this period. M. T. Griffin (Nero:
The End of a Dynasty [London/New York: Routledge, 1984], 86) rightly observes that 'shameful
acts' come from all periods of Nero's reign. Note, too, the insightful comment of Champlin
(Nero, 25): 'Despite intense scholarly dispute, it is quite unknown whether Trajan actually made
the remark and what he might have meant by it if he did. Its real value lies in the knowledge that
historical writers of the fourth century thought that the best of emperors, optimus princeps, could
find something to praise in one of the worst'. J. G. C. Anderson ('Trajan on the Quinquennium
Neronis', JRS 1 [1911]: 173-197) argues that the period of 60-65 AD, characterised by massive
building projects, was his quinquennium. In this book, I am using the term to underscore the
heightened expectations of a recurrence of the Golden Age that accompanied Nero's accession to
power during the first five years of his rule and which, to some degree, differentiated the outset
of his reign from those ofTiberius, Caligula and Claudius.
190 See G. H. R. Horsley, 'Joining the Household of Caesar', New Docs 3 (1983): 1.
44
enly believe that the eschatological Kingdom had somehow come in its fullness
or was imminent (2 Thess 2:2b), thereby relativising their legitimate commitments to the ruler and his representatives, or to their local patrons. Even if Paul
was successful in communicating this to some of the believers at Thessalonica,
we cannot assume, if 2 Thessalonians is an authentic Pauline epistle, that all the
believers heard Paul correctly on the issue, or even in the same way. The presence
of alternate pseudonymous prophetic voices at Thessalonica would have further
complicated the issue (2 Thess 2:2a). In other words, the older paradigms of eschatological 'enthusiasm', propounded by scholars of previous generations, were
probably more bifurcated in the first-century Jewish eschatological and Roman
imperial context than we have previously imagined( 3.4.1 n. 67).
1.5 The Aim and Structure of the Book

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether Paul's eschatological gospel, as
enunciated in his Roman and Thessalonian epistles, critiqued the Julio-Claudian
conception of rule in the mid-first century AD. At a theological level, to what
extent did Paul intentionally dismantle the ideology of the ruler as a diis electus
('chosen by the gods')? How should believers react to the traditional accolade
that the ruler was 'god-like' as a benefactor and military victor? What status and
importance, under the cosmic rule of God and his messianic Son, does Paul assign to the Roman ruler and his house? What role do the LXX scriptures and the
literature of Second Temple Judaism play in the apostle's theological assessment
of the 'symbolic universe' of the ruler? What are the responsibilities of believers
to the Julio-Claudian house in an honorific culture?
At a social level, how did Paul's house churches, founded on the grace of dishonoured Benefactor, become agents of divine beneficence in a world dominated
by the Julio-Claudian 'super patrons'? What functions and privileges of the Roman ruler did Paul reassign to the Body of Christ? What evidence is there that
Paul critiques the social values espoused by the imperial house and their clients,
both in the capital and in the western and eastern provinces? What strategies
does Paul use to maintain the unity of the Body of Christ at Rome? In addition
to the disunity present over food-laws and holy days (Rom 14:1-23), it is likely
that there would have been disagreements among the members of the Body of
Christ at Rome over imperial politics. Some believers were either members of
the familia Caesaris or clients of the houses of powerful imperial freedmen; other
believers would have had a more jaundiced view of the ruler and his clients, being
more sympathetic to the anti-imperial propaganda. In other words, Paul needed
to work diplomatically with the Roman believers in broaching the dangers associated with the idolatry of the imperial cult, while maintaining social cohesion
by his teaching on the believer's submission to the ruler as God's servant.
1.5 The Aim and Structure of the Book
45
Thus, for a balanced presentation of the imperial cult in the Greek East and
in the Latin West, there needs to be a selection of diverse genres of evidence
(literary, documentary, numismatic, iconographic and archaeological), as well as
evidence articulating political viewpoints opposed to the Julio-Claudian house.
Emphasis will be placed on imperial evidence relevant to specific locales in order
to ensure that Paul's eschatological gospel is understood within its correct context. Finally, both republican and imperial perspectives should be investigated
in the case of the city of Rome, lest the reign of the ruler is somehow abstracted
from its historical and social antecedents. Such an approach, especially in the
case of the Roman quest for 'glory', throws considerable light on the continuity
and discontinuity of Julio-Claudian rule with Roman tradition.
In Chapter 2 we will discuss the presence of the imperial cult at Thessalonica
and enquire whether Paul's eschatological discourse in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11
has imperial reference. In Chapter 3 we will ask whether Paul's portrait of the
anti-Christ in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 has in view Caligula's attempted desecration of the Jerusalem temple. An intriguing sidelight to this discussion is whether
some of Paul's Thessalonian auditors may have misinterpreted Paul's prophecy about the eschatological demise of the imperial clients (1 Thess 5:2-3) as a
prophecy about the Roman ruler's immanent demise. Chapters 2 and 3, therefore,
provide an eastern Mediterranean perspective on the operations of the imperial
cult and is therefore a useful case study of its impact upon believers in a highly
Romanised city.
In Chapter 4 the Roman cyclical view of time and its appropriation in the
Julio-Claudian propaganda will be discussed, along with the characteristics of
the Roman ruler's rule. From there we will be well placed to discuss exegetically
the various eschatological texts in Romans as a conclusion to the chapter. Chapter
5 explores Augustus' understanding of history as articulated in the statue programme of the forum Augustum at Rome. Against this backdrop, we will better
appreciate the venomous response of Augustus' critics to his rule and see how
the rhetoric of Romans 5:1-11 might have persuaded such disaffected critics to
consider commitment to a dishonoured benefactor.
A little discussed feature of Romans in the scholarly literature is the role that
eschatological 'glory' plays in the epistle. Where such discussions take place, the
emphasis is entirely on the Jewish literature, with little awareness on the part of
New Testament scholars that glory was the object of a heated quest among the
noble houses of the late republic until, from Augustus' triumph at Actium (31
BC) onwards, the Julian house became the very embodiment of glory. Chapter 6
is therefore devoted to a study of the intersection of Jewish and Roman motifs
of glory in Romans.
Finally, in Chapter 7, we ask the question whether Paul intended to found
a new concept of state. Against the backdrop of the Pythagorean 'kingship'
literature, the popular philosophers (Musonius Rufus; Plutarch; Seneca) and
46
the Jewish writers, we address the issue of how politically radical Paul was in
his first-century context. In Chapters 4 to 7, therefore, we are attempting to
gauge how the eschatology of Paul's epistle to the Romans intersected with the
imperial conception of rule in the Latin West, with special focus on how the
peculiar understanding of the ruler's status in the capital of the empire differed
from the conception of his provincial clients. While each chapter can be read as
a self-contained study, an overall argument about the intersection of the imperial conception of rule with Paul's eschatology in the Roman and Thessalonian
epistles is being advanced.
Finally, for the purposes of discussion, I will assume the authenticity 2 Thessalonians ( 3.1 n. 1), even though many scholars dispute Paul's authorship of
the epistle. The standard conventions of abbreviation are used throughout. Abbreviations for the inscriptions follow the epigraphic checklist of G. H. R. Horsley
and J. A. L. Lee, 191 whereas abbreviations for the papyri are to be found in the
web edition of the 'Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic
Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets'. 192 In the case of the classical, biblical, and Jewish
authors, abbreviations conform to SBL conventions and The Oxford Classical
Dictionary, 193 whereas abbreviations for periodicals, reference works, and serials
follow SBL Conventions and L'Annee Philologique.
191 G. H. R. Horsley and J. A. L. Lee, 'A Preliminary Checklist of Abbreviations of Greek Epigraphic Volumes', Epigraphica 66 (1994) 129-170.
192 J. F. Oates (et al., ed.), Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri,
Ostraca and Tablets Web Edition http:/ /scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html
193 P. H. Alexander (et al., ed.), The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical,
and Early Christian Studies (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999); S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth The
Oxford Classical Dictionary (3'd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
CHAPTER 2
Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessalonica

2.1 Scholarly Debate on the Eschatology of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11
The eschatology of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 has traditionally been interpreted
within a Jewish apocalyptic framework. At first glance, the scenario seems clear
enough. The Thessalonian believers had been grieving over the fate of the living
and the dead at Christ's parousia (1 Thess 4:13, 18; cf. 1:10; 2:12, 19; 3:13; 4:15;
5:23). They had either written a letter to Paul on the issue or communicated their
concerns regarding the afterlife through Timothy when he was at Thessalonica
(1 Thess 3:5-6). 1 In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Paul responds to a familiar question
of apocalyptic literature: whether those living at the end-time would be in a more
advantageous position than the dead. Subsequently, he tackles a second Thessalonian question regarding the time of Christ's return in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11.
As regards the first question, Paul argues that while the dead in Christ will
precede the living at the end-time resurrection (1 Thess 4:14b, 15b, 16b), both
groups of believers will together meet the returning and descending Lord in the
air (4:17). 2 Above all, it is the resurrection ofJesus (1 Thess 4:14a; cf. 1:10) which
ensures the security of the believers who have already died (4:14b; cf. 5:9-10). 3
In answer to the second question, Paul underscores the unexpectedness of the
day of the Lord (1 Thess 5:2b, 3b, 4b). As sons of the light and of the day (1 Thess
1 On the likelihood of the Thessalonians writing a letter to Paul, see A. J. Malherbe, 'Did
the Thessalonians Write to Paul?', in R. T. Fortuna and B.R. Gaventa (eds.), The Conversation
Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honour of f. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990),
246-257. In the view ofT. D. Still ('Eschatology in the Thessalonian Letters', RevExp 96/2 [1999]:
n. 19 205), Malherbe's argUTI!ent is 'possible, but not verifiable'. But the use of 7tEpi of. (1 Thess
4.9; 5.1) and 7tEpi -rwv (4:13)- introducing successive topics- points to oral or written questions
being asked of Paul by the Thessalonians. See E. J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1995), 259. On 1 Thess 4:3-18 and 5:1-11 being companion pieces in their
structure, see W. Neil, The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1950), 90. I date 1 Thessalonians from late AD 49 to early AD 50.
2 D. E. H. Whiteley (Thessalonians in the Revised Standard Version [London: Oxford University Press, 1969], 70) observes that Paul 'is abundantly clear on the one point which he is
anxious to drive home, namely that those who died before the Second Coming would in no
way be losers'.
3 See J. Plevnik, 'The Parousia as Implication of Christ's Resurrection: An Exegesis of 1 Thess
4:13-18', in id. (ed.), Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor ofDavid Michael Stanley, S.f. on His 60th
Birthday (Willowdale: Regis College Press, 1975), 199-277.
48
Chapter 2: Paul and the Imperial Gospel at 1hessalonica
5:5a), believers should live alert, watchful and self-controlled lives (5:6b, Bb).
Their life-style should be characterised by faith, love and hope ( 1 Thess 5:8c; cf.
1:3).4 1hus, in contrast to the sleeping unbelievers who carouse in the darkness
(1 Thess 5:3a, 4a, 6a), believers will not suffer the wrath of Christ but experience
his eschatological salvation (5:9). Paul again emphasises the fact that neither the
dead nor the living are more advantaged at the eschaton (lThess 5:10).
Various theories have been suggested by scholars as to why the Thessalonians
were so ignorant about the destiny of the Christian dead (1 Thess 4:13: ou 9eAoflV l) u~oui<; ayvot:iv). W. Schmithals and W. Harnisch have asserted that Paul is
combatting gnostics who had spiritualised the Thessalonian belief in the resurrection and the parousia (1 Thess 4:13-17; 21hess 2:2). 5 However, this anachronistic reading back oflate gnostic sources into Paul's letters should be jettisoned
as methodologically unsound. 6 1here is no evidence that yvw<JL<; ('knowledge')
was ever an issue for the Thessalonians. Significantly, the word does not appear
in the epistle.
Another approach is to claim that the eschatological enthusiasm of the Thessalonians was uninformed. Paul and Silas had been forced to leave the city (Acts
17:1-10) before their teaching about Christ's parousia (1 Thess 1:10; 2:19; 3:13;
4:15-17; 5:1, 10) and the believer's share in His Kingdom (2:12) was completed?
But the prevalence of the nine 'you know' clauses in 1 Thessalonians (o'{l)aTt::
1 Thess 1:5; 2:1, 2, 5, 11; 3:3, 4; 4:2; 5:2; cf. 21hess 2:5) highlights the fact that
Paul's teaching regarding the parousia had been widely disseminated and assimilated at Thessalonica. 8 Other Pauline expressions of assumed knowledge on
4 On the relationship between ethics and inaugurated eschatology, see P. Ware, 'The Coming of the Lord: Eschatology and 1 Thessalonians', ResQ 22 1/2 (1979): 109-120, esp. 118-120.
5 W. Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 123-218; W. Harnisch,
Eschatologische Existenz: Bin exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanleigen von I. 1hessalonicher 4, 13-5,
11 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1973), 52-158.
6 See E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (London:
Tyndale, 1973 ), passim. For further discussion, see R. Jewett, The 1hessalonian Correspondence:
Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 147-149.
7 F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word, 1982), xxxvii. R. Reisner (Paul's Early Period:
Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 385-386) speculates
that only some of the house churches ofThessaonica heard the teaching of Paul on the parousia,
restricted as it initially was to select individuals (Acts 17:2, 4) and to the house of Jason, his patron (Acts 17:5, 7a). Paul's admonition to read the letter to all the brothers (1 Thess 5:27) represents his attempt to remedy the situation. But this reads too much into the practice of the public
reading of Paul's letters in the house churches (Col4:16). Surely those who had first heard Paul's
gospel (Acts 15:4, 6-7) would have carefully passed it on to the Thessalonian house churches
that later sprung up? Furthermore, would not Timothy on his subsequent visit (1 Thess 3:2-3,
5-6) have ensured that all the Thessalonian house churches were clear on the essentials? More
probably, 1 Thessalonians 5:27 is Paul's way of ensuring that the epistle is read to both Jewish and
Gentile believers, especially given the hostility of some Jews to the gospel at Thessalonica (Acts
17:5-8; 1 Thess 2: 14-17). On Jewish hostility at Thessalonica, see n. 33 below.
8 Although the use of oillaTE forms part of Paul's rhetorical strategy, its persuasive power
2.1 Scholarly Debate on the Eschatology of 11hessalonians 4:13-5:11
49
the part of the Thessalonians (1 Thess 2:9; 4:9; 5:1) convey the same impression. 9
Paul displays a confidence in the thoroughness of his teaching, notwithstanding
the brevity of his stay at Thessalonica.
Other scholars speculate that Paul may have over-emphasised the proximity
of the parousia while he was with the Thessalonians. The result was his converts
appropriated an over-realised eschatology which did not sufficiently reckon with
the prospect of death before Christ's return. 10 But this theory runs against the
flow of the evidence in 1 Thessalonians. The Thessalonians had imitated Jesus
and their apostle in the acceptance of heavy suffering for the gospel (1 Thess 1:6;
2:14-15). They had heard about the narrow escapes Paul had recently experienced (1 Thess 2:2; 3:7) and the hardship of his life as an artisan (2:9). Suffering
and persecution, as Paul had warned, was inevitable for the believer ( 1 Thess
3:3b-4). Apostasy from the faith remained a Satanic temptation of considerable
danger (1 Thess 3:5b; cf. 2:18)_ll If anything, the real problem for the Thessalonians was not over-realised eschatology but disillusionment over the cost of
discipleship. It was for this reason that Paul had sent Timothy to them 'so that
none one would be unsettled by these trials' (1 Thess 3:3a). The many difficulties
facing the persecuted house-churches may well have called into question any idea
that Christians would be spared death before the parousia. 12
A final possibility is that Paul is polemicising against the popular mystery cult
of Cabirus which was present at Thessalonica and represented on her coinage.
R. Jewett has claimed that there are striking parallels between Paul's apocalyptic
preaching of Christ's parousia and the much anticipated return of the martyred
depends on the fact that the Thessalonians had been informed by Paul regarding the central
tenets of their faith.
9 See Z.A. Crook, 'Paul's Riposte and Praise of the Thessalonians', BTB 27/4 (1997): 160.
10 W. Liitgert, 'Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief und die Enthusiasten in Thessalonich',
BFCT 13/6 (1909): 547-654; C.L. Mearns, 'Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The
Evidence ofl and II Thessalonians', NTS 27 (1980-1981): 137-151; Jewett, 1hessalonian Correspondence, 142-147. It might be argued from 21hess 2:2 that Paul had over-emphasised the
arrival of parousia on his initial visit. But it is methodologically unsound to read the situation
of 1 Thessalonians through the lens of the later document, 2 Thessalonians. Note, however, that
some scholars (e.g. C. A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the
Greek Text [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 37-45) argue that 21hessalonians was written
prior to 1 Thessalonians. Contra, L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians
(Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 26-30.
11 Note Bruce's suggestion (Thessalonians, 55-56) that the politarchs' action against the Thessalonian believers is deemed Satanic by Paul (Acts 17:9; 11hess 2:18).
12 Even though, as K. P. Donfried and I. H. Marshall (The Theology of the Shorter Pauline
Epistles [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 21) argue, Paul is perhaps airing a new
question in 11hess 4:13-18 regarding the fate of the dead in Christ, the issue would not have
necessarily caught the Thessalonians off guard. The Acts narrative draws attention to the continuous threat of suffering and martyrdom that faced the early believers (Acts 5:33; 7:59-8.3; 9:1;
12:1-3; 14:5, 19; 16:19-24; 19:22-24, 38). E. Best (A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles
to the Thessalonians [London: A & C Black, 1972], 19) observes that it was more the severity of
the persecutions which occasioned surprise than the persecutions themselves.
50
hero Cabirus. 13 The argument gains force when one remembers that Paul prefaces his eschatological teaching (1 Thess 4:13-5: 11) with strong warnings regarding sexual purity (4:3-8) - a strategy perhaps necessitated by the importance
of phallic symbolism in the Cabirus cult. 14 But historical caution is warranted
here. H. Koester and C. S. de Vos observe that we know considerably less about
the practises of the cult of Cabirus at Thessalonica than we do elsewhere in the
empire. 15
We have seen, then, that many of the reasons ventured by New Testament
scholars for Paul's pronounced eschatological emphasis in 1 Thessalonians
founder on the internal evidence of the epistle itself. Where scholars have identified the opponents against whom Paul is allegedly polemicising, the approach
is often based on a faulty 'mirror-reading' of the text. 16 The claims made for the
relevance of the local cultic evidence to the situation have been overstated. Not
enough attention has been paid to the epistle's context of persecution (1 Thess
1:6; 2:2, 14-16, 18; 3:2, 4-5, 7-8; cf. 2 Thess 1:4-7) and its relation to 1 Thess
4:13-5:11.17 In this regard, one of the more puzzling features of our passage is
the way that Paul combines Jewish eschatology and allusions to the imperial cult.
Why the blend of two fundamentally different traditions? And how does this
relate to the critique of the imperial cult found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8?
Jewett, 1hessalonian Correspondence, 127-132.
K. P. Donfried, 'The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence', NTS
31/3 (1985): 338.
15 H. Koester, 'From Paul's Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Schemata of 2 Thessalonians', in
R.F. Collins (ed.), The 1hessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990),
441-458, esp. 443-445; C.S. de Vos, Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of
the 1hessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 140-142. For a useful discussion of the Cabirus cult, see C. Edson,
'Cults ofThessalonica', HTR 41/3 (1948): 188-204. On Paul and the cultic associations, see J. R.
Harrison, 'Paul's House Churches and the Cultic Associations', RTR 58/1 ( 1999): 31-47. On the
Thessalonian church as a voluntary association, see R. S. Ascough, 'The Thessalonian Christian
Community as a Professional Voluntary Association', JBL 119/2 (2000): 311-328.
16 Best (Thessalonians, 21-22) sums up the methodological problem of scholars such as
Schmithals (Gnostics, passim) thus: 'They assume there are opponents to be described and then
they set out to discover them in every nook and cranny of the letter'. J. Plevnik's argument ('The
Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18', CBQ
46 [1984]: 274-283) also suffers from the methodological flaw of 'mirror reading'. He claims
that Paul is responding to Jewish apocalyptic traditions - picked up by the Thessalonians - that
only those who are alive at the eschaton will experience the heavenly ascent. Naturally enough,
the Thessalonians are afraid that the dead in Christ will be disadvantaged (11hess 4:13a, 15).
But Paul himself may be airing these apocalyptic traditions and responding to them from the
eschatological perspective of his gospel, as part of his teaching and pastoral strategy with the
Thessalonian believers. For coverage of the evidence that Paul is mounting an apologia against
enemies in 1 Thessalonians, see B. Rigaux, Saint Paul: Les eptitres aux 1hessaloniciens (Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1956), 58-62. In the view ofRigaux (ibid., 62), 'on valorisera les assertions de l'ap6tre
non comme des responses a des accusations, mais comme autant de motifs d'encouragement,
de force, d'union, de perseverance et de consolation:
17 See, however, the insightful comments ofDonfried, 'Cults', 347-352.
13
14
2.2 Jewish and Roman Conceptions of Rule in 1 Thessalonians
51
This chapter investigates the extent to which Augustan providential and apotheosis traditions have provoked Paul's response in 1 Thessalonians. The argument
is structured as follows. First, after a brief survey of the Jewish eschatological
traditions in !Thessalonians 4:13-5:1, we will concentrate on the evidence for
the presence of the imperial cult at Thessalonica. What terminological clues in
our passage point to an awareness of its presence on Paul's part? Second, the possibility that Paul, in the face of Roman opposition at Thessalonica, critiques the
imperial providential and apotheosis traditions is explored.

2.2.1 Introduction
Commentators have carefully charted Paul's allusions to and modifications of

Jewish apocalyptic imagery in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. 18 In 1 Thessalonians
4:16-17 the apostle catalogues the end-time signs which will usher in the resurrection age: namely, the cry of command, the voice of the archangel, and the
trumpet of God (llhess 4:16). He alludes to the apocalyptic tradition of the
heavenly ascent ( 1 Thess 4:17: aprrayT]OOf.LE8a) and speaks of the clouds in a manner reminiscent of Old Testament theophanic appearances (4:17: tv vecp;\au;). 19
In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-5, Paul's references to the 'Day of the Lord' (1 Thess
5:2), the 'thief in the night' (5:2, 4), and the 'birth pangs of a woman in labour'
(5:3) belong to traditional prophetic and apocalyptic fare. The imagery of'sons of
light and sons of day' (llhess S:Sa) and 'darkness' (S:Sb) reflect an apocalyptic
world-view very similar to Qumran. Finally, there are echoes of the Jesus apocalyptic tradition throughout (llhess 4:15 [Mt 24:27]; 4:16 [Mt 24:31]; 4:17 [Mk
13:36; Mt 25:6]; 5:3-7 [Lk 21:34-36; Mk 13:35-37]).20
What do we make of this profusion of Jewish apocalyptic imagery, given that
the Thessalonian believers were mostly Gentile (llhess 1:9; 2:14-15; 4:3-8)? 21
18 In what follows I do not cite the many references from the Jewish literature that form the
apocalyptic framework of 1 Thess 4:13-5.11. These can easily be accessed from R.H. Gundry,
'The Hellenization of Dominica! Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the
Eschatology of 1-2 Thessalonians', NTS 33/2 (1987}: 161-178; A.F.J. Klijn, '1 Thessalonians
4.13-18 and Its Background in Apocalyptic Literature', in M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson
(eds.), Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett (London: SPCK, 1982), 67 -73; B.
Witherington III, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament
Eschatology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992), 152-163; J. Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997}, 3-64.
19 See J. Gillman, 'Signals of Transformation in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18', CBQ 47/2 (1985}:
262-281, esp. 276-280.
2 Contra, see C.M. Tuckett, 'Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians?', in Collins (ed.}, Thessalonian Correspondence, 160-182.
21 See the comments of De Vos (Conflicts, 144-147) regarding the ethnic composition of the
Thessalonian church.
52
The problem may well be a failure of historical perspective on our part. Perhaps
we underestimate the Jewishness of Paul and the apocalyptic framework of his
theology. 22 We also forget that the Gentiles had to be taught as much about the
Jewish basis of their faith as the interaction of the gospel with popular philosophy.23 But these suggestions only partially address the problem. Why does the
apocalyptic imagery become progressively less prominent in Paul's later epistles- even if his apocalyptic teaching is maintained overall?24 What was it about
the Thessalonian situation that required such a pronounced eschatological and
apocalyptic response from Paul?
An exclusively Jewish approach to the eschatological issues of 1 Thessalonians
obscures a fundamental social reality of the first century AD. Paul's apocalyptic
gospel also competed with the Augustan conception of rule and its propagandist
manipulation by his imperial successors. We see this in the first encounter of the
apostolic gospel with the city officials at Thessalonica. The politarchs accused
Paul, Silas and their converts of 'acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying there
is another king, Jesus' (Acts 17:7; cf. 16:21). How do we explain such a hostile
response on the part of the Romans? Several explanations are possible. Paul's
claim that Jesus was the returning heavenly xupto~; ('Lord') may have been the
cause of the political offence. From the time of Augustus onwards, xupto~; was
transferred as an honorific from the eastern ruler cult to the imperial cult. So
thoroughly had the Julian-Claudians eclipsed their political rivals that talk of
'another Lord', without any deference to or incorporation into their power base,
was inconceivable.25 Perhaps the apostle's assertion that there was an alternative
22 On the apocalyptic nature of Paul's theology, see J. Baumgarten, Paulus und die Apokalyptik. Die Auslegung apokalyptischer Oberlieferungen in den echten Paulusbriefen (Neukirchen:
Neukirchener, 1975); G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979); J.C.
Beker, Paul the Apostle: 1he Triumph ofGod in Life and Thought (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980);
W. A. Meeks, 'Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity', in D. Hellholm
(ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1983),
687-705; L.E. Keck, 'Paul as Thinker', Int 47/1 (1993): 27-38; A.R. Brown, The Cross and Human Transformation: Paul's Apocalyptic World in 1 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995);
J.L. Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 87-156;
C. R. Roetzel, 'Paul as Organic Intellectual: The Shaper of Apocalyptic Myths', in J. V. Hills (et al.,
ed.), Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder (Harrisburg: Trinity
International, 1998), 221-243; D. A. Campbell, The Deliverance ofGod: An Apocalyptic Rereading
ofJustification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
23 For Paul and popular philosophy in the Thessalonian epistles, see A. J. Malherbe, Paul and
the Thessalonians: 1he Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); id.,
Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 35-66.
24 Bruce, Thessalonians, 105. Notwithstanding, Chapters 4-7 emphasise the important role
that apocalyptic eschatology continues to play in Romans.

25 KVpLo<;: 11hess 1:3, 6, 8; 2:15, 19; 3:8, 11, 12, 13; 4:1. 2, 6, 15 (2x), 16, 17; 5:2, 9, 12, 23, 27,
28. In four places Paul links the parousia with the fact that Jesus is the reigning KVpto<; (1 lliess
2:19; 3:14; 4:15; 5:23). Cf. Acts 25:25 for the New Testament employing Kvpto<; for the emperor.
For discussion, see A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient Near East: 1he New Testament nlustrated by Recently Discovered Texts ofthe Graeco-Roman World (2"d ed. 1927: rpt. Grand Rapids:
2.2 Jewish and Roman Conceptions of Rule in I Thessalonians
53
Kingdom and glory for Thessalonian believers (~am:\da Kal Mxa: 1 Thess 2:12)
further provoked Roman sensibilities.26 Additionally, the preaching of 'another
king' may well have violated imperial bans on predicting the change of emperors
(Dio Cassius 56.25.5-6; 57.15.8).27
More likely, however, is the suggestion of E. A. Judge. He contends that the
Thessalonian charge is to be understood against the backdrop of the provincial
loyalty oaths to the Caesars.28 In this regard, K. P. Donfried links the persecution
of the Thessalonian believers to the requirement of the Paphlagonian loyalty
oath to Augustus and his descendants ( OGIS 532: 6 March 3 BC) that all cases
of disloyalty be reported and the offenders hunted down. 29 In Donfried's view,
the invocation of the imperial loyalty oaths resulted in the very deaths of the
believers reported in 1 Thess 4:13-18.30 But our text is silent as to whether the
combined Jewish and Roman action against the Thessalonian believers did in fact
result in martyrdom. 31 There may or may not have been martyrs at Thessalonica.
But there can be little doubt that the disciplinary measures undertaken against
them would have been severe. Only thirteen years before 1 Thessalonians was
Baker Book House, 1978), 349-357; R. F. Collins, The Birth of the New Testament: The Origin
and Development of the First Christian Generation (New York: Crossroad 1993), 67-69. See
also New Docs 2 (1982), 4, 6. For a discussion of the Thessalonian context, see the incisive
remarks of G. H. R. Horsley, 'The Greek Documentary Evidence and NT Lexical Study: Some
Soundings', New Docs 5 (1989), 74. For further inscriptional references to Kuploc; as an honorific
for Claudius, Nero and Vespasian, see T. H. Kim, 'The Anarthrous uioc; 6eoii in Mark 15:39 and
the Roman Imperial Cult', Bib 79/2 (1998): 235.
26 Y. Khiok-Khng ('A Political Reading of Paul's Eschatology in I and II Thessalonians', AJT
12/1 [1998]: 79) comments: 'Paul's message of imminent parousia, the Lordship of Christ, the
grace and benefaction ofJesus posed an obvious challenge and threat to the Pax Romana and
the Benefactor Roma'.
27 DeVos, Conflicts, 156.
28 E. A. Judge, 'The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica', in id. (ed. J.R. Harrison), The First
Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008), 456-462. For discussion of the relevance of the imperial loyalty oaths to Romans 6:12-23,
see J. R. Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tiibingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2003), 6.1.2.5.
29 Donfried, 'Cults', 349-350. Augustus (Res Gestae 25) speaks of all Italy voluntarily taking an
oath of allegiance to himself as ~YE!lWV after Actium. For the arrangements ofSamos concerning
a loyalty oath towards Augustus, see P. Herrmann, Der ri:imische Kaisereid (Giittingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1968), 125-126 6. For a Cypriot pledge to Tiberius, see T.B. Mitford, 'A
Cypriot Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius', IRS 50 (1960): 75-79.
30 Donfried, 'Cults', 350. For additional discussion, see C. U. Manus ('Luke's Account of Paul
in Thessalonica [Acts 17:1-9]': 33-34) and J. Gillman ('Jason oflhessalonica': 45-46) in Collins
(ed.), Thessalonian Correspondence. Note the comment of DeVos (Conflicts, 156-157): 'in a city
that was acutely aware of its dependence on imperial benefaction it would be quite surprising if
such expressions ofloyalty were not performed enthusiastically'.
31 Correctly, DeVos, Conflicts, 159-160. C. A. Wanamaker ('Apocalypticism at Thessalonica',
Neot 21/1 [1987]: 5) argues that the dissatisfaction of the Thessalonian converts with the existing
social order caused them to reject its Roman power base, notwithstanding the strong political
coercion marshalled against them.
54
Chapter 2: Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessalonica
written, the people of Aritium swore this oath upon the accession of the new
emperor, Caligula (AD 37):
On my conscience, I shall be an enemy of those persons whom I know to be enemies of
Gaius Caesar Germanicus, and if anyone imperils or shall imperil him or his safety by
arms or by civil war I shall not cease to hunt him down by land and by sea, until he pays
the penalty to Caesar in full. I shall not hold myself or my children dearer than his safety
and I shall consider as my enemies those persons who are hostile to him. If consciously I
swear falsely or am proved false may Jupiter Optimus Maximus and the deified Augustus
and all the other immortal gods punish me and my children with loss of country, safety,
and all my fortune. 32
Thus the Thessalonian Jews fulfilled the spirit of the imperial loyalty oaths in
searching for Paul and Silas at Jason's house (Acts 17:5), reporting the Thessalonian believers to the politarchs (Acts 17:6-9), and then pursuing Paul to Berea
with the same intent (17:13). In the view of the Thessalonian Jews, the apostles
were preaching a pretender king, Jesus, and had urged the Thessalonian and
Berean citizens to violate their oaths of allegiance to the emperor. 33
32 GIL II 172. For the loyalty oath of Assos to Caligula (AD 37), see SIG3 797: 'we will consider
as friends those whom he honours with friendship and as enemies those whom he accuses'. P.
Oakes ('Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians',
JSNT27/3 [2005]: 312-314) has disagreed with my use of the loyalty oath of Aritium, pointing
out that (a) it more calls participants to political commitment than to involvement in the imperial cult and that (b) Christians could pledge allegiance to the ruler by omitting or changing its
idolatrous self-cursing formulae without violating their faith. First, Oakes is correct that the
Aritium loyalty oath emphasises political commitment, but its all-embracing nature, I believe,
would have created problems for some believers. Second, Oakes oversimplifies the situation by
saying that the early believers would have performed a modified loyalty oath in cultic contexts.
More likely, some believers - with obligations to the imperial benefactors or their representatives - would have performed a modified oath, whereas other believers would have refused to
participate in the ritual because of their sensitivities regarding idolatry. In the case of Roman
Corinth, for example, 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 reveals how polarised believers were about participation in 'idolatrous' activities. However, if Acts 17:7 is correct, the issue at Thessalonica was
(initially at least) the collision between Paul's eschatological gospel and the imperial conception
of rule, though the Thessalonian believers would have been very familiar with its idolatrous cult
(11hess 1:9b).
33 The Thessalonian Jews may have been concerned that the Christianoi- if unchecked- might
somehow compromise their own right to practise their ancestral customs under the Julian edicts
(Josephus, AI 14.211-216; 16.166; id., Ap. 2.37; Philo, Leg. 315-316; cf. Acts 16:21). Indeed,
the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius in AD 49 (Acts 18:2; Suetonius, Claud. 25.4)
may have heightened Jewish fears in the empire regarding their privileged status and made
them more anxious than normal to differentiate themselves from the Christians. In this regard,
Josephus (AI 19.285) informs us that the Romans would only continue to uphold the rights of
the Jews 'while they abide by their own customs'. Notwithstanding Luke's apologetic agenda in
Acts 17:1-15 (e.g. J.B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts [Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 1992], 143-145), DeVos is unduly optimistic in exonerating the Jews of any
involvement in the Roman actions against the Thessalonian believers (Conflicts, 157-158). By
contrast, see Rigaux, Thessaloniciens, 57-58. To be sure, some commentators argue that the Roman accusations in Acts 17:1-10 against the believers are Lukan inventions and that there were
no Jewish persecutions at Thessalonica (17:5-6, 13). In reply, however, see T.D. Still, Conflict at
2.2 Jewish and Roman Conceptions of Rule in I Thessalonians
55
But to what extent had the imperial cult penetrated Thessalonica? H. L. Hendrix
points out that honours to the traditional gods, Roma and Roman benefactors
had become increasingly interconnected in the practice of the city. 34 There is also
epigraphic record of the building of a Thessalonian temple to Caesar in the reign
of Augustus (IG [X] II/I 31). Although no remains of the original temple (va6~)
have survived, the inscription testifies to the importance of the imperial cult in
civic life. Significantly, the inscription refers to the appointment of a 'priest and
ago[nethete oflm]perator Caesar Augustus son [of God]'. 35 It is possible that the
imperial cult was located in the western part of the city, because a headless and
armless statue of an emperor was found in that region in 1957.36 Nearby, to the
north I northeast of the Sarapeion, several fragments of a statue of Augustus were
discovered in 1939. 37 Whether locally produced or imported, the statue's head
was modelled on the famous representation of Augustus found at Prima Porta. 38
Hendrix cautions against assuming that the statue belonged to the original temple
of Caesar or that the site of its discovery was the area devoted to imperial worship. The statue could well have been executed during the Claudian period and
was perhaps an honorific or administrative monument from the nearby Agora. 39
The numismatic evidence reinforces the impression that the imperial cult
flourished in Thessalonica. Two examples will suffice. The obverse of a series
of Thessalonian coins show the laureate head of Caesar and carry the legend
E>EOt. The reverse displays the bare head of Octavian either with the legend
E>EttAAONIKEON or E>EitEBAtTOY. While the title 'son of god' (9eou ul6~)
does not appear on the reverse, the juxtaposition of the Divine Julius with his son
probably implies Thessalonian awareness of the honorific. 40 An innovation on a
Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbours (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 74-78,
150-190. Also see B. Witherington III (I and 21hessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 140-141) who argues that because 'the imperial cult was an
eschatological institution itself', Paul's eschatological gospel 'was an explosive message with
considerable political implications'.
34 H. L. Hendrix, Thessalonicans Honor Romans (unpub. PhD thesis: Harvard University,
1984), 19-61, 98-139; id., 'Beyond "Imperial Cult" and "Cults of Magistrates"', in H. K. Richards
(ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986): 301-308; id.,
'Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment', Semeia 56 (1992): 39-58. To some
degree, however, Hendrix has overestimated the extent of Roman patronal influence (De Vos,
Conflicts, 137).
35 IG [X] II/I 31,11. 5-7. Other Thessalonian inscriptions refer to the same official, but the
original text is heavily restored in each case (IG [X] II I I 130-133). For discussion of the texts,
see Hendrix, Thessalonicans, 99-139.
36 M. Vickers, 'Hellenistic Thessaloniki', ]HS 92 (1972): 164.
37 H. L. Hendrix, 'Archaeology and Eschatology at Thessalonica', in B. A. Pearson (et al., ed.),
The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991), 116-117.
38 Hendrix, Thessalonicans, 45-54.
39
40
Ibid.
Ibid. 170-173.
56
conventional coin issue might point to the divinisation of Augustus. On the obverse, the head of Augustus with the legend KAI~AP ~EB~TO~ - the reverse
being a prow with the city legend E>E~~AAONIKEON - displaces the head of
Zeus on earlier Zeus I prow issues.41 However, in this instance, the Thessalonians
might have only been making the more modest claim that Augustus' exercise of
his imperium was 'Zeus-like'.42
But to what degree was Paul concerned about the effect of the imperial cult
upon believers at Thessalonica? It is not without significance that the apostle injects several heavily loaded political terms into 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. 43 We
have already noted Paul's use of the imperial honorific, KUpto~ ('Lord'), for the
risen Christ over against the Caesars (1 Thess 4:15 [2x], 16, 17; 5:2, 3).44 However,
there are several other words which merit close attention.
2.2.2 rrapovuia and frrupaveta

1 Thessalonians 4:15 mentions the na.pouo[a. or 'coming' of Christ. The word
straddles both Jewish apocalyptic and imperial contexts. 45 An example of its
imperial use is found in an edict where Germanicus speaks of his parousia in
Egypt (SB I. 3924,34 [DocsAug., 320]: Ei~ T~v Ef.L~V na.pouo[a.v). It is significant
that Germanicus' illicit visit to Egypt (AD 18-19) generated such enthusiasm
among his Egyptian clients that Germanicus, the nephew of Tiberius and father
of Caligula, had to distance himself from the divine accolades accorded him. As
his edict explains,
41 Ibid. 179. Hendrix ('Beyond "Imperial Cult"', 307-308) cautiously argues that only Julius
Caesar, the emperor Trajan and Fulvus Aurelius were acclaimed as 'divine' at Thessalonica.
42 S. R. F. Price, 'Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult', JHS
104 (1984): 86.
43 Donfried, 'Cults', 344.
44 See now the excellent work ofJ. D. Fantin (The Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, A Challenge to Lord Caesar? [unpub. PhD thesis: University of Sheffield, 2006), forthcoming Sheffield
Phoenix).
45 Apocalyptic references in the Greek Jewish literature: TAb 13:4: 'until his great and glorious parousia (T~c; f.LEYUA'lc; tvMxou aliToli napoua[ac;)'. TAb 13:6: 'at the second parousia (tv Tfi
~EuTipq.napoua[q.) they will be judged by the twelve tribes oflsrael'. TLevi 14:15: 'His presence
(napoua[a auToli) is beloved, as a prophet of the Most High, a descendant of Abraham, our
father'. TJud 22:2: 'until the coming of the God of righteousness' (ewe; napoua[ac; Toli 9eoli T~c;
&Katoaliv'lc;). Cf. lEn 38.2; 49.4 (Ethiopic text); 2En 32.1. E.P Sanders (J. H. Charlesworth [ed.],
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. I. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments [New York: Doubleday, 1983), n. 13a 890) argues that napoua[a 'was probably more common in Jewish literature
than can now be directly demonstrated'. But, in the absence of the crucial evidence, Sanders'
judgement remains speculative. For discussion, see Deissmann, Light, 368-373; A. Oepke, napoua[a, napEt!ll, in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNTV (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967):
858-871; G. Braumann, napoua[a, in C. Brown (ed.), NIDNTT II (Exeter: Paternoster, 1976):
898-901; C. Spicq, napoua{a, in id., Theological Lexicon of the New Testament III (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1994): 53-55; Witherington, Thessalonians, 142-143.
2.2 Jewish and Roman Conceptions of Rule in !Thessalonians
57
... your goodwill, which you always display whenever you see me, I accept, but odious to
me are your shouts (appropriate only to) the godlike, and I decline them in every way. They
are fitting for the true saviour only and the benefactor for the entire race of men, my father
and his mother (who is) my grandmother. Whatever merits I have are the consequences
of their divinity alone ... 46
The word napouoia also dates an inscription of Hadrian from Tegea: 'the sixtyninth year of the first parousia of the god Hadrian in Greece'. 47 Finally, the Latin
equivalent of parousia features in the imperial numismatic propaganda. The
adventus coins of Nero- bearing the Latin legends Adventus Aug(usti) Cor(inthi}
and Adventus Augusti- were struck to commemorate the Emperor's parousia
to Corinth and Patras. 48 Importantly, Nero's beneficiaries celebrated the visit
of Nero to Greece (AD 67} with a quasi-divine adulation, as had been the case
with Germanicus in Egypt earlier in the century. The small city of Akraiphia in
Boeotia recorded the grandiloquent speech that Nero delivered at the theatre in
Corinth and registers its own effusive eulogy, drawing on 'Golden Age' motifs
( 4.1.1- 4.1.4; 4.3.1- 4.3.7}, in honour ofNero for his beneficence delivered
during his parousia of Greece. 49 It would seem, then, that Paul has seized upon a
46 DocsAug., 300 II. 32-34. P.Oxy. 25 (1959) 2435 (translated in R. K. Sherk [ed.], The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], 34.A) is
an example of the adulatory response that Germanicus received during his visit in Egypt. See
also Tacitus, Ann. 2.53, 59. Germanicus' visit was illicit because he had not secured the imperial
permission that senators required to enter the province of Egypt (Tacitus, Ann. 2.59; Suetonius,
Tib. 52). This explains Germanicus' reserve, in retrospect, about the overblown response he had
received while in Alexandria in Egypt. However, Germanicus had created the problem for himself
because, liking 'to be an equal among equals', he 'had curried favour with the people of Alexandria by appearing among them in Greek dress' (B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician [London: Croom
Helm, 1976], 129). On Germanicus' mission to the East generally, see Levick, ibid., 154-155.
47 BCH 25 {1901): 275: ETOUc; ~e cmo T~c; 8EOii i\<'lptavoii TOii 7tpliiTOV Eic; T~V 'EAA.ci<'la 7tQpoua[ac;.
48 See Deissmann, Light, 368; cf. D. C. Braund, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC-AD 68 (London/Sydney: Croom Helm, 1985), 262. The verbal cognate (mipEL!lL)
is found in the decree where Nero orders that as many men as possible from the province be
present for his coming (SIG3 814: 7tapivat ic; K6ptv8ov). See New Docs 4 (1987), 78. See also
New Docs 1 (1976), 11 regarding the parousia of a prefect (AD 192).
49 Oakes ('Re-mapping the Universe') and S. Kim (Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the
Roman Empire in the Writings ofPaul and Luke [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 30) disagree
with my interpretation of 7tapoua[a and cimiVTI]O"Lc; (infra, 2.2.3). Oakes ('Re-mapping the
Universe', 317) argues that each word was drawn 'from experience of Roman practice, but
the passage does not seem to be a conscious challenge to Roman eschatology'. Further, he
observes that 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 refers to a future visit, whereas the slogan employed in
1 Thessalonians 5:3 (Eip~v'l Kal ciacpaAEta: for discussion, infra, 2.2.4) refers to the present
'Golden Age (ibid.). I agree with Oakes that cimivTJ]mc; is not associated with the imperial
propaganda of the cyclical 'Golden Age', being more reserved for the civic welcome of various
luminaries (some imperial) to city states. But, as regards 7tapoua(a, we have observed above
how Germanicus' 7tapoua(a of Egypt generated the type of inflated enthusiasm associated
with the 'Golden Age'. Further, the inscription of Akraiphia, which records Nero's speech
at Corinth, honours Nero's beneficence towards Greece (AD 67). As noted, Nero's visit to
Corinth had been commemorated with an Adventus coin issue. The inscription eulogising
58
familiar imperial motif to allay Thessalonian fears regarding the dead in Christ.
The glory and pomp accompanying the advent of the heavenly Imperator will
be first experienced by the dead in Christ and only then by the living (1 Thess
4:15-16).
Of particular interest is the fact that Paul couples tmcpcivt:La with napouo[a in
2 Thessalonians 2:8. 50 tmcpcivtta {'appearance') would have recalled elements of
imperial propaganda. 51 The adjectival cognate of tmcpcivt:La (tmcpav~': 'manifest', 'distinguished') is regularly applied to the Julio-Cluadians. Julius Caesar
is honoured as 'the god manifest (descended) from Ares and Aphrodite (Tov
cl1t0 1\.pew, Kal AcppocSt[t]TTJ' eeov tmcpav~), and the general saviour (OWT~pa)
of human life'. 52 Claudius is also honoured on a statue base as 'Tiberius Claudius
Caesar Sebastos Gemanicus god manifest (9eov tmcpav~), saviour (owT~pa) of
our people too'. 53
Nero's visit resonates with 'Golden Age motifs. Nero spotlights his unprecedented xapt<; in
liberating Hellas from Roman rule (SIG3 814; cf. Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 62). The
inscriptional eulogy in honour of Nero also attests to the presence of the 'Golden Age' in the
ruler's reign with a series of effusive accolades: namely, 'New Sun shining upon the Greeks',
'Greece-loving [[Nero]] Zeus the Deliverer', and finally, 'To Zeus the Deliverer, Nero forever'.
For discussion of the inscription and its background, see J. Malitz, Nero (Oxford: Blackwell,
2005; Gmn. orig. Miichen 1999), 91-93. Although the inscription post-dates Paul's letters to
the Thessalonians, it shows that the ruler's napoua[a to some localities was not as free from
'eschatological' weight as Oakes proposes. Rather the purpose of the ruler's visit- including
its wider political significance within his reign - determined the way in which the writers of
the imperial propaganda depicted his napoua[a. Thus, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Paul implicitly
rebuts any insinuation that the 'Golden Age' had somehow arrived with the ruler's vindication
of his loyal clients during one of his periodic visits to the provinces or to individual cities. For
Paul, the only napoua[a worth waiting for was still to come, but on that occasion the returning
Christ would first recompense those faithful believers who had already died in him ahead of
those who were still alive (1 Thess 4:15b; cf. 5:10). Oakes, therefore, sets up a false dilemma
in contrasting Paul's futurist perspective in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 with the presence of the
imperial 'Golden Age' in 1 Thessalonians 5:3. The latter represents the relentless mantra of the
clients of the ruler who promoted the Julio-Claudian propaganda (1 Thess 5:3a lh"av Atyoumv),
but they would be soon destroyed (5:4). Precisely because the advent of Christ's eschatological
kingdom could not be overturned by the defeated powers, believers could confidently prepare
for its future arrival (1 Thess 5:5-11). Over against Kim's criticism of my position (Christ and
Caesar, 8-9), the certainty of Christ's victory over death (1 Thess 4: 13-18; 5:9-10) and, equally,
his triumph over the false 'Golden Age' ideology of the imperial powers (5:3-4) meant that
believers, as the Body of Christ, could confidently live sanctified lives in the present age (5:6-8,
11), in preparation for Christ's eschatological return as the glorious Lord of all (5:9).
50 In attributing 2 Thessalonians to Paul- and similarly Ephesians and Colossians inn. 76 - I
am not excluding the possibility that these letters may be the products of a pseudonymous author or a secretary. For literature on the authenticity of2 Thessalonians (my preferred position),
see Ch. 3 n. 1.
51 tmcpavELa occurs in apocalyptic contexts in the Jewish literature. 2 Mace 2:21: 'the appearances (tmcpavda<;) that came from heaven'. C 2 Mace 15:27; 3 Mace 5:8, 51. GkApEzra 3:3: 'the
manifestation (tmcpavELav) which prevails to judge the world'.
52 I.Eph. 11.251 (48 BC). See New Docs 4 (1987), 52.
53 TAMii 760c, cited in ofS.R.F. Price, 'Gods', 86. InP.Oxy. 7 (1910) 1021. (AD 54) Claudius
is designated tvcpav~<; 66<; after his death. Similarly, Trajan: P.Oxy. 36 (1970) 2754.4 (AD 111).
59
It is intriguing to speculate whether 'the man oflawlessness' (21hess 2:4, 8),

who is overthrown 'by the appearance of (Christ's) coming' (4:8: Tfi tmcpavdq.
'T~~ 1tapouo[a~ auTOu), has imperial reference. From his description in verse 4
the figure appears to be an amalgam of Antiochus IV Epiphanes ('Manifest'),
Pompey, and Caligula, each of whom defiled (or attempted to defile) the Jewish
Temple.54 The figure may simply be Paul's symbolic way of referring to the (developing) anti-Christ tradition. 55 But it could equally be a reference to Caligula
who, in Paul's view, had become the historical precursor to the destruction of
the Jerusalem Temple and ultimately to the eschaton itself. 56 This issue will be
extensively explored in Chapter 3. Either way, Paul strips the imperial cult of a
prize claim. There is only one epiphany and parousia worth waiting for- Christ's.
2.2.3 chravrrwu;
1 Thess 4: 17 employs the term anavT'lO'L~ for the mid -air eschatological 'meeting'
of the descending Christ with his believers. The word was reserved for the civic
welcome accorded a visiting dignitary or the triumphant entry of a new ruler
See tmcpavqc;, New Docs 4 (1987), 52. New Docs 2 (1982), 52: 'our lord and god most manifest (6 KupiOc; iJJlii>V Kai 8eo[c;) tvcpavt<rra-roc;) Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus'. The language
of epiphany, restored by the editor, is also used of Augustus in the famous Priene inscription
(DocsAug., 98b I. 36), discussed below ( 2.3). The title tmcpaviJc; 8e6c; is also extended to
imperial family members: see DocsGaius 134 ([8eou tmcpav)ouc;) regarding Brittanicus. See
the insightful discussion of Price, 'Gods', 86-87. C J. Dupont, :EYN XPI:ETni: L'union avec
le Christ suivant saint Paul (Bruges: Nauwelaerts, 1952), 73-77; R. Bultmann/D. Liihrmann,
tmcpaivw, tmcpavqc;, tmcpciveta, in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNT IX (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974), 7-10.
54 For discussion, see J. T. Townsend, 'II Thessalonians 2:3-12', in P.J. Achtemeier (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1980 Seminar Papers (Chico: Scholars, 1980): 233-250. See too A. L.
Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 110-114. The older discussion
of H. A. A. Kennedy (St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things [London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1904), 207-221) is still worthwhile.
55 For example, Best, Thessalonians, 283-290; Bruce, Thessalonians, 168-169; M. Dibelius,
Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus und die Thessalonicher I II und die Philipper (Tiibingen: Mohr,
1911), 29-31; J.E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the
Thessalonians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 252-257.
56 Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 245-249. If this negative portrait of Roman imperial power on
Paul's part is correct, a positive imperial interpretation of the 'restraining principle' (2 Thess 2:6:
To Ka-rtxov) and the 'restraining person' (21hess 2:7: 6 Ka-rtxwv) is unlikely. It has traditionally been argued that the restraining 'principle' refers to the social order brought about by the
administration of civil law, whereas the restraining 'person' is the emperor who implements
the civil law (c Rom. 13:1-7). It is 'taken away' (21hess 2:7b) when the anti-Christ supplants
all authority. For telling criticism of this view, see C. Nichol, 'Michael, the Restrainer Removed
(21hess 2:6-7)', JTS 51/1 (2000): 27-53. For additional discussion, see C. H. Giblin, The Threat
to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-examination of 2 Thessalonians 2 (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1967); Townsend, 'II Thessalonians 2:3-12'; R. D. Aus, 'God's Plan and God's
Power: Isaiah 66 and the Restraining Factors of 2 Thess 2:6-7', JBL 96/4 (1977): 537-553. In
light of the apocalyptic context of 2 Thess 2:6-8, the suggestion that the archangel Michael and
his restraining activity are in view has much to commend it (c Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; Rev 12:7).
60
into the capital of a kingdom. 57 Julius Caesar's tour through Italy in 49 BC is enthusiastically described by Cicero: 'Just imagine what cmav-r~cretc:; he is receiving
from the towns, what honours are paid to him!' (Ad Att. 8.16.2). Cicero largely
repeats himself in what he says five years later regarding Octavian, the future
emperor: 'The municipalities are showing the boy remarkable favour ... Wonderful anav-r~cretc:; and encouragement!' (Ad Att. 16.11.6). Josephus also describes
the citizens of Antioch hastening to meet Titus Caesar {BJ 7.100: crneuc5ov c5'
eni T~V unaVTI'JO"LV) and the rapturOUS reception subsequently accorded him. 58
Again, Paul's point is plain. No believer - whether dead in Christ or alive at His
return -would miss out on the eschatological visit of God's plenipotentiary from
heaven.
57 E. Peterson, 'Die Einholung des Kyrios', ZSTh 7 (1929-30): 682-702; id., cimiVTTJOl;, in
G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNT I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964): 380-381. Both
Dupont (I:YN XPII:Tni, 66-73) and Plevnik (Pau~ 7-10) reject Peterson's suggestions regarding a hellenistic napouo(a and cin6.VTTJO'l; in preference for Sinai theophany imagery (LXX
Exod 19:10-18, Deut 32:2). As Dupont (I:YN XPII:T!U, 73) sums up, 'Nous ne croyons pas
que !'expression Ei; cinaVTTJO'lV dans 11hess, lY, 17 doit evoquer une ceremonie en usage lors
des visites solennelles de souverains dans le monde greco-romain ... La venue en gloire du
Seigneur Dieu sur le Sinai: apparait ainsi, dans notre passage, comme le prototype de la <<Venue
eschatologique (napouola) du Seigneur Jesus: Such an approach overlooks the fundamental
fact that Paul is writing to recently converted Gentiles (1 Thess 1:9-10). Undeniably, Paul is
using Jewish apocalyptic imagery for pedagogical and theological reasons. But it is very likely
that Paul's Gentile converts would have interpreted much of Paul's language from within the
more familiar hellenistic grid. The question still remains, however, whether Paul's Thessalonian
auditors would have understood 1 Thess 4:13-5:10 as a critique of imperial propaganda. For
example, in attributing the LXX term Kuptoc; for God ('Lord') to Jesus as an honorific (n. 25
above), would Paul have been seen as subverting the power of the imperial KUptoc;? Or does this
only occur in association with a range of imperial terminology and in the context of Roman
Thessalonica (e.g. 1 Thess 4:15, 17; 5:3, 8b, 9b; 2 Thess 2:8)? A parallel from modern 'postcolonial' studies may help here. J. C. Scott (Domination and the Arts ofResistance: Hidden Transcripts
[New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990) has argued that subordinate groups, in
response to their rulers, create 'hidden transcripts' that obliquely critique their oppressors. These
often assumed the shape of eschatological dreams of revenge. In the antebellum U.S. South, a
black cook named Aggy, provoked by her master's unjust beating of her daughter, spoke of the
'ribbers' of'white folks blood' that would flow on the 'day a-comin' of'rumblin' chariots' (ibid,
5-6; cf. 116-117). Aggy's 'hidden transcript' was secretly aired to her trusted friend, Mary
Livermore, the wife of her master. Similarly, in the suffering house churches of Thessalonica,
Paul's gospel of eschatological vindication -with its spread of imperial terminology- would
surely have been heard as predicting the ultimate overthrow of the Roman beast (cf. Rev 2: 13b;
13:1-18), although within a framework of pastoral comfort.
58 As regards the synonymy of im6.VTTJO'l!; and cin6.VTT)O'tc;, Dibelius (Die Briefe, 21) cites
Mt. 25:1, 6. S. Ugasse (Les Epitres de Paul aux 1hessaloniciens [Paris: Cerf, 1999], 264-265)
argues that cin6.VTTJO'l; is not a technical term, thereby bypassing the Roman evidence. We have
already agreed with Oakes (supra, n. 49) that cin6.VTTJO'l; has no 'eschatological' import in its
Roman context. However, that does not prevent Paul, for his own rhetorical purposes, placing
the word in an eschatological context precisely because of its connotation of meeting the Roman ruler himself.
61
2.2.4 eip~V'71CCXt aCT(paAt:ICX
E. Bammel,59 K.P. Donfried,60 K. Wengst, 61 H. Koester, 62 and H.L. Hendrix63

argue that the slogan 'peace and security' (1 Thess 5:3a: tip~VTJ Kal aocpciAtLa;
Latinised: pax et securitas) - mouthed by Thessalonians outside the church - is
'imperial shorthand' for the Pax Romana. 64 Both Latin words appear individually
on the imperial coinage with monotonous regularity and sum up the protection
against external threat offered by Roman power. 65 A Syrian inscription eulogises
the blessings of Roman military rule thus: 'The Lord Marcus Flavius Bonus, the
most illustrious Comes and Dux of the first legion, has ruled over us in peace and
given constant peace and security to travellers and to the people (Kal -ro 8vo~
~uxnav-ro~ EipT]VEUto8aL ~ocpaA(oa-ro)' (OGJS 613). 66 Finally, during the reign
of Augustus, the town council and people of Praeneste erected individual altars
for the divinities Pax Augusta and Securitas Augusta.67
However, in a startling abandonment of the status quo, Paul prophesies the
destruction of the proponents of the imperial pax et securitas ( 1 Thess 5:3 b). The
Day of the heavenly Lord will appear suddenly as a thief in the night ( 1 Thess 5:2,
4). Only those who are protected by the armour of the crucified Warrior-Lord
E. Bammel, 'Ein Beitrag zur paulinishen Staatsanschauung', TLZ 85 {1960): 837-840.
Donfried, 'Cults', 336-356.
61 K. Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of]esus Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 19-21,
77-79.
62 Koester, 'Paul's Eschatology', in Collins (ed.), Thessalonian Correspondence, 441-458, esp.
449-450.
63 Hendrix, ~rchaeology', in Pearson (et al., ed.), Future of Early Christianity, 107-118. See
also Still (Conflict, 260-267) who conveniently summarises recent scholarship on the 'peace
and security' slogan.
64 The Jewish Psalms ofSolomon (PssSol8.18) describe the Roman occupation of Jerusalem by
Pompey in 63 BC thus: 'He entered in peace (f1E"t' e:ip~V!]~) as a father enters his son's house; he
set his feet securely (flE"0. O.OcpaXe:la~). T. Holtz (Der Erste Briefe an die Thessalonicher [Zurich:
Benziger, 1986], 215) appeals to the cry of the false prophets in Jer 6:14, 8:11 and Ezek 13:10 as
background. However, only half of the Thessalonian slogan ('peace') appears in the prophetic
literature. A.J. Malherbe (The Letters to the Thessalonians [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 292,
304; cf. Rigaux, Thessaloniciens, 558) argues that Paul combines the Epicurean word ciacpci.Xe:ta
with e:ip~v'l in a hendiadys, in order to dismiss the message of the false Thessalonian prophets as
'Epicurean' (I Thess 5:1-3, 20-21 ). Butthe prominence of both e:ip~v'l and ciacpci.Ae:ta- whether
individually or combined - in the imperial propaganda would have ensured that the 'hidden
transcript' at Thessalonica (n. 53 above) was imperial in its reference rather than Epicurean.
Legasse (Thessaloniciens, 285-285) cites several Old Testament precedents for ciacpci.Ae:ta and
e:ip~V!], bypassing the imperial context entirely.
65 For the numismatic evidence, see Hendrix, ~rchaeology', in Pearson (et al., ed.), Future of
Early Christianity, nn. 16, 18 113-114.
66 Cited in Wengst, Pax Romana, 19.
67 See P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (tr. A. Shapiro; Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 1988), 307 Figs. 238 and 239. C. vom Brocke (Thessaloniki: Stadt
des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus [Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 176-179) and Witherington (Thessalonians, 147) cite additional literary and epigraphic texts related to the theme
of pax et securitas.
59
60
62
Chapter 2: Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Ihessalonica
(1 Thess 5:8, lOa: cf. Isa. 59:16-18, esp. v. 17) will escape His wrath (5:3b, 9a,
lOb). Instead oftrusting in the false security of the Roman Empire, the apostle
summons his converts to be alert and sober (1 Thess 5:6-8a).
2.2.5 uwr11pla and E.Arrlc;
Finally, the mention of the 'hope of salvation' (1 Thess 5:8b: eXnicSa OWTT)piac;)
and 'salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ' (5:9b: OWTT)piac; cSu1 -roii Kup(ou
~f1WV 'ITJOOii XpLoToii) would have evoked imperial associations. 68 ow-r~p ('saviour', 'deliverer', 'preserver') was an official title for sovereigns in the Hellenistic
ruler cult and in the Roman imperial cultus.69 The personified virtue, Spes, appears for the first time on the legend of a sestertius minted by Claudius in AD
41 (Spes Augusti: 'the Hope of Augustus'). The coin shows Spes advancing as she
holds a flower. 70 Significantly, Paul again nominates an alternate Deliverer and
deliverance to that of the imperial cult. In contrast to the realised gospel of imperial salvation, Paul's hope is focused on the future. Christ had died in order that
his dependents would live with Him (iif1a oiJv aim:p ~~O"Wf1EV [1 Thess 5:10]; cf.
4:17: ouv Kup(q> EO"Of19a).
To conclude, there is little doubt that in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 Paul is critiquing the imperial propaganda of his day. Therefore the possibility that there
was the presence of pronounced ideology of imperial rule at Thessalonica warrants further investigation.71 We turn to examine the Augustan providential and
68 tA1Ii~ aWT!]pla~ appears in the Jewish literature: Job 2:9 (LXX); 4Mac 11:7; TJob 24:1. See
also lEn 98:14 (Chester Beatty papyrus): 'you shall have no hope of salvation' (tAnllia OWT!]pla~).
69 W. Deonna, 'La legende d'Octave-Auguste: dieu, sauveur et maitre du monde', RHR 83
(1921): 32-58, 163-195; RHR 84 (1921): 77-107; S.C. Mott, The Greek Benefactor and Deliverance from Moral Distress [unpub. PhD thesis: Harvard University, 1971); W. Foerster and
G. Fohrer, al(l(w, aWT!]pla, awTqp awTqpto~. in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNT VII
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971): 965-1024; A.D. Nock, 'Soter and Euergetes', in id., Essays on
Religion and the Ancient World by Arthur Darby Nock Vol. 2 (ed. Z. Stewart; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 720-735; J. Schneider and C. Brown, 'Redemption', in C. Brown (ed.), NIDNTT III
(Exeter: Paternoster, 1978): 177-223, esp. 205-221; F. W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study
of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House,
1982); D. Georgi, Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 25-31;
C. Spicq, al(l(w, aWTqp, OWT!]pla, awTqpto~, in id., Lexicon, III (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1994): 344-357. For examples from the inscriptions of Augustus being called awTqp, see L.R.
Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (rpt. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 270-271, 272, 275.
70 RIC 99, 115. M. E. Clark ('Images and Concepts of Hope in the Early Imperial Cult', in
H. K. Richards [ed.], Society ofBiblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers [Atlanta: Scholars, 1982],
39) comments: 'some question remains whether Spes Augusta on Claudius' coin was intended
to celebrate the birth of his son, Brittanicus, who was born in AD 41; or whether it was meant
to reflect upon hope in regards to Claudius himself, who was born on August 1, the traditional
feast day of Spes'. Or was the Claudian propaganda deliberately ambiguous in this instance?
71 Note in this regard the comment of E. Krentz ('Roman Hellenism and Paul's Gospel', TBT
26/6 [1988]: 336) regarding 1 Thess 4:13-5:11: 'The passage is usually interpreted apocalyptically. I suggest that it should be read more directly in light of the developing Emperor cult in
Thessalonica'. Similarly, Y. Khiok-Khng ('Political Reading', 83): 'It would be more natural to
2.3 Paul's Critique of the Augustan Ideology of Rule and Apotheosis Traditions
63
apotheosis traditions which might have provoked and shaped Paul's response in
1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11.
2.3 Paul's Critique of the Augustan Ideology

of Rule and Apotheosis Traditions
The imperial propaganda portrayed the principate of Augustus as the culmination of Providence in the universal history of mankind. 72 The reason was obvious
to all. At the battle of Actium (31 BC) Augustus had brought to a definitive end
the social disintegration unleashed by the triumvirs (and, indeed, Marius and
Sulla before them), as they and their factions struggled for political ascendancy
over the empire (59-31 BC).
An overpowering sense of the return of the Golden Age gripped the minds
of Augustus' contemporaries when they erected inscriptions in honour of the
princeps. For example, the first decree of the Asian League concerning the new
provincial calendar (Priene: 9 BC) explodes with effusive praise as it recounts the
merits of Augustus. The providential epiphany of Augustus had far exceeded the
hopes of those had first heard his gospel of freedom from civil war:
since Providence (7tp6vma}, which has divinely (8e[wc;) disposed our lives, having employed zeal and ardour, has arranged the most perfect (culmination) for life (-ro -reA.~-ra-rov
-r<iJ ~[wt) by producing Augustus, whom for the benefit of mankind she has filled with
excellence (ape-r~c;), as [if she had granted him as a saviour] (crw~pa xaptcraf!EVJ]) for us
and our descendants, (a saviour) who brought war to an end and set [all things] in peaceful
order (KOOf!~crov-ra 6 [Eip~VJ]V]}; [and (since) with his appearance (mcpavlc;)] Caesar
exceeded the hopes (-rae; A1t[6ac; [imep] 8T]KEV) of all those who had received [glad tidings
( eiJavyA.ta)] before us, not only surpassing those who had been [benefactors] before him,
but not even [leaving any] hope [of surpassing him] (A.1tl6[a] intep~oA.~c;) for those who
are to come in the future; and (since) the beginning of glad tidings (eiJayyeA.I[wv]) on his
account for the world was [the birthday] of the god ... 73
assume that the Pauline theology and gospel in 1 Thessalonians is intentionally expressed as a
critique to the ideology of the imperial cult'.
72 For full discussion, see J. R. Harrison, 'Paul, Eschatology and the Augustan Age of Grace',
TynBul 50/l (1999}: 79-91, esp. 83-90. See also D. Georgi, 'Who is the True Prophet?', HTR
79/1-3 (1986}: 100-126; H. Koester, 'Memory ofJesus' Death and the Worship of the Risen
Lord', HTR 91/4 (1998}: 335-50.
73 DocsAug., 98b (II. 32-41}. The editor's use of square brackets in the Priene inscription
indicates certain or probable restorations of letters that are no longer legible on the original
stone. Note the comment of J. Rouffiac (Caracteres du Grec, 72ff cited by Spicq, Lexicon, III,
353-354 n. 44) regarding the Priene inscription of Augustus: 'It probably would not have required much touching up of this text for a Christian to be able to apply it to Christ fifty years
later. A saviour who realised ancestral hopes; who has a unique importance for humanity; who is
so great that he will be never surpassed; whose birth marks the beginning of a new era: so many
descriptions that one might think were created by Christian piety, but which nevertheless are
found in a pagan inscription from not long before the birth of Jesus: BMI 894 (Halicarnassus:
64
Further, the beneficent reign of Augustus is given quasi-cosmological significance by the Roman proconsul in his letter to the Asian League (Priene: 9 BC):
It is subject to question whether the birthday of our most divine Caesar spells more of joy
or blessing, this being a date that we could probably without fear of contradiction equate
with the beginning of all things (T~L TWV mivTwv apx~L), if not in terms of nature, certainly
in terms of utility, seeing that he restored stability, when everything was collapsing and falling into disarray, and gave a new look to the entire world that would have been most happy
to accept its own ruin had not the good and common fortune of all been born: Caesar.
Therefore people might justly assume that his birthday spells the beginning oflife and real
living (apx~v Tou ~[ou Kal T~!; (W~!;) and marks the end and boundary of any regret that
they had themselves been born.74
Other inscriptions replicate this blend of providential and cosmological expectation regarding Augustus. The island of Philae, located at the first waterfall of the
Nile, honoured Augustus' conquest of Egypt some twenty-three years after the
event and accorded him a quasi mythological status:
The emperor, ruler of oceans and continents, the divine father among men, who bears
the same name as his heavenly father - Liberator, the marvellous star of the Greek world,
shining with the brilliance of the great heavenly Saviour.75
Significantly, the inscription comes replete with its own apocalyptic sign. The
reference to the 'marvellous star' is a clear allusion to the sidus Iulium, the comet
observed shortly after Caesar's death while Augustus was celebrating the Victoria
Augustus.76
2 BC [II. 8-12]) emphasizes the culmination of the New Age in addressing Augustus as crwTfJp:
'there is peace (Eip!]VEuo[ucr]t) on land and at sea; cities are in bloom with good order, harmony,
and prosperity; every good thing is at its zenith and point of maturity; there is a culmination
of auspicious hopes (EA7t[6wv XP!]O"TWV) for the future, and there is the present cheerfulness of
men who have been filled'. The same inscription states that Nature freely gave (exap[craTo) to
humankind the greatest good in the form of Augustus' immeasurable beneficence (To [flty ]tmov
7tpO!; imEp~aUoucra<; Ei>EpyEcr[<;). In short, 'Providence not only made full the prayers of all but
also transcended [them]'. On Ei>ayyA.tov and the Caesar cult, P. Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische
Evangelium I: Vorgeschichte (Giittingen: Vandenhoeck, 1968), 197-203.
74 DocsAug., 98a (II. 4-11). Rich cosmological motifs appear on the cuirassed statue of
Augustus, celebrating the ruler's victory over the Parthians, from Livia's villa at Prima Porta.
For pictures and discussion of the statue and cuirass, see Figs. 148a and 148b in Zanker, Power,
188-192. Also the posthumous cuirassed statue ofGaius Caesar(?)- the son of Agrippa and
Julia who was adopted by Augustus (17 BC) -portrays his victories in Armenia and Parthia (AD
2) in a cosmic setting. See Fig. 178 and discussion, ibid., 223-22
75 Cited in E. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches (London: SCM, 1955), 99.
76 For discussion of Augustan coins depicting the sidus Iulium, see R. Oster, 'Numismatic
Windows into the Social World of Early Christianity', /BL 101/2 ( 1982): 195-223, esp. 208-212;
idem, '"Show me a denarius": Symbolism of Roman Coinage and Christian Beliefs', ResQ 28/2
( 1985-1986): 107-115, esp. 108-111. For an excellent general discussion of Augustus' coins, see
Stauffer, Christ, 86-88. See also Virgil, Aen. 2.680-684 regarding the sidus Iulium. More generally, L. J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996).
2.3 Pauls Critique of the Augustan Ideology of Rule and Apotheosis Traditions
65
Finally, there is a late first -century BC prophecy in honour of Augustus' victory

at Actium (or is it a reference to Caesar's triumph at Pharsalus?) which states:
I, Gauros, have received the trustworthy words of prophets and have inscribed the victory
of Caesar and the other (credible words) of(the) gods, from whom with prayer I have all
things from beginning to end and, giving back gifts agreeably, I am proud. Gauros, son of
Asklepiades, Toreanos, (has erected) the statue from his own (money). 77
It is also important to realise that Augustus' providential aura filtered into the
imperial propaganda of his successors as part of the legitimisation of their rule. 78
For example, the loyalty oath of the Assians to the Emperor Gaius Caligula,
sworn in AD 37, was prefaced with these rapturous words in praise of Gaius'
coronation:
Since the announcement of the coronation of Gaius Caesar Germanicus Augustus, which
all mankind had hoped and prayed for (KaT' EVxt'JV miow av8pW7tOLI; EAma8eiaa), the
world has found no measure for its joy (xapa~;), but every city and people has eagerly hastened to view the god (T~V TOU eeoii O'!'LV a[7t]EUKEV) as if the happiest age for mankind
had now arrived (;oii ~<'i!mov av8pw7tott;; alwvo[,;;] viiv tvemGJTo,;;): It seemed good to the
Council, and to the Roman businessmen here among us, and to the people of Assos, to
appoint a delegation made up of the noblest and most eminent of the Romans and also of
the Greeks, to visit him and offer their best wishes and to implore him to remember the
city and take care of it, even as he promised our city upon his first visit (tm~a,;; 1tpw;w,;;)
to the province in the company of his father Germanicus.79
It is worth noting that while the terminology of epiphany and parousia is absent
from the Assian loyalty oath, the general idea is nonetheless present and is placed
in the context of the cyclical return of the Golden Age after the dour years of
Tiberius' reign.
I. Hadrianoi 24.
The addition of the epithet vto, ('new') to nomenclature was an important part of the
legitimisation process. Tiberius: 'Emperor Tiberius Caesar, new Augustus, son of God' (P.Oxy. 2
[1899] 0240). Gaius Caligula: 'new god' (IGRR IV 1094}; 'son of Augustus, a new Ares' (CIA
III 444). Hadrian: 'the new Asklepios most manifest' (I. Pergamon 365}. Other personages,
including the imperial family, are accorded the epithet. Antony: 'new Dionysus' (CIA II 482}.
Livia: 'new Hera:' (IGRR IV 249). Julia: 'new Aphrodite' (IGRR IV 114}.It is interesting that Paul
only uses veo,;; occasionally in eschatological contexts: 1 Cor 5:7 ('new lump'}; Col3:10 ('new
self'). His preferred wordiSKatv6,: 1 Cor 11:25,2 Cor 3:6 ('new covenant'}; 2 Cor 5:17, Gal6:15
('new creation'}; Eph 2:15 ('one new man'}; 4:24 ('new self'). The cognate KaLVOTI]t;; is also used:
Rom 6:4 ('newness oflife'}; 7:6 ('newness of the Spirit'). Whatever we make of Paul's varied use
of 'newness' terminology, both the imperial propaganda and the early Christians highlighted
newness in speaking about their respective awTijpe,;;. The difference in nuance is that the imperial propaganda concentrated on the accession of the 'god-like' ruler and his family to the throne,
whereas the early believers focused on the effects of Christ's work in their lives.
79 SIG3 797. The excitement of the Assians actually seeing the god Caligula is replicated in the
(idealised) story of the German barbarian viewing the future emperor Tibeius for the first time
(Velleius Paterculus 2.107): 'I, Caesar, by your kind permission, have seen the gods of whom I
used once only to hear'.
77
78
66
What is intriguing about the imperial inscriptions above is their overlap with
the eschatological terminology of 1 Thessalonians. The following words - or
their cognates - from the Thessalonian epistles are common to the imperial and
early Christian eschatology: eip~VTJ ('peace': 1 Thess 1:1; 5:3, 23); emcpaveta ('appearance': 2 Thess 2:8); EAn[~ ('hope': 1 Thess 1:3; 2:19; 4:13; 5:8; 2 Thess 2:16);
euayyeAtov ('good news': 1 Thess 1:5; 2:2, 4, 8, 9; 3:2; 2 Thess 1:8; 2:14); OWTT)p[a
('salvation': 1 Thess 5:8, 9; 2 Thess 2:13); xapa {'joy': 1 Thess 1:6; 2:19, 20; 3:9). It
would be reasonable to suppose that the conception of rule animating the imperial gospel competed for the loyalty of the Thessalonian citizens with the same
aggressiveness at Thessalonica as elsewhere in the Empire. Paul countered its
influence by proclaiming the eschatological hope of the risen and reigning heavenly Lord. His alternate eschatology was a blend of traditional Jewish apocalyptic
and, as we have argued, a radical subversion of the Augustan age of grace and
its terminology. In adopting this approach, he reminded his Gentile converts
that they had been grafted into the Jewish covenant with its understanding of
God's historical promises finding eschatological fulfilment in the Messiah. The
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob determined history's culmination, not the
partial and arbitrary disposition of Roman Providence. The Spirit of God reveals
his prophetic utterances in the assembly of God's people (1 Thess 5:18-19; cf.
4:15) -they were not to be found on engraved stone monuments like that of
Gauros. Above all, the imperial conception of rule was stripped of its ideological
power: its honorifics and conventions were transferred to the risen and returning Lord of all.
Finally, it is worth remembering that at the time Paul was writing 1 Thessalonians (late AD 49-early AD 50), the apotheosised Augustus was thought to be residing in the heavens. Moreover, the issue continued to capture the public mind.
Upon Claudius' death and his official deification in AD 56 (Tacitus, Ann. 13.3),
Seneca wrote the Apocolocyntosis. This satirical portrait presents Claudius limping up to the heavenly gate and applying for admission to the select circle of
Olympic deities. An Olympian senate member sneers at Claudius' personal credentials (Seneca, Apocol. 8):
He doesn't know what goes on in his own chamber, and now 'he searches the regions of
heaven'. He wants to become a god. Isn't he satisfied that he has a temple in Britain; that
the barbarians worship him and beseech him as a god that they may find him a merciful
madman?
What relevance do the Augustan apotheosis traditions have for 1 and

2 Thessalonians? 80 Paul is very careful to underscore the fact that the risen and
8 For discussion of apotheosis, see E. Bickerman, 'Die Romische Kaiserapotheose', ARW

27 (1929): 1-34; id., 'Consecratio', in W. den Boer (ed.), Le culte des souverains dans l'empire
Romain (Fondation Hardt; Geneve: Vandoeuvres, 1973), 3-37; C. Habicht, 'Die augusteische
Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt', in ibid., 41-99; S. R. F. Price, 'From Noble
2.3 Pauls Critique of the Augustan Ideology of Rule and Apotheosis Traditions
67
returning Son descends from heaven in order to bring to an end the present
world order (1 Thess 1:10; 4:16; 2 Thess 1:7-8 [cf. 1 Thess 3:13]). What portrait
of the apotheosised Augustus emerges from the Roman documentary and literary sources? We will briefly look at the evidence. A temple in Italy to the heirs of
Augustus, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, has this verse dedication to Augustus:
When time summons you, Caesar, to be a god,
And you return to your place in heaven from which you can rule the world,
Let these be the people who in your stead govern the earth
And rule us, having their prayers to you heard. 81
Two astrological texts add to our knowledge of contemporary belief about Augustus' apotheosis. First, the Aratus, ascribed to Germanicus Caesar, reverently
addresses the emperor: 'In the midst of an awe-struck, quaking throng of foreigners and your own people, Augustus, you were carried into the sky on the body
of this sign, under which you were born, and returned to your mother stars'.82
Second, Manilius' Astronomica was written during the course of the reigns of
Augustus and Tiberius. During Augustus' reign, Manilius addresses the ruler as
a god and views him as meriting the heaven granted his father, Julius Caesar.83
Augustus, therefore, outshines all the constellations: 'they admit defeat over a
single luminary, Augustus, who like a star has fallen to the fortune of our world:
greatest lawgiver he is on earth, in heaven will be hereafter'. 84 Speaking of the
battle of Actium (31 BC), Manilius sums up the battle's significance: 'the destiny
of the world was at stake and the rule of heaven was determined on the sea'.85
Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors', in D. Cannadine and S. Price
(eds.), Rituals ofRoyalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987), 56-105; Kreitzer, Striking, 69-98; H.-J. Klauck, The Religious Context
of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000),
250-330.
81 ILS 137. See Price, 'Consecration', in Cannadine and Price (eds.), Rituals, 80-81. On prayer
to the ruler, see Price, 'Gods', 90-93. Note too the Augustan altar of the Lares (c. 7 BC) which
depicts the deified Caesar ascending to heaven in a chariot drawn by winged horses. To the right,
Venus Genetrix protects the two young princes (C. and L. Caesar). Another togate figure - probably Augustus - stands behind the chariot and observes the spectacle with his right hand raised
in prayer. See Zanker, Power, 221-221 Fig. 177. Also see Bickerman's judicious comments
('Kaiserapotheose', in Den Boer [ed.], Le culte, 3-4) regarding the Paris cameo. He observes
that while the cameo depicts Germanicus (?) and Drusus Junior (?) as heavenly beings, they
were never posthumously deified by the Roman Senate. For additional discussion, see Kreitzer,
Striking, 78-79 5. On the Paris cameo of the apotheosised Germanicus, see ibid., 79-80 6.
Notwithstanding the Senate's decision not to deify posthumously the imperial household, the
Paris cameos seem to accord that status to Germanicus and Drusus.
82 D. B. Gain, The Aratus Ascribed to Germanicus Caesar (London: Athlone, 1976), II. 558-560.
Ps.-Seneca (Oct. 477-491) speaks of Augustus gaining the stars and being the source of prayers
for Rome. See the debate in Seneca as to whether Augustus merited heaven because of his clemency (Ps.-Seneca, Oct. 504-533; Seneca, Clem. 1.10.3-1.11.4)
83 Astronomica, 1.7-10.
84 Ibid., 1.384-386; cf. 1.800-803.
85 Ibid., 1.915-916; cf. 1:925-926.
68
In the period of Tiberius' reign, Manilius notes that 'after his sojourn on earth
jurisdiction in the sky will await [Augustus]'. 86 The clearest reference to Augustus'
apotheosis having taken place occurs at the end of Book 4. Manilius sees human
reason as continuing to flourish under Augustus' heavenly presidency:
Be not slow to credit man with vision of the divine, for man himself is now creating gods
and raising godhead to the stars, and beneath the dominion of Augustus will heaven grow
mightier yet. 87
The portrait found in these texts of the post-mortem life of the ascended Augustus is very rich. Augustus continues to rule the world from his heavenly abode,
under the auspices of his star sign and in the presence of his deified father. 88 He is
available to be petitioned in prayer; he will continue to sponsor the development
of human reason; and he will remain the greatest heavenly law-giver. Two important observations flow from this material. Augustus remains in heaven after
his post-mortem translation. Furthermore, he maintains the political and social
status quo, a fact which would have appealed to the conservatism of the Romans.
Paul, by contrast, presents a risen and ascended Lord who descends from
heaven for a final time. He comes as the wrathful Warrior-Lord (1 Thess 5:8
[lsa. 59:16-18]; cf. 1:10; 5:9a; 2 Thess 1:5-10) and overturns the status quo of
Roman imperial rule. The fragile security of the Pax Romana dissolves (1 Thess
5:3a) and self-exalting emperors such as Caligula are slain (2 Thess 2:4, 8). But
he also comes as Benefactor and Deliverer. 89 He has died for His dependents in
order to secure their permanent safety (1 Thess 5:10a), calling them out to be
with him (4:17b; 5:10b) and establishing universal peace (1 Thess 5:23-24). The
irony is that he has outperformed the Caesars at their own game.
2.4 Conclusion
The explanations traditionally proposed for the strong eschatological emphasis
of 1 Thessalonians often founder on the internal evidence of the epistle or are
derived from a faulty 'mirror-reading' of the text. Where external evidence is
appealed to in this regard, it is typically anachronistic or overstated in its conclusions. We have suggested another approach. In romanised Thessalonica, the
presence of an aggressive imperial gospel, with its providential conception of
86
87
Ibid., 4.551-552.
Ibid., 4.932-935.
88 Note, too, the aureus coin of Augustus which shows the temple of the divinised Julius
Caesar. The apotheosis of Julius is symbolised by the sidus Iulium in the temple's pediment. See
Zanker, Power, 34 Fig. 26. On the difference between Augustus' public statements and private
belief about the sidus Iulium, see Pliny [The Elder), HN 2.23.93-94.
89 See F. W Danker and R. Jewett, 'Jesus as the Apocalyptic Benefactor in Second Thessalonians', in Collins (ed.), 1hessalonian Correspondence, 486-498.
2.4 Conclusion
69
rule, and the widespread circulation of Augustan apotheosis traditions competed

with the early Christian proclamation of the risen and returning heavenly KupLoc;.
In response, Paul injects several heavily loaded Roman political terms into his
presentation of the return of Christ, transforming their ideological content to
his theological and social advantage. Many of the same terms, along with several
others in 1 Thessalonians, were also used in Jewish apocalyptic and eschatological contexts. Paul's terminological ambiguity here is surely deliberate. The apostle was summoning his Gentile converts back to the Jewish roots of their faith
which had found its eschatological fulfilment in the house of David and not in
the house of the Caesars.90 Thus a pivotal claim of the early first -century imperial
propaganda -that Providence would never provide a better Saviour than Augustus - increasingly faced challenge at Thessalonica and elsewhere.
Another tantalizing issue now faces us. How did Paul's critique of imperial rule, articulated in 'hidden transcript' in the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians
4:13-5:11, relate to Paul's portrait of the anti-Christ in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8?
What indications are there in this passage that Paul might have had Caligula's
reign in view as a precursor of the ultimate arrival of the anti-Christ? And, if
this is the case, how to we relate this to the (seemingly) more positive portrait
of Roman rule in Romans 13:1-7? These pressing questions will be addressed in
Chapters 3 and 7.
90 Kim (Christ and Caesar, 8) has disagreed with my proposal, saying that Paul does not
mention the house of David in 1 Thessalonians, preferring instead to emphasise the wrath of
God coming upon the Jews (1 Thess 2:14-16). In each case, Kim's exegesis is somewhat selective. Inexplicably, Kim overlooks Paul's messianic reference to Jesus as the 'Son' from heaven
(1 Thess 1:10: -rov uiov airroii EK -rwv oupavwv). On the 'Son of Man', apocalyptic, and messianic
traditions underlying the text, see Richard, Thessalonians, 52-53; Witherington, Thessalonians,
74-75. See especially the strongly messianic reading of verse 10 in Frame, Thessalonians, 88-89.
While it is true that the title 'Son' gives to his coming a 'signification universelle' (C. Masson,
Les deux epitres de Saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens [Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1957], 24),
nevertheless Paul is still presenting Jesus in verse 10 as 'the Messiah of apocalyptic hope' (Frame,
Thessalonians, 89). For full discussion of the double sense of'Sonship' evinced in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 (messianic and eternal), see G. D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological
Study (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 38-41; c N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
(London: SPCK), 660. For a more nuanced reading of the place of the Jews in 1 Thessalonians
2:14-16 than that which Kim proposes, see Witherington, Thessalonians, 84-87.
CHAPTBR3
'The Ultimate Sinner':

Paul and the Anti -Christ in Political Context
3.1 Introduction to the Modern Scholarly Debate
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Paul portrays the 'man oflawlessness' as a self-exalting
deity seated in God's Temple. 1 In this chapter it will be argued that in the context
of Second Temple Judaism the figure is an amalgam of figures such as, among
others, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Pompey, and Caligula, each of whom defiled (or
attempted to defile) the Jerusalem Temple. This could be Paul's symbolic way of
referring to the (developing) Antichrist tradition, alluding to the teaching of the
historical Jesus and to the Old Testament and intertestamental traditions. But,
in Paul's view, it primarily referred to Caligula who had become the historical
precursor to the destruction of the Temple and (perhaps) to the eschaton itself.
The time is overdue for such an investigation.
Recent studies on Paul's epistles have pursued with interest the imperial context of the house churches at Thessalonica. E. A. Judge explored the charge that
the early Christians had somehow violated Caesar's decrees by preaching the
gospel of an alternate messianic King (Acts 17:1-9), arguing that the charge
was to be understood against the backdrop of the Caesarian loyalty oaths. 2
H. Hendrix and K. P. Donfried unveiled the benefaction and cultic culture of Ro-
1 I will assume Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians - datable in my view to c. AD SO and

penned a few months after 1 Thessalonians - notwithstanding the fact that there is a widespread tendency to regard the epistle as pseudonymous. For a defence of Paul's authorship of
2 Thessalonians, see A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (New York: Doubleday,
2000), 364-370; C.R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 198-221. Contra, K.P. Donfried,
'2 Thessalonians and the Church of Thessalonica', in id., Paul Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (London/New York: T & T Clark, 2002), 49-67; L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents
of Antichrist: A Tradition-Historical Study of the Earliest Christians (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996),
64-68. For the most recent discussions of the issue, see F. W. Rocker, Belial und Katechon:
Eine Untersuchungzu 2 Thess 2,1-12 und 1 Thess 4, 13-5, 11 (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009),
223-230; G. D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2009), 237-241.
2 E. A. Judge, 'The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica', in id. (ed. J. R. Harrison), The First
Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008), 456-462.
72
Chapter 3: 'The Ultimate Sinner': Paul and the Anti-Christ in Political Context
man Thessalonica,3 with Donfried emphasising the interrelatedness of imperial

and local religious cults in 2 Thessalonians 2. 4 J. R. Harrison has argued that in
1 Thessalonians 4: 13-5: 11 Paul confronts the eschatology of the imperial gospel
with his apostolic gospel, challenging its apotheosis traditions, and undermining
its terminology and providential world-view. 5 In a recent book on the political
dimensions of Paul's gospel, J.D. Crossan and J. L. Reed, in their discussion of the
Thessalonian epistles, have expanded on the issues raised by Harrison, setting out
the wider significance of the parousia in its imperial context.6
It is surprising, therefore, that there has been no substantial study of Paul's
interaction with the developing anti-Christ tradition of early Christianity and
Second Temple Judaism, as enunciated in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10, in its imperial
{i.e. Caligulan) context. To be sure, P. Bilde has devoted a study to Caligula's attempted desecration of the Temple in AD 40, but he does not relate his first- rate
analysis of the ancient evidence to the portrayal of the 'lawless one' in 2 Thessalonians 2.7
Commentators have speculated regarding the identity of the 'lawless one' of
2 Thessalonians 2:4 in varying contexts. D. E. H. Whitely argues for the referent being either Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Dan 11:36-39) or Caligula (Tacitus,
Hist. 5:9; Philo, Leg.; Josephus A] 18:257-309; B] 2:184-203),8 whereas A. J. Malherbe restricts the reference to Antiochus alone. 9 Some scholars fuse together
3 H.L. Hendrix, Thessalonians Honor Romans (unpub. ThD diss., Harvard University 1984);
id., 'Archaeology and Eschatology at Thessalonica', in B. A. Pearson (ed.), The Future of Christianity (Minneapolis 1989), 107-118; K.P. Donfried, 'The Cults ofThessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence', in id., Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity (London: T & T
Clark, 2002), 21-48.

4 Donfried, 'The Cults ofThessalonica', 46-48.
5 J.R. Harrison, 'Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki', JSNT 25 (2002): 71-96. The
article is presented in revised form in Chapter 2. However, seeP. Oakes' criticism of my arguments in id., 'Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians',JSNT27/3 (2005): 301-322, esp. 312-313,315-318. But, significantly for the 2 Thessalonians political context, Oakes concedes that tmcpaveta (2 Thess 2:8) is a prominent term in Roman
eschatology (ibid., 317). C. Masson (Les deux epitres de Saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens [Paris,
Delachaux & Niestle, 1957] 96; cf. 99) posits that 'une historisation du mythe du dragon', originating from the Old Testament and intertestamentalliterature, lies behind 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
6 J.D. Crossan and J. L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire
with God's Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul's Words and World (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), 152-177. See also G.N. Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004), 47-49.
7 P. Bilde, 'The Roman Emperor Gaius' (Caligula's) Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple
ofJerusalem', Studia Theologica 32 (1988): 67-93.
8 D. E. H. Whitely, Thessalonians in the Revised Version with Introduction and Commentary
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 100. Similarly, R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St.
Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1937), 409-410; M. J. J. Menken, 2 Thessalonians (London
and New York: Routledge, 1994), 104-106.
9 Malherbe, Thessalonians, 420.
3.I Introduction to the Modern Scholarly Debate
73
well-known historical figures (e.g. Antiochus; Pompey; Caligula) with hubristic

individuals denounced by the Old Testament prophets (e.g; Is 14:13-14 [king of
Babylon]; Ezek 28:2 [king of Tyre]), or with powers depicted in Jewish apocalyptic as destroyers of Jerusalem and its Temple (e.g. Rome: 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch;
Sibylline Oracles). These scholars also refer to the 'abomination of desolation'
of the Jesus tradition as another cryptic allusion to the 'lawless one', namely
Caligula (Mk 13:14 et par). 10 Other scholars restrict the reference to the Jewish
apocalyptic figure of Belial or BeHar who is depicted as setting up his image in
every city (Asc. Isa. 4:11), denying thereby any allusion to an historical figure. 11
The closest modern commentators come to restricting the reference entirely to
Caligula is F. F. Bruce. He asserts that
The attempt of the Emperor Gaius (Caligula) in AD 40 to have his statue set up in the
Jerusalem Temple, in assertion of his claims of divinity which the Jews refused to acknowledge (Philo, Leg. 203-346; Josephus, A/ 18.261-301), provided a foretaste of what the final
Antichrist was expected to do. 12
10 B. Rigaux, Saint Paul: les epitres aux Ihessaloniciens (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1956),
658-659 (omitting Pompey and Caligula}; E.J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (Collegeville: Michael Glazier-Liturgical, 1995}, 350-351; J. A. Weatherly, I and 2 Thessalonians
(Joplin: College Press, 1996), 234; B. Witherington III, I and 21hessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2006}, 210, 218-220 (including also Julius Caesar,
Herod Agrippa [Acts 12:21-23; Josephus, A/ 19.343-347], and Claudius). Similarly, P. Metzger
(Katechon: II Ihess 2, I-I2 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens [Berlin I New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2005], 114-115) argues that the demonic figure of2 Thess 2:4 is composed from different apocalyptic images, concentrating around Caligula and the 'abomination of desolation'
of the Jesus tradition (Mark 13:14). Most recently, see the extensive discussion of Rocker, Belial
und Katechon, 387-399. However, in contrast to the scholars above, Rocker (ibid., 411-414;
cf. 416-417, 485-487, 497-498, 505-506, 513-514) also posits parallels between the synoptic
Apocalype (Matt 24:4, 10, 12, 15} and 2 Thess 2:3-4. Conversely, S. Legasse (Les Epitres de Paul
aux Ihessaloniciens [Paris: Cerf, 1999], 391) writes: 'Cette usurpation eschatologique de la
divinite dans le cadre meme de son culte n'a, comme telle, aucun antecedent ni parallel.e'. W.
Marxsen (Der zweite Ihessalonicherbrief(Ziirich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982], 81-82} bypasses
any historical precedents.
11 W. Neil, Thessalonians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1950}, 161-162; J.E. Frame, The
Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912}, 256-257.
12 F. F. Bruce, I & 2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word Books, 1982}, 168. See, too, Bruce's excursus
on the Antichrist, ibid., 179-188. However, see now G.L. Green's first-rate distillation of the
imperial context of2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, though without an exclusive concentration on the
Caligulan context (The Letters to the Thessalonians [Leicester: Apollos, 2002], 38-43, 307-313,
319-320}. Note, however, the comment of G. B. Caird (ed. L. D. Hurst: New Testament Theology
[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994], 114-115): 'there can be no serious doubt who it was that sat
for the portrait. Writing less than ten years after Caligula's death, it was inconceivable that Paul
should have used these words without intending a reference to the mad Emperor. "The mystery
oflawlessness~ which would come to full expression in "the man of lawlessness~ had already
given the world a preview of its character in Caligula. It was being contained by the Roman
government, the power appointed by God for the restraint of evil (cf. Rom 13:1-7}, and only
with the collapse of civil government would it reach its full activity'. N. T. Wright (Paul: Fresh
Perspectives [London: SPCK, 2005], 74-75} also comes tantalisingly close to saying that the 'man
oflawlessness' was in fact Caligula, but backs away from the suggestion because of the chrono-
74
Nor have studies devoted to the Antichrist as a motif in itself thrown light on
whether there is a distinctly Roman political context for the Antichrist traditions
at Thessalonica. Several examples of scholarship in this area will suffice. W. Bousset dismisses the idea of a Caligulan referent for 2 Thess 2:3-4 because it involved
the 'threatened profanation of the Temple by foreign armies'. 13 He argues that
the Antichrist envisaged in 2 Thessalonians is a false Messiah in Jerusalem who
performs signs and wonders in an 'unpolitical eschatology'. 14 B. Rigaux confines
his coverage of the Antichrist traditions to the Israelite evidence because, in his
view, it is entirely a Jewish phenomenon. 15 L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte asserts that
the variegated expectations of early Christian expectations of eschatological
opponents arose from Jewish eschatology, but they coalesce around a single
eschatological opponent only from the time of Irenaeus onwards. 16 The avo~[a
of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (cf. v. 8: 6 civo~oc:;) is eschatological and the arrogance
of the eschatological opponent in v. 4 is best explained by Daniel 11:36. 17 The
excellent study of G. W. Lorein covers the intertestamental texts dealing with the
Antichrist, 18 criticising Bousset for not distinguishing sufficiently between the
figures of Antichrist and Belial in the case of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10. 19 Finally,
G. C. Jenks proposes a Roman context for the man of'lawlessness' in 2 Thessalonians. In Jenks' view, Paul considered Claudius to be the 'restrainer' of the Rebel
until the eschatological outbreak of evil under Nero, notwithstanding the fact
that the apostle was mistaken regarding the imminent arrival of the eschaton in
Nero's reign. 20
A series of questions emerge from this overview of scholarship on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10.
logical problems it poses. Instead, Wright sees Caligula as the precursor of another such emperor
in the future (Nero, Wright speculates). Witherington (Thessalonians, 210), while viewing the
lawless one as a composite figure, concludes thus: 'Indeed, as is likely, if Paul was paying close
attention to Daniel 7-12 and to other early Jewish apocalyptic ideas, that he might argue that
the anti-God Lawless one might well be a future Roman emperor, especially since Dan. 7:24-25
suggests that this anti-God ruler would have Israel within its boundaries and jurisdiction'.
13 W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (orig. 1896:
rpt. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 22.
14
Ibid.
B. Rigaux, L'Antechrist et !'opposition aux royaume messianique dans !'ancien et le nouveaux

testament (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1932).
16 Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist, passim.
17 Ibid., 76-78.
18 G. W. Lorein, The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period (London-New York:
15
T & T Clark, 2003).

19 Ibid., 29. On Belial, see G. C. Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist
Myth (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 123-152.
20 Jenks, ibid., 222-224. Jenks endorses the proposal of C. L. Mearns, 'Early Eschatological
Development in Paul: The Evidence ofl and II Thessalonians', NTS 27 (1980): 137-157, esp.
156. For an excellent coverage of the history of interpretation of the 'restrainer', seeP. Metzger,
Katechon, 15-47. See also 0. Betz, 'Der Katechon', NTS 9 (1962/1963): 276-291.
3.2 Jewish Precedents for the 'Man of Lawlessness' in the Intertestamental Period
75
1. What Jewish apocalyptic antecedents best fit the portrait of 'the man oflawlessness' in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4? Do they sufficiently account for the historical and ecclesiastical context that Paul is facing and responding to? And what
is the relation between the eschatological 'man oflawlessness' (6 iiv8pwnoc:; Tijc:;
aVOJl(ac:;: 2 Thess 2:3; 6 UVOJ.loc:;: 2 Thess 2:8) and the 'mystery oflawlessness'
(To JlUO"T~pLOV Tijc:; aVOJlLc:;) already operative (~<')'1 EvEpyEiTaL) in the Roman
empire?
2. What is the historical tradition underlying the contemporary accounts of
Caligula's attempt to defile the Temple? Does it accurately reflect the social
realities of Caligula's reign?
3. What textual indications are there that Paul might have had Caligula's reign
in view in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8? If this is a possibility, how does this critique
fit into the wider presentation of imperial power in Paul's epistles?
In what follows, I will focus on key themes in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 (focusing

on vv. 3-4, 8) as opposed to a detailed discussion of the pericope verse by verse.
I intend to demonstrate that Paul believed that Roman power under Caligula had
assumed the character of the Antichrist and that Caligula was, in some sense, as
F. F. Bruce ventured, a precursor of the final Satan-inspired Antichrist.
3.2 Jewish Precedents for the 'Man of Lawlessness'

in the Intertestamental Period
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Paul describes the revelation of the 'man oflawlessness'
thus:
Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes
first and the lawless one (6 iiv8pwnoc; -r~c; civoll[ac;) is revealed (cinoKaA.ucp8~), the one
destined for destruction. He opposed and exalts himself above every so-called god or
object of worship (tni miv-ra AEYO!lEvov 8E6v ), so that he takes his seat in the Temple of
God, declaring himself to be God (OTL gOTLV etoc;).
Several texts highlight the profanation of the Temple by historical figures in a

manner similar to, though not identical to, the profanation of the Temple presented in 2 Thess 2:4. 21 Daniel 11:36-37 portrays Antiochus Epiphanes IV as
exalting and magnifying himself above every god and speaking against the God
21 We leave out of our discussion the reference to Nero seizing the 'divinely built Temple' (SibOr 5.150; c 5.34; 12.86) because the Neronian referent post-dates (in our view) the genuinely
Pauline epistle of 2 Thessalonians written early in AD 50. Similarly, we discount the suggestion
that a (later) pseudonymous author is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 to the Roman profanation of the temple in AD 70. For discussion, see Bruce, Thessalonians, xxxiv-xxxv. If, however,
2 Thessalonians is a pseudonymous epistle written between AD 80 and the early II cent. AD,
as Menken suggests (Thessalonians, 66), then texts such as SibOr 5.29-34, referring to the selfdeification of Nero, would come into play in discussing the 'man oflawlessness'.
76
of gods. 2 Maccabees 5:11-17 presents the hubris of Antiochus' desecration of

the Temple in 167 BC in the following manner:
Not content with this, Antiochus dared to enter the most holy Temple in all the world,
guided by Menelaus, who had become a traitor both to the laws and to his country. He
took the holy vessels with his polluted hands, and swept away with profane hands the
votive offerings that other kings had made to enhance the glory and honour of the place.
Antiochus was elated in spirit and did not notice that the Lord was angered for a little
while because of the sins of those who lived in the city, and that this was the reason he was
disregarding the holy place. 22
The 'superhuman arrogance' of Antiochus (2 Mace 9:8)- demonstrated in his

belief that he could command the waves of the sea and weigh the high mountains
in a balance- is requited in his grisly death (2 Mace 9:8ff). The writer of2 Maccabees also nominates Nicanor, the Syrian governor ofJerusalem, as another figure
who subsequently attempted to profane the Temple: '[Maccabeus] showed them
the vile Nicanor's head and that profane man's arm, which had been boastfully
stretched out against the holy house of the Almighty:
In the case of Pompey's capture of Jerusalem and profanation of its Temple in
63 BC, the writer of the Psalms ofSolomon asserts that God had judged the sins of
the Hamonean priestly royalty by raising up the Roman general Pompey against
the Temple. The writer (Pss Sol2:2-3; cf. 1:7-8; cf. T. Ash 7:2-3) speaks of God's
providential ordering of the event in this way:
Arrogantly the sinner broke down the strong walls with a battering ram
and you did not interfere.
Gentile foreigners went up to your place of sacrifice;
they arrogantly trampled (it) with their sandles.
Because the sons of Jerusalem defiled the sanctuary of the Lord,
they were profaning the offerings of God with lawless acts ...
Significantly, in Pss Sol17:11-15, our writer sows the terminological seed for
Paul's reference to a 'lawless one', though there are admittedly textual difficulties
in the manuscript tradition regarding the reading of 6 avo!-tO<; in this instance
(infra n. 70 ):
The lawless one (6 aVO flO!;) laid waste our land, so that no one inhabited it;
they massacred young and old and children at the same time.
In his blameless wrath he expelled them to the west,
and he did not spare even the officials of the country from ridicule.
As the enemy (was) a stranger
and his heart alien to our God, he acted arrogantly.
22 For discussion of Antiochus in Jewish tradition, see Jenks, Antichrist Myth, 153-168. For a
silver tetradrachma of Antiochus, who is depicted as the incarnation of Zeus, bearing the legend
6eo<; tmcpavq<;, seeN. Turner, 'A.ntiochus', in G. A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible Volume 1: A-D (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 150 Fig. 34.
3.2 Jewish Precedents for the 'Man of Lawlessness' in the Intertestamental Period
77
So he did in Jerusalem all the things

that Gentiles do for their gods in their cities.
And the children of the covenant (living) among the Gentile rabble
adopted these (practices).
Finally, lqpHab 12.7-9 asserts that thatthe Wicked Priest ofJerusalem, one of the
Hasmonean priestly royalty (John Hyrcanus? Alexander Jannaeus?), desecrated
the sanctuary through his impious behaviour:
Its interpretation: the city, that is Jerusalem, where the Wicked Priest did wicked things
and defiled God's sanctuary. 23
These Old Testament and intertestamental texts demonstrate that various historical figures (Antiochus, Nicanor, the 'Wicked Priest', and Pompey) had become
enemies of God and his covenantal people. They are presented stereotypically as
'arrogant', 'wicked', 'lawless', 'sinners', and 'profaners of the Temple'. But, significantly, there is no reference in the texts to these opponents declaring themselves
to be God or to taking seat in the Temple of God. 24 Rather, they reverence the
deities of their own nation or other foreign deities (e.g. Dan 11:38-39) while at
Jerusalem. Moreover, the emphasis is more upon the way that covenantal Israel
and its priestly rulers - or the 'sons of darkness' and the 'Wicked Priest' in the
case of the Qumran covenanters - had departed from God through their sin
and compromise with the ruling power. The strong focus on God's providential
judgement underscores that the Israelites are as much to blame as the Gentile
oppressors themselves.
Undoubtedly, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 is terminologically and conceptually indebted to Old Testament and intertestamental traditions in its picture of the
Antichrist. However, Paul's approach has distinctive elements that must be accounted for, either within his ecclesiastical and historical context, or from the
scriptural traditions that he has inherited.
23 In CD IY.12-19 one of the three nets that Belial uses to catch Israel is the 'defilement of
the Temple'.
24 In light of the fact that the Jerusalem Temple is often the focus of the intertestamental Antichrist traditions, the assertion of C. H. Giblin (The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological
Re-examination of21hessalonians 2 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967], 76-78} that Paul
is referring to the Christian church in his use of naos in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is highly unlikely.
For the most recent defence of the view that the church is Paul's referent here, see G. K. Beale,
1-21hessalonians (IVP: Downers Grove, 2003}, 207-211. By contrast, Green (The Letters to the
Thessalonians, 312-313; cf. 39} argues that Paul is alluding to the Thessalonian temple dedicated
to the divine Julius and Augustus his son. Witherington (Thessalonians, 220) proposes that the
referent is the Jerusalem Temple, the most likely option in my view.
78
3.3 Caligula's Attempt to Defile the Jerusalem Temple (AD 40)

As far as the contemporary Jewish sources, both Philo and Josephus discuss
Caligula's short-lived attempt to erect his statue in the Jerusalem Temple (Philo,
Leg. passim; Josephus A] 18:257-309; B] 2:184-203). There is disagreement between each writer regarding Caligula's provocation of the Jews and there exits
chronological confusion between the accounts. 25 Notwithstanding, both writers
agree that Caligula's frenzied promotion of the imperial cult led to the collision
between the Romans and the Jews, causing the smooth diplomatic relations between the ruler and his Jewish subjects, established in the past by Julius Caesar
and maintained by Augustus, to deteriorate rapidly (Philo, Leg. 184-348; A]
18:261-309).
Two flash points precipitated the crisis. 26 First, there was the 'ethnic cleansing'
of the Jewish ghetto in Alexandria, instigated by Flaccus, Prefect of Egypt, at
the prompting of Greek activists who wanted to curtail Jewish privileges in the
cityP The Jews and the Greeks sent separate delegations to Caligula, the Jewish
delegation being led by Philo Judaeus, our major ancient source on the episode.
Upon Caligula's return from Gaul in AD 40, the ruler met with both delegations
in the Gardens of Agrippina outside the pomerium at Rome, promising them
an audience with himselflater. The two points in dispute - Jewish civic rights at
Alexandria and, more specifically, the continued right of the Jews to exemption
from the imperial cult because of their monotheism (e.g. celebrating the ruler's
birthday) - remained unresolved.
Second, towards the end of May in AD 40 the Jews tore down an altar at Jamnia erected by Greeks to Caligula. Consequently, Caligula attempted to erect his
own statue in the Jerusalem Temple inscribed with the words 'Gaius, the new
Zeus made manifest' (Au)<; 'Emcpavooii<; Ntou XPTJflUT(~n fatou: Philo, Leg. 346).
Undoubtedly, Caligula was induced into this foolish decision either by the overreaction of the imperial procurator ofJamnia to the event or by his own desire to
25 On the contradictions and chronological confusion between the original source accounts,
see J.P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Caligula) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934),
111-113, 136-137; P. Bilde, 'The Roman Emperor'; A.A. Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of
Power (London: B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1989), 188-191; E. M. Smallwood, 'The Chronology of Gaius'
Attempt to Desecrate the Temple', Latomus 16 ( 1957): 3-17; S. Wilkinson, Caligula (London and
New York: Routledge, 2005), 54. On the problematic nature of the literary sources on Caligula
in relation to the imperial cult, see I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2002), 146, 147-148.
26 For discussion of the event, see R. Auget, Caligula ou le pouvoir
vingt ans (Paris: Payot,
1975), 137-141; Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius, 135-138; P. Bilde, 'The Roman Emperor', passim;
Barrett, Caligula, 186-191; A. Ferrill, Caligula: Emperor ofRome (London: Thames and Hudson,
1991), 140-148; E. M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandri Legatio ad Gaium: Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), 31-36; Wilkinson, Caligula, 53-61.
27 1he events leading up to this are related primarily in Philo's In Flaccum, with the DeLegatio
ad Gaium. The narrative commences with the Greek riots of August, AD 38, at Alexandria.
3.3 Caligulas Attempt to Defile the Jerusalem Temple (AD 40)
79
bring the increasingly contumacious behaviour of the Jews more into line with
the imperial cult as practised by Rome's provincial subjects elsewhere. Caligula
ordered the governor of Syria, Petronius, to prepare the colossal statue and, taking part of his army, to set it up in the Temple. Petronius, well aware of Jewish
sensitivities, suspected that this would plunge Jewish Palestine into rebellion and
involve Syria in a highly costly war. Petronius employed clever delaying tactics
and succeeded in staving off the threat of war. Initially, upon the intervention of
his friend Herod Agrippa, Caligula rescinded his decree, but subsequently countermanded his order to Petronius. 28 Ultimately, only the assassination of Caligula
by his praetorian guard in AD 41 brought the crisis to an end for the Jews.
But two historical issues must be addressed before we can lay the ground
for this event being relevant for our understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2. First,
S. Wilkinson has recently observed that since no statue was ever set up due to
Caligula's assassination, it is likely that Caligula's order was not implemented
or, given our hostile sources, not ordered at all, or, alternatively, was merely an
offhand joke on the ruler's part. 29 Wilkinson argues that the missing palinode
from Philo's DeLegatio ad Gaium 30 - which, in Wilkinson's view, may have even
contained a retraction of what Philo had written - casts doubt on whether we
can trust Philo's evidence. Suetonius, Seneca, and Dio are all silent regarding the
attempted Temple profanation. This is a curious omission given the penchant
of Suetonius and Dio to emphasise Caligula's inflated sense of his divinity. 31 If
Wilkinson is right, the attempted profanation of the Temple under Caligula has
no historical basis and cannot therefore belong to the rhetorical and historical
tradition animating 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10.
However, in my opinion, Wilkinson's case is a shaky edifice built on an extended argumentum ex silentio. Further, although Tacitus' account of Caligula's
reign in the Annals is lost, we still have one important snippet of evidence from
Histories 5:8 that points to the likelihood that Tacitus referred to the Temple
profanation in the Annals:
28 In regards to the role ofPetronius, Auget (Caligula 140) observes that 'Ia corruption de ce
haut fonctionnaire' added to Caligula's general irritation over the affair and partially explained
the ruler's obsession with 'ce projet absurde'. As proof, Auget points to Caligula's letter to Petronius (towards the end of AD 40). In the letter Caligula insinuates that the procurator's tardiness
in erecting the statue was explained by his preference for gifts from the Jews over against the
commands of his ruler (Josephus, AI 18.304).
29 Wilkinson, Caligula, 55-56.
30 Philo indicates that there is a missing palinode (Leg. 373) at the end of the De Legatio ad
Gaium. From Eusebius (HE 2.5.1) we learn that 'Philo has related in five books what happened
to the Jews in the time of Gaius'. Rather than speculate what Philo's five books might originally
have been, it is safer to assume that Philo's missing palinode in this instance included coverage
of the events directly after Gaius' death (Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 43).
31 Ibid., 57-58.
80
Then, when Caligula ordered the Jews to set up his statue in their Temple, they chose rather
to resort to arms, but the emperor's death put an end to their uprising. 32
It would seem, then, that the tradition about Caligula's profanation of the Temple
remains secure and that, contrary to Wilkinson, the contemporary evidence of

Philo has to be taken seriously, notwithstanding the fact that the De Legatio ad
Gaium is charged with invective against Caligula and manipulates the chronology in order to blacken him further. 33
Second, many scholars play down Caligula's claim to deity. They place his
inflated claims (including his rivalry with Jupiter, his prostration rituals, his
acceptance of the designation Optimus Maximus Caesar), his temple building
programs, and his impersonations of deities, more in the category of the traditional religious practices of his Julian forebears. 34 Barrett agues that evidence for
a formal Caligula cult at Rome is to be understood more in terms of the worship of his numen rather than worship of the ruler as deity. To be sure, numen
could mean 'godhead' as much as 'divine will' or 'power of the gods'. 35 But, in
the view of Barrett and C. J. Simpson, numen had become interchangeable with
worship of the ruler's Genius, that is, worship of his spirit with its divine qualities.36 Moreover, even where Caligula is credited with deity (as in the preface
32 Wilkinson (Caligula, 59) argues that Tacitus would surely have seen the Jewish sources
containing the command. Not only is this statement hypothetical, it also assumes that the astute
Tacitus would not have seen through (in Wilkinson's view) the outlandish propaganda of the
Jewish sources. Regarding the caution required in using the evidence of Philo, note the comment
of Gradel (Emperor Worship, 147): 'Philo is mainly concerned with presenting an edifying tale
ofblasphemy and punishment, and should be used with caution'.
33 On Philo's manipulation of chronology, see Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium 3. For an excellent discussion of the politics of the De Legatio ad Gaium, see E. R. Goodenough, The Politics
of Philo ]udaeus: Practice and Theory (New Haven: Yale University, 1938), 12-20. In the view of
Goodenough (ibid., 19), Philo wrote the DeLegatio ad Gaium after the accession of Claudius in
order to present to him as Caligula's successor: however, in contrast to his unbalanced predecessor, Claudius fulfils the role of the 'ideal ruler'.
34 For example, Gradel (Emperor Worship, 146-149) argues that 'Caligula's emblematic uniforms ... should be seen ... as an expression of status' (ibid., 148). As Gradel pithily observes,
'The emperor could, however, dress up as anything he liked without that affecting his formal role
in the Roman constitution' (ibid., 149).
35 Barrett, Caligula 140-153, esp. 151-153. See, too, the excellent article of C.J. Simpson,
'The Cult of the Emperor Gaius', Latomus 40 (1981): 489-491. Additionally, Auget, Caligula,
130-137; Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius, 157-173; Ferrill, Caligula, 133-137; Wilkinson, Caligula, 27-28. For commentary on Suetonius' discussion of Caligula's religious policy (Calig.
22.1-3), see D. W Hurley, An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Suetonius' Life
of C. Caligula (Atlanta: Scholars, 1993); H. Lindsay, Suetonius, Caligula. Edited With Introduction and Commentary (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1995); R. R. Rosborough, An Epigraphic
Commentary on Suetonius' Life of Gaius Caligula (Philadelphia: unpub. thesis University of
Pennsylvania, 1920).
36 For Simpson's discussion of numen, see id., 'The Cult', 508-511, esp. 509 n. 69. See the extended discussion of Genius and numen in Gradel, Emperor Worship, 162-197, 234-250. On the
difficult issue of the equivalence or non-equivalence of numen with Genius, see ibid., 239-245.
81
to the oath of the Assians [nav 8voc; tni -r~v 'I'Of> Seou O'i'tV o[n]euKev: SJG3
797], or is called the 'New Sun' [6 vtoc; "HeXtoc;: SIG3 798]), these are merely
the traditional epithets accorded the royal benefactor in the ruler and imperial
cults of the Greek East. 37
While this is true from an eastern provincial perspective, the distinction between worship of the ruler's numen (the divine nature ofhis power and authority) and the ruler as praesens deus (the ruler as a manifest god) was a tenuous
distinction for first -century monotheistic Jews, including Philo and Paul (e.g.
Philo, Leg. 114-118; 1 Cor 8:5-6).38 Moreover, even in the case of Rome itself, as
Simpson observes,39 there is evidence that Caligula wished to blur the distinction in the last few months of his reign. 40 The fact that these significant moves on
Caligula's part were confined to a very brief aperture of time in his reign explains
why there is no relevant epigraphic, numismatic, or archaeological evidence
documenting the change. 41
Relevant to our discussion of the Jerusalem Temple incident, at least by way
of Caligula's policy regarding the imperial cult, is the establishment of a temple
devoted to his numen on the Palatine at Rome. Suetonius (Calig. 22.3) describes
it as follows:
He also set up a special temple to his own godhead (suo numin proprium), with priests
and victims of the choicest kinds. In this temple was a life-sized statue of the Emperor in
gold, which was dressed each day in clothing such as he wore himself. The richest citizens
37 E.g. 8eov I:e~aOL6v ('God Augustus': referring to Augustus): DocsAug., 72. E.g. Tflv T
!lYaAIQTIJTa Toil 8eoii ('the greatness of our God Caesar': Prefect of Egypt speaking of the contents of Claudius' letter): Tcherikover, CPJ II 153. E.g. "HAL ~amAeii ('Sun King': referring to
Ptolemaeus VI): UPZ 1, 15, 33.
38 Note the revealing comment of Barrett (Caligula, 142; cf. 152) regarding the subtle difference between numen and Genius: 'it is far from certain that the unsophisticated were aware of
the distinction'. D. Fishwick ('Genius and Numen', HTR 62 [1969): 356-367), however, agues
that both conceptions were clearly differentiated in the imperial ideology (pace, Gradel, Emperor
Worship, n. 36 supra). But in the case of monotheistic Jews the distinction would have been irrelevant. Fishwick ('Genius and Numen', 366) is surely correct regarding the uncompromising
response of the Jews and Christians: 'If Jews or Christians chose martyrdom rather than compromise their faith by paying cult to the emperor, the theological error was on their part. Despite
his numen, Augustus never became a god in the sense that Jupiter or the local godlings of the
Celtic world were- or even his own genius'. For discussion of Paul's critique of the imperial cult
in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, see B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics
and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 269-286, esp. 281-282.
39 Simpson, 'The Cult', 509.
40 Ferrill (Caligula, 179 n. 432) estimates that the period in question spans the few months
from the summer of AD 40 to Caligula's death in January, AD 41.
41 The absence of documentary, numismatic, and archaeological evidence is (correctly) raised
by those scholars who deny that Caligula claimed deity in any exalted sense: e.g. Balsdon, The
Emperor Gaius, 167-168; Wilkinson, Caligula, 27. Ferrill (Caligula, 136) says that the absence
of any archaeological evidence for a Caligula cult is explained by the fact that the cult ceased
upon the ruler's death.
82
used all their influence to secure the priesthood of his cult and bid high for the honour.
The victims were flamingos, peacocks, woodcock, guinea-hens and pheasants, offered day
by day each after its own kind. 42
Is Caligula simply acting within traditional boundaries here? Some ancient historians have argued regarding the Palatine temple that the transfer of imperial
worship from the provinces to the capital had Augustan precedent. Before we
can assess the truth of this claim, we need to ask what was Caligula's policy in
the East regarding his cult.
In AD 40-41 Caligula annexed a temple at the site ofDidyma, situated within
the territory of Miletus and being built for Apollo, for the purposes of his own
cult (Cass. Dio 59.28.1). From an inscription we know that inside the temple
Caligula placed his own statue and established there for the operations of his
own cult an archierus (high priest), a neokoros (temple warden), a sebastoneos (an
official devoted to the imperial cult) and a sebastologos (an official who recited
prose eulogies of the ruler at cult ceremonies). 43 The parallels, therefore, between
Caligula's actions at Didyma near Miletus and his proposed actions regarding
the Jerusalem Temple are important and should give pause to scholars who regard Philo's DeLegatio ad Gaium as unhistorical. 44 When Caligula transfers the
imperial cult from the Greek East (as practised at Didyma near Miletus) to the
Palatine at Rome in the Latin West, however, we are witnessing (what seems to
be) a high-handed act of cultic presumption. But, to return to our question, there
was the precedent of Augustus instituting an altar to his numen on the Palatine in
AD 9 - even though he already had a temple of Augustus and Rome devoted to
his worship at Pergamon in the Greek East. As Wilkinson posits, Caligula could
have been simply taking the Augustan precedent a step further by introducing
worship of his numen to Rome and by moving from an altar to a temple. 45 Moreover, in the opinion of I. Gradel, Caligula's temple was not a state cult but rather
42 Dio (59.28.2) mentions that Caligula erected two temples at Rome, one by vote of the
Senate on the Capitoline, the other at his expense on the Capitoline. On the historicity ofDio's
traditions, see Hurley, Commentary, 88. See also Hurley (ibid., 89) for arguments (citing E.
Koberlein, Caligula und die iigyptischen Kulte [Meisenheim an Glan: Hein, 1962], 46-49) that
the cult of his numen was based on Isis worship. On the whole issue of the Palatine temple, see
the excellent discussion of Gradel, Emperor Worship, 149-159.
43 For a translation, see R.K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1988), 43. For discussion, see L. Robert, 'Le culte de Caligula a
Milet et la province d'Asie', Hellenica 7 (1949): 206-238. Note, however, the comment ofBalsdon
(The Emperor Gaius, 162) regarding the Miletus inscription: 'in the form of the dedication, in
which neither senate or Rome was associated with Gaius, there was certainly a break with tradition'. Similarly, Barrett, Caligula, 143-144.
44 Barrett (Caligula, 143) sees the planned temples at Miletus and Jerusalem as 'two striking
illustrations of Caligula's policy towards his cult in the east'.
45 Wilkinson, Caligula, 28.
83
'a private or domestic cult, unconnected with constitutional aspects', though it

was clearly devoted to the worship of his divinity. 46
No matter how we understand the worship of Caligula's numen on the Palatine, there still remain serious challenges to Julian precedent on Caligula's part.
First, we have noted the absence of any mention of the Senate or Rome in the
Miletus inscription (supra n. 43)- a telling omission for a ruler with tendencies
towards megalomania.
Second, the temple on the Palatine had been intended to house Pheidias'
famous statue of Zeus at Olympia. It was to be brought to Rome and its head
replaced with a portrayal of Caligula's head. Somehow Regulus managed to
dissuade the ruler regarding the implementation of his plan (Suet., Calig. 22.2;
57.1; Cass. Dio 59 .28.3; Jos., A] 19.8-10). Therefore Caligula's decision to replace
Pheidias' statue with a gold cult statue of himself assumes a new cultic significance. In the view of D. W Hurley, Caligula's decision is just another case of his
extravagance because gold was not reserved for statues of the gods. 47 But the
arrogance of the ruler's act is more to be seen in the contrast between Caligula
and Augustus regarding the placement of their statues at Rome. Augustus removed eighty silver statues of himself from the city (Res Gestae 24.2; Suet., Calig.
52) precisely because the use of silver for statues implied divinity in the Roman
mind. 48 The restraint of Augustus (Res Gestae 4.1; 6.1; 21.3; Cass. Dio 53.27.3)
and, indeed, ofTiberius (Suet., Tib. 26.1; Tac. Ann. 4.37-38) stood in contrast to
the unbridled hubris of Caligula in cultic matters.
Third, as Ferrill correctly observes,49 Caligula's actions do not show therestraint of his grandfather Germanicus who rejected the 'odious' and 'god-like'
appellations of the Egyptians regarding himself. 5 Although many scholars justifiably situate individual actions of Caligula within the conventions of his Julian
forebears, conceding in certain cases small violations of Roman custom, it is the
cumulative effect of Caligula's challenge to the mos maiorum ('tradition of the
ancestors') that pushes his reign beyond the bounds of religious propriety. Also
fascinating is the fact that some of the rich citizens of Rome, if Suetonius (Calig.
22.3) is trustworthy, made bids for priesthoods in Caligula's cult on the Palatine.
In seeking to become clients of the ruler and by competing against each other in
46 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 153. According to Gradel (ibid., 245-246), the cult image in the
Palatine temple (Suetonius, Calig. 22.3) represents the ruler himself and the cult of the ruler's
numen is synonymous with his worship as a god.
47 Hurley, Commentary, 88.
48 E. A. Judge, ~ugustus in the Res Gestae', in id. (ed. J.R. Harrison), The First Christians in
the Roman World (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 182-223.
49 Ferrill, Caligula, 138.
50 DocsAug., 320. For a translation, see Sherk, The Roman Empire, 34B.
84
the vein of the Republican nobles, the wealthy were complicit in Caligula's challenge to religious conventionY
Thus we have to take seriously Paul's language of deity for the 'lawless one'
in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, if he is alluding to Caligula, even though the rulers in
the Latin West normally meant by such language the worship of their numen
or Genius. We have seen that in Caligula's case there is reason to agree with the
uniform witness of our literary sources that he did move well beyond the traditional boundaries of religious propriety. R. Auguet notes that it is difficult to
sift the true from the false in all of this, especially when the official documents
of Rome do not confirm the presence of a Caligulan cult at the capital. But, as
Auguet continues. there is no smoke without fire as far as contemporary perceptions of Caligula:
il parait hors de doute que l'empereur pretendit sacriliser, come nous disons de nos jours,
sa personne et Ia dynastie qui devait lui survivr. 52
In this regard, a revealing insight into the consequences of this approach for
Caligula comes from Seneca. On observing of another of Caligula's challenges
of Jupiter to a duel, Seneca drew a telling conclusion regarding the ruler's sacrilegious behaviour: 'What madness! I think that this was instrumental in inciting
conspirators against him!'. 53
In sum, in the case of Caligula's introduction of the cult of his numen into
new or existing temple sites (Didyma at Miletus, the Jerusalem Temple, and the
Palatine at Rome), there is a consistency of purpose on the part of the ruler. In
Caligula's view, the elaborate rituals of his cult and the activities of the temple
personnel were to be observed by the clients of the Julian house and by its provincial subjects, whether in the Greek East or in the Latin West. This is not to say
that Caligula legally enforced his wish to be treated as a god. 54 But in the honourdriven society of Rome - which embraced the realm of the gods and the eternal
city they protected - few of the wealthy and powerful risked dishonouring the
ruler by ignoring the cult of his numen.
51 See the insightful discussion of Gradel (Emperor Worship, 155-156) regarding the motives
of the wealthy and the senatorial class.
52 Auguet, Caligula, 132.
53 Sen., De Ira 1.8-9. I am indebted to Ferrill (Caligula, 135) for this reference.
54 Balsdon, Caligula, 168-169. Our sources, nonetheless, indicate that Caligula wanted to be
considered a god (e.g. Cass. Dio 59.25.5; 26.5; Philo, Leg. 76-77). Note, too, the insightful discussion of S. R.F Price (Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984], 209-210) regarding the implications of Caligula's demand
that sacrifices be offered to him.
3.4 Does Paul Speak of Caligula in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8?
85

In Section 2 we demonstrated that in the variegated traditions of Second Temple
Judaism the figure of the 'lawless one' emerges as an amalgam of Antiochus IV
'Epiphanes: Nicanor, the 'Wicked Priest', Pompey, and Caligula, each of whom
defiled (or attempted to defile) the Jerusalem Temple. We have also seen that
Pompey is portrayed as 'the lawless one' in Psalms of Solomon 17:11. Clearly, Old
Testament prophetic texts have contributed to the portrait of the arrogance of the
'lawless one' in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, though the Hebrew Scriptures do not locate
the revelation of the hubris of God's enemies (the kings ofTyre and Babylon) in
the Jerusalem Temple but rather in the heavens.
In Ezekiel28 the haughty city ofTyre, we are told, considered that it was a god
because of its wisdom, wealth and beauty, (Ezek 28:5, 6, 11, 17). Through the
mouth of his prophet God exposes the bristling arrogance of the ruler of the city
in a searing denunciation {28:1-2):
The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre:
'Thus says the Lord God:
'"Because your heart is proud,
and you have said, "I am a god,
I sit in the seat of the gods,
in the heart of the seas':
yet you are a man, and no god,
though you consider yourself wise as a god"'.
Similarly, in Isaiah 14:13-14, a stinging oracle against the king of Babylon exposes his high-handed presumption:
You said in your heart,
'I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will make myself like the Most High:
Nor must we forget the graphic portrait of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel

11:36. The attitude of Antiochus is described in terms that echo 21hessalonians
2:4:
The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will
say unheard-of things against the God of gods. 55
55 Rigaux (L'Antechrist, 260) draws attention to this parallel, as does Beale, Thessalonians,
206-207.
86
Seemingly, the conclusion is inescapable. Paul draws his imagery from the Old
Testament and Jewish intertestamental traditions for his portrait of the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. There seems to be little room here for a Caligulan
referent. However, we would do well to remember the valuable perspective that
'post-colonial' studies throws on our text in this instance. J. C. Scott has argued
that subordinate groups, in response to their rulers, create hidden transcripts
that obliquely critique their oppressors. 56 In particular, subordinate groups often
obfuscate the identity of historical figures through the use of sobriquets. We
have already seen examples of this tactic in Second Temple Judaism in the covert
reference to 'the lawless one' (6 avo11oc:;: Pss Sol17:11-15) and to the 'Wicked
Priest' (IqpHab 12.7-9). Are we seeing something similar occurring in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4?
Although Paul draws upon the Old Testament and the traditions of Second
Temple Judaism in portraying the Antichrist, his language would also have resonated with his audience at an imperial level. Paul's auditors probably heard his
hidden transcript as a warning to them regarding the 'demonisation' of Roman
political power that had recently occurred under the reign of Caligula. Other
incidents would also have fuelled concern among Jewish provincial communities about the rising tide of Roman political interference. As a Jew Paul would
have been aware of the expulsion of his kinsmen from Rome under Tiberius (AD
19), the insensitivity of Pilate towards the Jews, and of Flaccus' complicity in the
'ethnic cleansing' of the Jewish ghetto in Alexandria (AD 38). More recently,
Paul and his retinue had collided with the local authorities at Thessonalica who,
in their anxiety not to offend their Roman benefactors, refused to condone the
'seditious' message of the Christian missionaries (Acts 17:6-8). Thus the presence
of a 'hidden transcript' in 2 Thessalonians 2 is seen in the overlap of Paul's Jewish apocalyptic terminology with a transcript critical of the imperial cult. Three
examples will suffice to demonstrate our point.
3.4.1 Paul and the language of epiphany (21hess 2:8)

We have already seen in Section 3 that Caligula wanted to erect his gold statue in
the Jerusalem Temple as 'Gaius the new Zeus made manifest (Au'>c:; 'Emcpavoouc:;
Neou XPTJ flUTi~n faiou )'. tmcpaveta was also used for the accession of Caligula in
an inscription from Cos. 57 In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Paul speaks about the revelation of the 'lawless one' in this manner:
56 J. C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1990).
57 LSJ, tmcpcivEta 11.4: Inscr. Cos 391 (fEpflaVtKoii .I:E~aOToii tmcpavda); cf. Philo, Leg. 346. The
editors (W.R. Paton and E.L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891],
281) observe that 'His accession is called an "epiphany'' because he wished to be regarded as an
incarnate god'.
87
And then the lawless one (6civo11o<;) will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy
with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming (Tfi
mcpavdq. T~<; 1tapouQ'ta<; auTOii).
Does Paul's language of epiphany in verse 8 carry imperial overtones for his
first-century auditors?
At the outset, we need to be sensitive to the Jewish foundation of Paul's epiphanic language in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Scholars have drawn attention to the fact
that the language of epiphany (tmcpaveta ['appearance', 'manifestation']; tmcpav~c; ['coming to light', 'appearing', 'manifest', 'distinguished']) features prominently in 2 and 3 Maccabees. 58 What has not been sufficiently appreciated is the
fact that iil its Maccabean context the language of epiphany was used of the appearance of God to overthrow Israel's political enemies. Such divine appearances
ensured the triumph of Israel and its Temple. Significantly, two of the enemies
conquered by God's epiphanies in 2 and 3 Maccabees feature in the Antichrist
traditions of Second Temple Judaism: namely, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Nicanor, discussed previously (supra 2).
An important thrust of 2 Maccabees was to underscore God's epiphanic acts
of deliverance on behalf of those committed to Judaism and its icon of God's
presence, the Temple:
The story of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers, and the purification of the great Temple,
and the dedication of the altar, and further the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and
his son Eupator, and the appearances (tmcpavda<;) that came from heaven to those who
fought bravely for Judaism so that though few in number they seized the whole land and
pursued the barbarian hordes, and regained possession of the Temple famous throughout
the world ... 59
Accordingly, in 2 Maccabees 3:24, 'the Sovereign of spirits and of all authority'

caused so great a manifestation (tmcpavetav !lEYUATJV) that Heliodorus, the representative of King Selecus IV Philopator, was not able to confiscate funds from
the Jerusalem Temple treasury for the royal coffers.
In 2 Maccabees 14:1-15:37, the author recounts the defeat and death ofNicanor, the Syrian governor ofJudaea, at the hands ofJudas Maccabeus. In 2 Maccabees 14:15 the author highlights how the Jews were powerless to stop Nicanor's
attack unless they showed prayerful dependence upon the epiphanic acts of God:
[the Jews] sprinkled dust on their heads a,nd prayed to him who established his own people forever and always upholds his own heritage by manifesting himself (!lET tmcpavda<;
QVTLll.a!l~QVO!lEVOV T~<; EQUTOU !1Ept6o<;).
58 For a useful coverage of the language of epiphany, see Rigaux, Thessalonicien, 673. See also
A. D. Nock, 'Notes on Ruler-Cult, III', JHS 48 (1928): 38-41.
59 2 Mace 2:19-21.
88
Not unexpectedly, God's manifestation was later experienced when the Jews laid
low thirty-five thousand Syrians (2 Mace 15:27: tmcpaveta) and kept the Temple
undefiled (15:34: Tov tmcpav~ Kuptov).
In 3 Maccabees the enemy that the Jews face is Ptolemy IV Philopator. In a
manner reminiscent of 2 Maccabees 3, Philopator is prevented by divine intervention from entering the Temple. His subsequent threats to massacre the Jews,
ravage Judah, and burn their Temple are all brought to nought by the epiphanies
(tmcpaveta, tmcpav~c;) of God (3 Mace 2:9 ['your magnificent manifestation'];
5:35 ['the manifest Lord God, King of Kings']; 5:51 ['imploring the Ruler over
every power to manifest himself']).
While Paul's epiphanic terminology is indebted to the Maccabean traditions
regarding the saving appearances of God on behalf of his people in times of
crisis,60 the language of epiphany also featured prominently in the imperial cult.
We have already drawn attention to two epiphanic references to Caligula (Philo,
Leg. 346; Inscr. Cos 391: supra n. 57). The adjectival cognate oftmcpaveta (tmcpav~c;: 'manifest', 'distinguished') is regularly applied to other Julio-Claudians,
as was the case in the ruler cult of Antiochus Epiphanes previously (supra n. 22).
Julius Caesar is eulogised as 'the god manifest (descended) from Ares and Aphrodite (TOV ano 'Apewc; Kal 'Acpnoc'le[i]TT)c; eeov tmcpav~), and the general saviour
of human life'. 61 G.L. Green points to a coin of Hadrian commemorating the
'epiphany of Augustus' (tmcpaveta A\Jyoumou). 62 The first decree of the Asian
League concerning the new provincial calendar (Priene: 9 BC), if the editors have
correctly restored the missing words on the stone, speaks of the effects of Augustus' providential epiphany thus: '[and (since) with his appearance ([tmcpavEic;])]
Caesar exceeded the hopes of all those who had received [glad tidings] before us
.'. 63 Finally, on a statue base Claudius is honoured as 'Tiberius Claudius Caesar
Sebastos Germanicus god manifest (6eov tmcpav~), saviour of our people too'. 64
The implication of what Paul is saying in hidden transcript in an imperial
context is obvious enough. Just as God in the Ptolomaic and Seleucid eras had
destroyed the enemies of his people by the appearance of his saving power (e.g.
60 The pre-Christian Paul would have familiar with the Maccabean traditions of divine
epiphany because he formerly belonged to the Phinehas and Maccabean tradition of 'Torah'
zeal (Acts 22:3 [cf. 9:1-2]; Gal1:14; Phil3:6). For a discussion of'zealot' traditions in relation
to Galatians, see J. R. Harrison, 'Why Did Josephus and Paul Refuse to Circumcise?', Pacifica
17/2 (2004): 137-158.
61 I. Eph. 11.251 (48 BC). L. J. Kreitzer (Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the
New Testament World [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], 81) mentions that after Caesar's
victory at Pharsalia (46 BC) statues were erected in honour of him in Macedonia with the inscription THEm: EIIIANHL.
62 Green, Thessalonians, 320 n. 67, citing A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1978), 373.
63 DocsAug., 98b.
64 TAM ii 760c. For additional examples from the reigns of Claudius and Trajan, see 2.2.2
n. 53 supra.
3.4 Does Paul Speak ofCaligula in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8?
89
Ptolemy IV Philopator, Selecus IV Philopator, Antioch us Epihpanes IV, Nicanor ),

so at the parousia of his glorified Son he would destroy the 'ultimate sinner', the
Antichrist, as the recent demise of his 'demonised' precursor, Caligula, had amply
demonstrated. In the present time (2 Thess 2:7: lipn), there is one who restrains
the mystery oflawlessness 'already at work' (~OTJ vepyeiTat). The reference to the
'mystery oflawlessness' (-ro l.lUO"T~ptov T~<; avo11ia<;) is possibly an allusion, as we
will argue on the basis of Philo's evidence, to the lawlessness recently displayed
in the reign of Caligula and to its continuing effects throughout the empire. As
Richard correctly notes, 65 the phrase refers 'not to the apostasy or tribulations
of the end-days but rather to the evils and persecutions which the community
is undergoing (1:3-4)', especially (I would add) at the hands of the local Thessalonian officials who were clients of the Roman rulers and their benefactors.
For Paul, however, there is only one epiphany and parousia worth waiting
for - Christ's. An understanding of this eschatological reserve was essential for
Paul's converts. The apocalyptic enthusiasm aroused among certain Thessalonian
believers by Paul's critique of imperial eschatology and Augustan apotheosis traditions in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 had been exacerbated by undefined outside
forces (2 Thess 2:2, 5). 66 In their spiritual immaturity, some Thessalonian believers may have misinterpreted Paul's anti-imperial eschatology as a prophecy of
the immanent overthrow of the Roman order by the returning Kupio<;. This was
understandable given the shock of their recent and continuing persecutions
(2 Thess 1:4, 6). 67 The Thessalonian politarchs were sympathetic to the imperial
Richard, Thessalonians, 330.
See n. 67 below.
67 Richard (Thessalonians, 330) argues that the Thessalonians misread their persecutions
(2 Thess 1:4-6) as 'signs of the Lord's Day'. Contra, Bruce (Thessalonians, 165): 'in the list of
factors which might possibly have led the Thessalonians to their conclusion about the Day of
the Lord no conclusion is made of the force of circumstances or the severity of persecution'.
Both Richard and Bruce, however, overlook the possibility that Paul's prior critique of imperial
eschatology (1 Thess 4:13-5:11, esp. 5:3-4) may have stirred up among some Thessalonians
unrealistic eschatological hopes for their imminent deliverance from imperial rule (2 Thess 2:2c:
EVEO"TT)KEV). Subsequently, the hopes of the Thessalonian believers were frustrated by further
persecution (2 Thess 1:4-6: cf. 2:2a: 'not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed'), or were
apocalyptically renewed by a false 'prophecy' from within the house churches (2 Thess 2:2b [&a
TCVEUflaTOc;; &a A.6you]; cf. I Thess 5:19-22), or by a spurious 'letter' emanating from outside
of the house churches under the pseudonym of the apostle (2 Thess 2:2b [Ill' tmaTOA.ijc; we;&'
~flliiv]; 3:17b: e.g. 2 Tim 2:17-18; 2 John 7, 10). The unknown composer of this spurious letter,
who was an outsider to the Thessalonian house churches, may have been misinformed about
Paul's eschatology. Alternatively, the composer may have deliberately misrepresented (the little
he knew of) Paul's eschatology though the public reading of the apostle's letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 5:27) or through his public preaching at Thessalonica, with a view to unsettling the
house churches and bringing the attention of the Roman authorities upon them again (cf. Acts
17:6-7). See the helpful discussion ofLegasse, Thessaloniciens, 382-383. Either way, it explains
why Paul at the end of2 Thessalonians (3: 17) 'offers an authenticating signature' (Witherington,
Thessalonians, 214). On the scholarly dispute over the precise nuance of EVEO"TT)KEV (2 Thess
2:2c: 'has come' or 'is about to come'?), see Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist,
6s
66
90
rulers, as were the Roman benefactors of the city. Believers, therefore, could
not expect an impartial hearing at their tribunal when faced with sporadic mob
violence (Acts 17:6-9).68 Thus the apostle needed to dampen the unrealistic
and spiritually dangerous expectations of his Thessalonian converts. To be sure,
many penultimate Antichrists would appear, including the one who had already
appeared in the figure of Caligula (Mk 13:14, 21-22 [cf. 2 Thess 2:9]). But the
'ultimate sinner' was still to appear after the eschatological rebellion.
3.4.2 Paul and the language of lawlessness (2 Thess 2:3, 7, 8)

In 2 Thessalonians 2 we have seen that Paul refers to the eschatological revelation
of a 'lawless one' (v. 3: 6 avepwrro<; ~<; UVO!lla<;; v. 8: 6 avo!lO<;) and to the 'mystery of lawlessness' already operative in the Roman empire (v. 7: To !lUOLT)ptov
73-74, who opts for 'is about to come'. Green (Thessalonians, 305; cf. Dibelius, 1hessalonicher,
29; Rigaux, Thessalonians, 653) has also recently argued for the idea of immanence with regards
to EVECTrTJKEV (e.g. 2 Tim 3:1; 1 Cor 7:26; Josephus, AI 4.209) over against the idea of a realised
eschatology. Additionally, see S. E. Porter's discussion (Verbal Aspect of the Greek of the New
Testament [New York: Peter Lang, 1989], 265-267) of the present and future use of the perfect
tense in the Greek texts of this period. Contra, see C. R. Nicholl's strong defence (From Hope to
Despair, 115-117; cf. L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians [rev. ed. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 216; Weatherly, Thessalonians, 247; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 417)
of EVECTrTJKEV meaning the Day of the Lord 'has come' (i.e. 'realised' as opposed to 'immanent'
eschatology). In proposing that some believers at Thessalonica may have mistakenly interpreted
Paul's eschatology as a prophecy of the imminent demise of imperial power (cf. 11hess 5:2-3),
in a manner similar to the Second Temple apocalyptic literature (e.g. 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch; Sibylline
Oracles), we are not discounting the possibility that other believers may have fallen prey to the
early Christian realised eschatology abroad elsewhere (e.g. 1 Cor 15:12-24; 2 Tim 2:18; 2 Pet
3:3-13; Jn 21:22-23; cf. Beale, Thessalonians, 200). The eschatological enthusiasm of the Thessalonians may have unravelled into several strands, with believers disagreeing over its precise
shape and its political implications, as they wrestled with the complexities of the apostolic tradition (21hess 2:5, 15; 3:6b, 14-15) and the false teaching of the apocalyptic enthusiasts outside
of the church (2 Thess 2:2). As a useful parallel for understanding the political context of the
Thessalonian eschatology, B. R. Gaventa (First and Second Thessalonians [Louisville: John Knox,
1989], 109-110) has pointed to the hopes of some Jews for divine intervention during the occupation of the Temple in AD 70 (Josephus, BJ 6.284-287). Conversely, if EvECTrTJKEV (2 Thess 2:2b)
is correctly translated as the Day of the Lord 'has come' (cf. Nichol, Morris, Weatherly, Malherbe,
supra), some believers at Thessalonica may have been intensely disappointed by the fact that the
demise of the Roman empire had not eventuated as Paul prophesied (11hess 5:2-3). But, even in
this case, the eschatological enthusiasm of the Thessalonians is bifurcated, with the eschatological enthusiasts naively assuming that the Day of the Lord had actually arrived, whereas other
believers were disconsolate that the continuing rule of Rome in the present age testified that the
eschaton had not in fact come. In sum, it is wise to allow for the possibility of several political
scenarios at Thessalonica in interpreting this difficult text, given that Paul himself is not sure
how the eschatological misinformation was communicated or its exact source. See Fee, Thessalonians, 273, 275. Whatever is the eschatological scenario evoked by EVECTriJKEV - immanent
or realised- Paul would have had to consider the political implications of his eschatology if he
was to engage incisively with the misinformation of his opponents.
68 On the historicity of the Acts account, see 2.2.1 n. 33 supra.
91
T~<; aVOJlL<;). 69 As noted (supra 3.2), the Psalms of Solomon applied- although
this reading is disputed (n. 70 infra)- the epithet liVOJlO<; to the Roman general
Pompey in his conquest of Jerusalem. What evidence is there that first-century
Jews viewed Caligula in similar vein?
Philo adopts a similar rhetorical strategy to the writer of the Psalms of Solomon when he depicts the reign ofCaligula as one of'lawlessness'. He graphically
underscores the 'lawlessness' of Caligula over against the law-based rule of his
Julian forebears in Leg. 119:
And his subjects are slaves of the emperor, even if they were not so to any one of the former
emperors, because they governed with gentleness and in accordance with the laws (flETa
VOflWV), but now that Gaius had eradicated all feeling of humanity from his soul and had
admired lawlessness (napav6f1Lav E(fJAWKOTo<;). For looking upon himself as the law
(v6f1ov yap ~YO\JflEVO<;), he abrogated all the enactments of other lawgivers (<Glv EKa<rroxou VOf109TGlv) in every state and country with many vain sentences ...
Paul, too, probably alludes to the popular polemic of the Psalms of Solomon,
assuming that the manuscript tradition is correctly interpreted here, when he
designates the penultimate Antichrist - but with Caligula firmly in view in this
case- as the 'lawless one' (2 Thess 2:3, 8). 70 The 'lawlessness' ofCaligula, seen supremely in his attempted profanation of the Temple (2 Thess 2:3-4; cf. Mk 13:14,
21-22 ), pointed to the 'mystery of lawlessness' currently engulfing the empire of
Rome (2 Thess 2:7). 71 Since Philo had made a similar point barely a decade ago,
69 On the possible subde distinction between 6 liv9pwno<; <ii<; civoflla<; and 6 liVOJlO<;, see
G. S. Holland, The Tradition that You Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition
(Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988) 107. Witherington (Thessalonians, 217-218) observes that in
the LXX Belial is equally rendered as civof1[a (2 Sam 2:25 = Ps 18:4[LXX 17:5]) and cinoo-rao[a
(1 Kgs 21:13}. For arguments supporting the earliest reading ciVOJlla<; over the later textual variant ciJlapTia<; in 2 Thess 2:3b, see Fee, Thessalonians, 279 n. 33.
70 However, Green (Thessalonians, 308) righdy draws attention to the fact that the manuscript
tradition for liVOJlO<; in Psalms of Solomon 17:11 is not secure, with liVEJlO<; {'wind') being
used instead. For suggestions that 6 liVOJlO<; {2 Thess 2:8: cf. v. 3) is synonymous with the Old
Testament phrase 'man of Belial', see Bruce, Thessalonians, 167-168; M. Dibelius, Die Briefe des
Apostels Paulus: An die Thessalonicher II II. An die Philipper {Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1911}, 30.
Malherbe's suggestion (Thessalonians, 419} that 6 liVOJlO<; was prompted by Ps. 88:23 (LXX) is
unconvincing due to the absence of any VOJlO<; terminology. Richard (Thessalonians, 327}, after
discussing Old Testament civof.L[a terminology (e.g. Ps 31: 15) opts for the reference to Pompey as
the 'lawless one' (Pss Sol17:11, 18), noted above. Regarding the 'mysteryoflawlessness' (2 Thess
2:7}, despite the 'parallels' adduced by various commentators (e.g. Bruce [Thessalonians, 170],
Malherbe [Thessalonians, 423], Richard [Thessalonians, 330]), Malherbe comes closest to the
mark when he concludes that the phrase is probably an 'ad hoc formulation' of Paul.
71 S. G. Brown ('The Intertextuality of Isaiah 66:17 and 2 Thessalonians 2:7: A Solution to
the "Restrainer Problem'", in C. A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of
Israel [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993], 257} points out that npGJTov ('first': 2 Thess 2:3}
parallels the particles viiv ('now': 2:6a}, Mq ('already': 2:7) and lipTI {'just now': 2:7}. As Brown
observes, 'These parallels indicate that the wickedness normally associated with the man of sin
was affecting Paul's readers at that time and obviously accounted for their suffering (cf. 1 Thess
4:4-5}. Thus the church at Thessalonica experienced or tasted the apostasy and its arch-agent'.
92
Chapter 3: '1he Ultimate Sinner': Paul and the Anti-Christ in Political Context
it should hardly surprise us to find Paul adapting contemporary Jewish political

polemic against Caligula to his own eschatological ends in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. 72
Thus Nero's later persecution of believers at Rome in AD 64, assuming that the
apostle was still alive, would not have caught him by surprise, notwithstanding
his acknowledgement of the divine origin ofRoman rule (Rom 13:1-7).73
However, in true apocalyptic form, Paul argues that this penultimate 'lawlessness' would be held firmly in check by an (unnamed) restraining archangel
(2 Thess 2:7b: 6 Ka-rtxwv; cf. Michael: Daniel10:13b, 21; 12:1),74 until the final
rebellion had occurred (2:3a). Then the Satan-inspired 'lawless one' would be
finally revealed in his own time (2:6b: Ei~ TO anoKaXucp9fivat airrov tv T<jl ea-rou
Katp<jl ),75 with the result that the Antichrist would deceive the perishing with
eschatological signs until his destruction by the epiphany of Jesus' parousia (2:812). Paul's point for the immature and excitable Thessalonians was plain. The Day
of the Lord and the hope of eschatological glory were still come (2 Thess 2: 15-16)
and the Thessalonians had to stand firm in the gospel tradition and in its practical outworking in their lives (2: 16-17). Any talk of the imminent eschatological
demise of the imperial rulers and the world more generally was premature.
This observation strengthens the possibility that Paul saw Caligula's recent profanation of the
Temple (2 Thess 2:3-4) as a chilling instance of the apostasy presently abroad in the Roman
empire (2:7) and ultimately as a precursor of the eschatological Antichrist (2:8-10). W Trilling
(Untersuchungen zum Zweiten 1hessalonicherbrief[Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag GMBH, 1972], 82)
points to the parallel between the Antichrist being v\iv tv -rljl KOO"flQl M!] (1 John 4:3) and the
particles viiv (2:6a) and MTJ (2:7) in 2 Thessalonians 2.
72 Gaventa (Thessalonians, 111) restricts the 'lawlessness' to 'the refusal to submit to the
authority of God as creator'. Yet the reference is wider than Gaventa allows. As Green notes
(Thessalonians, 309-310), the 'man of lawlessness' opposes false deities as much as the true
God, exalting himself over 'any sanctuary, idol, or person that receives adoration' (ibid., 310).
This is consonant with the prototypical 'divine claim of the emperor in the imperial cult' (ibid.).
73 For arguments, referring to the evidence of the Pastorals, that Paul's ministry extended beyond AD 64, see J. Murphy O'Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 341-371;
J. R. Harrison, 'Paul Goes to Rome', in B. J. Beitzel (ed.), Biblica: 1he Bible Atlas (Sydney: Global
Book Publishing, 2006), 484-489; B. Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenised
Christians. Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John (lVP I
Apollos: Downers Grove, 2006), 65-68.
74 C. Nicholl, 'Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess 2:6-7)', JTS 5111 (2000): 27-53; id.,
From Hope to Despair, 225-249; Beale, Thessalonians, 215-216; Witherington, Thessalonians,
211-212. For discussion of Paul's angelology, see J. R. Harrison, 'In Quest of the Third Heaven:
Paul and His Apocalyptic Imitators', VC 58/1 (2004): 24-55, esp. 43-46. For an extensive discussion of the interpretive options regarding Ka-rt)(ov (2 Thess 2:6) and Ka-rtxwv (2 Thess 2:7), see
Rocker, Belial und Katechon, 422- 473. Rocker (ibid., 473) concludes that Ka-rtxwv refers both
to God and the preacher of the gospel, whereas Ka-rtxov designates the preacher's actual call to
repentance and to God's eschatological 'time' in the gospel.
75 The reference to 'eschatological' time in 2 Thessalonians 2:6b (Witherington, Thessalonians, 221) is significant in this context because it differentiates Paul's Jewish world-view, with its
culmination Christ, from the Roman cyclical view of time( 4.1.1- 4.1.5).
93
3.4.3 Paul and the language of deity (2 Thess 2:4)
It would be difficult for first-century monotheistic Jews not to react negatively

to some of the honours and epithets conveyed to the 'divine' ruler at Rome. Both
Philo and Josephus agree that Caligula's promotion of the imperial cult was the
central issue in arousing Jewish opposition to his rule (Philo, Leg. 184-348; Jos.,
A] 18.261-309). In the eyes of these two Jews at least, Caligula was the first Roman ruler to sponsor aggressively his own divinity by having cult statues from
Greece shipped to Rome, where their heads were replaced with models of his
own. In a previous section (supra 3), we have argued that there is warrant for
thinking that in the last months of his reign Caligula deliberately blurred the
divide between the gods and humanity in promoting the cult of his numen at
Rome as much as in the Greek East. Later Seneca scornfully dismisses Caligula's
pretensions to be 'Deus noster Caesar?6 Elsewhere I have argued that the rapturous preface to the loyalty oath of the Assians to Caligula (AD 37), in which the
ruler is identified as the 'hoped and prayed for' theos, linked the ideas ofparousia
and epiphany to the ruler's accession to power. 77 For Paul in the Greek East, there
would have been little doubt that this was a clear assertion of the ruler's divinity on the part of his provincial clients, legitimately grateful as they were for his
benefactions. In Paul's view, something more disturbing than the obsequious
'divine' honours of the ruler cult had began to emerge in Caligula's reign. In this
regard, G. s. Holland has argued that Paul's phrase AEYOflEVOV eeov ~ O"E~aO"fl
(2 Thess 2:4) captures the 'blasphemous claims of pagan rulers', with its pun on
the 'Roman emperor's honorific title of ~E~a<n6<;, 'J\ugustus"'.78
Above all, this impression was confirmed by the ruler's arrogant attempt to
set up his own cult in the Jerusalem Temple. We must remember that notwithstanding Paul's transfer of 'priestly', 'purity', 'cultic' and 'temple' terminology to
the Body of Christ,79 the Jerusalem Temple was still standing at the time of writing. It symbolised the continuing privileges that God still mercifully extended
to Israel in spite of its present stumbling (Rom 9:4: 'the glory . . . the worship';
cf. 1:16b; 3:1-4; 9:22; 11:1-2, 24b-32). Indeed, members ofthe early Jerusalem
church continued to worship and teach in the Temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1, 8; 5:19-21,
76 Seneca, Tranq. 14.9. See Gradel's insightful discussion of this text (Emperor Worship,
157-158). On the reserve of the early Caesars accepting divine honours, in contrast to Caligula
in the final months of his rule, see M.P. Charlesworth,- Deus Noster Caesar"', CR 39 (1925):
113-115. At the beginning of his rule in AD 37, however, Caligula vetoed the Senate's decree
ordering sacrifices to be offered to his Genius (Dio 59.4.4).
77 See 2.3 supra.
78 Holland, The Tradition that You Received, 108.
79 See Harrison, 'In Quest of the Third Heaven', 54 n. 101; also, B. Gartner, The Temple and
the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1965); M. Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); J. Neyrey, Paul, In Other Words: A Cultural Reading ofHis Letters
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990).
94
25; 21:17-26). Although Caligula did not literally take his seat in the Temple of
God at Jerusalem, 80 the imagery should be viewed apocalyptically in light of the
hubristic claims of the king ofTyre (Ezek 28:1-2) and the king of Babylon (Isa
14:13-14), as well as Antiochus Epiphanes IV (Dan 11:36).81 As noted, in the
cases of the kings of Tyre and Babylon in particular, as apocalyptic precursors of
Caligula, each man set up his throne in the heavens. 82 The claim to deity could
not be clearer in its Jewish context.
3.5 Conclusion
Notwithstanding the multivalence of the apostle's imagery,. Paul probably believed that the Roman authorities had exceeded their divine mandate under
Caligula (Rom 13:1-7; cf. 16:20). Caligula had displayed hubris in attempting to
place his statue in the Temple. In Paul's view, the Eastern poleis were no longer
just registering appropriate honour to the ruler (e.g. Rom 13:7), securing his
favour through the imperial cult. Rather, by means of the cult, Caligula was now
sponsoring his claim to divinity in the East and the West (Jos., A/ 18.261ff; Philo,
Leg., passim) or, more likely, in Roman parlance, the veneration of his numen. If
this assessment of imperial power in 2 Thessalonians 2 is correct, a positive imperial interpretation of'the restraining principle' (2 Thess 2:6: To KaTtxov) and 'the
restraining person' (2 Thess 2:7: 6 KaTxwv) is unlikely. 83
80 Note the comment of Holland (The Tradition that You Received, 108): 'Although the statue
was never actually placed there, this was because of chance, and certainly not because Caligula
thought better of the idea. He claimed to be an incarnation of Zeus during his lifetime, as Antiochus was also reputed to have done .. .'.While Nicholl (From Hope to Despair, 122) allows that
va6<; {2 Thess 2:4) must refer to the Jerusalem Temple, he disputes that the historical referent
could either be Antiochus or Caligula since neither took his seat in the temple. Similarly, Morris, Thessalonians, 220-221. As Nicholl observes, 'it is difficult to see why "Paul" would appeal
to a metaphor to describe the activity of the rebel when the situation called for a clear, concrete
and unmistakable sign; it would have been pastorally unwise to give a sign which is so vague,
especially in the light ofCaligula's activities only a decade before' (ibid., 121). But Nicholl's approach is overly literalistic, overlooking the fact that Paul fused his 'hidden transcript' regarding Caligula's actions with the apocalyptic traditions of hubristic individuals seeking heavenly
enthronement. Paul's language is deliberately allusive rather than pinpoint in its accuracy. As
Witherington (Thessalonians, 219-220) notes, 'Paul is using multivalent apocalyptic prophetic
language throughout his argument, language intended to be more evocative than literally descriptive'.
81 Richard, Thessalonians, 328.
82 Gaventa (Thessalonians, 112) points to Old Testament traditions of God's dwelling place
being a heavenly temple (Pss 11:4; 18:6; Isa 66:1; Hab 2:20). For intertestamental references, see
Green, Thessalonians, 312.
83 One prominent subscriber to this viewpoint is C. K. Barrett ('The New Testament Doctrine
of Church and State', in id., New Testament Essays [London: SPCK, 1972]12-13): 'the restraining force (TO Ka-rtxov) is the Empire, personalised (as 6 Ka-rtxwv) in its chief representative, the
Emperor'.
3.5 Conclusion
95
Elsewhere in his letters, Paul warned believers about the idolatry of the imperial cult (Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 8:5-6, 10; 10:14-22: supra n. 37}. 84 He established
Jesus' superiority over the apotheosised Augustus (1 Thess 4:13-5: 10; Rom 1:2-4;
Phil2:9-11; 3:20-21) and his iconic reign of unparalleled beneficence (Res Gestae 15-24; cf. Rom 5:12-21}. 85 Moreover, the apostle highlighted Christ's peace
over the celebrated Neronian quinquennium (Rom 5:1; cf. Rom 13:1-7).86 He
demotes the ruler to the status of'God's servant' in Romans 13:1-7 and denies
the aeternitas of the Roman empire (Rom 13: 11-12}. 87 In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10,
however, Paul exposes the demonic potential of Roman rule, a perspective that
John expanded on a generation later (Rev 13:1ff). What we are witnessing here
is a highly adaptable thinker who engages the 'powers that be' in the differing
pastoral and social contexts ofhis house churches and who critiques the alternate
imperial gospel in light of the gospel of the risen and reigning Lord.
In Chapters 2-3 we have discussed how the eschatology of Paul's gospel interacted with the imperial propaganda present at Thessalonica, one of the more
Romanised cities in the Greek East. However, we need to investigate more closely
the imperial conception of rule as articulated in the literary, documentary, and
iconographic evidence of the Greek East and Latin West. A comparison of this
corpus of evidence with Romans, probably the most influential epistle in the
history of Western civilisation, would clarify the collision of ideologies of rule
that began to emerge in the first century between the early Christians and the
Roman rulers.
84 B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 269-286.
85 On imperial apotheosis traditions in relation to 1 Thessalonians, see 2.3 supra. On the
Philippian context, seeP. Oakes, Philippi: From People to Letter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 129-174. On the Augustan reign of grace, see J. R. Harrison, Paul's Language of
Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 226-242.
86 B. Witherington III, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 305-308.
87 B. W. Winter, 'Roman Law and Society in Romans 12-15', in P. Oakes (ed.), Rome in the
Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 67-102.
CHAPTER4
Imperial Conceptions of Rule and Paul's Reign of Grace

4.1 Defining the Roman Sense of Time in Relation to Imperial Rule
This chapter explores how the eschatology of Paul in Romans interacted with the
understanding of time evinced by the Roman rulers in speaking of their rule. 1 It
is terminologically and conceptually imprecise to refer to Roman 'eschatology'
in this regard because the Roman cyclical view of time is different to the linear
understanding of time espoused by the Judaeo-Christian tradition. 2 However,
an idea of the 'messianic' fulfilment of prophecy does emerge in both the Roman and Judaeo-Christian traditions. This convergence is worth exploring even
though there are considerable conceptual differences between the two traditions.
Such an investigation may throw light on why there was eventually a collision of
ideologies, expressed in different social practices and perceptions, between the
early Christian movement and the Roman authorities. Additionally, it may alert
us as to why ultimately the early Christian movement may have been considered
politically subversive by the Romans and their clients.
In the following section( 4.1.1- 4.1.4), I will explore the Roman concept of
time as expressed in the ludi saeculares, the advent of the Golden Age of Saturn,
the erection of monuments and inscriptions to AION, and the significance of
Augustus' horologium. We will then be better placed to compare the eschatological dimension of Paul's thought in the epistle to the Romans( 4.2, 4.4) with
the Julio-Claudian conception of rule( 4.3.1- 4.3.7).
4.1.1 Saeculum and the Centenary Celebrations at Rome

An important feature of the principate of Augustus was the establishment of the
Ludi saeculares ('century games') in 17 BC to celebrate the fifth saeculum of Rome

1 For a stimulating discussion of the understanding of time in antiquity, see A. Momigliano,
'Time in Ancient Historiography', History and Theory 6/6 (1966): 1-23. My discussion in this
chapter should not be confused with the kairos theologians referred to by N. Elliott, Liberating
Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995),
General Index, s. v. 'Kairos theologians'.
2 In using these broad brush-strokes to characterise both traditions, I am not denying that
the biblical documents display elements of historical recurrence. See G. W. Trompf, The Idea
of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought: From Antiquity to the Reformation (Berkeley I Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1979).
98
Chapter 4: Imperial Conceptions of Rule and Pauls Reign of Grace
(Tacitus, Ann. 21.11; RG 22). 3 The occasion for the celebration was the renewal
of his province, and thus the prolonged exercise of his imperium ('command')
that Augustus had been prevailed upon in 27 BC to accept for ten years. The
Ludi saeculares did not emerge from an historical vacuum. They had their origin
in the Republican ludi Tarentini or Taurii (Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta
Memorabilia 2.4.5; Zosimus 2.6; Censorinus, De die nat. 17). But whereas in the
Republican period the saeculum was defined as one hundred years (the longest
span of a human life in the Roman mind), the College of the Quindecemviri
determined that the correct length of the saeculum should be a fixed hundred
and ten years from the time of Augustus' renewal of power onwards (CIL VI.
32.323 [Dessau, ILS 5050]; Horace, Carm. saec. 21; Zosimus 2.6). Consequently,
Censorinus (De die nat. 17.10-11), writing in the third century AD, argued that
the four games prior to the Augustan saeculum should have been held in 356,
346,236 and 126 BC.
What was the ideological significance of the Augustan ludi saeculares? What
did it reveal about imperial conceptions of rule? While our documentation is
extensive, we will confine our discussion to three strands of the evidence.
First, the celebration of the saeculum was given a prophetic context, placing the
continued prosperity of the Augustan principate under the auspices of the gods.
Zosimus (fl. 5th cent. AD) cites an oracle from Sibylline books that specifies the
expiatory sacrifices to be given to the eternal gods. At the conclusion (Zosimus
2.6), the Roman citizen is sternly reminded that scrupulous attention must be
devoted to the cultic rituals attached to the celebration, if Rome's hegemony the
Italian peninsula is to continue in the next circuit of the saeculum:
This shalt thou fix steadfast in mind,
And so shall all Italy and the Latin
Forever bow before thy sceptre's might.4
3 For discussion, see J. F. Hall, 'The Saeculum novum of Augustus and Its Etruscan Antecedents', ANRW II 16/3 ( 1986): 2564-2589; S. Benoist, La fite Rome au premier siecle de !'Empire:
Recherches sur l'univers festif sous les regnes d:Auguste et des Julio-Claudiens (Bruxelles: Latomus,
1999), 130-192; J.P. Brown, Israel and Hellas. Vol. II: Sacred Institutions with Roman Counterparts (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 228-234. For a general discussion of the
Ludi saeculares, seeM. Beard (et al., ed.), Religions of Rome. Volume 1: A History (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998), 201-206. A rare New Testament scholar who has studied
the issue of'temporal space' and the calendars of the Golden Age in relation to Paul is J, K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 32-38. For an insightful
discussion of the Roman understanding of history as 'procession', see J. R. Hollingshead, The
Household of Caesar and the Body of Christ: A Political Interpretation of the Letters from Paul
(Lanham: University Press of America, 1998), 210-215. For a social-scientific analysis of'time'
in Romans, see P. F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul's Letter
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 249-267.
4 Cited in F. C. Grant (ed.), The Ancient Roman Religion (New York: Liberal Arts, 1957),
177-178. The antique style of the poem has been replicated in Grant's translation.
99
Second, a damaged inscription records the details of preparation for the celebrations and series of sacrifices to be offered on the three nights of celebrations (CIL
VI. 32.323 [Dessau, ILS 5050]).5 The fragments of the inscription, discovered in
1890, had been built into a medieval wall near the Tiber on the ancient boundary of the Campus Martius. Presumably, this was the site where the daytime
games and nightly celebrations occurred. Amidst the cultic regulations recorded
in the inscription are the prayers to be offered by Augustus and M. Agrippa to
each deity. They reveal the 'theology' of empire - the focus being the prosperity
of the Roman people, the citizens (the Quirites) individually and the household
of the Caesars - underpinning the ludi saeculares. Augustus, after referring to
sacrificial regulations in the Sybilline books ('as it is written prescribed for you in
those books'), addresses the Moirae ('the Fates') with this stylised prayer for the
continuing preservation of Roman welfare at home and abroad:
... I pray and ask that you increase the realm and power of the Roman people, the Quirites, both in war [abroad] and at home; that you will ever guard the Latin name, and grant
safety, continual victory, and power to the Roman people, the Quirites; send good fortune
to the Roman people, the Quirites; maintain the welfare of the Roman people, the Quirites
and the state of the Roman people, the Quirites; that you may be gracious and favourable
to Roman people, the Quirites, to the College of the Fifteen, to me, my house, my servants,
and accept this offering of nine full-grown sheep and nine goats.
Third, Horace composed the carmen saeculare ('Saecular Hymn') to be sung

on the last day of the Ludi saeculares by a chorus of twenty-seven boys and
twenty-seven girls whose parents were still living. 6 The latter detail, as F. C. Grant
observes, not only 'emphasises the symbolic character of the rite, (but) perhaps
also its real efficacy'. The hymn praises the gods for the blessings of the previous
saeculum and invokes continued blessings for the saeculum to come (Carm. saec.
Iff, 9ff, 13ff, 25ff, 29ff, 33ff, 6lff, 69ff).7 In the hymn, Augustus is presented as
the gloriously reigning descendant of Romulus and Aeneas (Carm. saec. 41-60).
Augustus' mythological lineage was also expressed architecturally in the statue
programme of the forum Augustum, with its two lines of triumphatores emanating from Romulus and Aeneas( 5.2). The hymn also unveils the Roman ideology of victory seen in Augustus as the 'new Aeneas' ( 4.3.5).8 But, importantly
for us, the overarching concept of time underlying the recurring saeculum is
expressed clearly in the hymn's prayer-wish to Phoebus (Carm. saec. 67-68):
Cited in ibid., 177, 178-182.
Horace conducted the chorus singing the Carmen saeculare (Ep. 2.1.126-129).
7 G. Sauron (QVIS DEVM? L'expression plastique des ideologies politiques et religieuses aRome
[Rome: Ecole Franr,:aise de Rome, 1994), 521) points out that many of the gods mentioned in
Horace's Carmen Saeculare are replicated on the cuirass of the famous statue of Augustus at the
Villa ofLivia at Prima Porta( 4.3.1), supra.
8 On Abraham as Aeneas' rival in Romans, seeN. Elliott, The Arrogance of the Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow ofEmpire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 125-141.
5
6
100
May Phoebus, the prophet, who goes adorned with the shining bow, who is dear to the Muses nine, and with his healing art relieves the body's weary frame- may he, if he looks with
favour on the altars of the Palatine, prolong the Roman power and Latium's prosperity to
cycles ever new and ages even better (alterum in lustrum meliusque semper proroget aevum )!
Finally, how was the outworking of saeculum understood in the reigns of subsequent rulers? R. Syrne agues that the Roman rulers 'celebrated and exploited the
ludi saeculares, reckoning centuries by computation to suit their convenience'.
This was seen in Claudius' premature celebration of the games (AD 47: Suetonius,
Claud. 21) and those ofDomitian subsequently (Dom. 4}.9 Claudius justified his
celebration of the ludi saeculares, sixty-three years after Augustus' ceremony,
by asserting that the eight hundredth anniversary of Rome demanded that the
games be held much earlier than the cycle allowed. Claudius exhibited a phoenix, a symbol of renewal and perpetuity, to substantiate the presence of the new
saeculum (Pliny [the Elder], HN 10.5; cf. Tacitus, Ann. 6.6, 28}. 10 Rulers could
also proclaim the advent of the Golden Age of Saturn in their reigns as a further
ideological strut undergirding their understanding of eternal rule ( 4.1.2). Later,
Hadrian would employ the motif of the phoenix on his coinage. 11 Also, as the
correspondence between Trajan and Pliny demonstrates, there was frequent
reference to the saeculum being present in Trajan's reign (Pliny, Ep. 10.1.2 [id est
digna saeculo tuo ]; 10.97.2 [nee nostri saeculi est]}. 12
In conclusion, the lead taken by Augustus in celebrating the Ludi saeculares
allowed the princeps to claim not only that his rule embraced the providential
blessings of Rome in the past but also that it secured its eternal prosperity by
means of his meticulous attention to the cult. Consequently, the saeculum only
embraced the city of Rome, its citizens, and the ruler's household. Rulers after
Augustus were keen to seize the propaganda initiative ahead of the cycle of the
present saeculum and of the arrival of the new saeculum. Thus the very success
of Augustus' propaganda had led to its cynical manipulation by his successors.
It is therefore worth pondering whether Paul's auditors at Rome would have
been shocked by the universalism that accompanied the 'revelation of the mystery kept secret for times eternal' (Rom 16:25b: KaTa anoKciAU'I'lV ~U<JTT]plou
xpovou; aiwv(ou; O"EO'LYTJ~EVOU). In a glorious demonstration of God's wisdom
(Rom 16:27}, the apocalyptic secret of salvation history had now been disclosed
(16:26a: q>avepw8VToc; l)t vuv). Moreover, by means of the prophetic writings
(16:26a: l)(a TE ypaq>wv npoq>T]TtKwv}, the secret had been made known to all the
nations (16:26c: Eic; ncivTa Ta 8vT] yvwpta8VToc;), according to God's eternal
command (16:26b: KaT' emTay~v TOU aiwv(ou 8EOu). Roman auditors, familiar
9
R. Syme, Tacitus. Volume 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 217.
For discussion, seeR. Syme, Tacitus. Volume 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 472.
11
12
Ibid., 471-472.
Ibid., 217.
101
with the Julio-Claudian propaganda, would have been confronted by a radically

different understanding of world history as they grappled with Paul's richly textured doxology in Romans 16:25-27. History had found its fulfilment in God's
soteriological blessing of all peoples in Christ and, surprisingly, it had embraced
the humiliated nations subject to Rome as much as Rome itself( 4.4.1).
4.1.21he Advent of the Golden Age of Saturn in the Reigns ofAugustus and Nero
In the cyclical world-view of the Greeks and the Romans ( 4.3.3), the cosmic
harmony of the Golden Age of Saturn - the primal epoch of the past - inevitably gave way to periods of decline. After the successive appearance of the Silver,
Bronze and Iron Ages, each of which brought increasing disaster to civilisation,
the universe passed through a stage of destruction. Upon the completion of that
process, the cycle inexorably began again with a return to the Golden Age. In
the early imperial period, Romans identified its reappearance with the Augustan principate, as well as the first five years of Nero's reign (i.e. the Neronian
quinquennium). 13
The Roman cyclical world-view, however, is radically different to the linear
eschatology of the Jewish and early Christian tradition. 14 In Judaeo-Christian
thought, salvation history is totally oriented towards the eschaton. Upon the
arrival of the 'end-time', the redemption of God's covenantal people, the apocalyptic defeat of God's enemies and the establishment of the new creation are
brought to completion. The early Christians, however, modified the 'two ages'
structure of Jewish eschatology through their assertion that the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ had already inaugurated the eschaton (Rom
1:4; 4:24-25; 5:12-21; 6:4, 5b, 8b-9; 8:34; 14:9), though its full realisation still
awaited the parousia of the messianic Lord (8:18-19; 23b-24a; 11:26; 13:11-12a;
14:10b; 16:20). Moreover, the 'new way of the Spirit' (Rom 7:6b; 8:4, 6b, 9b,
14-16; 8:26-28; 15:13, 19), experienced in the present age, was the 'first-fruits'
{8:23a) of the age-to-come {7:24-25; 8:11).
Nevertheless, there are interesting convergences of thought in both traditions. The Roman and Judaeo-Christian traditions spoke of a 'messianic age' (Isa
11:1-16; Rom 15:12 [Isa 15:10]) in which a worldrulerwouldgovern with justice,
peace and mercy (Rom 5:21 b; 16:20), with profound cosmological consequences
for creation {8:18-25). Further, in each case, the 'messianic' hope was articulated
13
See F. E. Brenk, 'The Twofold Gleam- Vergil's Golden Age and the Beginning of Empire',
Thought 55/216 (1980): 81-97; A. Wallace-Hadrill, 'The Golden Age and Sin in Augustan Ideology', P&P 95/1 (1982): 19-36. More generally, see J.D. Crossan and J. L. Reed, In Search ofPaul:
How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul's Words
and World (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005), 125-177.
14 Note the comment of D. W. Parke (B.C. McGing [ed.]), Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in
Classical Antiquity (London I New York: Routledge, 1988), 145: '... the Romans were not expecting an end of the world to happen suddenly or in their lifetime'.
102
Chapter 4: Imperial Conceptions of Rule and Paul's Reign of Grace
in prophetic categories (Rom 1:2-4; 11:26 [Isa 59:20, 21; 27:9; Jer 31:33, 34]; 15:8;
16:25-26). 15 Here we see the potential for a collision of symbolic universes that
could have political ramifications in the first century.
The most extended example of the 'cyclical' tradition in Roman thought is
Ovid's Metamorphoses. At the outset of his work, Ovid describes conventionally
the cycle offour ages (Met. 1.89-150; cf. Aratus, Phaen. 100-135; Maximus of
Tyre, Diss. 36; Seneca, Phaed. 483-564; ps.-Seneca, Oct. 388-448; Tibullus, Elegies 1.3.35-52; 2.3.35-74). At the conclusion of the work, however, the hope of
the return of the Golden Age is alluded to in Jupiter's prophecy to Venus. There
the apotheosis of Julius Caesar presages the greater glory of Augustus, his successor, and ofhis son, Tiberius (Met. 15.807-842). Ovid's final prayer-wish to the
gods articulates well the longing for the continuance of the Golden Age through
Augustus' apotheosis: 'far distant be that day (illa dies) and later than our own
time (nostro serior aevo) when Augustus, abandoning the world he rules, shall
mount to heaven and there, removed from our presence, listen to our prayers!'
(Met. 15.888-890). 16
Virgil's Aeneid is even more specific in asserting that the restoration of the
Golden Age of Saturn was imminent in the reign of Augustus (Aen. 6.789-799):
Here is Caesar, and all the sons oflulus about to come under the great vault of the sky. Here
is a man whose coming you so often hear prophesied, here he is, Augustus Caesar, son of a
god, the man who will bring back the golden years to the fields ofLatium once ruled over
by Saturn, and extend Rome's empire beyond the Indians and the Garamantes to a land
beyond the stars, beyond the yearly path of the sun, where Atlas holds on his shoulder
the sky all studded with burning stars and turns it on its axis. The kingdoms around the
Caspian Sea and Lake Maeotis are even now quaking at the prophecies of his coming.
The famous 'messianic' Fourth Eclogue of Virgil (Eel. 4.1-63), addressed to C.

Asinius Pollio (consul, 40 BC), refers to the auspicious birth of a child whose
identity still remains a matter of controversy among scholars. 17 The text is probably written against the backdrop of the treaty of Brundisium between Antony
and Octavian (the later Augustus), negotiated by Pollio and Maecenas and of15 D. Potter (Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius [Cambridge, Mass./ London: Harvard University Press, 1994], 70) states regarding Horace,
Carm. 2: 'The second poem in Horace's first book of Odes, a poem honoring Augustus, is carefully crafted so as to present Augustus as the savior whom readers of prophetic books had come
to expect in the wake of the disasters that had beset the Roman state for so long'.
16 For a provocative discussion of the ambiguity of Ovid's presentation of 'time' in relation
to Julio-Claudian rule, see G. M. Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence (New York/London:
Routledge, 2004), 307-308.
17 H. E. Gould, Virgil: Eclogues (orig. 1967: rpt. Bristol: Bristol Classical, 1983), 48; R. Coleman (ed.), Eclogues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 150-154. More generally,
I.M. Le M. Du Quesnay, 'Virgil's Fourth Eclogue', in P. Hardie (ed.), Virgil: Critical Assessments
of Classical Authors. Vol. 1: General Articles and the Eclogues (London I New York: Routledge,
1999), 283-350.
103
fering Rome the prospect of lasting peace after almost a century of civil war.
Because of the renewed sense of optimism generated by this treaty, the Fourth
Eclogue speaks prophetically of a 'new cycle of centuries' beginning with the advent of the Golden Age. Jupiter's viceroy, the first-born child of the glorious new
age, had come down from heaven above and had inaugurated an era of cosmic
renewal. 18 1his child, an unidentified symbol of hope and peace, carried forward
the political expectations of the war-weary Republic in the dawning of the new
aetas ('age') of Augustus. 19
Another important text that speaks of the advent of the Golden Age in the
figure of Augustus is Horace, Carm. 15.4-16. Horace's emphatic use of tua aetas
('Your age') in addressing the ruler alludes to the idea that the reversal of cyclical
decline had commenced in Augustus' principate:
Your age, 0 Caesar (tua, Caesar, aetas), has restored to farms their plenteous crops and
to our Jove the standards stripped from the proud columns of the Parthians; has closed
Quirinius' fane empty of war; has put a check on license, passed righteous bounds; has
banished crime and called back home the ancient ways whereby the Latin name and might
ofltaly waxed great, and the fame and majesty of our dominion were spread from the sun's
western bed to his arising. 20
In the period of the Neronian quinquennium, Calpurnius Siculus (Eel. 1.42-48)

presents the rule of Nero as a second Golden Age of justice and peace following
hard upon the idyllic age of Augustus:
Amid untroubled peace, the Golden Age (aetas aurea) springs to a second birth; at last
kindly Themis, throwing off the gathered dust of her mourning returns to the earth; blissful
ages ( beata saecula) attend the youthful prince who pleaded a successful case for the Iulii of
the mother town (of Troy). While he, a very God, shall rule the nations, the unholy WarGoddess shall yield and have her vanquished hands bound behind her back, and, stripped
of weapons, turn her furious teeth into her own entrails ... 21
18 For discussion on whether Virgil draws from Jewish Sibyllines and Isaianic prophecy (Isa
11:6-9, esp. v. 6), see Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy, 145-147.
19 I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay ('Virgil's Fourth Eclogue', 351) clarifies the relationship between
the consul Pollio, the unidentified child, and Augustus in Eclogue 4 thus: 'In Eclogue 4 the
day of entry to the consulship and the birthday are divided between Pollio and the puer. The
relationship of the puerto his aetas is clearly thought of in the same way as the relationship of
Augustus to his aetas'.
20 B. W. Breed, 'Tua, Caesar, aetas: Horace 4:15 and the Augustan Age', AJP 125/2 (2004):
245-253. Horace (Carm. 1.12.49-52) speaks of Augustus thus: '0 Father and Guardian of the
human race, son of Saturn, to you by fate has been entrusted the charge of mighty Caesar; may
you be lord of all, with Caesar next in power!'. An inscription from Narbo (ILS 112: translated
in R. L. Sherk [ed.], The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian [Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988], 7C) speaks of the birthday of Augustus (September23) in this way: 'on which day
an age of happiness (saeculi felicitas) produced him as the whole world's ruler'.
21 The Einsiedeln eclogues (EeL 2.23-24) also refer to the Golden Age of Nero: 'The days of
Saturn have returned with Justice the Maid; the age has returned in safety to the olden ways'.
104
Finally, pseudo-Seneca's 'apocalyptic' drama, Octavia, prophetically taps into the

millennia! portrait of the collapse of a wicked world. 22 With the crisis precipitated
by Nero's treason trials and the execution of Octavia firmly in view (AD 62),
pseudo-Seneca interprets Nero's reign as the culmination of the cyclical decline
of the ages before the outbreak of a new Golden Age of Saturn at some unspecified time in the future. However, as we shall see, there are implicit hints in the
Octavia pointing to the reign of Galba as the age of renewal. 23 1he Neronian age,
Seneca avers, is weighted down with the criminality and corruption of its lustful
ruler (Oct. 431-435):
These sins, through many ages gathering, are overflowing upon us; a heavy age weighs us
down (saeculo premimur gravi), wherein crime is regnant, impiety runs mad, all-potent
lust lords it with shameless love, and triumphant luxury has long with greedy hands been
clutching the world's unbounded stores- that she may squander them.
In Seneca's soliloquy, the description of the arrival of the 'last day' and the consequent inauguration of the Golden Age resonates with themes of political and
cosmic restoration (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 391-406). The use of renascens ('reborn') in
Oct. 395 probably alludes to Galba's numismatic propaganda that celebrated the
arrival of his rule as the 'Regeneration ofRome'. 24 Further, as Seneca's soliloquy
makes clear, justice and peace break out permanently alongside cosmic renewal
(Oct. 397-406):
If this sky is growing old, doomed wholly once more to fall into blind nothingness, then
for the universe is the last day at hand (tunc adest mundo dies supremus ille) which shall
crush sinful man beneath heaven's ruin, so that once more a reborn (renascens) and better world may bring forth a new race such as she bore in youth, when Saturn held the
kingdoms of the sky. 25
Thus, if the hypothesis that Galba's 'regeneration' propaganda underlies pseudoSeneca's Octavia is correct, we are able to see how the early Christian proclamation of the return of the risen Christ and the renewal of all things might have been
conceived as politically subversive in late sixties Rome. Moreover, it reminds us
that there were some Romans who looked discerningly beneath the surface of
imperial propaganda and who might have responded to the proclamation of a
new messianic reign independent of the Julio-Claudian house.
22 SeeP. Kragelund, Prophecy, Populism, and Propaganda in the 'Octavia' (Copenhagen: Museum Thsculanum Press, 1982), 38, 48-50. On prophecy in an imperial context, see D. Potter,
Prophets and Emperors.

23 P. Kragelund (Prophecy, 38) writes regarding ps.-Seneca, Oct. 431-435: 'Seneca's monologue on the decay and imminent cataclysm associates Nero's reign with a universal degeneracy,
and shows the usual millennial picture of the collapse which the wicked world brings down upon
itself partly by its own momentum and partly by divine agency'.
24 Kragelund, Prophecy, 49. See ROMA RENASC: RIC F 'Galba', 40-43, 57, 194, 197;
ROMA RENASCES: RIC F 'Galba', 58, 87, 200, 229-230; ROMA RENASCEN: RIC F 'Galba',
162; ROMA RENASCENS: RIC F 'Galba', 29, 87, 95.
25 Ps.-Seneca, Oct. 391-396.
105
4.1.3 The amici and clientes ofAugustus and the Erection ofMonuments
and Inscriptions to AIQN
The Greek word aiwv embraced a wide variety of meanings, ranging from 'lifetime' to 'life', 'age', generation', 'period' and 'eternity'. From the late first century
BC onwards, AION (Aion) was increasingly personified in the Greek East and
the widespread fascination with the deity continued well into the second century AD. 26 For our purposes, what is important is the way that provincial amici
('friends') and clientes ('clients') of Augustus enlist AION either to enhance their
own glory in relation to the princeps or to honour Rome as the world power. Two
examples will suffice.
First, in a famous relief from Aphrodisias commissioned by Zoilos, a powerful
freedman of Augustus, 27 we see AION personified as an aged man. 28 Zoilos, a
priest of Aphrodite and a benefactor of Aphrodisias, 29 had helped Octavian (the
later Augustus) in his rise to power during the triumviral years, 30 earning himself
the friendship of Augustus. This amicus of Augustus had strengthened relations
between Aphrodisias and Rome, succeeding in having the city exempted from
26 On AI.ON, seeR. Chevallier (ed.), AION: Le temps chez les Romains (Paris: A & J Picard,
1976); A. Alfoldi, Aion in Merida und Aphrodisias (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1979);
G. Zuntz, Aion, Gott des Romerreichs (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1991); id., AI!JN im Romerreich:
Die archaologischen Zeugnisse (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1991); id., Aion in der Literatur der
Kaiserzeit (Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992); H.J. W.
Drivers, 'AI ON, aiwv', inK. van der Toom (et al., ed.), The Dictionary of Deities and Demons
in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 13-14; M. B. Dowling, 'A Time to Regender: The
Transformation of Roman Time', in P.A. Harris and M. Crawford (eds.), Time and Uncertainty
(Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004), 175-187. On Paul's understanding of aiwv against the archaeological and inscriptional background, see T.-1. N. Yee, Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation:
Paul's Jewish Identity and Ephesians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 49-51.
27 In an inscription Zoilos refers to himself as 'freedman of divine Julius' son Caesar' (J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of the Theatre at Aphrodisias
Conducted by Kenan T. Brim: Together with Some Related Texts Compiled and Annotated by
Joyce Reynolds [London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1982], 36b). See also
the discussion of G. Zuntz, AI.ON im Romerreich, 20-23.
28 R. R. R. Smith, The Monument of C. Julius Zoilos (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern,
1994), Plates 8 and 32. Note Smith's comment (ibid., 61): 'Aion (7 [Figs. 8 and 9]) was positioned
at the beginning of Side C, back to the corner pier, looking down the frieze. Placed securely in
this position far from Roma, Aion is unlikely to have been connected with the idea of Roma
Aeterna or Romanum Saeculum. Rather the figure should be interpreted as representing the
eternal duration of Zoilos' fame, a grand allegory of a familiar Hellenistic funerary idea. Very
likely the unplaced panel ofMneme (8 [Fig. 11]) belonged in a scene with Aion, representing the
Eternity of Zoilos' Memory- mneme aionios'. On the representation of AION on the Aphrodisian relief of Zoilos, see ibid., 45-48.
29 For the inscriptional evidence ofZoilos' priesthood and benefactions, see Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, 33, 35, 36b, 37 ('saviour and benefactor of his country'), as well as the
inscription ibid., p. 160.
30 In a letter to Stephanos (39/38 BC), Octavian writes: 'You know my affection for my friend
Zoilos (we; Zwil..ov Tov Ef!OV cptAii> tnio-raaat). I have freed his native city and recommended it
to Antonius' (Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, 10).
106
tax. In the relief, AION looks to the recent past: he leans intently with hand on
chin and studies the illustrations of the achievements of Zoilos.
M. B. Dowling has pointed out that 'in this monument there is no iconography
of abundance and renewal, and no suggestion of any overarching conception of
time as the engine of the cosmos'. 31 So why did the city of Aphrodisias choose to
personify AION in a monument which celebrated Zoilos' glory as a benefactor
of his city and as an amicus of Augustus? Dowling's answer is that it underscores
the importance of Zoilos' deeds. The memory of Zoilos' benefactions, symbolised
by the figure of Aion, would stand the test of time. 32 Yet this could have been
conveyed conventionally with the language of'eternity', as the Roman and Greek
epigraphic tradition attests, without any resort to the iconography of AION.
Something more significant is clearly intended.
By contrast, G. Zuntz interprets Zoilos' monument from the perspective of Augustan propaganda. Zuntz posits that the grateful people of Aphrodisias, possibly
prompted by Zoilos, erected the monument to Augustus and Rome in 17 BC or
16 BC. The monument, by means of its personified figure of AION, gave Greek
expression to the idea of the Ludi saeculares. 33 Thus we conclude, in agreement
with Zuntz over against Dowling, that the monument of Zoilos rendered time as
the 'engine of the cosmos' by interpreting the Augustan saeculum from within a
Greek framework. 34
Second, during the principate of Augustus, three brothers, all of whom were
Roman citizens, made a dedication inscribed on a statue of AION at Eleusis:
'to the might of Rome and the perpetuation of the Mysteries'. After the dedication, the divine character of Aion is described thus in the inscription: he is one
who 'by his holy nature remains ever the same, who has no beginning or end,
undergoes no change and who is the begetter of the divine nature'. 35 Once again,
we are witnessing in this inscription the strong link between the might of Rome
and the eternity of AION that had been forged in the minds of the provincial
clients of Rome.
4.1.4 Augustus' horologium

Another monument to 'decisive moments of time' in the principate of Augustus
(cf. 4.3.4) is the erection of the horologium Augusti. This giant sundial, designed
by the astrologer Facundus Navius, was set in the Campus Martius between the
31
Dowling, 'A Time to Regender', 178.
32
Ibid., 177.
33 Zuntz, AION im Romerreich, 23. Zuntz (ibid., 23) sums up the likelihood of his case with
reference to the relief of Aion thus: 'Jedenfalls hindert nichts, die Reliefs ins Jahr 17 oder 16 zu
datieren, und offenbar ist es kein Zufall, daB das einzige erhaltene Bild des augusteischen Aion
in Aphrodisias gefunden wurde'.
34 Contra, see Smith, C. Julius Zoilos, 48.
35 SIG3 1125.
107
ara Pacis Augustae and the later columna Antonini Pii and was dedicated to the
Sun ( CIL VI. 709). 36 It was built after Augustus had been made Pontifex Maxim us
(12 BC) and served as a clock and calendar. Its gnomon was an obelisk originally
built by Pharaoh Psammetichus in Heliopolis (595-585 BC), but Augustus had
seized it for his own propaganda purposes in 10 BC. It was surmounted by a
bronze globe symbolising Roman world power.
What was the significance of this intentionally placed monument? On the basis
of complex calculations, E. Buchner posited an interrelationship between the
horologium Augusti, the ara Pacis Augustae, and Augustus' mausoleum. Buchner
argues that at the autumn equinox, which fell on Augustus' birthday, the sundial
would cast a shadow that intersected the ara Pacis Augustae. 37 In other words,
Augustus' auspicious birth had led to the establishment of universal peace. 38 The
calculations underlying Buchner's sophisticated hypothesis have been recently
criticised,39 but, more importantly, his hypothesis does not reckon sufficiently
with the symbolic importance of the inscription, slightly abbreviated in what
follows (CIL VI 702), accompanying the sundial: Aegypto in potestatem populi
Romani redacta Soli donum dedit ('On the occasion of Egypt's submission to the
power of the Roman people he gave a gift to the Sun'). 40 The sundial celebrates
Augustus' victory at Actium (31 BC) that secured peace in the Greek East,
whereas the ara Pacis Augustae, strategically placed nearby, eulogises Augustus'
establishment of peace in the Latin West. 41 In sum, as C. E. Newlands observes,
'control over time was closely linked with military control' throughout the em-
36 Additionally, see Ammianus Marcellinus 17.4.12; Strabo 17.805; Pliny [the Elder], HN
30.6.71.
37 See E. Buchner, Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1982), passim;
Sauron, QVIS DEVM?, 512-513. In the Greek East, a different strategy was pursued. In the First
Decree of the Asian League regarding the provincial calendar (DocsAug., 98b, II. 48-49 [Priene:
9 BC] ), the Greek Assembly of the Province of Asia states that it was unable to reciprocate the
incalculable benefits of Augustus. Consequently, the Assembly 'has discovered a new way to
honour Augustus that was hitherto unknown among the Greeks, namely to reckon time (Tov
xpovov) from the date of his nativity'.
38 Note Sauron's comment (QVIS DEVM?, 513) regarding the significance of the shadow cast
from the horologium: 'l'ombre projetee de la sphere doree du gnomon dessinait sur le cadran
de l'horologium le symbol du deuxieme protagoniste de cette action, Auguste lui-meme, simple
emanation, on le voit, d'Apollo-So~ directement mele ala realisation d'un aspect essentiel de
l'avenement de l'Age d'Or, la Paix'.
39 M. Schiitz, 'Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus auf dem Marsfeld', Gymnasium 97 (1990): 432457. See alsoP. Heslin, 'Augustus, Domitian, and the So-Called horologium Augusti', /RS 97/1
(2007): 1-20.
40 Cited in C. E. Newlands, Playing with Time: Ovid and the Fasti (Ithica/London: Cornell
University Press, 1995), 24.
41 Ibid. On the ara Pacis Augustae, see Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 90-98; C. Gates,
Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece and
Rome (London/New York: Routledge, 2003), 339-342.
108
pire. 42 It is hard not to draw the inference from the imperial propaganda that
Augustus had become the 'Lord of time' by being the 'Lord of the battlefield'.
It sets in sharp relief Paul's statement in Romans 5:6 that Christ died on behalf
of the ungodly ETL KaTa Katp6v ('at the right time'; cf. Gal 4:4: (he {) ~A6Ev TO
nA~pWfla Toii xpovou; cf. 5.3).
4.2 Paul, Jewish Eschatology and the Reign of Grace

In the previous section( 4.1.1- 4.1.4), we discussed the Roman understanding
of time (saeculum, aetas, aiwv) and the cyclic operation of the ages, as articulated
in the propaganda of the Caesars and in the counter-propaganda of their opponents. We also touched on the differences and similarities between the Roman
cyclical conception of history and the eschatology of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Now it is time to expand upon these observations by exploring the central
passage in Romans where the conflict between the 'two ages' is outlined and
resolved: namely, the comparison between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21.
We will also investigate Paul's terminology of 'time' (aiwv: 'age', 'world order',
'eternity'; aiWVLO<;: 'eternal'; Katp6<;: 'time', 'appointed time', 'age'; XPOVO<;: 'time',
'period of time') and how it relates to imperial conceptions of rule.
First, scholars have drawn attention to the fact that Jewish eschatology underlies the Adam-Christ typology in Romans 5:12-21. Paul's familiarity with
apocalyptic and rabbinic traditions (4 Ezra4.29ff; 8.31ff; Sipre Lev 5:17 [120a]) in
depicting the eschatological fullness of God's grace is easily demonstrated. 43 This
is especially seen in the way that Paul employs well-known Jewish apocalyptic
motifs to illustrate the 'reign of grace' in Romans 5:12-21. In referring to 'grace',
'sin' and 'death' as reigning powers in verses 14, 17,21 (~aOLAEUEtv; cf. 6:14: ou yap
EO'TE uno VOflOV aHa uno xaptv ), Paul draws his theological inspiration from the
42 Ibid. Note the further observation ofNewlands (Playing with Time, 24): 'The names of the
winds and zodiacal signs on the pavement around the obelisk are in Greek, a sign of Hellenistic
learning. The obelisk thus specifically commemorated Augustus' military and cultural control
over the Graeco-Roman world'.
43 For secondary references, see J.R. Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman
Context (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 226 n. 55. For discussion of apocalyptic motifs in
Rom 5:12-21 among recent Romans commentators, see B. Witherington III, Paul's Letter to the
Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2004), 147; L.E. Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 147-151; R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2007), 372-389. Paul's accompanying language of abundance (Rom 5:15: tneplooeuoev; 5:17: -r~v nepLooelav; 5:20: nll.eovcicrn, tnll.eovcioev, imepeneplooeuoev ), while reflecting the
inscriptional language of Julio-Claudian beneficence (Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 231
n. 74), draws its inspiration more from the 'mercy' traditions of the Psalms. In this regard, see
C. Breytenbach's important correction to my arguments in id., 'CHARIS and ELEOS in Paul's
Letter to the Romans', in U. Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (Leuven: Leuven University
Press/Uitgenerij Peeters, 2009), 323-363.
109
idea of dominions ('ages' or aiones) in Jewish apocalyptic thought. 44 Moreover,

the idea of sin entering (Eicr~XSt:v) into the world and death coming (Ot~XSt:v)
to all men draws upon an apocalyptic worldview in that Paul's language 'implies
that neither was present prior to Adam's act'. With the entrance of sin and death
upon the stage of human history, the reign of these two enslaving powers in the
present evil age had commenced.45
However, R. Jewett has also pointed out that 'the lack of parallels in Greek and
biblical literature to the idea of death's exercising kingly powers illustrates the
distinctiveness of Paul's view'. 46 Jewett also notes that regnare, the Latin equivalent of ~aO'lAULV, 'implies irresistible coercive power' in its imperial context. 47
Paul's 'regnal' language, therefore, highlights the stranglehold that sin had as a
ruling power over its diverse subjects, whether they be fallen human beings (Rom
1:18-3:20, 23; 5:14, 17, 21), the political authorities inimical to Christ (Rom
16:20; 1 Cor 2:6, 8),48 the groaning creation (Rom 8:20-21a), or the rebellious
angelic powers (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 15:24; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:3, 14; 12:7; Phil2:10; Eph
2:2; 4:27; 6:12, 16). Although Paul does not overplay the role of political powers
in the rule of sin and death, he does not diminish their importance either. The
hubris underlying the imperial cult (Rom 1:23: uUa~av T~V OO~av TOU acp8ap-rou
ewu tv OflOLWflUTl EiKOVO<; cpSap-roii avepwnou) was but only one expression of
the sinful powers incorporated under the rubric of Paul's 'regnal' language, but
one which posed a significant threat to Roman believers nonetheless (Rom 8:35;
13:4: ~ f1CtXtpa). 49
44 On the two ages in Jewish apocalyptic, see 4 Ezra 7:45-51; 2 Esdras 4:2; 6:9; 7:13, 47,
122-123; 8:1; 9:19. On the 'age to come', see 4 Ezra 4:26-32. For scholars advocating the presence of the 'two ages' doctrine behind ~aO'lAEUEIV, see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 227
n. 56. On the personification of death in the intertestamental and imperial literature (e.g. Wis
1:12-16; 2:23-24; Seneca, Ep. 80.6), see J.R. Dodson, The 'Powers' of Personification: Rhetorical
Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans (Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter,
2008), 58-68.
45 Jewett, Romans, 374-375. See also the insightful comments ofB.R. Gaventa, "'To Preach
the Gospel": Romans 1, 15 and the Purposes of Romans', in Schnelle, Romans, 179-195, esp.
191-195.
46 Jewett, Romans, 377 (my emphasis). The closest we come to this idea in classical literature is
the kingship of Dis (Pluto) in the underworld (Ovid, Met. 4.430-436: V. Hope, Death in Ancient
Rome: A Sourcebook [London I New York: Routledge, 2007], 6.11 ). But this is the reign of an
underground deity over the dead, but not the reign of death per se.
47
Ibid.
N. T. Wright ('The Letter to the Romans', in anon., The New Interpreter's Bible Volume X
[Nashville: Abingdon, 2002], 524) argues that ~QO'IAEUEIV (Rom 5:17b, 21b) announces 'the
kingdom of God in the face of all the principalities and powers of the world, not least those of
Rome itself (cf. Rom 8:38-39 and the pregnant conclusion of Acts 28:30-31)'.
49 Although Paul clearly refers to the golden calf episode (LXX Ps 106:20) in Rom 1:23, the
four-fold catalogue of idolatrous images demonstrates that there is 'more than Jewish idolatry
in the scope of his argument' (Jewett, Romans, 161). As Jewett expands (ibid., 162), 'There are
plenty of examples in Roman religion and politics of the adoration of humans, birds, four-legged
animals, and serpents'. While Jewett does not single out examples from the imperial cult, I. E.
48
110
Thus Paul's thought, to some degree, breaks out of its Jewish apocalyptic
mould and establishes something new in his depiction of the enslavement of
humanity to ruling hostile powers (sin, death). The apostle's stark portrait of the
hopeless state of humanity outside of Christ challenged the symbolic universe of
the imperial propaganda in the early fifties, among the many other expressions
of human sin. Roman auditors would have heard announced in Paul's gospel the
impotence of the Julio-Claudian lords who, though apotheosised by the Senate
upon their death (i.e. Caesar, Augustus, Claudius: cf. 4.1.2: Ovid, Met. 15.807851, 888-890; cf. 1 Cor 8:5: Seoi tv oupavq>), were in reality subject to the reign
of sin and death. Even Augustus, the new Aeneas of Rome( 4.1.1; 4.3.5), was
held captive to the effects of the disobedience of Adam (Rom 5:12-14b), the
father of humanity. Ultimately the ruler would also face judgement with the rest
of the world (Rom 2:16; Rom 16:20).
Moreover, Paul's depiction of the reign of sin and death in the present evil
age undermined the imperial propaganda that ( 1) the recurrent saeculum would
providentially enshrine the prosperity of Rome and her rulers( 4.1.1), (2) the
age of Saturn would find its renewal in the reign of Augustus and in the quinquennium of Nero ( 4.1.2: cf. Calpurnius Siculus, Eel. 1.42-48), and (3) Augustus' iconic victory at Actium had somehow established peace for the ages
( 4.1.3- 4.1.4). In consigning humanity to the rule of sin and death, Paul
dethroned the 'great man' in antiquity and denied him the perpetuity of his
house over against the eternal house of David (Rom 1:3-4; 11 :26; 15:12).50 In one
respect, the anti-imperial propaganda of ps.-Seneca was correct in highlighting
the corruption of Nero's reign ( 4.1.2: cf. Oct. 431-435), but short sighted in
setting its hopes on Galba's regeneration of Rome (Oct. 397-406). There were
probably auditors in the house churches of late fifties Rome who were sufficiently
disillusioned with the morality of Julio-Claudian rulers that they were willing to
Rock (The Implications ofRoman Imperial Ideology for an Exegesis ofPaul's Letter to the Romans:
An Ideological Literary Analysis of the Exordium, Rom 1:1-17 [unpub. PhD thesis University of
Wales, Lampeter, 2005], 303-309) has argued that the recent idolatrous activities of Caligula at
Rome and Jerusalem would have provided an imperial reference for Rom 1:23 (on which, see our
discussion in 3.3; 6.4.3). Similarly, the idolatrous activities of Caesar's prefect Pilate would
have also strengthened the imperial context of Paul's 'idolatry' language in verse 23. For discussion, see J.E. Taylor, 'Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea', NTS 52/4 (2006):
555-582; H. K. Bond, 'Standards, Shields and Coins: Jewish Reactions to Aspects of the Roman
Cult', in S.C. Barton (ed.), Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity
(London: T & T Clark, 2007), 88-106. For Josephus' delicate handling of the issue of 'images' in
response to Apion's criticisms, without unnecessarily offending his Roman auditors (C. Ap. 7378), see J.M.G. Barclay, 'Snarling Sweetly: Josephus on Images and Idolatry', in Barton, ibid.,
73-87. Josephus' apologetic strategy has certain similarities to Paul's (cf. Rom 13:6-7), but the
apostle's depiction of the reign of'Sin' and 'Death' cuts at the very heart of imperial presumption
as articulated in the Julio-Claudian propaganda.
50 More generally, see J. R. Harrison, 'The Imitation of the Great Man in Antiquity: Paul's
Inversion of a Cultural Icon', in S.E. Porter and A. W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Classical Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
111
consider Paul's contention that sin and death were the real ruling powers of the
failen world, as opposed to the Caesars.
It is also important to realise that the fear of death increasingly preoccupied
Roman thought in the late republican and early imperial period. The fabric of
senatorial rule in the republic unravelled during the unprecedented brutality of
the civil war, commencing with the bloody massacres of the Gracchi and their
supporters, increasing in its savagery with Sulla's proscriptions, and culminating in the violence of Caesar's assassination. The routine impact of foreign wars,
the terrible Social War between Rome and other Italian cities (91-88 BC), and
the insecurity provoked by the slave revolt (73-71 BC) also contributed to the
violence and death at the core of Roman political life. The death toll between 133
BC and 31 BC, if M. H. Crawford's estimates are correct, was unprecedented. 5 1
Lucretius' Epicurean diatribe against the fear of death in his De rerum natura is to
be interpreted against this political backdrop. 52 The routine shocks of unexpected
death, 53 the savagery of crucifixion,54 the imperial spectacles of death in the
arena, 55 and the grim reality of the burial of the poor in the Esquiline cemetery at
51 M. H. Crawford, The Roman Republic (London: Fontana, 1978), 13 (original emphasis): 'I
can only say a century like that between 133 BC and 31 BC, which killed perhaps 200,000 men
in 91-82 and perhaps 100,000 men in 49-42, in both cases out of a free population of Rome and
Italy of 4,500,000 and which destroyed a system of government after 450 years was a cataclysm'.
52 Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 256-267. For discussion of the 'fear of death' and its
cure according to Lucretius, see id., 1.102-135; 2.44-46; 3.35-47, 59-82, 866-945, 1024-1094;
5.373-379; 6.1182-1183, 1206-1212. See also the famous goblet found in Boscoreale depicting two philosophers as skeletons: namely, Zeno the Stoic and Epicurus. They are engaged in
a discussion as to whether pleasure is the goal of life. The artist has engraved a brief maxim on
the goblet: 'Pleasure is the supreme good'. For the goblet, see J. Charbonneaux, Lll.rt au siecle
dll.uguste (Lausanne: La Guilde du Livre, 1948}, Plate 95. For discussion, see Charbonneaux,
ibid., 103; M. Erler and M. Schofield, 'Epicurean Ethics', inK. Algra (et al., ed.), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 642. See also the
mosaic of a skeleton butler from Pompeii (mid I. cent. AD: C. Edwards, Death in Imperial Rome
[New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2007], 165 Fig. 5}.
53 For examples of ancient responses to death, see Catullus on the loss of his brother (Catull. 101), Plutarch and Cicero on the loss of their daughters (Plutarch, Mor. 608-612; Cicero,
Pam. 4.6; Att. 12.14.3}, Statius on the loss of his adopted son (Silv. 5.5; cf. ibid., 2.1), and the
unnamed husband of the Laudatio Turiae on the loss of his wife (ILS 8393}. J. Toner (Popular
Culture in Andent Rome [Cambridge: Polity, 2009], 67} estimates that infant mortality in the Roman world stood at approximately three hundred deaths per one thousand births, in comparison
to ten in the Western world today.
54 See L. L. Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the ComicPhilosophic Tradition (London/New York: T &T Clark, 2005}, 117-160.
55 Jantzen (The Foundations of Violence, 280} observes regarding death in imperial times:
'Warfare abroad, suicide rather submission, and the entertainment provided by the spectacles of
death in the amphitheatres are violent standards against which gender and death are constructed
in the Roman empire'. On the spectacles of death, see P. Plass, The Game of Death in Andent
Rome: Arena Sport and Political Success (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995}; D. G.
Kyle, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (New York: Routledge, 1998). On virtus in relation to
the gladiatorial duels of the arena in the Roman empire, see C. A. Frilingos, Spectacles ofEmpire:
Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
112
Chapter 4: Imperial Conceptions ofRule and Paul's Reign of Grace
Rome must have added to the general malaise regarding the brevity and fragility
of life in the first century AD. 56
At the same time, however, death had been ennobled in the architecture and
literature of the Julio-Claudians in ways that were consonant with the quest for
gloria ('glory') and virtus ('virtue', 'manliness') of republican times ( 6.2). As
G.M. Jantzen argues, the Roman understanding of manliness- as it pertained
to empire, prosperity and peace - revolved around the military leader and his
capacity to deliver death to the enemy.57 Augustus enunciates this viewpoint with
gentle humour in his letter to Gaius ( 4.3.6: Aulus Gellius, NA 15.7.3). Beauty
was also now linked to military glory, as the ara Pacis, the forum Augustum and
Augustus' mausoleum, with its bronze inscription of the Res Gestae, testify. 58
Thus the ruler, as the 'truly manly male', was considered 'god-like' in having 'the
ultimate power to kill by virtue of his command ofboth the army and the spectacles'. 59 The military manliness of the leader is powerfully displayed on a silver
2004), 32-35. Frilingos also discusses the mythological presentation of the public execution of
criminals and prisoners of war in the amphitheatre in order to make such executions more palatable to the spectators (Spectacles of Empire, 31-32; cf. K.M. Coleman, 'Fatal Charades: Roman
Executions Stage as Mythological Enactments', JRS 80 [1990]: 44-73). For an insightful discussion of the psychology behind the games, see K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1-30, esp. 27ff. See also M. Beard (The Roman Triumph
[Cambridge, Mass./ London: Harvard University Press, 2007],128-132) on the execution of the
leading captives in Roman triumphal processions.
56 Note the comments of R. Lanciani (Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries [Boston/New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1898], 64-65) regarding the archaeological evidence
of the cemetery of the poor: 'The Esquiline cemetery was divided into two sections: one for the
artisans who could afford to be buried apart in Columbaria, containing a certain number of
cinerary urns; one for the slaves, beggars, prisoners, and others, who were thrown in revolting
confusion into common pits or fosses. This latter section covered an area one thousand feet long,
and thirty deep, and contained many hundred puticuli or vaults, twelve feet square, thirty deep,
of which I have brought to light and examined about seventy-five. In many cases the contents of
each vault were reduced to a uniform mass ofblack, viscid, pestilent, unctuous matter; in a few
cases the bones could in a measure be singled out and identified. The reader will hardly believe
me when I say that men and beasts, bodies and carcasses, and any kind of unmentionable refuse
of the town were heaped up in those dens'. For discussion of the identification ofLanciani's pits,
see Kyle, Spectacles of Death, 164-166. See also Lucretius' graphic description (6.1182-1251) of
the symptoms of approaching death, the breakdown of the body, and the despair of the sick.
57 Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 282. The ensuing discussion focuses on how the ruler
dispenses death to Rome's enemies as a demonstration of his virtus. I do not pay attention to
the psychological effects of the imperial 'culture of death' upon its first -century subjects. For an
insightful discussion of the 'death-in-life' motif in the reigns of Augustus and Caligula- drawn
from the evidence of Ovid, Philo and Seneca - see L. L. Welborn, mExtraction from the Mortal
Site": Badiou on the Resurrection in Paul', NTS 55/3 (2009): 295-314, esp. 301-303.
58 Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 296-298. Jantzen also refers to Virgil's famous description of the shield of Aeneas (Aen. 8.663-669) as a literary example of the linkage of death
with military glory in imperial ideology. On Augustus' mausoleum, see P. J. E. Davies, Death and
the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2004), 137-142.
59 Ibid., 284.
4.2 Paut Jewish Eschatology and the Reign of Grace
113
denarius of Nero (AD 63-64) from Rome. On the reverse side of the coin, Virtus
is depicted, helmeted and in military dress, standing with the right foot on a pile
of arms, holding a parazonium (a long triangular dagger) on the right knee and
a vertical spear in the left hand. 60 However, in a chilling variation on the 'Virtus'
motif, an issue of a Neronian silver. denarius depicts Virtus as standing on the
severed head of a captive instead of the traditional pile of arms and helmet. 61
Here we see graphically depicted the reality of death for the humiliated enemies
of the imperial ruler. It is important to realise, however, that it is a personification
of the ruler's military might (Vrrtus) that is being depicted here and not the ruler
himself. The coin could therefore be rendering, in continuity with republican and
Augustan tradition, 62 a traditional motif that expressed more the power of the
Roman armies over the subdued nations than the military triumph of the ruler
over his enemies.63 Either way, the victory of Rome and her armies, under the
ruler, came at the expense of the lives of their captives.
By contrast, as we will show( 5.3; 7.4), the contemporary Roman critics
of the pax Augusta argued that imperial rule was based on a culture of arbitrary
RIC F 'Nero', 41; cf. the Neronian aureus in BMC I 'Nero' 27 (Plate 38 No. 21).
This issue of the Neronian silver denarius, with the severed head of a captive on its reverse,
was for sale on www.oldmoney.com.au in February 2009. Walter Holt- the numismatist selling
the coin at M. R. Roberts Wynyard Coin Centre, Sydney, Australia - proposed the identification of a captive's head on the coin. The facial features present on the specimen are compelling
proo A comparison of Holt's coin with BMC I 'Nero' 27 (Plate 38 No. 21) - where, on an
aureus, Virtus stands on an empty helmet among shields - seals the argument. A search of www.
coinarchives.com revealed that there have been no other samples of the same Neronian silver
denarius sold by numismatic traders throughout the world. Holt's interpretation of the coin
has been verified by Dr Ken Sheedy, Director of the Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic
Studies, Macquarie University, and by Dr Eleanor Ghey, Assistant Curator of Iron Age and Roman Coins at the British Museum. In email correspondence sent to Dr Sheedy (04/03/2009), Dr
Ghey comments regarding the denarius in question: 'It certainly seems that some of the coins
in the British Museum collection feature a human head underfoot instead of a helmet, although
this is not described in RIC or BMC. It is clearly visible in BMC I 'Nero' 35 (Plate 38.27), and
on BMC I 'Nero' 29 and 30 (Plates 38.22-23) the right-facing head appears to be wearing a
more pointed hat - possibly intended to be a Parthian after the victories of Corbulo? A parallel
might be Trajan and Pax standing on the head of a Dacian on coins of Trajan (RIC II 'Trajan'
503 and 547). We do not have a record of any coins from this particular die in our files'. Dr
Sheedy also drew my attention to a Neronian aureus where Virtus is clearly standing on a head
(BMC I 'Nero' 45 [Plate 39.8]). Finally, a related motif occurs on the ara Pacis Augustae. As
Gates (Ancient Cities, 339-340) explains: 'On the north-east side a personification of the goddess Roma sits on a pile of armour. The message is clear: peace through conquest, with Roma
defeating her enemies in order to bring peace'.
62 SeeP. Zanker, The Power ofImages in the Age ofAugustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990),passim.
63 I am grateful to Dr Sheedy for this cautionary comment. I would argue, however, that the
progressive concentration ofgloria and virtus in Julio-Claudian rulers ( 6.3) makes it likely that
the personification ofVirtus- part of the cult of the imperial virtues( 4.3.6) -has reference to
Nero's own military power as much as to the might of Rome's armies over the nations.
60
61
114
violence and death. 64 The ruler's acquisition of virtus became the springboard for
ps.-Seneca's savage attack on the military imperialism of Julio-Claudian rulers
( 4.3.6: ps.-Seneca, Oct. 440-444). Moreover, several prominent Stoic critics
of imperial rule - Seneca, Thrasea Paetus and Barea Soranus - demonstrated
their political dissent against tyranny though the bravery of their suicides.65 But
perhaps ps.-Seneca analyses best the culture of death maintained by the ruler.
Nero sums up the Augustan principate - commencing with Octavian's rise as a
triumvir (Oct. 504-532) and concluding with his own apotheosis- in terms of
'fear of death':
He who earned heaven by piety, the deified Augustus, how many nobles did he put to
death, young men and old, scattered throughout the world, when they fled their own
homes, through fear of death and the sword of the triumvirs - all by the list of denunciations delivered to their destruction ... At last the victor, now weary, sheathed his sword
blunted with savage blows, and maintained his sway by fear. Safe under the protection of
his loyal guards he lived, and when he died, by the surpassing piety of his son, was made
a god, hallowed and enshrined. Me, too, shall the stars await if with relentless sword I first
destroy whatever is hostile to me, and on a worthy offspring found my house.
Thus, given the aura of death attending the Julio-Claudian house, Paul's bold
death-and-life contrasts (Rom 5:12, 14, 17,21: 9avaTOc:;; 5:17, 18,21: <w~) would
have grabbed the attention of Roman auditors living in the capital. However,
in contrast to the imperial propaganda and its critics, Paul locates the reign of
death in the sin of Adam and his descendants (Rom 5:12-14; cf. 1 Cor 15:21).
In consigning humanity to the slavery of sin, the apostle strips the Roman ruler
of the virtus that made him 'god-like', while simultaneously denying the ruler's
critics the satisfaction that the fear of death at Rome could be explained solely
by reference to the Julio-Claudian house, or that freedom from ruler's tyranny
could be achieved by suicide. Rather death, the sting of sin (I Cor 15:55-56), had
entered the world, corrupting the pristine glory of God's creation (Rom 5:12; cf.
1:20, 23a; Gen 3:17-19) and frustrating its original purpose (Rom 8:20; Gen 1:31;
64 Zanker, The Power of/mages, 289: 'The pax Augusta, for all its reforms and its imposition of
peace and its cultivation of learning, was founded on violence, killing, and preoccupation with
death, sometimes repressed and sometimes bubbling in blood to the surface'.
65 C. Edwards, Death in Imperial Rome (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2007),
126: '... a brave death might constitute a genuine, legitimate and laudable means to vindicate
one's freedom'. Marcus Porcius Cato (95-45 BC) became the paradigm for suicide as a political statement (Cicero, Sen., passim; Seneca, Clem. 1.21.1}. For Seneca's frequent references to
and examples of suicide as a way of overcoming death and the fear of death, see id., Ep. 30.9;
61.2; 69.6; 70; 82.17-18. For discussion of Seneca's stance, see Edwards, ibid., 78-112; Jantzen,
The Foundations of Violence, 315-328. For Tacitus' discussion of the deaths of Seneca, Thrasea
Paetus and Barea Soranus, see Tacitus, Ann. 16.21ff, 60-64; cf. Dio, 62:26ff. For discussion of
the evidence of Tacitus, see Edwards, Death in Imperial Rome, 113-142; Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 311-314; V. Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero: 1he Price ofDissimulation
(London/New York: Routledge, 1993),passim.
115
Ps 19:1-4).66 For Paul, the moral corruption and the culture of death that fuelled
imperial politics was but one expression of the much deeper spiritual malaise at
.
the core of world history, past and present.
More profoundly, Paul radically transforms the Jewish apocalyptic tradition
of the 'two ages'. Instead of postponing the advent of the 'age to come', as Jewish apocalyptic writers did, Paul asserts that the new age of Christ had already
broken into the present evil age and that its reality was currently the experience
of the church.67 The imputed righteousness of Christ's obedience (Rom 5:18-19)
and the reign of his resurrection life {5:17b: f.v ~wft ~aOlXeucrouow ~ux "tou f:voc;
'ITJOOii Xptcr"tou) had placed his dependants under the reign of grace {5:21: ~
xaptc; ~aOlXeucrn; cf. vv. 15b-16a, 17b, 20b). Such an overflow of grace {Rom
5:20: imepenep(crcreucrev ~ xaptc;) surpassed anything that Caesar could muster
as the world benefactor( 4.3.2- 4.3.3). 68 The messianic age of Saturn, with its
unnamed child heralding the arrival of Augustus( 4.1.2), was outdone by the
triumph of the prophesied 'one to come' over sin and death (Rom 5:14b: n)noc;
LOu !lEAAOVLOc;). Whereas the risen Christ and his dependants reigned over death
(Rom 5:17b, 21b; 6:9: eava"toc; au"toii OUKE"tl KUplEUEL; 6:14: U!lap"t(a yap U!1WV
ou Kupteucret), the apotheosised Julio-Claudian rulers, belonging to the Adamic
age, remained captive to death and thus could not be consulted in prayer in the
heavens by their clients, as the imperial propaganda asserted ( 2.3: ILS 137;
4.3.1: Virgil, Aen. 1.286-291; Ovid, Met. 15.888-890).69
The power unleashed by the risen Christ, the soteriological victor over death
(Rom 1:2-4; 4:24), stood in vast contrast to its imperial counterpart. In the De
Consolatio ad Polybium (c. 43/44 AD), Seneca comforts Polybius, the freedman
of Claudius, over the death of his brother. He reminds him that the splendour
of Claudius would provide him the necessary therapeutic consolation in dealing
with his grief (Polyb. 12.3-4):
I shall not cease to confront you over and over again with Caesar ... in this one source
you have ample protection, ample consolation. Lift yourself up, and every time that tears
66 For discussion, see H. A. Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in
Romans 8:19-22 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (London: T & T Clark, 2006), 186-193.
67 Rom 6:4b; 7:6b; cf. 1 Cor 1:18-29; 10:11; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 5:17; Gal1:4; 4:4-6; 6:15.
68 For full discussion, see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 226-234.
69 1here was a symbolic connection between the two circular buildings in the Campus Martius: Augustus' mausoleum and the Agrippan Pantheon. The latter building was dedicated to all
the gods and included, among other cult statues to the deities (Mars, Venus, and the gods), a
statue to the recently divinised Julius Caesar (Cassius Dio 53.27.2-4). Visitors to the Pantheon
would have had direct sightline from the door of the temple to the mausoleum. Davies (Death
and the Emperor, 140, 142) sums up the significance thus: 'The axial connection between his
mausoleum and the Pantheon, two circular buildings, expressed the progression from mortal
to immortal status: Augustus, like Julius Caesar, and like Romulus on the very Marsh of Capra,
would not die but achieve apotheosis'. For a map of the sightline between the two buildings,
as well as their close proximity to the horologium and the Ara Pads( 4.1.4; 4.3.3), see ibid.,
141 Fig. 94
116
well up in your eyes, fix these upon Caesar; at the sight of the exceeding greatness and
splendour of his divinity they will be dried; his brilliance will dazzle them so that they
will be able to see nothing else, and will keep then fastened upon himself. He, whom you
behold day and night, from whom you never lower your thoughts, must fill your mind, he
must be summoned to your help against Fortune. And, so great is his kindness, so great is
his gracious favour toward all followers, I do not doubt that he has already covered over
this wound of yours with many balms, that he has already supplied many things to stay
your sorrow.
By contrast, the resurrection of Christ, the cosmic benefactor (Rom 5:12-21),

would actually deliver his dependents at the eschaton from the 'body of death'
(7:24b-25a; cf. 5:17; 6:3-10; 8:11, 38-39), as well as usher in the newness of the
resurrection life through the Spirit in the present age (6:4b, 11-14; 7:6b; 8:11).
Further, in contrast to the mortal ruler who is held captive by death, the risen
Christ continually intercedes in the heavens for his dependants before God (Rom
8:34), while the Spirit of the Father intercedes through the groaning payers of
Christ's church on earth (8:23, 27). It is significant that Jesus intercedes for his
dependants at God's right hand (Rom 8:34: EV 6e~u} l"OU ewu). Although this
reflects traditional Jewish belief about the coronation of God's messiah (Ps 110: 1
LXX; cf. Eph 1:20; Col3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1), the reference to Jesus' place ofhonour
alongside the Father would also have registered with Roman auditors familiar
with the Neronian propaganda. On a coin minted in Rome a year after Claudius'
death (55 AD), we see the apotheosised Claudius seated at the right hand of the
divine Augustus on the top of a chariot drawn by four elephants. 70 Over against
this symbolic universe of the Caesars - with its apotheosised rulers (Caesar,
Augustus, Claudius) and Son of god (Nero) answering the petitions of their clients -Jesus ruled as the risen Son of God in power on behalf of his church within
the empire. Moreover, as noted, whereas Roman prayers to the apotheosised
rulers maintained the Julio-Claudian status quo ( 2.3: ILS 137; 4.3.1: Virgil,
Aen. 1.286-291; Horace, Carm., 3.5.1-4), the new way of the Spirit (Rom 7:6b;
cf. 8:10) unleashed the transforming powers of the present messianic age (8:4-6,
9-11, 13-16). Indeed, the gift of the Spirit was the first fruits of the eschatological
harvest to come (8:23; cf. v. 21). Thus Paul exhorts his Spirit-filled believers (Rom
8:9, 14, 16) not to be conformed to 'this age' but to be transformed through the
renewal of the mind (Rom 12:2: ll~ OUO"X'lf.LUl"((eoee -r<j> alwvl-rofu<p ).
Finally, we turn to Paul's terminology of 'time': how did it contrast with the
understanding of time evinced in the imperial cult( 4.1.1- 4.1.4)? First, Paul
reserves the language of eternity (alwvlo<;; alwv) for the divine gift of eternal life
in Christ (Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22-23; 16:25-27) or the eternal blessedness of God
himself (1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27). The inflated claims of imperial propaganda
70 BMC Vol. 1 p. 201 and Plate 38. For discussion, see C. A. Evans, 'Mark's Incipit and the
Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel', JGRChJ 1 (2000}: 75.
4.2 Pau~ Jewish Eschatology and the Reign of Grace
117
regarding the cyclical structure of time are thereby bypassed: the eternal God of
grace determines the future for his dependants.
Second, the phrases v -r {'in the present time': Rom 3:26; 11:5),
-rou vuv Katpou ('of the present time': 8: 18) and dM-rEc:; -rov Katp6v ('knowing the
time': 13:11) point to eschatological fulfilment experienced in the present soteriological age, viewed from the perspective of the old covenant (3:26; 11:5) or the
coming eschatological glory (8:18; 13:11). 71 In either case, the imperial theology
of the cycle of ages is decisively pinpricked. In the case of the phrase -rt Ka-ra
Katp6v (Rom 5:6: 'in due time', 'then', 'at the right time'), scholars are divided as
to whether the phrase bears eschatological weight or not. 72 However, the option
of translating the phrase as 'then' or 'in due time' seems to me unlikely when
one considers that Paul, for the benefit of his Roman auditors, had to distinguish
between God's eschatological actions in Christ and the cycle of the ages with
its providential fulfilment in the Julio-Claudian house( 4.1.1- 4.1.4; 4.3.1;
4.3.4). Moreover, later auditors of Romans would probably have understood the
phrase as referring to the divinely 'right' or 'appropriate' time, given the inflated
claims of Nero about his importance as the supreme benefactor in the 'annals of
time'( 5.5.3).
But did Paul have anything more to say to the eschatological and apocalyptic
hopes of the Gentile believers living at Rome? How did Paul's christologically
modified Jewish eschatology engage with the Roman conception of rule articulated by the Julio-Claudian house? To speak meaningfully about the interaction
of Paul's gospel with the ideology of the rulers, we have to understand how that
ideology was articulated( 4.3.1- 4.3.8), by the rulers themselves, by the imperial poets at Rome, and by the provincial clients of the Caesars.
In order to assess in a balanced manner the portrait of imperial rule found
in the literary, documentary, numismatic, statuary and gem evidence, we must
also listen to its critics in the mid-sixties onwards. Here the evidence of pseudoSeneca's Octavia is particularly revealing. Paul may well have been interacting
with those in the Roman house churches who were disillusioned by the selfserving and violent dynamics of imperial rule. Simultaneously, he would also
have been speaking to those who supported the Julio-Claudian house or who
depended upon its beneficence either as its clients or as members of the familia
Caesaris ( 5.1 n. 15).
71 On each text, see Jewett, Romans. Note, too, the eschatological use of viiv in Rom 3:21;
6:22; 7:6.
72 For the eschatological interpretation, see C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans Volume 1: I-VIII (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), 264; L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1988), 222 n. 19; B. Byrne, Romans (Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1996), 171. Contra, Jewett,
Romans, 358.
118
4.3 Roman Conceptions of the Rule of the Caesars

4.3.1 Princeps a diis electus
It is a curiosity of New Testament scholarship that J. Rufus Fears' excellent book
on the divine election of the imperial rulers has not yet been brought into discussion with Paul's symbolic universe of Romans 9-11. 73 The providential understanding of Augustan rule found in the honorific inscriptions of the Greek East
was spread in the Latin West through the court propaganda of the imperial poets
(Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Propertius) and by means of the calendar of the Julian year.
The legends of the imperial coinage, the famous Priene inscription, and the statuary at the villa of Livia at Prima Porta also contributed powerfully to the aura of
Augusts as the 'providential' ruler of all Roman history.
First, as regards the literary evidence, Vitruvius presents the gods congregating in heaven and deciding to apotheosise Julius Caesar as an immortal and to
delegate his imperium to his adopted son, Augustus. 74 The evidence of Virgil,
however, spells out in detail the relationship between the elect emperor and the
gods.75 In an extended speech, Jupiter explains that Augustus has been chosen
by himself to establish a universal empire that would usher in the Golden Age:
From this noble stock there will be born a Trojan Caesar to bound his empire by Oceanus
at the limits of the world, and his fame by the stars. He will be called Julius, a name passed
down to him from the great Julius. In a time to come, have no fear, you will receive him in
the sky, laden with the spoils of the East. He too will be called on in prayer.76
J. R. Fears sums up the significance of the text above succinctly: 'Long before
the foundation of Rome, before Aeneas had ever reached Italy, Augustus had
been chosen by Jupiter'. 77 Further, as noted above ( 4.1.2), Virgil speaks later
of the imminent fulfi4nent of Jupiter's prophecy with the coming of Augustus to
establish his empire.
The decisive blow for Augustus in establishing his world rule is recounted by
Virgil from a divine perspective. His famous naval victory at Actium over Antony
and Cleopatra (31 BC) is achieved with the help of the Roman gods standing
73 J. R. Fears, PRINCEPS A DIIS ELECTUS: The Divine Election of the Emperor as Political
Concept at Rome (Rome: American Academy at Rome, 1977). The following nine paragraphs,
slightly modified, are drawn from J. R. Harrison, 'Paul, Theologian of Electing Grace', in S. E.
Porter (ed.), Paul and His Theology (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006), 77-108, esp. 101-106. For a
critical review of Fears' book, see P. A. Brunt, 'Divine Elements in the Imperial Office', IRS 69
(1979): 168-175.
74 Vitruvius, Nem. 4.65. In the discussion of the literary evidence below, I draw upon the
excellent discussion of Fears, Divine Election, 121-129.
75 For discussion of the imperial ideology ofYrrgil's Aeneid and its relevance to Romans, see
Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 49-64.
76 Virgil, Aen. 1.286-291. See also J. R. Fears, 'The Cult ofJupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology', ANRWII 17/1 (1981): 3-141, esp. 66-68 on the subordination of Augustus to Jupiter.
77 Fears, Divine Election, 124.
119
on the stern of his ship. A double flame emanates from Augustus' brow and his
father's star dawns above his head. 78 Virgil's portrait of Augustus as the elect one
is reinforced when the gods (Neptune, Venus, Minerva, Apollo) fight at Augustus'
side and help him to defeat the Egyptian forces with their loathsome gods and
commanders.79 We are left in no doubt, therefore, that Augustus' election and the
help given him by the gods proves the truth of Jupiter's prophecies a millennium
ago. Propertius presents a similar scene regarding Augustus' victory at Actium,
with Phoebus in that case delivering the divine help (4.6.37-68). 8 Finally, the
numismatic propaganda conveys a similar message. A denarius commemorates
Augustus' victory at Actium by showing Apollo's protection of the princeps. 81
By contrast, Ovid concludes his Metamorphoses by demonstrating that the
fame of Augustus had now surpassed the fame of his father, Julius Caesar. In an
impassioned prayer, Ovid invokes all the gods (including Vesta, Apollo, Jupiter)
and depicts Augustus as Jupiter's vice-regent on earth:
Jupiter controls the heights of heaven and the kingdom's of the triformed universe; but the
earth is under Augustus' sway. Each is both father and ruler (pater et rector). 0 gods. I pray
you, ... far distant be that day and later than our own time when Augustus, abandoning
the world he rules, shall mount to heaven and there, removed from our presence, listen
to our prayers. 82
Velleius Paterculus climaxes his History ofRome with a similar prayer for Augustus' successor, his adopted son Tiberius. 83
Horace, too, reiterates the theme of Augustus' vice-regency under Jupiter
('with Caesar next in power ... second to thee alone'). 84 As he pithily comments,
We believe that Jove is king in heaven because we hear his thunders peal; Augustus shall be
deemed a god on earth for adding to our empire the Britons and the dreaded Parthians. 85
Second, as regards the documentary evidence, the fragments of twenty calendars

on stone in Italian towns during the Julio-Claudian era provide us evidence
regarding the divine protection of Augustus throughout his reign. The entry for
15th December 19 BC highlights the role that Fortuna Redux had in returning
Augustus safely from the provinces: 'On this day the altar of Fortuna Redux was
78 Virgil, Aen. 8.678-681. For a discussion of the literary and numismatic evidence relating to
the sidus Iulium, see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 230 n. 72,232-233 n. 81.
79 Virgil, Aen. 8.698-713,
80 Horace (Carm. 4.2.41-56) gives thanks to the gods for Augustus' safe return to Rome.
81 RIC F 'Augustus', 17la (14 BC), cited with a picture of the coin in D. Shotter, Augustus
Caesar (2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge, 2005), 34.
82 Ovid, Met. 858-861, 868-870. Horace (Carm. 1.2.41-52) presents a scenario to Ovid,
emphasising that Augustus was 'father and princeps' (pater atque princeps).
83 Velleius Paterculus, 2.136.1-2.
84 Horace, Carm. 1.12.49-60.
85 Ibid., 3.5.1-4.
120
dedicated, she having brought Caesar Augustus home from the overseas provinces: supplicatio to Fortuna Redux'. 86
Similarly, the famous Priene inscription refers to the role that Providence had
in providing Augustus as the unsurpassed benefactor of the world:
[S)ince Providence (~ 1Ip6vma), which has divinely (8dwt;;) disposed our lives, having
employed zeal and ardour, has arranged the most perfect (culmination) for life (toTEATJOTaTov TWL ~LWL) by producing Augustus, whom for the benefit of mankind she has
filled with excellence (7IA.~pwcrev apeTilt;;), as [if she had granted him as a saviour (crwT~pa
xaptO'aflEvT])) for us and our descendants, (a saviour) who brought war to an end and set
[all things] in peaceful order ... 87
Third, as regards the archaeological evidence, we briefly refer to the famous

statue of Augustus at the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta. 88 On the cuirass of the
statue, which celebrates Augustus' victory over the Parthians, we see in the centre
a Parthian looking up submissively at the Roman eagle. Below this cental scene
reclines Mother Earth, with Apollo and Diana riding nearby their cult animals
(respectively, griffins and hinds). Above the central scene the astral deities (Sol
['Sun'], Luna ['Moon'], Caelus ['Sky'], Dawn) are all busy with their cosmic tasks.
P. Zanker sums up the significance of the scene in this way: 'The princeps who
wears this image of victory on his breastplate becomes the representative of divine providence and the will of the gods'. 89
Finally, although the motif of divine election does not feature as prominently
in the propaganda of the Julio-Claudian rulers after Augustus, nevertheless we
find echoes of 'providential' motifs in Nero's famous AD 67 inscription in honour of the ruler's liberation of the province of Greece. Nero refers to his personal
experience of the Greek gods' 'forethought on land and sea',90 and, in response,
the imperial high priest at Akraiphia eulogises Nero in this manner:
86 DocsAug., p. 55. Augustus (RG 11) refers to the establishment of the altar of Fortuna Redux
at Porta Capena. The legends (FORT RED I FORTVN REDV) on Augustan coins commemorate
the event as well (RIC F ~ugustus', 53 a, 55, 56).
87 DocsAug., 98b (ll. 32-41; Priene: 9 BC). BMI 894 (Halicarnassus: 2 BC) speaks of Augustus' providential role thus: 'in whom Providence has not only fulfilled but even surpassed
the prayers of all men'. A coin of Tiberius has Providentia as its legend (RIC P 'Tiberius', 80
[PROVIDENT)). Note how Velleius Paterculus (2.89.2) depicts Augustus in providential terms.
In similar vein, Valerius Maximus (Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 1. praef) says: 'Caesar, surest
foundation of the fatherland, in whose charge the unanimous will of the gods and men has
placed the governance ofland and sea, by whose celestial providence the virtues of which I shall
tell are most kindly fostered and the vices most sternly punished'.
88 For discussion, see N. Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988), 50-56. Sauron, QVIS DEVM?, 520-524. S.R. Price (Rituals and Power,
186) observes astutely regarding the private context of the Prima Porta statue: '... the statue
was designed for a private context, which permitted much greater use of divine iconography'.
89 Zanker, The Power of Images, 192.
90 SIG'l814l. 24. J. Malitz (Nero [Oxford: Blackwell, 2005, Gmn. orig. 1999], 92) writes regarding Nero's self-perception in liberating Greece: ~t the time (Nero) had become increasingly
121
Since the lord of the whole world (7tavToc; KOO"f!OU Kuptoc;), Nero, Imperator supreme,
holding the tribunician power for the thirteenth time designate, father of his country
(7taT~p JtaTpllloc;), New Sun shining upon the Greeks (voc;"HAtoc; emAcif!lJiac; Toic;"EUemv), has chosen to be a benefactor of Greece, requiting and reverencing our gods who
stood by him at all times for care and deliverance ... 91
4.3.2 The 11.ge of Grace' from Augustus to Nero

Since I have already dealt with the beneficence of the Caesars in another publication, I will only refer to a few pivotal inscriptions and papyri to illustrate the
overflowing grace of the Caesars. 92 The Priene inscription, noted above( 4.3.1),
states that the iconic Augustus had become the unsurpassed paradigm of world
beneficence, being the measure of grace against which all benefactors, past and
future, would be assessed:
... since with his appearance Caesar exceeded the hopes of all those who had received glad
tidings before us, not only surpassing those who had been benefactors before him, but not
even leaving any hope of surpassing him for those who are to come in the future; and since
the beginning of glad tidings on his account for the world was the birthday of the god ... 93
The extensive catalogue of benefactions listed in Res Gestae 15-24 confirms this
impression of Augustus as a 'super-patron'.
In an inscription commemorating Tiberius' restoration of Sardis after a devastating earthquake in AD 17, we see the title of UpyT'l<; Tou KOO"f!OU used of
the ruler. While such a title is formulaic, 94 it highlights how only the house of the
convinced of his own incomparable significance and the divine protection he thought was
befitting of him'.
91 SI(J 81411.30-37. Fears ('The Cult ofJupiter', 70-73) argues from the literary and numismatic evidence that in the reign of Nero the cult of Jupiter once again gained primacy in the
imperial propaganda, though it had also been promoted by Caligula and Gaius: 'Under Nero
(Jupiter) appears on the Roman coinage for the first time since the principate of Augustus; and
his reappearance is explicitly associated with the protection of the emperor as the surest means
to protect Rome itself. In the last years of his reign, Nero was moving towards a Jovian theology
of imperial power, the establishment of the principate upon an ideological foundation deriving
the emperor's power directly from Jupiter' ('The Cult of Jupiter', 71). Note, too, how Lucan asserts that Fate could find no way for the advent of Nero and his everlasting kingdom of peace
other than the long period of civil war preceding his rule (Phars., 1.34-66): 'Rome owes much
to civil war, because what was done was done for you Caesar' (ibid., 1.44-45). For a succinct
discussion of the imperial cult in relation to Nero, see B. H. Warmington, Nero: Reality and
Legend (London: Chatto & Windus, 1981), 117-122.
92 See Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, Index s. v. 'Ancient Benefactors: Caesars'. See also
the discussion of Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 226-245.
93 DocsAug., 98b 11.37-41.
94 In an inscription from Cys (D. C. Braund, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC-AD 68 [London/Sydney: Croom & Helm, 1985], 230), a statue is dedicated to
Claudius as 'saviour and benefactor of all mankind'. Another inscription from Myra speaks of
Tiberius as 'imperator of land and sea, the benefactor and saviour of the whole world' (ibid.,
107).
122
Caesar had the resources to deliver beneficence to its dependants throughout the
provinces of the Roman Empire in times of peace and crisis. It is for this reason
that the people of Sardis effusively render thanks and piety to their imperial
benefactor:
Out of piety and thanksgiving the people hallowed Tiberius Caesar god Augustus, the
imperator, uncle of Tiberius Claudius Germanicus Caesar Augustus, the imperator, and
founder of the city and benefactor of the world (euepye11JV Toi> KOO"flOU), the superintendent of works being Tib[erius Claudius,] [son of Demetrius], [from the Quirine (tribe),
Apollophanes ].95
An inscription from Cyzicus decrees the welcome of its people to the three sons
of the Thracian king Kotys - two of the sons (Rhoimetalkes, Polemon) being
present at the city at the time of the decree, but the third son (Kotys) being absent on this occasion - along with their mother Tryphaina. They had come to
the Cyzicus to join in the sacrifices and games in honour of Drusilla, the sister
of Caligula. Caligula, demonstrating the 'gracious act of such a great god', had
established the three sons as client-kings over their kingdoms that were 'rightfully owed them from their fathers and ancestors'. The decree proceeds to elaborate how the dynastic rule of kings in Thrace had been totally supplanted by a
new political reality: imperial favour now elevated rulers to their thrones in the
Greek East as opposed to the traditional family lines of royal succession. What
is fascinating is how the operation of imperial favour is exalted over the dynastic
succession of Thrace in a series of pointed metaphorical contrasts (sunlight and
night; immortal and mortal nature):
... the SOns, reaping the abundance of his immortal favour (T~I; a8aVClTOU XclPLTO!;), in this
regard became greater than those before them, although they held (the royal power) from
their fathers, they became kings in the joint rule of such great gods as a consequence of
the favour of Gaius Caesar (T~I; faiou Ka(oapo~; xapLTO!;), and the favours of gods (8ewv
6 xaptTo~;) differ from human successions (of power) as sunlight from night and as the
immortal from mortal nature; having become greater than the great and more wonderful
than the brilliant, Rhoimetalkes and Polemon have now come to our city to join in the
sacrifices and festivals with their mother who is celebrating the games of the goddess New
Aphrodite, Drusilla ... 96
95 SEG XXXVI (1982) 1092 (AD 41-54}. See the discussion of E. A. Judge, 'Thanksgiving to
the Benefactor of the World, Tiberius Caesar', New Docs 9 (2002), 10. Whereas Judge's translation replicates the order of appearance of the Greek words in the text, I have slightly modified
the word order in his English translation.
96 SICP 79811.7-12. S.R.F. Price ('Rituals and Power', in R.A. Horsley [ed.],Paul and Empire:
Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Power [Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1977], 70)
comments on the unusual nature of the inflated language employed in the Cyzicus decree: the
inscription 'uses language more familiar and more acceptable to us about the restoration of the
three men to their kingdom and their friendship with Gaius. But those scholars who screen out
the more bizarre aspects of the language used by the participants commit the empiricist fallacy
of imagining that social facts can be described in neutral, objective terms'.
123
In Claudius' letter to the Alexandrians (AD 41), we see the ruler struggling uncomfortably with the cavalcade of honours pressed upon him as the great and
godlike benefactor of the city. The list of honours is embarrassingly large: the
civic celebration of the ruler's birthday; the erection of statues in the city to Claudius and his family; the erection of two golden statues at Rome, one celebrating
the Pax Augusta Claudiana; the creation of a Claudian tribe at Alexandria; the
planting of Egyptian groves; the erection of four-horse chariots at the entrances
of three sites.97 Claudius only rejects one honour on the basis of imperial precedent: that is, the erection of temples to himself, each with its own priesthood.98
While some of these honours probably reflect the rituals of the Egyptian rulercult preceding the imperial period, we need not doubt the sincerity of the Alexandrian gratitude to the house of the Caesars for the ruler's goodwill to their city.
Finally, Nero, speaking of his liberation of the province of Greece from taxation (AD 67), highlights the unexpected scope of his favour and the powerlessness of the Greeks to initiate such beneficence apart from his sovereign grace ('as
great a gift as you would be unable to request'). He wishes that Greece were still
in its prime so that more Greeks could more fully appreciate the unprecedented
nature of the benefit he was offering:
For you, men of Greece, it is an unexpected gift which, even though nothing from my
generous nature is unhoped for, I grant to you, as great a gift as you would be unable to
request ... Would that Greece were still at its peak as I grant you this gift, in order that more
people might enjoy this favour of mine. For this reason I blame the times for exhausting
prematurely the size of my favour. 99
4.3.3 The Ruler as 'Cosmic' Benefactor

In an seminal essay on Romans 8:18-23, R. Jewett has discussed the evidence of
the imperial poets relating to the cosmic dimensions of the Augustan Golden
Age of Saturn and the quinquennium ofNero. 100 Jewett cites Virgil's 'messianic'
Fourth Eclogue (Eel. 4.11-14), Virgil's Aeneid (Aen. 6.789-797), Horace's Carmen
saeculare (Carm. saec. 29-32) and Calpurnius Siculus' Eclogues (Eel. 1.33-99)
CPJII 153.
For imperial precedent in the rejection of divine honours after the apotheosis of Augustus,
see Tiberius (Seutonius, Tib. 26; DocsAug., 102) and Germanicus (A. S. Hunt, and C. C. Edgar
[eds.], Select Papyri [London: W. Heinemann, 1959], 211). On Caligula's acceptance of various
honours, see IG VII 2(711). For translations of the documentary evidence above, see N. Lewis
and M. Reinhold (eds.), Roman Civilization. Volume II: Selected Readings (3nl ed. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1990), 521-523, 526-527. Subsequently, Nero also rejected divine
honours (P. Med. inv. 70.01). For a translation, see Sherk, The Roman Empire, 62.
99 SIG3 81411.10-11, 17-19.
100 R. Jewett, 'The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Reading Rom 8:18-23 within
the Imperial Context', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg/
London/New York: Trinity International, 2004), 25-46.
97
98
124
as pivotal examples of the imperial ideology of nature. 101 By way of addition,

another important source on the cosmic effects of Nero's rule is found in the
Einsiedeln eclogues (Eel. 2.15-38).
The ideological backdrop to this renewed imperial interest in nature, Jewett
argues, finds its origins in Hesiod's Work and Days. Hesiod described a cycle
of ages (Op. 109-201} in which each succeeding age- Gold, Silver, Bronze and
Iron - experienced decline from an originally pristine creation. 102 This deterioration of the created order was due to inexplicable forces and to the deleterious
effects of humanity's impiety, hubris and military savagery upon social and cosmic stability. 103 This decline, the imperial poets assert, had been brought to an
end and the earth restored to its paradisial condition by the arrival of Augustus'
Golden Age and Nero's quinquennium. The ara Pacis Augustae, Jewett notes, 104
employs cosmic motifs in the figure of Mother Earth and the varying floral motifs on the altar. 105 Additionally, coins show Augustus either holding the globe or
standing with his foot placed on it, with the princeps standing near or holding a
cornucopia (a symbol of food and abundance}. 106 We would also add to Jewett's
archaeological references here the cuirass of the famous statue of Augustus at the
Villa of Livia at Prima Porta, discussed above( 4.3.1), on which Mother Earth
and the gods are all peacefully engaged with their various cosmic responsibilities.
Notwithstanding the thoroughness of Jewett's insightful discussion, more can be
said on the issue of imperial interest in nature.
First, the cosmic effects of imperial rule are not just confined to the ruler. Nero's beneficence and foresight also extends to the appointment of his provincial
officials. The positive impact of Nero's prefect, Tiberius Claudius Balbillus, upon
101
Ibid., 26-29,30-31.
Note the comment of Parke (Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy, 145}: 'The Golden Age as the
primal epoch of a distant past was commonly accepted by poets and philosophers, and the cyclic
view of time might therefore imply its return. But this was usually combined with the view that
the universe must pass through a stage of destruction before the process would start again with
a Golden Age'.
103 Ibid., 26. On the theme of decline in Roman historiography, see E. A. Judge, 'The Roman
Theory of Historical Degeneration', in id. ([ ed.] J. R. Harrison}, The First Christians in the Roman
Empire: Augustan and New Testament Essays (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008}, 52-58.
104 Ibid., 28-29.
105 For the picture, see Zanker, The Power of Images, 173-174, Figs. 135-136. See also the
spectacular relief of Augustus as the Lord of the earth and sea at the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias
(K. T. Erim, Aphrodisias: City of Venus Aphrodite [London: Muller, Blond & White, 1986], 115
Fig. top left). Erim (ibid.) sums up the symbolism of the relief thus: 'Augustus ... is shown on one
stunning panel ... accepting the bounties of the earth symbolised by a cornucopia with his right
hand, and the command of the seas represented by an oar in his left'. Horace ( Carm. 1.12.13-16)
captures well the sense of cosmic awe that undergirded his praise of Augustus: 'What shall I sing
before the wonted praises of the Father, who directs the destinies of men and gods, who rules
the sea and lands and the sky with its shifting seasons?'.
106 Jewett, 'Corruption and Redemption', 30; RIC F 'Augustus', 125, 541.
102
4.3 Roman Conceptions of the Rule. of the Caesars
125
his subjects at Bousiris is honoured in an inscription (AD 55-59) that combines

naturalistic imagery with traditional Egyptian religious belief:
Since [[Nero]] Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator, the good spirit of the
inhabited world, along with all the good deeds of his benefactions to Egypt has shown
the most manifest insight in sending to us Tiberius Claudius Balbillus as governor, and
because of this man's favours and benefactions Egypt is full of good things, sees the gifts of
the Nile growing greater year by year, and now enjoys even more the well-balanced rising
of the god (i.e. the Nile) ... 107
Second, the literary texts and honorific inscriptions also speak of Augustus' rescue of the world from cosmic disaster. The emphasis in this instance is more on
the suffering of the world, including creation, as it plunged inevitably towards
destruction, over against its return to an unsullie.d primal state as articulated in
the imperial poets cited by Jewett. Philo, for instance, the Jewish philosopher of
Alexandria, ascribes to Augustus the role of social and cosmic healer:
The whole human race exhausted by mutual slaughter was on the verge of utter destruction
had it not been for one man and leader, Augustus, whom men fitly call the averter of evil.
This is the Caesar who calmed the torrential storms on every side, who healed pestilences
common to Greeks and barbarians, pestilences which descending from the south and the
east coursed to the west and north sowing seeds of calamity over the places and waters
which lay between them. 108
The letter of the Roman proconsul to the Asian League (Priene: 9 BC) also depicts Augustus' reign as providentially overturning the cyclical decline vitiating
the world:
... he restored stability, when everything was collapsing and falling into disarray, and gave
a new look to the entire world that would have been most happy to accept its own ruin had
not the good and common fortune of all been born: Caesar. 109
Third, the restoration of nature in Nero's reign was given physical expression in
his construction of a hortus ('pleasure-garden') as part his domus aurea ('Golden
House').U 0 Nero's rebuilding program, undertaken after the fire in Rome in AD
OGIS 666 11.2-11.
Philo, Leg., 144-145. For a sensitive discussion of Philo's eulogy of Augustus, see D.L.
Tiede, jesus and the Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 25-26.
109 DocsAug., 98a (11.4-11).
110 In what follows, I am especially indebted to S. Wood, 'Rus in Urbe: The domus aurea
and Neronian horti in the City of Rome', The School of Historical Studies Postgraduate Forum
e-]ournal (University ofNewcastle upon Tyne) 3 (2004): 1-11. On Roman gardens, with special
reference to the Augustan and Neronian horti, seeN. Purcell, 'Town in Country and Country in
Town', in E. B. MacDougall (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens (Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1987), 185-203; E. Champlin, 'God and Man in the
Golden House', in E. La Rocca (ed.), Horti romani: Atti del convegno internazionale Roma, 4-6
maggio 1995 (Roma: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1998), 333-344; J. Elsner, 'Constructing Decadence: The Representation of Nero as Imperial Builder', in id. and J. Masters (eds.), Reflections
107
108
126
64, made the domus aurea the centrepiece of his 'New City' (urbs nova). The
hortus - an urban villa with a park - had a distinguished history in late republican Rome. The luxurious estates of the wealthy senatorial elite were another
expression of the quest for ancestral glory on the part of the leading houses of the
aristocracy. Their estates, including the horti Luculliani {163 BC) and the horti
Sallustiani (40 BC), were designed to provide panoramic views by the stylised use
of fountains and pools, statuary, pavilions and terraces (Varro, Rust. 2.5-9; Pliny
[the Elder], HN 9.170). Additionally, substantial plantations of trees provided a
band of greenery on the outskirts of the capital.
With the advent of the Augustan Golden Age (aureum saeculum) -the arrival
of which was celebrated with the Ludi saeculares (17 BC) and eulogised in Horace's Carmen saeculare - the princeps was provided with another opportunity
for the Julian house to eclipse the glory of the famous aristocratic houses of
republican Rome. The creation of a spectacular horticultural alternative to the
aristocratic suburban garden-palaces was realised when Augustus transformed
the hitherto neglected area of the Campus Martius into his personal hortus.m
Lush parklands were established for the use of the civilian population. The palatial baths of Agrippa in the Campus Martius, donated to the Roman People
barely three years before (c. 20 BC) by Augustus' lifelong friend and supporter,
were architecturally elaborate and set new standards in luxury for recreation and
exercise. The horti Agrippae were also graced with an ornamental lake and canal.
Adjacent to the Campus Martius, too, was the Augustan mausoleum with its own
funerary gardens and park. In sum, the Campus Martius had been made into a
'suburb more beautiful than the city'. 112 It proclaimed by means of its tranquil
landscapes and beautiful architecture the triumph of the Augustan peace, in the
Golden Age of Saturn, within the precincts of the Roman war-god Mars. 113
Against this backdrop, we read in Suetonius, Nero 31 the description of the
spectacular grounds, comprising 40-80 hectares, which adorned the Golden
House:
He made a palace extending all the way from the Palatine to the Esquiline, which at first
he called the House of Passage, but when it was burned down shortly after its completion
and rebuilt, the Golden House. Its size and splendour will be sufficiently indicated by the
following details. Its vestibule was large enough to contain a colossal statue of the emperor
a hundred and twenty feet high; and it was so extensive that it had a triple colonnade a mile
long. There was a pond, too, like the sea, surrounded with buildings to represent cities,
of Nero: Culture, History, and Representation (Chapel Hill/London: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1994), 112-127; A. G. McKay, Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World
(Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 128-131.
m For discussion of the building programs of Augustus, Tiberius and Caligula and their
rhetorical presentation in the literary sources, see Elsner, 'Constructing Decadence', 112-118.
112 N. Purcell, ~ugustus', inS. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical
Dictionary: Third Revised Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 218.
113 Wood, 'Rusin Urbe', 6-7.
127
besides tracts of country, varied by tilled fields, vineyards, pastures and woods, with great
numbers of wild and domestic animals. 114
Several observations can be drawn from Suetonius' description. First, Nero's

golden statue (Pliny [the Elder], HN 34.45-6), alluding to the ruler's connection
with Sol-Helios, 115 dominates the surrounding horti.U6 Nero's lordship over
Rome and over the natural world, inhabited and not inhabited, was thereby visually represented for all his subjects to see. Second, Nero had brought nature, 'wild
and domestic', into the precincts of the city itself, not just its suburban outskirts.
In this respect, he stood in contrast to his republican and imperial forebears,
including Augustus: Nero had eclipsed all competition, past and present, by
constructing the largest and most ornate hortus that Rome had ever known.
Third, the pond with its buildings representing cities probably symbolised the
domination of Rome over the Mediterranean basin. 117
In conclusion, there is little doubt that Nero was carefully redefining his place
in Rome in light of Augustan precedent, horticultural and architectural, but he
was also cleverly usurping it. The advice of Seneca to his young charge is revealing in this regard (Clem. 1.1.6): 'But it is a mighty burden that you have taken
upon yourself; no one today talks of the deified Augustus or the early years
of Tiberius Caesar, or seeks for any model he would have you copy other than
yourself. Undoubtedly, the fact had Nero had so comprehensively trumped the
iconic Augustus was probably as much behind the acidic criticism of his hortus
as its dominance of the capital and the displacement of a crowded urban quarter
through its construction.U 8
114 For a map of the domus aurea (AD 64-68) and the probable extent of the hortus, see Elsner,
'Constructing Decadence', 118.
115 On Nero as Sol-Helios, see Champlin, 'God and Man', 335-340; id., Nero, Index, s. v. 'Sun,
the'. For a more cautious approach regarding Nero's identification with Sol-Helios, seeM. T.
Griffin, Nero: The End ofa Dynasty (New Haven I London: Yale University Press, 1984), 217-219.
By contrast, Shotter (Nero, 59) argues that 'the appearance of the "Sun-King" "Nero-Apollo" on
the Colossus which stood at the entrance of Nero's new "palace" was 'evidence, at least, of his
developing megalomania'.
116 Pliny [the ElderI (HN 35.51) notes that Nero ordered his portrait to be painted on linen
120 feet high in the Gardens of Maius, 'a thing unknown hitherto'.
117 Note the comment of Champlin ('God and Man', 339-340) regarding the visual symbolism
of the domus aurea: 'The house itself looked down from the periphery of the area onto a world in
miniature, with, as Suetonius tells us, an artificial sea, artificial cities, and artificial countryside of
all kinds, stocked with tame and wild animals. As many have observed, it was a microcosm: perhaps of the world, but perhaps precisely of the Roman world, surrounding the Mediterranean.
Looking down on this world from the Oppian was the shining fa~ade of the palace of the Sun,
while high above its entrance stood the statue of its master, Nero, as the charioteer Sol, holding
(one suspects) the world in his hand'.
118 For criticism of the size of the domus aurea, see Pliny [The ElderI, HN 18.7; 36.111; Suetonius, Ner. 39.2; Martial Spect. 2.4. On the displacement of the crowded urban quarter, see McKay,
Houses, Villas, and Palaces, 130.
128
Most important of all for our purposes is the realisation that Paul, in mentioning the decline of nature and its future redemption (Rom 8:18-25), was entering
into a debate on 'nature' that would increasingly preoccupy Roman political
rhetoric in the first century and beyond. In this regard, Tacitus (Ann. 15.42)
evinces a Stoic disdain for what was contra naturam when he criticises the attempt of Nero to imitate nature by artificially constructing an elaborate hortus
within the city. 119 As Tacitus says,
However, Nero turned to account the ruins of his fatherland by building a place, the
marvels of which were to consist not so much in gems and gold, materials long familiar
and vulgarised by luxury, as in the fields and lakes and the air of solitude given by wooded
ground alternating with clear tracts and open spaces. The architects and engineers were
Severns and Celer, who had the ingenuity and courage to try the force of art even against
the veto of nature (quae natura denegavisset) and to fritter away the resources of a Caesar.120
N. Purcell helpfully elaborates on the import of Tacitus' criticism of Nero's 'fantasypark':

the natural landscape ... included the works of man and above all the city ... Nero is taking
this one step further, as it to the town that he has introduced not only the world of farms
which depend on the town but even the outer wild to which the town is wholly alien. 121
It was this artificial combination of the 'wild' with the 'cultivated rural landscape'
within the precincts of Rome that elicited Tacitus' censure and which radically
differentiated the Roman approach to 'nature' from the Jewish apocalyptic understanding of Paul.
4.3.4 Providentially Defining Events in the Reigns of the Rulers

By 'providentially defining events' in the reigns of the Julio-Claudian rulers, I am
referring to those pivotal historical events which either secured the Julio-Claudians' supremacy as generals and benefactors, or which elevated their political status
over against their predecessors in an unprecedented way, or which had acquired
quasi-mythological significance in the estimation of posterity. Several events stand
out in the reigns of the Julio-Claudians as having acquired a quasi-'providential'
significance: Augustus' victory at Actium (31 BC); Tiberius' foresight in unmasking the conspiracy of Sejanus (31 AD); Claudius' conquest of Britain (AD 43 ); the
submission ofTiradates to Nero (AD 66); and, last, the propaganda regarding the
accession of Caligula and Nero to power (37 AD; 54 BC).
119
On ancient criticism of artificial constructs of nature, see Purcell, 'Town in Country ',
190-192, 199-201.
120 That the political debate about the artificial reconstruction of nature was already well under way by the middle of the first century AD is shown by Seneca, Ep. 122; Tranq. 2.13; Seneca
[the Elder), Controv. 2.1.3.
121 Purcell, 'Town in Country', 200-201.
129
First, we have already seen how the imperial poets and the numismatic propaganda rendered Augustus' naval victory over Antony and Cleopatra at Actium
(31 BC) in providential hues( 4.3.1). Two other pieces of evidence throw further light on the iconic status of Actium. 122 Two years after his victory, Augustus'
dedicated his camp overlooking the promontory of Actium near Nicopolis ('City
of Victory'). The inscription on the victory monument reinforces the providential
aura surrounding Augustus' by the victor honouring the Roman maritime and
war gods:
To Neptune and Mars; Imperator Caesar, son of the divine Julius, having achieved victory
by sea in the war which he waged for the state in this area, dedicated the camp from which
he went out to attack the enemy, decorated with spoils. Consul for the fifth time, imperator
seven times, peace having been obtained by land and sea. 123
Augustus' dedication of war beaks from Antony's fleet at Actium and Rome (Dio
51.1.3; 51.19.2) is later celebrated in verse during the reign of Caligula (Palatine
Anthology 6.236):
We, beaks with brazen bite, voyage-loving naval armour,
Stand as monuments of the Actian war.
Look- bees' wax-fed gifts form a hive
Laden with a buzzing swarm all around;
Good is the grace of Caesar's orderly rule;
He has taught enemy weapons to bear the fruits of peace. 124
Second, the later recollection of Romans on Tiberius' role in the fall of Sejanus
on October 18,31 AD, turned the event into a case of the divine deliverance of
the state. Sejanus, prefect of the Praetorian guard and consul with Tiberius in
AD 30, was denounced in the Senate for plotting against Germanicus' youngest
son, the future ruler Gaius Caligula. Suspecting a plot against himself, Tiberius
122 On the Senate awarding the corona civica to Augustus in recognition of his saving his
country at Actium, see 4.3.5.
123 Cited Braund, Augustus to Nero, 2. For the recent excavation of the monument and the
impressive finds discovered there, see K. L. Zachos, 'The tropaeum of the Sea-Battle of Actium
at Nikopolis: Interim Report', IRA 16 (2003): 64-92.
124 Braund, Augustus to Nero, 3. See also Palatine Anthology 6.553 (ibid., 4): '(Caesar)
founded me, Nicopolis, divine city, which Lord Phoebus receives in return for victory at Actium'.
An excerpt from a calendar (1" August 30 BC), referring to the victory over Egypt at Actium,
says (ibid., 5): 'on that day Imperator Caesar Augustus liberated the state from the most
wretched peril'. Note the pyramid-shaped tomb of Gaius Cestius, a contemporary of Augustus,
near the Porta Ostiensis. J. M. C. Toynbee (Death and Burial in the Roman World [Baltimore
and London: Johns Hopkins,1971], 128; cf. 106 Fig. 33) argues that it celebrates 'the annexation
of Egypt to the Empire after Actium, and the consequent fashion in Rome and Italy for things
Egyptian'. See Horace's presentation of Actium as the ultimate military triumph in Epod. 9.2326: 'Io Triumphe! Neither in Jugurtha's war did you bring back so glorious a captain; nor was
Africanus such - he whose valour reared for him a shrine over Carthage'. Note, too, Horace's
effusive celebration of the victories of Agrippa, Augustus' lifelong supporter, and Tiberius Claudius Nero, stepson of Augustus, over the Cantabarians and the Armenians, see Ep. 1.12.25-29.
130
Chapter 4: Imperial Conceptions ofRule and Paul~ Reign of Grace
acted promptly, tried Sejanus in the Senate, and executed him. 125 The outpouring
of relief that the state had not been plunged into another disastrous cycle of civil
wars was immediate. At Gortyn in Crete, therefore, the proconsul Publius Viriasius Naso erected a monument inscribed 'To the divine majesty and foresight [of
Tiberius Ca]esar Augustus and of the Senate, (foresight) of that day which was
the fifteenth before the kalends of November (October 18)'. 126 Another dedication at Interamna employs the language of eternity to underscore the providential
significance of what Tiberius had accomplished: 'To the foresight of Tiberius
Caesar Augustus, born for the eternity of the Roman name, now that the most
deadly enemy of the Roman people has been removed'. 127 The name of Sejanus
is omitted from the inscription in damnatio memoriae. 128
Valerius Maximus (Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 9.11.4 [Ext.]) effusively celebrates the stability of public order - superintended by the providential watchfulness of the state gods - that had been secured by Tiberius' decisive actions against
Sejanus. Having accused (the unnamed) Sejanus of exposing Rome once again
to the threat of foreign conquest and civil wars through his treachery, Valerius
eulogises Tiberius for upholding the pax deorum and consigns Sejanus to the
underworld:
However, the eyes of the gods were wide awake, the stars kept their strength; the couches
(holding the images of the gods) and the temples with their ever-present divine majesty
were well protected. Nothing which was supposed to watch over the head of Augustus and
our country was allowed to relax its guard, and above all else the author and protector of
our safety took precautions by his divine wisdom that his superlative achievements would
not be buried in the ruin of the whole world. Thus, peace stands firm, the laws are in force,
the true course of private and public duty is preserved. And he who tried to overturn all
these by violating the bonds of friendship, along with his entire family, has been smashed
by the might of the Roman People and is suffering well-deserved punishment in the underworld, if it has admitted him. 129
In similar vein, the providential uncovering of Piso's plot against Nero (AD 65:
Tacitus, Ann. 15.71-74) was celebrated with public sacrifices of great magnitude.
125 For discussion, seeR. Syme, Tacitus. Volume l, 401-406; B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician
(London: Routledge, 1999), Indexs.v. ~elius Sejanus'.
126 I. Cret. IV 272. Translated in Sherk, The Roman Empire, 40B.
127 ILS 157. Translated in Sherk, The Roman Empire, 40C. B. W. Jones and R. D. Milns (The
Use of Documentary Evidence in the Study of Roman Imperial History [Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1984], 114-115) cite another inscription, the Roman calendar from Ostia, detailing
the triumph of Tiberius over his treasonous Prefect: 'On 18 October, Sejanus was throttled; on
13 October, Strabo, the son ofSejanus, committed suicide ... of December (the day is missing)
Capito Aelianus (a relative ofSejanus) and Junilla, daughter ofSejanus, lay on the Stairs of Wailing'. Dio Cassius (58.12) mentions that the Senate instituted annual horse-races, among other
festivities, in celebration of Sejanus' demise.
128 Jones and Milns, The Use of Documentary Evidence, 115.
129 Cited in ibid., 400. Writing approximately seventy years after Sejanus' execution, Juvenal
(Sat. 10.56-81) portrays Sejanus as consumed by destructive ambition.
131
A Greek epigram, addressed 'to Nero Caesar', renders the praise of Egyptians
and Romans regarding the preservation of the ruler ('the heavenly Zeus') in this
manner:
The Nile celebrates with a festival beside the holy water of the Tiber, having vowed to make
sacrifice for the preservation of Caesar; one hundred ox-felling axes stained the willing
necks of the bulls with blood on the altars of heavenly Zeus. 130
Third, Claudius briefly took a personal part in the invasion of Britain in AD

43. With the capture of Camulodunum, Claudius celebrated his triumph extravagantly in the following year at Rome (Suetonius, Claud. 17.1-3; 21.6; 24.3;
Pliny [the Elder], HN 33.54). The dedicatory inscription on the arch of Claudius,
completed in AD 52, illustrates how the Senate and Roman people viewed this
event as an unprecedented extension of Roman rule, notwithstanding the fact
that Julius Caesar had invaded Britain in 55-54 BC:
To the Emperor Tiberius Claudius, son of Drusus, Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, tribunician power for the eleventh time, saluted as Imperator twenty-two
times(?), Censor, Father of the Country. Set up by the Senate and People of Rome because
he received the formal submission of eleven kings of the Britons, overcome without any
loss, and because he was the first to bring barbarian peoples across the Ocean under the
sway of the Roman people. 131
Later writers such as Tacitus (Ann. 12.23) and Eutropius (Brev. 7.13.2-3), writing
in the second and fourth centuries AD, continued to highlight Claudius' unparalleled extension of the Roman empire overseas. Even Seneca, in the highly satirical
Apocolocyntosis, concedes the decisive impact of Claudius' conquest of Britain in
his mocking funeral dirge (12.3).
Fourth, a celebrated event in the rule of Nero was the agreement of the King
of Armenia, achieved through a compromise with the Roman general Cn. Domitianus Corbulo, to receive his royal crown from Nero at Rome in AD 66. 132 This
carefully stage-managed spectacle secured a peace with Parthia that would endure
130 D. L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 29.
Cited in Sherk, The Roman Empire, 70A.
131 CIL Vl.920. See ILS 217, cited inK. Chisholm and J. Ferguson (eds.), Rome: The Augustan
Age. A Source Book (Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1981), N15b. Braund (From Augustus
to Nero, 212a/b) cites two Latin poems celebrating Claudius' conquest of Britain. See alsoP.
Lond. 1178 for Claudius' thanks to an association of athletes for the gift of a gold crown, offered
in honour of his victory in Britain (Jones and Milns, The Use of Documentary Evidence, 81).
The reverse of a Claudian coin (RICJ2 'Claudius', 9: cited in Chisholm and Ferguson [eds.],
Rome, Nl3e) shows a triumphal arch inscribed DE BRITANNIS ('[Erected in commemoration
of victory] over the Britons'), with the statue of Claudius on horseback standing on the arch between two trophies. For further examples, see L. J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial
Coinage and the New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 130. For coins showing
Claudius in a chariot drawn by four horses, with the inscription DE BRITANNIS, see ibid., 134.
132 Warmington (Nero, 95): 'The visit ofTiridates was an important event in Nero's principate,
and much impressed contemporaries'.
132
for almost sixty years. Dio (63:4-6) highlights Tiridates' gesture of obeisance to
Nero who, in Tiridates' view, represented Mithras incarnate. 133 Clearly, Nero did
not subscribe to or promote such a notion, but the protocol allowed Tiridates to
participate in the coronation according to his religious beliefs as a magus (Pliny
[the Elder], HN 30.16; Tacitus, Ann. 15.24) without being humiliated before the
Roman ruler. 134 From the ruler's viewpoint, however, the spectacle was probably
intended to be a Roman triumph, albeit unconventional in form, as the evidence
of Dio, Pliny [the Elder], and Suetonius indicates. 135 As E. Champlin observes, 136
'In Nero the marriage of Roman triumph and Parthian ceremony culminated in a
splendid affirmation of his role as the new god of the Sun'. Last, the coronation was
a propaganda coup for Nero in that the ruler replicated - and indeed surpassed in
terms of the longevity of the sixty-year peace established with the Parthians 137 - a
prized boast of the iconic Augustus. Suetonius tells us that after the coronation
Nero 'closed the two doors of the temple of Janus' (Ner. 13.2), as Augustus had done
three times (29 BC, 25 BC, 2 BC) during his principate (RG 13 ). 138
133
134
Griffin, Nero, 216-217.

Ibid., 217. Dio (63.5.3) renders Tiridates' words to Nero thus: 'Master, I am the descendant
of Arsaces, brother of the kings Vologaesus and Pacorus, and your slave. And I have come to you,
my god, to worship you as I do Mithras'. D. Shotter (Nero [London and New York: Routledge,
1997], 39) considers Tiridates' address of Nero as 'Mithras' to be the Parthian equivalent of
eastern provincial forms of address (i.e. 'The New Apollo', 'The New Sun'). Strabo (15.3.13) also
underscores how the Zoroastrians identified Mithras with the sun: 'the sun they call Mithras'.
Nero responds to Tiridates' Parthian beliefs with the assuredness of the world ruler: 'King of
Armenia I now declare you, that both you and they may understand that I have the power to
take away kingdoms and to bestow them'. However, E. Champlin (Nero [Cambridge, Mass.: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003], 226) correctly observes: 'The dialogue has
been carefully crafted, for this, it has been pointed out, is not the traditional surrender of an
enemy to Roman protection, deditio in fidem; it is rather the acceptance by Rome of a Parthian
form of submission'. Tacitus (Ann. 15.29), however, denies the defeated Tiridates any indirect
glory in the coronation. After Tiradates lifts the diadem from his head and places it at the feet of
Nero's statue, Tacitus acidly comments on behalf of the Romans slaughtered by the Parthians:
'But now the tide has turned: Tiridates was about to depart (how little less than a captive!) to be
a gazing-stock to the nations!' On the historicity of Nero's speech as rendered by Dio, see M.P.
Charlesworth, 'Nero: Some Aspects',JRS 40 ( 1950): 72. Charlesworth states that the tenor of the
speech is congruent with the famous inscription of Acraephiae (SIG3 814).
135 See the convincing arguments of Champlin, Nero, 224-225. Contra, see Griffin (Nero,
232-233): 'Nero does not appear to have held a triumph, though he dressed up in triumphal
garb'. Pliny [the Elder] (HN 30.16) says that Tiridates went Rome 'for the emperor's Armenian
triumph over himself. Suetonius (Ner. 13.2) states that 'Nero was hailed as imperator' and that
he deposited 'a laurel wreath in the Capitol'. The latter ritual was reserved for the celebration of
a triumph. Griffin (Nero, 233) states regarding Nero's setting 'Imperator' before his name: 'we
can assume that the assumption of this prefix by Nero and its retention ever after would not only
single out this salutation from his earlier ones but assert the personal nature of his diplomatic
victory over the Parthians'.
136 Champlin, Nero, 229.
137 Augustus' diplomatic victory, along with Tiberius, over the Parthians in 20 BC was a
constant refrain of the propaganda of his principate ( 4.3.5 infra).
138 This was commemorated in a series of coins showing the closed doors of the temple of
133
Fifth, the accession of Caligula and Nero to power is spoken of in the language
of dynastic fulfilment and of the overflow of beneficence. We have already noted
( 2.2) how the loyalty oath of the Assians, sworn in AD 37, was prefaced by a
sense that a shift in the ages had occurred for the better in Caligula's accession
to rule:
Since the announcement of the hegemonia of Gaius Caesar Germanicus Augustus, which
all mankind had hoped and prayed for, the world has found no measure for its joy, but
every city and people has eagerly hastened to view the god as if the happiest age for mankind had now arrived (Tou ~6[CJTou av6pommc; aiii>vo [c;] vuv tveCJTii>Toc;) ... 139
A draft papyrus announces the accession of Nero to rule in the same language of
realised hope employed in the Assian loyalty oath: 'the emperor whom the world
expected and hoped for, has been proclaimed; the good genius of the world and
source of all blessings'. 140 Undoubtedly such honorific conventions are stereotyped, but we must not diminish the positive expectations that attended the
new Roman ruler as the 'world benefactor' on the part of his clients and subjects.
These unfulfilled hopes, now realised at the ruler's accession to power, explain
the effusive celebration of the transfer of power within the house of the Caesars
on the part of its clients.
4.3.5 The Ruler as triumphator: The Roman Ideology of Victory

That the ruler established military dominance over the state's enemies and
brought ongoing victory to Rome and her empire was a leitmotiv of imperial
propaganda. 141 The theme of victory is particularly associated with the reigns of
Augustus and Claudius owing to the iconic importance of Augustus' victory at
Actium (AD 31) and Claudius' conquest of Britain (AD 43). Since I have already
touched on Claudius' capture of Camulodunum ( 4.3.4), 142 my examination of
the 'victory' motif will be confined to the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. I will
Janus (RIC F 'Nero', 50, 283-291, 300-311, 323-328, 337-342, 353-355, 362, 537-539).
The coins had the inscription 'PACE POPULI ROMANI TERRA MARIQUE PARTA lANUM
CLAUSIT' ('Following the winning of peace on land and sea for the Roman people, he closed
the gates of the Temple of Janus').
139 SIG3 797.
140 DocsGaius, 47.
141 On the theme, see J. R. Fears, 'The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems', ANRWII17/2 (1981): 736-826; Beard, The Roman Triumph.
142 Note, however, the epigram regarding Claudius' conquest of Britain (Braund, Augustus
to Nero, 212a):
A land never despoiled by Ausonian triumphs
Struck by your thunderbolt, Caesar, lay prostrate
And Ocean observes your altars beyond himself;
The boundary of the earth was not the boundary of the empire.
See also the base of a panel from Aphrodisias that shows Claudius' conquest of a personified
Britannia (Braund, ibid., 213). An inscription of Aphrodisias also highlights Julius Caesar's
134
also bypass the numismatic and archaeological evidence - i.e. the gemma Augustea, a sardonyx of Augustus, the silver Boscoreale cup of Tiberius, a cameo of
Germanicus and a relief of Nero from Aphrodisias - depicting the crowning of
the imperial rulers by Victory (Victoria). As I have demonstrated elsewhere, 143
the ruler's accession to rule and his military victories were legitimised by the
imperial iconography of honorific rituals. 144
The issue of how the imperial poets interpreted Augustus' victory at Actium
has been explored above and need not detain us( 4.3.1; 4.3.4). Thus we turn
to a brief selection of the numismatic evidence relating to the battle itself, as well
as the monumental evidence regarding its aftermath. 145 The famous naval victory is celebrated in the imperial propaganda with a series of coins (22 BC-12/11
BC), each bearing a portrait of Augustus on the obverse, under which appears
the zodiac sign of Capricorn. The Capricorn was, as Suetonius notes (Aug. 94),
the nativity sign of Augustus and was the incentive for the princeps publishing
his horoscope. The reverse side of the coins, showing a crocodile, bore the legend
AEGYPTO CAPTA ('Egypt captured'). 146 As a brief aside to our discussion of
Actium here, we note that on the gemma Augustea (c. 9 AD), commemorating
Tiberius' victory in Dalmatia, the sign of Capricorn is placed the top of the upper
panel between the figures of Roma and Augustus. 147 Augustus' contemporaries,
therefore, could hardly have missed the link between his military victory at Actium - and, subsequently, the triumph of his adopted son at Dalmatia - and the
political significance ofhis birth sign. 148 Capricorn was the zodiac sign through
victory of Pharsalia: 'I, Victory, am always with Caesar, of divine descent' (J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome [London: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1982], 32).
143 J. R. Harrison, 'The Fading Crown: Divine Honour and the Early Christians', JTS 54/2
(2003): 511-512.
144 For Jewish responses to the imperial theology of victory, see P. F. Esler, 'God's Honour and
Rome's Triumph: Responses to the Fall ofJerusalem in 70 CE in Three Jewish Apocalypses', in
id., Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context
(London: Routledge, 1995), 239-258.
145 For a succinct discussion of the Actium coinage, see Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 31-33.
See also the triumphal frieze from the Temple of Apollo Sosianus at Rome, depicting Augustus'
triple triumph (29 BC: Beard, The Roman Triumph, 133 Fig. 23). For the monumental evidence
ofNikopolis celebrating Actium and its aftermath, see Zachos, 'The tropaeum of the Sea-Battle
of Actium', 90-92.
146 Fears, 'The Theology of Victory', 809 (citing BMC 655).
147 See Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 76-78.
148 On Capricorn as the birth sign of Augustus, see A. E. Housman, 'Manilius, Augustus,
Tiberius, Capricornus, and Libra', CQ 7/2 (1913): 109-114; E. Dwyer, 'Augustus and the Capricorn', MDAI 80 (1973): 59-67; T. Barton, Ancient Astrology (London/New York: Routledge,
1994), 39-40; id., 'Augustus and Capricorn: Astrological Polyvalency and Imperial Rhetoric',
IRS 85 (1995): 33-51. According to Suetonius (Aug. 25), Augustus was born on IX. Kal. Oct, 23
Sept. 63 BC (Julian calendar). This poses the problem that Libra rises in September, whereas
Capricorn rises in January. Consequently, there is a debate as to whether the position of Augustus' birth star is lunar rather than solar (Schiitz, 'Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus', 448-449), or
whether it refers to Augustus' conception sign (Buchner, Die Sonnenuhr, 346-348). For further
135
which the sun passed during the winter solstice and it presaged the renewal of
spring. Consequently, for Augustus, it 'became the sign of a new age of peace
after the civil wars'. 149 Finally, the triumphal procession of Augustus over Antony
and Cleopatra at Actium was celebrated on August 14 at Rome (Dio 51.21.9)
and is depicted on the triumphal frieze from the Temple of Apollo Sosianus at
Rome (Beard, supra n. 145). At Nikopolis a marble relief of the tropaeum of Actium renders the unconventional order of the triumphal procession accurately,
including (if correctly identified) two of the children of Antony and Cleopatra
who accompanied Augustus inside his triumphal chariot (Zachos, supra n. 123).
More generally, Horace's Carmen saeculare highlights the scope of the victories of Augustus, the second Aeneas, over various enemies of the state. In each
case, the people groups that had been forced to accommodate with the Augustan
principate lived on the margins of the Roman Empire, but now acknowledged the
reality of the Roman hegemony:
And what the glorious scion of Anchises and Venus, with sacrifice of white-milk steers,
entreats of you, that he may obtain, triumphant over the warring foe, but generous to the
fallen! Now the Parthian fears the hosts mighty on land and sea, and fears the Alban axes.
Now the Indians and Scythians, but recently disdainful, are asking for our answer. Now
Faith and Peace and Honour and old-time Modesty and neglected Vrrtue have courage to
come back, and blessed Plenty with her full horn is seen. 150
Although Horace does not specify why the Parthians feared Rome, his auditors
would have immediately recognised the significance of the reference. Augustus'
diplomatic triumph over the Parthians was commemorated as one of the great
achievements of his reign. In a show of force (20 BC), Augustus had, along with
his adopted son Tiberius, forced the Parthian king, Phraates, to surrender the
Roman standards (the legionary eagles) to Rome again. 151 This negotiated outcome had reversed the humiliating Parthian capture of the legionary standards
in Crassus' unsuccessful campaign against the Parthians (51 BC), as well as
further Roman losses of standards under Saxa and Antony in 40 BC and 36 BC
respectively. 152 The adjoining kingdom of Armenia had also been brought under
Roman control when Tiberius crowned Tigranes, the younger brother of the
Armenian king, as the client-king of Rome.
discussion of the options, see J. T. Ramsey and A. L. Licht, The Comet of 44 BC and Caesar's
Funeral (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 145-149. Notwithstanding the dating difficulties, as Ramsey
and Licht (ibid., 148-149) note, it is indisputable that Augustus understood his birth sign to be
Capricorn (Suetonius, Aug. 94), as did his contemporaries (e.g. Manilius, 2.507-509; Germanicus, Arat. 558-560).
149 Barton, Ancient Astrology, 40.
150 Horace, Carm. saec. 49-60. Note Horace, Carm 15.6-8: 'and to Jove (has restored) the
standards stripped from the proud columns of the Parthians'.
151 For discussion, see Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 44-46.
152 For discussion, see ibid., 39-44.
136
Augustus' singular diplomatic victory over the Parthians was commemorated

with statuary and coin issues. 153 We have already discussed in 4.3.1 the famous
statue of Augustus at the villa of Livia at Prima Porta, the cuirass of which depicts
a Parthian gazing submissively at the Roman eagle. In regard to the numismatic
evidence, 154 a reverse type of Capricorn, with the legend SIGNIS PARTHICIS
RECEPTIS ('Standards recovered belonging to the Parthians'), was struck on an
eastern issue of aurei and denarii in 20 BC. 155 On another coin, a bare-headed
Parthian extends the standards, with their X-marked flag, holding them out low
in submission. 156 On several other coins a cornucopia is displayed on the obverse,
recalling Horace's image of 'blessed Plenty with her full horn' (Carm. saec. 60),
whereas on the reverse the legend AVGVSTVS is seen, with its connotation of
divine augury. 157 J. R. Fears explains the symbolism thus: 'The new golden age,
symbolised by the cornucopia, has dawned for mankind and Augustus and his
new saeculum stands forth as (the) divinely ordained product of the natural order
of the universe'. 158
Tiberius' subjugation of Armenia into a client kingdom was also rendered on
a coin that shows an Armenian, kneeling and dressed in a tiara and long robe,
with both hands extended in petition. 159 The symbolism of submissio would have
immediately registered with contemporary observers, even though many were
illiterate. In sum, there is little doubt that Vitruvius was speaking for the majority
of Romans when, in his preface to his work De architectura, he said:
When your divine mind and power, 0 Imperator Caesar, gained the empire of the world,
Rome gloried in your triumph and victory. For all her enemies were crushed by your invincible courage and all mankind obeyed your bidding ... 160
Several other pieces of evidence are worth highlighting. First, Velleius Paterculus - a military quaestor, legate and praetor of Tiberius - concludes his History
of Rome with this prayer for the ruler:
0 Jupiter Capitolinus, and Mars Gradivus, author and stay of the Roman name, Vesta,
guardian of the eternal fire, and all other divinities who have exalted this great empire of
Rome to the highest point yet reached on earth! On you I call, to you I pray in the name of
this people: guard, preserve, protect the present state of things, the peace which we enjoy,
the present emperor, and when he has filled his post of duty - and may it be the longest
granted to mortals - grant him successors to the latest time, but successors whose shoulders may be as capable of sustaining bravely the empire of the world as we have found his
153
154
For discussion of the imperial poets on Augustus' Parthian campaign, see ibid., 46-50.
For discussion of the numismatic evidence on Augustus' Parthian campaign, see ibid.,
50-55.
Fears, 'The Theology of Victory', 809 (citing BMC 679).

RIC F 'Augustus', 287.
157 Fears, 'The Theology of Victory', 810 (citing BMC 305-308).
158 Ibid., 810.
159 RIC F 'Augustus', 290.
160 Vitruvius, De arch. 1. Preface 1.
155
156
137
to be: foster the pious designs of all good citizens and crush the impious designs of the
wicked.l61
Given Velleius Paterculus' strong emphasis on the ruler establishing peace and
crushing the 'impious designs of the wicked', one wonders how Paul's auditors
might have understood his reference to the God of peace shortly crushing Satan
under their feet (Rom 16:20: auVTphJIEL TOV LUTavav urto TOU<; rtoM<; UflWV tv
Taxet). Would this have sounded like anti-imperial rhetoric to some in the Roman house churches? And exactly how 'shortly' would Paul's Roman auditors
have expected the fulfilment of the apostle's eschatological prophecy?
Second, the central scene of the famous cameo known as the grand camee
shows the Jupiter-like Tiberius seated alongside his mother Livia, with Germanicus in full military gear before them. Below the central scene are the conquered
peoples, dejectedly sitting with their eyes downcast. The occasion is probably
Germanicus' victorious return from the Rhine to Rome in triumph in AD 17. 162
The scene complements the earlier triumphal procession of (the future ruler)
Tiberius in 8/7 BC, graphically rendered on one of the silver Boscoreale cups. 163
Third, to return to Augustus, the other silver Boscoreale cup shows Augustus
being greeted by a group of Gallic men and their smiling children, with a Gaul
kneeling before Augustus. 164 The ruler extends his hand in a welcome, but as
M. B. Dowling observes, the presence of the solders behind Augustus and his
161 Velleius Paterculus 2.81.1-2.
162 Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 79. For a coin showing Germanicus in a triumphal quadriga,
posthumously issued by his son Caligula, see ibid., 57. A fragment of bronze, found near modern
Seville, records an inscription on a marble archway on the Circus Flaminius. The inscription
(Sherk, The Roman Empire, 37A Fragment Ill. 12-15) honours Germanicus' victory in Germany in recovering the standards lost under the Roman general Varus in AD 7 (Tacitus, Ann. 2.41;
Dio 57.18) with these words: 'the Senate and Roman people had dedicated this [marble] monument to the memory of Germanicus Caesar after he had defeated the Germans in war [and then]
had cleared them out of Gaul, recovered our military standards, avenged the perfidious [defeat]
of the army of the Roman people, established the status of the Gauls .. .'.
163 See A. L. Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale
Cups (Berkeley I Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995), Plates 10 BR 11:2, 11 BR 11:2,
16 BR 11:2 and discussion passim. On Augustus' triumphs (and declining of triumphs), see RG
4.1, 3. For an excellent discussion of the background, seeP. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore, Res Gestae
Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967),
43-44. On the Roman triumph, see R. Payne, The Roman Triumph (London: Robert Hale Ltd.,
1962); H.S. Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the
Roman Triumph (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970); Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 126-144; R.D. Aus,
Imagery of Triumph and Rebellion in 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 and Elsewhere in the Epistle: An Example of the Combination of Greco-Roman and Judaic Traditions in the Apostle Paul (Lanham I
New York/ Oxford: University Press of America, 2005); Beard, The Roman Triumph. The book of
E. Kiinzl, Der romische Triumph: Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom (Munich: Beck, 1988) was unavailable to me. On the Roman ideology of the triumph and its relation to Augustus as 'Imperator',
see Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 67-71.
164 For an aureus showing a German handing over an infant to Augustus, see Charbonneaux
(LJ\rt, Plate 99c; BMC I 'Augustus', 492)
138
position on a stool underscores his authority as conqueror and his possession

of imperium. 165 In reality, the scene depicts submissio on the part of the Gauls,
as the presence of the lictors highlights. 166 However, the pathetic portrait of
Tiberius' bound captives in the lower half of the gemma Augustea, watching
the Roman legionaries nearby erect a trophy commemorating their victory in
Dalmatia, reflects more accurately the chilling reality of Roman imperialism
in the first century. 167 Not unexpectedly, the upper half of the gemma Augustea
shows the laurel wreathed Tiberius, the victorious general, descending down
from his chariot in order to receive his triumph from Augustus, the vicegerent
of Jupiter. 168 Finally, the Senate has conferred on Augustus the award of the civic
crown (corona civica)- the oak wreath awarded a soldier for saving a colleague's
life- for saving the Roman state from continuing civil war (RG 34; Dio 53.16.4).
Valerius Maximus (Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 2.8. 7) speaks of the award in the
traditional Roman language of triumph and glory: '... hands are readily stretched
forth to receive the oak, when a crown is to be granted for countrymen saved.
With it the doorposts of the August dwelling triumph in eternal glory (sempiterna gloria triumphant)'. 169
In sum, Roman auditors, familiar with the imperial propaganda of victory,
must have wondered what precisely Paul meant when he spoke of believers being
'more than conquerors (imepvtKWf.LEV) through him who loved us' (Rom 8:37).
4.3.6 The virtus of the Ruler
The cult of virtues and its relation to imperial propaganda (literary, inscriptional, and numismatic) has been extensively discussed by J. R. Fears in a seminal
study. 17 Fears has argued that in terms of the imperial propaganda the reigns
165 M. B. Dowling, Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, 2006), 146-147. See also Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire, Plates 4 BR I:2, 5 BR I:2, 6 BR
I:2 and discussion passim.
166 Note Dowling's comment (Clemency and Cruelty, 147): 'The lictors' rods and axes, clearly
visible in the depiction of the frontallictor who stands between Augustus and the first Gallic
father and baby, indicate not only Augustus' role as a magistrate of the Roman people but his
power to punish and to spare'.
167 Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 79-80.
168 For an ancient source discussion of Roman law on the award of a triumph, see Valerius
Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 2.8.1-7.
169 For a coin showing the corona civica above of head of Julia, accompanied by her sons
Gaius and Lucius Caesar, see RIC J2 'Augustus', 404, cited J. Ginsburg, Representing Agrippina:
Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006), 58. As Ginsburg observes (ibid., 58-59), 'Here the corona civica is thought to represent
the domus Augusta to which Julia and her sons belong and to mark out the latter as future heirs
of the princeps'.
170 J. R. Fears, 'The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology', ANRW II 17/2 (1981):
827-948. See also H. Axtell, The Deification of Abstract Ideas in Roman Literature and Inscriptions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907); M.P. Charlesworth, 'The Virtues of the
Roman Emperor', PBA 23 (1937): 105-133; A.D. Castro, Tacitus and the 'Virtues' of the Roman
139
of Trajan and Hadrian are the formative period for the development of the cult
of the Virtues. In the view of Fears, the Virtues belong to the 'religious mentality which emphasises the power rather than the personality of the godhead'. 171
Worshippers, therefore, invoke the name of the specific power whose beneficence
they are seeking (e.g. Pax ['Peace'], Spes ['Hope'], Justitia ['Justice'], Clementia
['Mercy']) rather than petitioning grace from the traditional gods of the Roman
state. The Roman ruler, as the world-benefactor and the providentially appointed
agent of the gods, was ideally placed to render benefits to his dependants through
the cult of the Virtues and to project his official image at a popular level throughout the empire by the means of specific hypostasised Virtues.
During the principate of Augustus, a series of Virtues was closely identified
with the ruler and became the basis of a canon of Virtues for later rulers: namely,
Victoria, Pax, Fortuna Redux, Virtus, Clementia, Justitia and Pietas. 172 Later,
specific Virtues were isolated as the preserve of a particular ruler (e.g. Moderatio
[Tiberius]; Constantia Augusti [Claudius]; Securitas Augusti and Annona Augusti [Nero]). Other Virtues were assimilated to the ruler's family members (e.g.
Securitas [Agrippa]; Concordia [Drusilla]; Fortuna [Julia]). Finally, rulers after
Augustus added new Virtues to the Augustan canon ofVirtues (e.g. Victoria and
Fortuna/ Felicitas [Tiberius]; Ceres Augusta [Claudius]). 173
Notwithstanding, there still was a more general notion of the ruler embodying 'virtue' per se. In the Greek East, for example, the Priene inscription speaks
of Augustus as the providentially appointed icon of 'excellence' (ape-r~: 'virtue').
Here the ruler is the culmination of 'virtue' in a generic sense as opposed to
the incarnation of isolated Virtues in the cult of the Virtues. Moreover, in this
instance, there is an undefined link between the 'excellence' of Augustus and the
'soteriological' role to which the ruler has been appointed by Providence:
[S]ince Providence, which has divinely disposed our lives, having employed zeal and
ardour, has arranged the most perfect culmination for life (To TEAI]O"ta"tov 1:4> ~~4>) by
producing Augustus, whom for the benefit of mankind she has filled with excellence
(E1tA~pwm:v cipe"t~c;), as [if she had granted him as a saviour (aw1:~pa xapLO"flEVI]) for us
and our descendants] ... 174
Emperor: Imperial Propaganda in the Historiography of Tacitus (unpub. PhD diss. Indiana University, 1972); A. Wallace-Hadrill, 'The Emperor and His Virtues', Historia 30 (1981): 298-323.
On imperial virtus in relation to Romans, see Elliott, The Arrogance of the Nations, 143-161.
171 Ibid., 927.
172 Augustus in the RG 34.2 states that a golden shield was set in the Curia Julia 'on account of
my courage, clemency, justice, and piety'. An inscription from Arelate (27 BC) says that the Senate and the people of Rome gave Augustus 'a shield of virtue, clemency, justice and piety towards
the gods and the country' (Braund, Augustus to Nero, 13). A denarius shows Augustus placing a star on Agrippa's statue, with a shield displaying the words 'Shield of Virtue' (ibid., 16).
173 Fears, 'The Cult of Virtues', 889-897.
174 DocsAug., 98b II. 32-36. Fears ('The Theology of Victory', 760) observes that in the Greek
world cip1:~, along with einuxla, 'formed the essential attribute of the successful general', as
Plutarch's essay De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute (Mor. 326D-345B) demonstrates.
140
Of particular interest, however, is Augustus' own attitude to virtus ('virtue', 'manliness', 'strength', 'bravery', 'courage', 'excellence') and its relation to the descendants of his house. Augustus reveals that he is acutely aware of the importance
of 'manly virtue' being implanted in his successor. 175 In an affectionate letter to
Gaius in the East ('my dear Gaius, my favourite little donkey'), Augustus invites
his adopted son to his sixty-fourth birthday and then prays for Gaius' dynastic
hopes in these words:
As you see, I've climbed above the sixty-third year on the ladder of life, the critical point
for all old men. And I pray to the gods that you and I may pass the time remaining in
good health with the state flourishing, while you exercise your virtue (av<'\payaSouvrwv
Uf1WV: alternatively, 'displaying your valour'; 'while you are playing the man') and succeed
to my position (Kal &a<'\exof1EVWV meam stationem: alternatively, 'ready to take my place
in line'). 176
For Augustus, Gaius' display of'manlyvirtue' (av<Spaya9[a) in his campaign in

the East in the present was intimately connected to his assumption of rule in
the future. 177 After Gaius had been designated consul (AD 1) and was admitted to the senate, he was saluted by the equites as princeps iuventutis. From that
time onwards, Gaius was effectively the heir apparent to Augustus. In his tour
of duty with proconsular power against the Parthians (AD 2-4), Gaius had an
unsurpassed opportunity to win further glory for the house of the Caesars by
great deeds on the battlefield in service of the Roman state. 178 This would secure
175 Augustus was the iconic exemplar of military virtus for his successors (RG 1.1; 2-3.1;
26:5; 29:1).
176 Ibid., 59. Augustus' letter is cited in Aulus Gellius, NA 15.7.3.
177 Augustus' use of the Greek genitive absolute in his Latin letter to Gaius (Aulus Gellius,
NA 15.7.3: civcSpayaSouv-rwv UJ.IWV) is either (a) a rhetorical flourish, (b) another case of Roman
philhellenism, or (c) an appropriately chosen Greek word to convey the idea of Gaius achieving
'manly virtue' (civcSpayaStw: 'I behave like a man') in the Greek East. The final option is the most
likely. Fascinating, too, is Augustus' use of cStacSq6J.IEVO!;, a cognate of the Greek noun for the
'successors' of Alexander (cSuicSoxOI). Augustus, however, deflates any 'constitutional' expectation of succession to an office by the use of statio mea ('my place', 'my position', 'my standing').
Does this represent Augustus' personal swipe at some of his contemporaries who were trying
to pressure him to define his succession constitutionally? I am indebted to Professor E. A. Judge
for this observation. The other interesting issue is Augustus' use of the plural UJ.IWV: presumably the plural is indicating that Gaius and his heirs will succeed to Augustus' station by each
establishing his virtus.
178 D. C. Earl (The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome [London: Thames and Hudson,
1967], 73-74) argues that Horace and Virgil dethroned gloria( 6.1- 6.3) from its pre-eminence because its pursuit had ruined the Republic. In their poetry Pax Augusta is exalted instead.
But, as Earl observes (ibid., 77), the historian Livy thought more traditionally. In the words of
Earl, 'By virtus Livy meant the conventional ideal of the Republican aristocracy: the winning
of gloria and personal pre-eminence by the meritorious service of the state ... Such displays of
virtus not only won pre-eminent glory for the individual but also, traditionally, excited others
to emulation' (ibid., 74-75). It is this more republican understanding of virtus, I believe, that
Augustus is exhorting Gaius to pursue in the Greek East. However, as Augustus' letter makes
141
his status as the future princeps. Precisely because Gaius was not succeeding to
a constitutional office but was rather inheriting the superior 'place' (statio) of
Augustus as princeps (RG 32.3; cf. 34.3), the establishment of the military credentials of Gaius' 'manhood' (av<'>payaeouvTwv u1-ui>v ), of his virtus, before his
assumption of rule was all the more important. 179
However, by the time of pseudo-Seneca's historical drama Octavia - written
during the rule of the Flavian rulers, Galba and Vespasian - the critics of the
Julio-Claudian rulers increasingly challenged this militaristic construct of Roman 'manliness' and its embodiment in the ruler. In a conversation between
Seneca and Nero regarding the virtues of the ruler (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 440-444),
the ruler's extension of dementia ('mercy') and securitas ('safety') to his citizens
is exalted over against the traditional Roman value of the leader destroying the
foes of the state (virtus ducis), internal and external:
Seneca: It is not becoming to proceed rashly against one's friends.
Nero: It is easy to be just when the heart is free from fear.
Seneca: A sovereign cure for fear is clemency (dementia).
Nero: To destroy foes is a leader's greatest virtue (maxima est virtus ducis).
Seneca: For the father of his country (patriae patri) to save citizens (servare cives) is
greater still.
To be sure, the Augustan propaganda also successfully highlighted the ruler's

extension of dementia to foes and citizens. 180 But there was little doubt among
the critics of the principate that Augustus was only able to offer dementia to the
survivors of the civil war because of the enormity of his bloodletting during his
rise to power( 7.4). For some Romans, therefore, the time was opportune in
the late fifties-to-sixties for the emergence of a new conception of rule in which
a virtuous benefactor would dispense mercy and security to his enemies without
personal intimidation or the threat of military power. Paul's gospel, as we will see
( 4.3.8; 5.1- 5.4), answered this hope in an unexpected way.
clear, Gaius' accession to power is also indebted to Augustus' pre-eminence as princeps (statio:
Aulus Gdlius, NA 15.7.3)- a principate which Livy, unlike the imperial poets, did not eulogise
(Earl, Moral and Political Tradition, 78-79).
179 Earl (ibid., 73) notes: 'Militarily it was Augustus who held the auspicia and it was he who
was the commander of the Roman army in his wide provincia. Therefore it was he alone who
was entitled to celebrate a triumph. Only to Augustus could the aristocratic concept of virtus be
applied in all its fullness; only to the members of his family might a share be granted - and even
they benefited from his teaching and example'. For discussion of the republican understanding
of 'manliness', seeM. McDonnell, Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). More generally, see also A. Clark, Divine Qualities:
Cult and Community at Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
180 See Dowling, Clemency and Cruelty.
142
4.3.7 The Titles of the Ruler and the Language of 'Newness'

An interesting phenomenon in the honorific inscriptions is the association of
the language of 'newness' with the titles of the ruler and his family members.
Although we have earlier referred to this feature of the imperial cult( 2.3 n. 78),
this section expands our discussion of the language of'newness' in relation to the
ruler in the documentary sources.
The occasions when the language of'newness' is used of the ruler in the honorific inscriptions of the early imperial period are many and varied. In addition
to the texts we have already briefly discussed, a draft of the proclamation of
Nero's accession from Egypt is dated to the month of the 'New Augustus'. 181 The
adopted son of Augustus, Gaius, is honoured as the 'New Ares' in the theatre of
Dionysius at Athens, probably when Gaius was first considered to be the ruler's
heir apparent (AD 1), just before his untimely death in AD 4. Caligula and Nero
are both called the 'New Sun', 182 whereas Caligula's sister, Drusilla, is referred to
as the 'New Aphrodite'. 183 Claudius is eulogised as the 'New Zeus', 184 while Nero
is designated the 'New Apollo'. 185 In the above cases, the language of'newness' is
either associated with the accession of the ruler to power or it highlights the fact
that the 'godlike favours' of the ruler - or those of his household members - are
currently available to his clients. 186
Sometimes the honorific inscriptions are quite specific regarding the occasion
of this much-vaunted 'newness' of the house of the Caesars. In these cases, we are
able to discern more clearly what is 'new' about what the ruler is offering. First,
in an inscription from Cyzicus, we learn that the vastly inferior 'rays' of the client
kings ofThrace redound to the immortal greatness of Caligula as they join in the
universal 'illumination' provided by the ruler as the 'New Sun'. The inferiority of
the three Thracian client kings over against the 'New Sun' is underlined in three
significant ways: (a) the client kings only 'shine' by the will of the ruler; (b) the
ruler's greatness is immortal and is to be hallowed by the client kings; (c) the elient kings cannot reciprocate the enormity of the ruler's 'god-like' grace. Indeed,
the very occasion of this inscription is the celebration of the games of 'the goddess New Aphrodite, Drusilla':
Braund, Augustus to Nero, 235.

Caligula: ibid., 673; Nero: ibid., 282. Seneca (Apoc. 4) also employs 'sun' imagery in
speaking ofNero's accession to power thus: 'So Nero shows his face to Rome before the people's
eyes; his bight and shining countenance illumines all the air'.
183 Braund, Augustus to Nero, 190, 673.
184 Ibid., 233.
185 Ibid., 281.
186 The language of 'newness' is also extended to imperial family members: e.g. Julia ('New
Aphrodite': IGGR. IV. 114}; Livia ('New Hera': IGGR. IV. 249}; Gaius ('New god': IGGR. IY.
1094}; Germanicus ('New god': DocsAug., 95}; Drusilla ('New Aphrodite': SIG3 798}.
181
182
143
Since the New Sun (6 veoc;"HXtoc;), Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, was willing that
kings too, the bodyguards of empire, should with their own rays join in illumination, so
that the greatness of his immortality (To I!EyaAEiov Tii<; ci8avacrlac;) might be all the more
hallowed in this too, the kings, even if they devoted themselves entirely to that end, being
incapable of equally reciprocating the favour of such a god (TTJALKm)mu 8EOti) for the benefactions they have received ... having become greater than the great and more wonderful
than the brilliant, Rhoimetalkes and Polemon have now come to our city to join in the
sacrifices and festivals with their mother who is celebrating the games of the goddess New
Aphrodite, Drusilla (Tii<; flEd<; vta<; 'Acppol'iEhJ]<; i\poucr[AAJ]<;) ... 187
Second, in the AD 67 decree of Epameinondas, the high-priest of the Augusti

and Nero, the language of 'newness' is used of Nero's beneficence shining upon
Greece because of his abolition of taxation for Achaia and the Peloponnesus. It
is the unexpected nature and unprecedented scope of Nero's magnanimous act
that evokes the language of 'newness' here: other rulers, Nero points out, had
liberated cities, but only Nero a province. But Nero's beneficence had also 'shone'
on the province of Achaia in another surprising way. As the Roman ruler, he had
demonstrated piety towards the Greek gods, 188 reciprocating their providential
care for him:
Since the lord of the entire world (6 Toti navTo<; KOO"I!OU K\lptoc;), Nero, pontifex maximus,
in his thirteenth year of tribunician power, father of his country, New Sun that has shone
on the Greeks (vto<; "HALO<; tmAall'l'a<; Toic; "EAAT]O"LV), has decided to bestow beneficence
upon Greece, and has rewarded and shown piety towards our gods, who have stood by him
everywhere for his care and safety ... 189
The two inscriptions discussed above move us beyond the stereotyped language
of'newness' and provide us sympathetic insight into the reverential awe and deep
gratitude that provincial clients felt towards the imperial benefactors and their
household members for their political favours. Only something dramatically
'new' and 'godlike', as experienced in the imperial age of grace, could account
for such effusive language.
Finally, we conclude our discussion with the loyalty oath of four floodgate
guards - each of whom was a village priest - sworn to Tiberius in AD 25. The
guards swear by 'Tiberius Caesar Augustus New Imperator, son of the Divine Au187 SIG 3 798ll. 3-7, 11-12. Note, too, the comment of Price ('Rituals and Power', 69}: 'Divine
language is used by the Greeks not only in their diplomatic approaches to the emperor but also
in response to political actions by the emperor'.
188 Note the comment of D. R. Edwards (Religion and Power: Pagans, Jews, and Christians in
the Greek East [New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996], 52} regarding this decree:
'only the city, primarily through its magistrates and council, which wielded the bulk of local
power, had the right to give its full allegiance to the emperor, to name him Zeus Eleutherios,
and to associate him with their ancestral gods. Benefactions elicit allegiance and recognition,
entailing reciprocal relations, freely offered between persons of different statuses, key features
of patronage in the ancient world'.
189 SIG3 81411.30-37.
144
gustus' that they will supervise the water outflow so that there will be no damage
to the grain crops of the Arsinoite nome in Egypt. 190 However, the appearance
of the language of 'newness' in the loyalty oath is somewhat puzzling. Tiberius
has been the ruler of the Roman Empire for eleven years now: why, then, do the
priests swear by the 'New Imperator'?
An important factor is that Egypt was traditionally regarded to be the breadbasket of Rome. The possibility of any interruption to the grain supply of Rome
is forestalled by the personal oath of the floodgate guards to Tiberius, Augustus'
successor. Thus Augustus, although apotheosised over a decade ago, continues to
rule over Egypt through his son, Tiberius, the 'New Imperator'. Compliance to
Rome in the provinces, therefore, remained the same as it always had, notwithstanding the arrival of a 'new' Julian successor. Here the language of 'newness'
is an instrument of political control manipulated by the Caesars and their local
clients in order to facilitate the continuing provision of grain for Rome.
4.4 The Triumph of Christ as Eschatological Ruler in Romans

Paul's portrayal of Christ as the eschatological figure of world and cosmic history would have registered with Romans imbued with the Augustan conception
of rule, but who were alienated by imperial successors such as Caligula and Nero.191 Conversely, it may well have provoked those who supported the symbolic
universe enunciated by the Julio-Claudian propaganda, either as its clients or
officials (cf. Acts 17:5-8). Further, the early believers may well have disagreed
regarding the extent of the threat posed by the rituals and celebrations of imperial cult or by the symbolic universe underlying the Julio-Claudian conception
of rule (1 Cor8:5-6; 8:10; 10:14-22; Rom 14:5-6a [ 5.1 n.15]). The issue would
have been a sensitive one, given the fact that some of the early Roman believers
belonged to the familia Caesaris (Phil4:22) and, in all likelihood, to the households of the ruler's powerful freedmen and clients (Rom 16:10b, llb: [ 5.1
190
Ibid., 729.
D. Georgi (Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991; Gmn.
orig. 1987], 99) observes: 'Romans was written at the very beginning of Nero's rule, when
propaganda based on ... prophetic and theological speculations, with intense eschatological
expectations, enjoyed immense popularity'. However, this revival of the Augustan Golden Age
would soon be dashed. As pseudo-Seneca observes in his historical drama: '... this spurious
Nero, son of Domitius, tyrant of a world he burdens with his shameful yoke, and with foul
ways pollutes the name Augustus!' (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 249-251). Octavia, Claudius' daughter and
Nero's first wife, was exiled by the ruler and executed in AD 62. In the drama, Octavia sums up
Nero's rule thus: 'Now Piety no longer has divinity, nor are there any gods; Grim Fury reigns
throughout the universe' (ibid., 911-913). Moreover, T.M. Coleman, ('Binding Obligations
in Romans 13:7: A Semantic Field and Social Context', TynBul4B/2 [1997]: 325) argues that
Romans was written 'during a time of increasing dissatisfaction over the burden of taxation in
the Neronian principate'.
191
145
n. 15). Any tensions arising from the patronalloyalties of these early Roman
believers could have potentially exacerbated the disunity already existing among
some of the house churches at Rome ( 7.2.2. n. 86). Thus Paul charted a course of
maintaining unity in Christ among the diverse constituency of Roman believers
(Rom 3:29-30; 4:10-12, 16-19; 11:17-22; 12:3-10; 14:1-15:13; 16:17-18), with a
strong commitment to fostering civic cooperation with the imperial authorities
{13:1, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5-7: 7.4) and winning their praise through a commitment to
benefaction culture (13:3-4). 192
However, in focusing on eschatology as an important theological theme in
Romans, Paul engages implicitly with the Julio-Claudian conception of rule as
promoted in the imperial propaganda of the Greek East and the Latin West.
His pastoral intent was to ensure that Roman Gentile believers understood how
God's grace had incorporated them into the history of Israel and its eschatological culmination in Christ, who was both Messiah and God (Rom 1:1-6;
9:5; 9:30-10:4; 11:26-27; 15:12; 16:25-27).193 This stood opposed to the JulioClaudian understanding of history with its cyclical reappearance of the Golden
Age in the reigns of Augustus and Nero. In the Julio-Claudian propaganda,
Augustus and Nero were considered the providentially chosen vice-regent of the
gods( 4.3.1) and the son, respectively, of the apotheosised Caesar and Claudius.194 By demoting the 'god-like' status of the Caesars to being God's 'servants'
(Rom 13:4, 6) and by exalting God's eschatological Messiah in salvation history
( 4.1.2; 4.2), Paul helped Gentile Roman believers (Rom 1:13b; 11:13a) to
understand how they might live transformed and Spirit-empowered lives in the
present evil age {7:6; 12:2). They were not to compromise with imperial idolatry
(Rom 1:23: 4.2 n. 47; cf. Gal4:8-10), 195 or to surrender their new identity as
the Body of Christ to Nero as the head of the Roman body politic {8:29; 12:3-8;
7.2.2; 7.4), 196 or to provoke unwisely or be intimidated by the threat of the
ruler's sword (8:35b; 13:4b: 7.2.2; 7.4), or to fall prey to the culture of death
that marked the imperial age (5:21; 6:5; 7:24-25; 8:23, 37-39; 4.2). Thus there
192 B. W. Winter, 'The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13:3-4 and 1 Peter
2:14-15', JSNT34 (1988): 87-103.
193 On the identification ofJesus as 8e6<; in Romans 9:5, see M. J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New
Testament Use ofTheos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).
194 Later in Nero's reign, well after Paul composed Romans, Nero rescinded the apotheosis
of Claudius (Suetonius, Nero 33), although this was subsequently restored by Vespasian (id.,
Vesp. 9). By contrast, at the beginning of Nero's reign, an Egyptian draft of the proclamation
of Nero's accession to rule underscores the apotheosis of Claudius (DocsGaius, 47} and coins
from Rome (AD 55) and the Greek East (Caesarea [Cappadocia)) emphasise Nero's divine sonship (ibid., 50, 107}. However, notwithstanding his initial rejection of divine powers (supra,
n. 94: P. Med. inv. 70.01), Nero's tendency to megalomania became increasingly pronounced as
his reign progressed (supra and infra, nn. 90, 91, 115, 201}
195 Hardin, Galatians, 116-147.
196 On the imitation of the ruler in Roman thought and its relation to Paul's christocentric
mimesis, see Harrison, 'The Imitation of the Great Man', 2.2.
146
exists a political paradox at the heart of Paul's thought: a submission to and honouring of the authorities ( 7.4), coupled with a radical demotion of the ruler's
status ( 7.4) and the dismissal of the ruler as a hostage to sin and death in the
present evil age, like the rest of mankind( 4:2). Positively, however, the ruler is
seen as God's servant.
In what follows, I will concentrate on how various eschatological texts
in Romans interacted with Roman conceptions of the rule of the Caesars
( 4.3.1- 4.3.7): specifically, Rom 1:2-6; 6:4; 7:6; 8:18-25; 8:37-39; 10:4; 11:2526; 12:2; 15:12; 16:20; 16:25-27. Several prominent eschatological texts and motifs in Romans are bypassed because they are dealt with elsewhere: the language
of eschatological glory( 6.1- 6.6); the Katp6<; terminology in Rom 5:6 ( 4:2;
5.5.3); the reign of grace in 5:12-21 and 6:14 ( 4:2); and, finally, the nearness
of the eschatological day in 13:11-12a ( 7.4).
4.4.1 Paul, Messianic Prophecy and the Golden Age

Several eschatological texts in Romans - with either a christological, teleological
or doxological focus - are worthy of comparison with the 'messianic' prophecy
of the imperial age. First, in an important christological text, Paul compares the
humble estate of the Son of God - the pre-existent One who was descended in
his human nature from the house of David (Rom 1:3b: KaTa oapKa) 197 - with
his divine exaltation as the victorious Son of God through the Holy Spirit (Rom
1:4a: Ka-ra nvtfiJla aytwo'6vf]<;). By virtue of his resurrection (Rom 1:4.a: t~
avaa-raatw<; vtKpwv), Paul asserts, Jesus was 'appointed Son of God in power
(-rou 6pto8ev-ro<; uiou 8wu tv 6uva11t). 198 In other words, Jesus was appointed
to his messianic kingship heralded in the writings of the Old Testament and
commented on in the literature of Second Temple Judaism (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7;
cf. 1QSa 2.11-12; 4Q521). 199 Paul's 'enthronement' drama diverges from the humiliating submission of the nations to the ruler depicted in the Julio-Claudian
propaganda( 4.3.5), 200 as well as from the belief that the ruler's sonship was the
result of the apotheosis of his father( 2.3). 201
197 Cranfield (Romans. Volume I-VIII, 58) and Schreiner (Romans, 38) observe that the
placement of the words TOU uiou auTou (Rom 1:3a) before the two participles (Rom 1:3a: TOU
yevotJEVou; 1:4a: Tou 6pto8tvToc;) suggests that Jesus existed as the pre-existent Son before his
incarnation as the seed of David and prior to his appointment as the risen messianic king.
198 J.D. G. Dunn (Romans 1-8 [Waco: Word, 1988], 14): 'Jesus did not become God's Son at
the resurrection: but he entered upon a still higher rank of sonship at the resurrection'.
199 For this understanding of Tou 6pta8tvToc; (Rom 1:4a), see Cranfield (Romans. Volume
I-V111, 61-62) and Schreiner (Romans, 41-42).
200 J. Ziesler (Paul's Letter to the Romans [London: SCM, 1989], 63) agues that sonship, power
and resurrection are interconnected. God sends his pre-existent Son (Rom 8:3). Thus 'Jesus
became, not Son of God, but Son of God in power' in his exaltation (ibid., original emphasis).
Hence it is possible to view Romans 1:4 as 'an enthronement formula' (ibid.). For an excellent
discussion of the Old Testament 'coronation' motif behind Romans 1:2-4, see Rock, The Im-
4.41he Triumph of Christ as Eschatological Ruler in Romans
147
Several scholars have unpacked insightfully many of the imperial implications of

Paul's christology in verses 2-4 with special focus on the reign ofNero.l. E. Rock
has argued that 'Romans 1:3-4 presents Jesus as the authentic Son of God, and as
the one who has been given authority to exercise power on behalf of God, and as
the one human being who through the imparting of God's Spirit of holiness can
claim the title "Lord" which is synonymous with God'. 202 Rock proposes that the
resurrection is 'positive evidence that Rome's power was not final', 203 dismantling
Nero's special relationship with the gods, as well as his claim to be 'the arbiter
oflife and death for the nations' (Seneca, Clem. 1.19.8).204 N. T. Wright proposes
that Romans 1:3-4 'was a royal proclamation aimed at challenging other royal
proclamations'.205 Alternatively, D. Georgi argues that Paul's use of a traditional
christological formula in Romans 1:3-4 was a satirical counter to the recent assumption and apotheosis of Claudius upon his violent death in 54 AD. 206 1his
elevation to divine status on Claudius' part had been mocked in Seneca's The
Pumpkinification of Claudius. Further, Paul had announced a new pattern of
rulership that would challenge the 'social utopia of Caesarism' enunciated in
the Einsiedeln eclogues belonging to the reign of Nero. 207 Finally, N. Elliott examines Romans 1:3-4 against the backdrop of Nero's succession as adumbrated
in Calpurnius Siculus' Eclogues (1.84-88) and Seneca's The Pumpkinification of
Claudius (Apoc. 1).208
Irrespective of how one interprets the Neronian background proposed for the
text, at the very least it is probable that Romans 1:3-4 is providing a different
paradigm of rulership to its imperial counterpart. Paul's addition of the phrase
tv ~UVQ~El to the messianic title uio<; eeou (Rom 1:4; cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7) elevates dramatically the status of Jesus, vindicating him as the risen and ruling
plications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 157-161. Similarly, J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans
(London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1970}, 9-10. T.R. Schreiner (Romans [Grand Rapids;
Baker, 1998], 42} sums up the case succinctly: 'When he lived on earth, he was the Son of God
as the seed of David (v. 3). Upon his resurrection, however, he was enthroned as the messianic
king'. Cf. Acts 2:36; 13:33.
201 From AD 64-68 Nero's portraiture undergoes a transformation to the eastern idea of
divine royalty by being depicted in the tradition of Alexander and the Diadochi. See H. P.
L'Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (New Rochelle: Caratzis Brothers, 1982}, 57-63.
202 Rock, 1he Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 125.
203 Ibid., 128.
204 Ibid. Rock (ibid., 175) also claims that Paul's use of npw-r6ToKO!; ('first born') in Romans
8:29 was 'a possible allusion to the emperor as first citizen' (RG 30).
205 N. T. Wright, 'Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics:
Ekklesia, Israe~ Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor ofKrister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000), 168.
206 For a summary of the debate whether Romans 1:2-4 is a pre-Pauline christological tradition, with tv c5uv6.f1EL (1:4) as a Pauline addition, or is a composition of his own hand, see Dunn,
Romans 1-8, 5-6.
207 Georgi, Theocracy, 86-87.
208 Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, 61-72.
148
Chapter4: Imperial Conceptions ofRule and Paul's Reign of Grace
Son of God in heaven over his imperial rivals on earth. 209 This strategy sidelines
both Augustus and Nero, sons of the apotheosised gods Caesar and Claudius. 210
As the vindicated and risen Son of God, Christ had returned to heaven - his
original domain - in order to rule over all the nations through the obedience of
faith (Rom 1:5: el~ imaKol)v n[onw~ v mimv -roi~ 8vt:mv). By contrast, in the
imperial propaganda apotheosis was only ever extended to three rulers of the
Julio-Claudian house (Caesar; Augustus; Claudius), along with two other family
members {Livia Augusta, the wife of Augustus; Poppaea, the wife of Nero). 211
Christ's resurrection, however, was more inclusive in its scope in that he was the
'firstborn among many brothers' (Rom 8:29: npw-r6-roKov tv noUoi~ Mt:Xcpoi~).
In the present, as the divinely appointed benefactor of his siblings (Rom 8:3135a), Christ provides access to his Father though the gift of the Spirit {8:14-16)
and, in the future, seals their adoption as sons through the resurrection of the
dead to eschatological glory {8:11, 17, 23}. Further, Augustus and Nero only
became sons of god because of the apotheosis of their fathers. Jesus had always
possessed the status of the eternal Son of God, but his power and glory had been
immeasurably magnified through his death and resurrection.
Moreover, the MvaJ.H~ of the Davidic Son of God was demonstrated in God's
gospel of justification {Rom 1:16: cSUvaJ.lL~ 8toii) and in the Spirit's signs and
wonders {15:13, 19: tv cSuvaf.l1 nvt:UJ.laTo~). with the purpose ofbringing about
209 Jewett (Romans, 107; also W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902], 9) agues that tv c'iuvci!J.El
('in power') should be linked with -roii 6pta8tv-roc; ('appointed') as opposed to uloc; 8Eoii (Rom
1:4). Thus tv c'iuv<ij.lEl would be understood instrumentally, referring to Jesus' appointment
through divine power. Contra, see Cranfield, Romans. Volume I-VIII, 63; Morris, Romans, 45;
Byrne, Romans, 45; C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (London: A & C Black, 1971), 20; D.
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 48-49; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans:
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992), 235;
Dunn, Romans 1-8, 14. Wright ('The Letter to the Romans', 418) understands tv c'iuv<ij.lEl thus:
'The phrase seems to refer both to the power of God that raised Jesus from the dead ... and that
thereby declared his identity as Messiah, and to the powerful nature of his sonship, through
which he confronts all the powers of the world, up to and including death itself, with the news
of a different and more effective type of power altogether'.
210 On Augustus as 'Son of God', see L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown: American Philological Association, 1931), 142-180. On Nero as 'Son of God', see
Griffin, Nero, 98.
211 For the Suetonian evidence for the apotheosis of Caesar, Augustus, and Claudius, see
Suetonius, lui. 88.1; Aug. 100.4 (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 1.10; Dio 41:9); Claud. 45 (cf. Dio 61.35.1-4;
Seneca, Apol.). On the apotheosis of Livia Augusta and Poppaea, see Suetonius, Claud. 11; Dio
40.5; Tacitus, Ann. 16.21. For the numismatic and gem evidence of apotheosis, see Kreitzer,
Striking New Images, 69-98. Other members of the Julio-Claudian household were presented
as apotheosised in the private gem evidence (e.g. Germanicus: see Kreitzer, ibid., 79, 80 Fig. 6),
though this does not constitute official recognition of apotheosis. Notwithstanding, the Greek
East had no such compunctions. See the inscription of Mytilene (Braund, Augustus to Nero,
117: DocsAug., 95) referring to Nero Julius Caesar (AD 6-30) as the 'son of new god (naic'ia
etw VEW) Germanicus Caesar'.
149
the obedience of the Gentiles (1 :5-6; 15:9-12, 18). This life-transforming 6Uva1-uc;
stands in contrast to the 'manly virtue' (avcSpayaSia) or military virtus that the
Roman ruler displays on the battlefield towards the enemy nations( 4.2: ps.Seneca, Oct. 504-532; 4.3.6: ps.-Seneca, Oct. 440-444).
Three Old Testament messianic texts cited in Romans (Isa 11:10 LXX; Isa
50:20-21 LXX; Isa 40:13 LXX) confirm this strong emphasis on God's merciful rule of the nations. 212 We are told that the root ofJesse would rule over the
Gentiles (Rom 15:12a: Isa 11:10 LXX; cf. Pss. Sol. 17.21-46) in an Edenic reign
of peace and justice (cf. Is a 11:1-9, esp. 2-5, 6-9), established by the resurrection (Rom 1:4) rather than by the sword (4Q161 Frs. 8-10).213 As a result, the
Gentiles in the present age could unreservedly put their hope in Christ (Rom
15:12a) and rejoice in God's mercy to them (15:9-11). 214 We should not conclude, however, that God had forgotten to be merciful to historical Israel in this
process. Although God continues to call out the elect remnant of Israel in the
present (Rom 11:5), he still has 'end-time' plans for historical Israel. Christ, as the
eschatological deliverer, would come out of the heavenly Zion to redeem Israel in
a final demonstration of divine mercy before the Judgement Day (Rom 11:26-27:
cf. Isa 50:20-21 LXX; Isa 40:13 LXX), but at the very time when the fullness of the
Gentiles had finally come in (11:25b ). Thus a messianic 'empire' - based not on
the humiliation of military subjection but on the extension of divine grace - was
being established in the hearts of the Gentiles. 215 It would transform them into
the 'likeness' of God's exalted Son (Rom 8:28: OUJ.1J.16pq>ouc; Tiic; ElK6voc; mii
uioii aumii) as opposed to the 'likeness' of Nero in the body politic (Seneca,
Clem. 2.1.4: in similitudinem tuamformabuntur; 4.4.2; 7.2.2).
Finally, it is little surprise that Paul in Romans 1:4 brings the language of'sonship' to a dramatic culmination with his final honorific accolade: 'ITJOOU XptoToii
212
For an excellent discussion of the catena of LXX texts in Romans 15:9b-15, D. J.-S. Chae,
Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and Its Influence on the Soteriological
Argument in Romans (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 58-68.
213 M. A. Seifrid, 'Romans', in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 690.
214 Chae (Apostle to the Gentiles, 65, original emphasis) writes: 'Often the messianic promise
comprises both the vindication of Israel and the destruction of the Gentiles (Ps 2:8-9; 72:8-9;
110:1; Pss. Sol. 17:30). For Paul, as for many other Jews, the messianic promise brings hope to
the Gentiles .. .'.
215 In terms of the Roman humiliation of the nations, note the how the conquests of Tiberius- called Nero in this context- over Armenia and Germany are presented (Crinagoras,
Planudean Anthology 61: cited Braund, Augustus to Nero, 32; cf. ibid., 43, 60, 212):
'Sunrise and sunset are the measures of the world; and
The deeds of Nero traversed both limits of the earth.
The rising sun saw Armenia subjugated at his hands,
And the setting sun Germany.
Let his double military conquest be hymned: Araxes
And Rhine know, as slave peoples drink their waters'.
150
Tou Kup(ou ~flWV. The honorific of Kuplo<; ('lord') was especially appropriate
in the Neronian context of Romans. J.D. Fantin documents the explosion of
Kupto<; language under Nero in comparison to its rare use under the previous
Julio-Claudian rulers, citing at least 109 cases ofNpwvo<; Tou Kup(ou ('Of Nero
the lord') in the business transactions of the papyri and ostraca, as well as six
cases ofNpwvo<; Kalcrapo<; Tou Kup(ou ('Of Nero Caesar the lord'). 216 Also an
inscription (SIG3 814 ll. 30-31: AD 67) eulogises Nero as 'the lord of the entire
world' (6 TOu navTo<; KOOflOU Kupto<; Npwv; cf. SIG 3 8141.55: Ei<; Tov Tou Kuplou
~e~acrTou [Npwvo<; o1Kov]). 217 Thus there is reason to believe that the phrase
'IT)OOU XptcrTou Tou Kuptou ~flWV in Romans 1:5 might have Neronian reference
in this context. But, as Fantin notes, it was not really until after AD 60 that the use
of Kupto<; as a title for the ruler began to increase exponentially. 218 Nevertheless,
such significant linguistic developments do not occur in an historical vacuum:
it could have been the case that in the mid to the late fifties the title already had
informal currency in various circles (e.g. diplomatic, business, military). Paul's
addition of the pronoun ~flWV ('our') emphasises the personal commitment of
believers to their risen Lord, as well as their community in Christ over against
Nero's body politic. In conclusion, the rapid accumulation of christological titles
(Son of God, Seed of David, Messiah, and Lord) in Romans 1:2-4, noted by D.
Moo, 219 is probably Paul's counterblast to the plethora ofhonorific titles credited
to the Roman ruler, as much as a rich unveiling of how the Jewish prophetic heritage was fulfilled in Christ. 220
Second, the language of teleology in Paul and in the imperial propaganda
opens up another profitable area of comparison. In Romans 10:4 Paul declares
that Christ was the 'TEAo<; ('goal' or 'end') of the law as far as the quest for righteousness, over against the misguided quest of the people of Israel (Rom 10:2)
for their own nomistic righteousness (9:31b, 32b; 10:3b). 221 In an act of grace,
God had declared the Gentiles 'just', crediting to them his righteousness in
Christ (Rom 9:30a; 10:4b), appropriated through faith apart from 'works' of
the law (9:32a; 10:4b). In terms of a possible imperial context for Romans 10:4,
the famous Priene inscription (9 BC) employs teleological language to describe
Providence bringing life to culmination in the Julian house: '[S]ince Providence,
which has divinely disposed our lives, having employed zeal and ardour, has ar216 See J.D. Fantin, The Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, a Challenge to Lord Caesar?
(unpub. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 2006), 176-189, esp. 181-187, forthcoming Sheffield Phoenix).
217 Ibid., 183.
218 Fantin, ibid., 211.
219 Moo, Romans, 50-51.
220 See Taylor, Divinity of the Roman Emperor, ~ppendix III: Inscriptions Recording Divine
Honours', 267-283.
221 For discussion as to whether -r&o<; signifies the 'fulfillment' or the 'end' of the law, see R.
Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985).
4.41he Triumph of Christ as Eschatological Ruler in Romans
151
ranged the most perfect culmination for life (To TEA'16TaTov T4' ~tq>) by producing Augustus .. .'.222
Although Paul uses teleological language here in a way reminiscent of the
Priene inscription, this does not imply a full-scale critique of the Augustan propaganda on the apostle's part. The crux of Paul's critique lies elsewhere, engaging
the tragedy of Israel's misguided nomistic righteousness. But the theocentric
emphasis of Romans and its strong focus on prophetic fulfilment indicates, at
the very least, that Paul wanted his Gentile readers to understand that salvation
history had found its culmination in the house of David and its Messiah rather
than in the house of Caesar and its ruler. Providential motifs ( 4.3.1; 4.3.4)
and prophetic oracles( 4.1.1; 4.1.2) were widespread enough in the imperial
propaganda, both in the Greek East and Latin West, for Roman Gentile converts
to want to know more about their incorporation into Israel. Furthermore, Paul
would have been well aware that this issue had to be broached so that Roman
boastfulness and arrogance regarding their cultural and military superiority over
the conquered nations, including the Jews, might not infect the Gentile believers
at Rome (Rom 1:14; 3:27 [cf. 2:17, 23; 4:2]; 11:17-21; 15:7-9). 223
Third, E. Kasemann, J.D. G. Dunn, and R. Jewett have dismissed the concluding doxology of Romans 16:25-27 as inauthentic on theological, stylistic and
textual history grounds. 224 While there is certainly a cumulative force to Jewett's
argument in particular, one wonders whether the doxology would be considered
inauthentic if the imperial context of verses 25-27 was more fully explored.
Instead of proposing a sharp theological division between the doxology and the
rest of the epistle, it could be viably argued that Paul is here engaging the JulioClaudian propaganda( 6.2- 6.3). The apostle wants to highlight once again for
222 DocsAug., 98b I. 32. I have drawn attention to this inscription and its language of teleology in relation to Paul's gospel in J. R. Harrison, 'Paul, Eschatology and the Augustan Age of
Grace', TynBu/50/1 (1999): 79-91, esp. 85, 87-88.
223 See the outstanding discussion ofJewett (Romans, 130-132) on Romans 1:14 in this regard. Also see Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 284-285. The superiority of
Roman civilization to the barbarians is also given poignant visual expression in the inscribed
ethne bases in the Sebasteion in Aphrodisias (D. C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining
Paul's Mission [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008], 47 Fig. 12). For discussion, seeR. R. R. Smith, 'The
Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias', IRS 77 (1987): 88-138; id., 'Simulacrum
Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias', IRS 78 (1988): 50-77. For an interesting variation on the theme, see Braund, Augustus to Nero, 92: on the four sides of a huge
block at Puteoli are sculpted images of 14 cities of Asia, with their names inscribed below their
representation. This stands in sharp contrast to the humiliating Aprodisias monument: the 14
cities of Asia are honouring Tiberius as their ruler and benefactor. Finally, an Augustan denarius,
showing the submissio of a barbarian (BMC I 'Augustus', 127), depicts the long-haired and
bearded captive as entirely naked apart from a cloak over the shoulders.
224 E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 421-428; J.D. G.
Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Waco: Word, 1988), 912-913; Jewett, Romans, 997-1011. Contra, Ziesler,
Romans, 356-357. See the succinct but telling critique of this position by G. R. Osborne, Romans
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 418-419.
152
his Roman auditors the vast ideological chasm that exists between the fulfilment
of the 'two ages' in Christ and the Roman cyclical understanding of time. Paul's
salvation-history perspective- in which the long-hidden mystery (Rom 16:25b:
cl1tOKCtAU\jllV ~UOLYJplOU XPOVOtc:; alwv[ou:;) is now finally disclosed (16:26a: <pavepw9EVTO<; l)f. vuv; 16:26b: yvwptoStvTo<;)- would have challenged the Roman
understanding of a recurring saeculum. Moreover, Paul's reference to the longevity of the secret (Rom 16:25: xp6vou:; alwvlot<;) and to the prophetic writings
(Rom 16:25b: l5uiTe ypa<pwv npo<pYJTLKwv; cf. 1:2) underscores God's sovereign
oversight of the timing of his self-revelation to the Gentiles. This stood opposed
to providential ordering of the ruler's epiphany articulated in the imperial propaganda ( 2.2.2). 225 The apostle's focus upon the decree of the 'eternal' God (Rom
16:26b: KaT' E1tlTay~v TOU QLWVLOU eeou), which results in the obedience of faith
of the Gentiles (16:26b: Elc:; imaKo~v nlmewc:;; cf. 1:5), debunks two important Roman boasts: first, the eternity of Rome( 7:4: cf. Rom 13:11-12) and, second, the
ruler's subjugation of the inferior nations ( 4.3.5; cf. RG 4, 29-33). Moreover, the
redirection of all glory though Christ to God (Rom 16:27) is especially appropriate in a letter to believers living in the capital. 226 The heated quest for glory among
the Roman nobles during the republic was increasingly concentrated in the house
of the Julio-Claudian rulers during the first century( 6.2- 6.3). Hence Roman
believers needed to hear how the eternal glory of God outshone his transitory
competitors on earth (Rom 16:27b: Elc:; Toile:; alwvac:;). 227
Thus the unusual doxology in Romans 16:25-27 is pastorally apposite and
theologically astute. 228 Paul supplants the imperial conception of time with the
unfolding of God's eschatological revelation that incorporates Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and barbarians, the wise and the foolish, in his eternal plan. The
wisdom of God (Rom 16:27a: ~6vqJ oocpq> Seq>) deflates the arrogant boasting of
the imperial elites (1:16; 3:27; 11:17-21) over their hapless subjects throughout
the empire. 229 In sum, the earlier doxology highlighting God's mercy to Jew and
225 1he Priene decree {9 BC) also uses the language of epiphany (restored by the editor in the
inscription) regarding Augustus (DocsAug., 98b, II. 36-38): '... [and (since) with his appearance
(tmcpavd<;)) Caesar exceeded the hopes of all those who had received [glad tidings) before us
.. .'. On the language of epiphany, see D. Cuss, Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New
Testament (Fribourg: The University Press, 1974), 134-144.
226 Moo (Romans, 815) observes:'... the central theme of Romans is that God has so arranged
history that he will receive honor, praise, and thanksgiving'.
227 Moo (ibid., 816) writes: 'As he reflects on the plan of salvation history, Paul is overwhelmed, as he was in 11:33-36, with God's wisdom and glory'.
228 W Sanday and A. C. Headlam (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 434) write: 'The thought then forms a transition from
the point of view of the Romans to that of the Ephesians'. E.g. Eph 3:14-22.
229 For an excellent discussion of how the humiliated and conquered nations are depicted
in the Roman literary and inscriptional propaganda, see D. C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered,
56-118. Paul could well have seen the iconography of two humiliated Pisidian captives on the left
and right spandrels of the middle arch of the Propylaea at Pisidian Antioch (cf. Acts 13:14-51;
14:21-23 ), erected in honour of Augustus. See D. M. Robinson, 'Roman Sculpture from Colonia
153
Gentile (Rom 11:33-36; cf. 11:25-32) is now crowned by Paul's final doxology
(16:25-27). It celebrates God's unprecedented mercy towards the Gentiles- the
audience addressed in Paul's letter (Rom 1: 13; 11: 13; 15: 15-16) - over against the
imperialism of the Roman overlords towards their subjects.
4.4.2 Paul, Redemption and the 'Newness' of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty

We have seen( 4.3.7) that the language of'newness' in the imperial propaganda
functioned as an honorific that either highlighted the ruler's recent accession
to power or the 'godlike' favours that could be acquired through himself or the
members of his house. Sometimes the 'newness' of the beneficence bestowed was
spoken of in such exalted strains (e.g. Caligula: SIG 3 798; Nero: SIG 3 814) that it
approaches the realised eschatology of the early Christians, but occasionally the
language of imperial 'newness' could also be wielded as a weapon of political
control (Tiberius: SIG3 729).
Paul resorts to the language of 'newness' three times in Romans. In Romans
6:4b, Paul refers to the 'newness of life' (tv Katv6TTJTL <w~<;) in which believers
walk. 230 The emphasis on 'newness' captures the arrival of the new creation
(2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15) and new covenant (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6) elsewhere
in Paul. The newness has come about because of the believer's burial, through
baptism, into Christ's death and was confirmed by God's glorious vindication of
Christ through his resurrection. J.D. G. Dunn has observed that Paul's omission
of a mJv-compound for the believer's resurrection with Christ (v. 4b: '1 'yp8TJ
XptoTo<; EK veKpwv; contra: Col 2:12; 3:1: ouvT)ytp8TJTE) stands in contrast to
the provision of a ouv-compound for the believer's burial with Christ (v. 4a:
ouveTcicpTJflEV auTliJ ). In comparison to the unrestrained boasting of Caligula and
Nero regarding the unprecedented beneficence dispensed to their clients, Paul
demonstrates an eschatological reserve in verse 4b because the resurrection is
still to come (Rom 5:8; 8:11). As Dunn argues, the believer does not yet 'share
in Christ's resurrection in the same way that he can share in Christ's death'. 231
But, significantly, Paul's phrase for sharing in Christ's death (ouveTcicpTJflEV auT<p)
is unprecedented in antiquity. 232 This highly unusual word speaks powerfully
of how Christ's identification with and incorporation of his dependants in his
soteriological beneficence robbed the imperial age of its fear of death. 233 The
Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch)', The Art Bulletin 9/1 (1926): 24 Figs. 41-42. Note, too, the rendering of Augustus' triumph over Antony and Cleopatra, celebrated at Rome, on the marble altar
frieze at the tropaeum of Actium at Nikopolis. See Zachos, 'The tropaeum of the Sea-Battle of
Actium', 90-92.
230 Note the comment of Cranfield, Romans. Volume 1-VIII, 305: '... the thought of the transcendent worth of the new life, as compared with the old, is present'.
23 1 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 330.
232 Jewett, Romans, 398.
233 This is contrary to the thesis of C. A. Davis (The Structure of Paul's Theology: "The Truth
154
culture of death was promoted in the imperial propaganda, as we have seen

( 4.2), through the 'manly' power wielded by the ruler and the expendability of
human life was demonstrated for all to see in the savagery of the arena. But, as
Paul later explains, it is the Spirit who brings freedom from the law of sin and
death (Rom 8:2).
Romans 6:4b also demonstrates how the reign of grace (5:21b; 6:14b) operates powerfully in advance of the eschaton in the believer's life in the present evil
age. It clarifies the way in which the righteous will live by faith (1:17b: ~~ae-rat;
Hab 2:4). As noted, the tension in verse 4 between the 'already' (v. 4a) and the
'not yet' of Christian existence (v. 4b) differentiates Paul's eschatology from the
providential advent of the Caesar cult, including its eventual demise and rebirth
due to the cyclical turn of the ages. But the moral imperatives which crown the
pericope of Romans 6:1-13 (vv. 11, 12, 13) also speak ofthe radical discontinuity of the New Age with the Old Age. As L. E. Keck notes, 234 'the relation of the
Old Age to the New is not like the transition from dawn to daylight, but like a
disruptive earthquake'.
This discontinuity is further underscored by Paul's second use of the language
of 'newness' in Romans 7:6: 'so that we might serve in the newness of the Spirit
(ev KatVOTTJTL nveu11a-ro.:;) and not in oldness of letter (ou naAatOTTJTL ypa111la-ro.:;)'. Paul's contrast in verse 6 is dispensational, 235 comparing the nomistic
slavery of the Old Covenant (cf. v. 5; also 4:15; 7:7-25) with the Spirit-filled
power of the New Covenant (Rom 2:25-29; 8:1-13; cf. 2 Cor 3:6-7; Jer. 31:31-34;
Ezek. 11:19; 36:26-27; 37:14). R. Jewett has recently argued that Paul's critique
of'works' (Rom 3:27) includes the honour-driven catalogues ofGraeco-Roman
boasting culture. 236 Thus the phrase ou naXat6TTJTL ypalllla-ro.:; in 7:6b, Jewett
suggests, 'could be the OT, or the Pharisees' oral law, or the mores of Roman
society'. 237 Irrespective of whether the phrase is as wide in its reference as Jewett
proposes, he is surely right in suggesting that Paul's 'newness of the Spirit' is
the believer's moral counterpoint to the status-riddled culture of the imperial
world. 238
Which is the Gospel" [Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1995], 213-307) who argues that believers die to
sin in Romans 6:1-14 through their Christ-like trust in God.
234 Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 167.
235 Moo, Romans, 421; Wright, 'The Letter to the Romans', 560. M. V. Hubbard (New Creation
in Paul's Letters and Thought [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002], 111) correctly
observes that ev' KalVOTI]TL nveullaTo<; (Rom 7:6b) is also contextually poised in antithesis to
ev' Tfi aapK( (7:5a) as much as ou ni1Am6TI]Tl ypcillllaTo<; (7:6b).
236 Jewett, Romans, 295-298
237 Ibid., 439.
238 Ibid.: '[The law's] obsolete quality was demonstrated by the Christ event, which ushered
in the era of 'newness of Spirit', whereby the intended purpose of the law is followed because
the wicked involvement of the 'letter' in systems of earning honour and advantages over others
has been eliminated'.
155
Paul's third use of the language of 'newness' demonstrates precisely this ideological thrust. In Romans 12:2 Paul exhorts his readers to avoid conformity to
this age (Tcil ai<ilvt) by being transformed (f1ETaf1opcpoucr6e) through the renewal
of their minds (avaKatvwcretTou TOU vo6.:;). 239 One expression of this 'newness' is
that believers must not think of themselves too highly (Rom 12:3a) but according
to the rich diversity ofthe expressions offaith (Rom 12:3b) and grace (12:3a, 6)
in the Body of Christ (12:3-8). 240 In Romans 12:1-15:33 Paul demands a holistic
reorientation in the thinking and behaviour of Roman believers who defined
themselves according to the mores of Roman culture. 241 Imperial society at the
time of Paul's composition of Romans was hierarchical in its social relationships
(Rom 12:3: fl~ imepcppoveiv nap' o6ei), not only in terms of the rank and status
of one's persona, but also in terms of the submission of Roman citizens and their
allies to the dementia of Nero, the head of the body politic. When this submission
occurs, Seneca counsels the young ruler, the moral health of the body of empire
would return (Clem. 2.1.4; 7.2.2), as the empire is progressively moulded into
Nero's likeness:
We are pleased to hope and trust, Caesar, that in large measure this will happen. That kindness of your heart will be recounted, will be diffused little by little throughout the whole
body of the empire (imperii corpus), and all things will be moulded into your likeness (in
similitudinem tuam formabuntur). It is from the head (a capite) that comes the health of
the body; it is through it that all the parts are alive and alert or languid and drooping according as their animating spirit has life or withers. There will be citizens, there will be
allies worthy of this goodness, and uprightness will return to the whole world; your hands
will everywhere be spared. 242
In the wide-ranging renewal of mind that Paul is advocating, the 'counter-imperial' Body of Christ (Rom 12:5: tv O"Wf1UEO"f1EV XptcrTou; cf. 1 Cor 12:12; Eph
4:15) lives in light of the mercies of God (Rom 12:1: &a TWv oiKTLpf!WV TOU 6eou;
11:30-32)- as opposed to the dementia ofNero (e.g. Seneca Clem. 2.1.2-3)- and
extends the ministry of mercy to others (12:8: 6 tXewv tv i.Aap6TTITL), including
the enemy ( 12: 14-21).243 Astutely, the transformed body of Christ seeks to live
peaceably and submissively with the ruler (13:1-7), honouring him (13:7b) and
winning his praise as a beneficent community (13:3-4), but in full realisation that
239 Note the astute comment of Dunn, Romans 9-16, 718: 'To Paul's readership, living in
Rome itself, the pattern of 'this age', both the quality of the personal ethics and the working of
social and political and religious power would be obvious, at least in broad outline'.
240 Ibid., 722.
241 B. W. Winter, 'Roman Law and Society in Romans 12-15', in P. Oakes (ed.), Rome in the
Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002}, 67-102.
242 Seneca, Clem. 2.2.1-2. Jewett (Romans, 742-744) does not interact with the Neronian
'body' metaphor in Seneca in De Clementia, though he touches on Seneca's use of the 'world
body' and 'social body' metaphors elsewhere in his writings.
243 Dunn (Romans 9-16, 720) comments:'... the list climaxes in the gift of showing mercy
(reflecting in the everyday life ofhuman relationships the salvation-history climax of 11:30-32}'.
156
his time is short (13:11-13; 16:20). Thus the language of 'newness' in Romans
12:3 underscores the provision of the 'mind of Christ' (1 Cor 1:30; 2:16) for believers they grappled with the mores of first-century imperial society.
as
4.4.3 Paul, the Redemption of Creation and the Ruler

In 4.3.3 we discussed the archaeological and literary evidence relating to the
cosmic regeneration that signalled the arrival of the Golden Age under the world
benefactors, Augustus and Nero. It is intriguing that this cosmic renewal was
as much associated with the ruler's officials (e.g. Nero's prefect in Egypt) as the
ruler himself. Even Jews like Philo spoke of the outbreak of the Augustan peace in
cosmic terms. But discussions of the imperial cosmology among New Testament
scholars have overlooked the symbolic impact of Nero's hortus upon the civilian
populace of Rome as they explored its carefully designed attractions. But there
were dissenting voices. Nero's vast hortus provoked the Stoic disdain ofhis critics
who dismissed its artifice as contra naturam.
In Romans 8:18-25 Paul pivots the Jewish understanding of creation - in
which creation, though subjected to futility because of the fall (8:20a, 21a; Gen
3:17-18), groans in the hope of eschatological redemption (8:21-23; Isa 65:17;
66:22) 244 - against the Roman 'cyclical' view of time. 245 Several important contrasts between Paul and the Julio-Claudian propaganda are worthy ofbrief comment. First, according to Paul, ' the freedom of glory' (T~v EAEU!leplav T~c; M~TJ<;:
Rom 8:21b) is the destiny of the groaning creation and believers adopted in
Christ (8:21b: Tiic; M~TJ<; TWV TEKvwv Tou Seou; 8:23b: t'no8eo[av). 246 Paul's alternative corporate and familial understanding of eschatological glory strips the
Julio-Claudian house of its prized boast: namely, that republican glory was now
concentrated in the ruler and his illustrious family members( 5.2; 6.3). 247 For
244 On the Jewish understanding, see D. E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 97-120; Hubbard, New Creation, 9-76; Hahne, The Corruption and
Redemption of Creation, 33-168.
245 For Paul's discussion of the 'new creation', see C. F. D. Moule, Man and Nature in the New
Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964); R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 59-74; J. G. Gibbs, Creation and Redemption: A Study
in Pauline Theology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971); 0. Christoffersson, The Earnest Expectation of the
Creature: The Flood-Tradition as Matrix of Romans 8:18-27 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,
1990); Jewett, 'Corruption and Redemption'; Hubbard, New Creation; Hahne, The Corruption
and Redemption of Creation. The new publication of R. Jackson (New Creation in Paul's Letters:
A Study of the Historical and Social Setting ofa Pauline Concept [Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009))
was not available to me.
246 Scroggs, The Last Adam, 65 (original emphasis): 'M~a is ... a term Paul employs to speak
of the eschatological existence to be bestowed on man ... despite Rom 8:30 this glory will not be
manifest until the consummation'.
247 Jewett (Romans, 515) writes: 'In the place of the single figure of a glorious Caesar, the glory
proclaimed by will be shared by every converted person, whether slave or free, male or female,
Roman or barbarian'.
157
the rest of the Roman Empire, however, Julio-Claudian 'glory' was achieved at the
expense of the servitude of its subjects, whereas Paul's gospel of eschatological
'glory' promised their emancipation.
Second, we observe in Romans 8:18b, 21, and 30 the tension between the
'already' and the 'not yet' in Paul's eschatology as far as the language of'glory', a
feature we have already observed in our discussion of Paul's language of 'newness'( 4.4.2).248 Because of God's predestination ofbelievers to glory, Paul's use
of the aorist M6~acrEv ('he glorified') in Romans 8:30 lends the final glorification
of believers such certainty that it is considered already accomplished. 249 Also the
viiv in the final phrase of Romans 8:22b, as Dunn rightly argues, 250 should be
given its full eschatological force as the 'now' of eschatological salvation being
worked out (cf. 3:21; 7:6; 8:1).
However, the glory is only achieved with the arrival of the eschaton (8:18b:
T~v JlEAAoucrav M~av cinoKaAucp8livat; 8:21: EAEU8Epw8~crETat T~v EAEU8Eplav
lie:; M~T)c:; TWV TEKVWV Toii 8EOii). The surrounding language of conditionality in
Romans 8:18-25 emphasises the 'not yet' of Christian existence, whether it be the
'first fruits' of the harvest-to-come (8:23a: T~V cinapx~v Toii nvEUJlaToc:;; cf. 2 Cor
1:22; 5:5: Tov cippa~wva Toii 1tVEUJlToc:;),251 or the experience of waiting (8:18:
Ct1tEK<')EXETat; 8:23b: Ct1tEK<')EXOJlEVOL; 8:25b: Ct1tEK<')EXOJ.1E8a) and hoping (8:24a: Tft
EAn[<')t; 8:25a: o ou ~AE7tOJlEV EA7tt(OJ.1EV). 252 Furthermore, the graphic language
chosen by Paul to describe the sufferings of the creation in the present evil age
(8:21: cino lie:; <')ouAEiac:; lie:; cp8opcic:;; 8:22: crumEva(Et Kai cruvw<')[vEt) demonstrates that the idyllic cosmology associated with the Augustan and Neronian
Golden Age was totally misguided.253 The world has not reached its purpose:
248 On Romans 8:18-25 reflecting the Jewish doctrine of the 'two ages', see Keck, Romans,
209-210.
249 Morris, Romans, 333-334. Byrne (Romans, 270) argues that Paul writes t66~aaev 'on the
basis of a hidden glory already under way' (2 Cor 3:18; 4:4b-6). As Cranfield observes (Romans.
Volume 1: 1-Vlll, 433), Paul 'may have felt that E66~aaev covered sanctification as well as glorification, since there is a real sense in which it is a beginning of glorification'.
250 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 473.
251 Keck, Romans, 212.
252 Jewett (Romans, 514) states: 'Paul's wording makes it absolutely clear that such redemption ia a matter of future hope and not a present political reality, as the Roman civic cult was
maintaining'.
253 Jewett (Romans, 517) writes: 'If the groaning really lasts "until now': this would exclude the
Augustan premise that the golden age had been inaugurated by the Saecular Games of71 B. C. E.,
or Nero had ushered in a "golden age of untroubled peace"'. Whether Paul intends through the
use of cromeva(et the idea of the eschatological 'woes [or 'birth-pang'] of the Messiah', as found
in the later rabbinic literature (Str-B I, 950), is difficult to assess (Fitzmyer, Romans, 509). Regarding the literature of Second Temple Judaism often cited to substantiate this idea of cosmic
suffering and distress preceding the final tribulation, Byrne (Romans, 261) comments: 'Much of
this material is later than Paul, reflecting the destruction of Jerusalem'.
158
the reign of sin and death continued to corrupt non-human creation as much as
human society. 254
Finally, we have already noted Tacitus' acerbic comment (Ann. 15.42) that the
architects and engineers of Nero's grand hortus 'had the ingenuity and courage
to try the force of art (per artem temptare) even against the veto of nature (quae
natura denegavisset)'. By contrast, Paul depicts the entire creation as 'subjected
to futility (Tft f1Tat6TTJTL inrETUYTJ), not of its own will but by the will of the one
who subjected it (&a Tov inroTa~aVTa)'. (Rom 8:20) In both Tacitus and Paul,
creation is held captive against its will, but for vastly different reasons, and with
radically diverging outcomes. As noted, Tacitus' Stoic disdain of Nero's hortus
is explained by the Roman understanding of nature: Nero's combination of the
'wild' with the 'cultivated rural landscape' within the precincts of Rome blurred
the proper boundaries of nature, creating thereby an artificial construct that effectively held nature hostage. Paul, by contrast, makes it clear that it is God who
has subjected creation to futility: thus creation is not an independent entity (Rom
1:20) or prey to the control of Satan and his minions (8:38-39). 255 Moreover, the
subjugation of nature is temporary, with a view to (8:20b: cp' Xn<5t) its eschatological renewal in Christ (8:21). 256 Some of Paul's auditors, who were sympathetic
to the anti-Neronian propaganda, may have drawn the conclusion that Paul's
theocentric emphasis on creation pricked the presumption of Nero who thought
he could create, by means of an artificial construct of nature at Rome, a visible
incarnation of the Golden Age. This conclusion, of course, could have only been
drawn by post-64 AD auditors of Romans, as opposed to the original auditors
in the late SO's who would not see the establishment of Nero's hortus until the
middle of the next decade.
But what does Paul mean by creation being subjected to 'futility' (Rom 8:20:
Tft flUTULOTTJTL) and enslaved to 'corruption' (Rom 8:21: ano Tfj<; <50UAELU<; Tfj<;
cp9opci<;). What relevance does this have to the Neronian propaganda of the
fifties to the late sixties? In the case of flUTatOTTJ<; ('futility'), Paul is shaping his
understanding of creation according to Ecclesiastes understanding of the 'vanity'
of all life apart from God. 257 Thus the artifice of Nero's hortus at Rome, a symbol
254 Jewett (Romans, 516) observes: 'Nothing whatsoever remains of the illusion that the
golden age has already arrived and that the whole world rejoices in Caesar's victories'. Moo (Romans, 437) argues that OlJ<rrtvci(tl and auvwiHvtl 'signify that the created order has not achieved
its purpose'. However, regarding a positive overtone of OlJ<rrtvci(tl in Romans 8:22, see Hahne,
The Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 201.
255 Barrett (Romans, 166) states: 'Creation always remained under the control of the supreme
God, and was therefore never without hope'.
256 Gibbs (Creation and Redemption, 44) writes: '... the hope which is justified for creation
depends on the freedom which is rooted in the glory of God'.
257 Note the comment of Hahne (The Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 196): '... the
futility is a result of the enslavement of creation to death and decay. Since death is an inescapable
part of the cycle of nature since the fall, futility is a pattern of life in this age'. However, Barrett
159
of the hubris of the ruler, is but another expression of the meaningless of human life apart from Christ. Conversely, the restoration of creation to its freedom
(Rom 8:21: EAEU8epw8~CJETaL T~V EAEU8ep[av T~<; M~TJ<; TWV TEKVWV TOU eeou),
while only experienced fully at the eschaton, begins for the believer in this age.
Creation is to be responsibly consumed, cared for in the present, and preserved
for posterity in accordance with the redemptive purpose of God's design (Rom
1:20; cf. 1 Cor 8:6; Col1:15-16). 258 In the case of cp8opa<; ('corruption'), Paul has
in mind death and decay, as well as by implication the transitoriness of life. 259
Contemporary auditors would have been left in no doubt regarding the imperial
implications. The cosmic renewal associated with Nero's rule in the Einsiedeln
eclogues( 4.3.3) is also vanity because all creation, human and non-human, is
held hostage to the reign of sin and death until its decisive overthrow at Christ's
parousia (Rom 5:12-21; 8:21; 11:26-27).
4.4.4 'More Ihan Conquerors': Ihe Triumph of God's Love over the Ruling Powers
In Romans 8:35b Paul outlines the likelihood of earthly tribulations (hardship,
famine, nakedness, and sword) within the life of believers and then comforts
them with these words: 'No, in all these things we are more than conquerors
(inrepvtKW!lEV) through him who loved us (5u1 Tou ciyan~cravTo<; ~~~a<;)' (8:37).
The threat of the Roman 'sword' was chillingly real, as the anti-Augustan propaganda had made clear (8:35b; 13:4b: 7.2.2; 7.4). Paul's mention of'persecution' would be tragically fulfilled a few years later in Nero's persecution of AD 64.
Paul's first Roman auditors, however, would have been immediately reminded
of the recent Claudian expulsion of the Jews in 49 AD,260 as well as Caligula's
earlier attempt to install his cult statue in the Jerusalem temple in 40 AD( 3.3).
Although Paul's rhetoric in verse 35b is hypothetical at the time of writing, there
was enough evidence to suggest that events could quickly turn against the believers living at Rome, if they were not careful.
We have already discussed the theology of 'victory' promoted by the Roman
ruler and his grateful clients ( 4.3.5). As noted( 4.3.4), the imperial propaganda also highlighted a series of providential events that were pivotal in establishing
(Romans. Volume 1: I-VIII, 413-414) restricts !laTaLOTIJ<; to 'the word's basic sense as denoting
the ineffectiveness of that which does not attain its goal'. Creation, accordingly, does not achieve
the purpose its existence. But given Paul's intimate familiarity with the LXX, it is hard to believe
that the apostle does not have Ecclesiastes in mind, because Ecclesiastes 'has 32 out of the 47
occurrences of !laTaL6TIJ<; in the LXX' (Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption ofCreation, 190).
258 Moule (Man and Nature, 13: original emphasis) states: 'The emancipation of nature from
its servitude to decay consists, exactly as in the emancipation of an individual from lust, in its
material still being used - indeed, being used up - but in an over-all purpose that is part of
God's design'.
259 Ibid., 195.
260 Jewett, Romans, 546.
160
Chapter 4: Imperial Conceptions ofRule and Pauls Reign of Grace
and maintaining the stability of the Julio-Claudian house. Paul's rhetoric of consolation in verse 37 isolates in a manner reminiscent of the imperial propaganda
a single defining event in history that secures victory for the believer. Unexpectedly for auditors familiar with the imperial propaganda, however, it was the love
of Christ (Rom 8:35a, 37b, 39b) that preserves believers through the experience
of tribulation (v. 35) and delivers them from cosmic enemies imperilling soul
and body (vv. 37b-39}.261 The aorist participle ayan~oavTO~ in Romans 8:37b,
as Jewett notes,262 points to a 'single act oflove' (8:30). It refers to Christ's timely
death for the ungodly enemy (5:6, 8, lOa). The submissiveness of the Parthians in
defeat and the rough treatment of captives depicted in the Augustan and Tiberian
iconography( 4.3.5) contrasts markedly with the way that believers participated
in their benefactor's unsurpassed victory on their behalf. Even more remarkably,
believers would continue to engage with Christ's sacrificial love and would experience his victory over sin and death at the arrival of the eschaton, no matter
what (Rom 8:39: cf. 5:9).
However, why does Paul use the imep-compound in verse 37 (imepvLKW~ev)
and what would it have signified for Roman auditors familiar with the imperial
propaganda of victory? 263 Jewett and Cranfield point to a variant of a famous
maxim of Menander for the clarification of the word's meaning: 'to be victorious
(VLKiiv) is good (KaA6v), but to be super-victorious (imepvLKiiv) is bad (KaK6v)'. 264
The idea conveyed by imepvLKiiv is that the victory achieved is excessive in its
scope: consequently the victor is marked as a 'super victor' among vastly inferior
victors. 265 Undoubtedly, Menander's maxim was intended to warn the 'super
victor' against the danger of personal hubris or of the potential of the 'evil eye'
blighting his success, or to alert the victor of the 'eternal' hatred of the enemy
provoked by the size of his victory. But Paul's point in using the imep-compound
is entirely different. He pivots the total superiority of Christ's soteriological
victory - in terms of its motivation and its glorious redemptive result for his
dependants - over against all other victors in history, whether human or cosmic.
As D. Moo notes, 266 'perhaps Paul wants to emphasize that believers not only
"conquer" such adversities; under the providential hand of God, they even work
261 C. B. Cousar, 'Continuity and Discontinuity: Reflections on Romans 5-8', in D.M. Hay
and E. E. Johnston (eds.), Pauline Theology. Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995),
206-207.
262 Jewett, Romans, 549; Morris, Romans, 340.
263 Jewett's succinct discussion (Romans, 549-550) of the imperial background pertaining to
Romans 8:37 is outstanding.
264 Jewett, Romans, 548-549; Cranfield, Romans. Volume 1: I-VIII, 441.
265 Jewett, Romans, 549; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and
Commentary (Leicester, IVP, 1963), 181. Wright ('The Letter to the Romans', 614) comments:
'... in other words, we are not only able to win a victory over these enemies, we are able to see
them off the field entirely'.
266 Moo, Romans, 544.
161
toward our "good" (v. 28}'. In considering the identity of the 'insignificant' victors
in history, there is little doubt that Roman auditors would have thought of the
triumph of the Julio-Claudian house over its political opponents at Rome and its
military victories over the enemies of the state within its world empire. As was
the case with Christ's overflowing beneficence in Romans 5:12-21, the messianic
'Son of God' had outperformed the Caesars at their own game. 267
4.4.5 Paul, the Crushing of Satan and the Empire of Rome

In the face of the threat from unidentified opponents who would oppose the apostolic teaching (Rom 16: 17-18 ), 268 Paul assures the obedient Romans with these
words: 'The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet' ( 16:20). The
imagery of Satan being crushed under foot is well known in Second Temple Judaism (Gen 3:15; Ps 91:13; T. Levi 18.12; T. Sim. 6.6; Jub 5.6; 10.7-11; 23.29; 1 En
10.4, 11-12; 13.1-2; 1QM 17.5-6; cf. Rev 20:10). 269 The Jesus tradition also picks
up the Genesis 3:20 image in one significant logion concerning Satan's downfall
(Luke 10:18-19a). However, scholars such as E. Kasemann, B. Witherington III,
and M. Reasoner have suggested that the image also has imperial reference. 270
Several strands of Roman evidence have been adduced to support this position:
(a) the widespread motif of'peace' in the imperial propaganda;271 (b) the imperial
numismatic evidence of victors standing on the neck of the defeated enemy; 272
267 Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 226-234. Note, too, the imEp-compound (imEpEnEpicrcrEuEcrEv) employed in Rom 5:20.
268 Jewett (Romans, 985-996) regards Rom 16:17-20a as a non-Pauline interpolation. Others
such as Dunn (Romans 9-16, 901-902) suggest an aphoristic postscript, possibly from Paul's
hand as opposed to his scribe (Rom 16:22). On the difficulty of identifying who the troublemakers - if real- actually were, see C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans. Volume II: IX-XVI (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1979), 801-802.
269 See the discussion of M. ]. Thate, 'Paul at the Ball: Ecclesia Victor and the Cosmic Defeat
of Personified Evil in Romans 16:20', in S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul's World (Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2007), 151-169, esp. 153-157. Additionally, seeK. Weiss, nm}~;, TDNTVI (1968): 624-631, esp.
626-628. More generally, D.N. Scholer, wThe God of Peace Will Shortly Crush Satan Under
Your Feet" (Romans 16:20a): The Function of Apocalyptic Eschatology in Paul', ExAud 9 (1990):
53-61.
27 Kasemann, Romans, 418-419; Witherington III, Romans, 398-399; M. Reasoner, 'Paul's
God of Peace in Canonical and Political Perspective' (paper presented at SBL 2004 Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA [Nov 20-23]). See also the helpful discussions of Romans 16:20 in
Thate, 'Paul at the Ball', 163-164; Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 223-226.
271 For discussion, see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 230 n. 69; 2.2.4. See also the
comprehensive discussion of Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 203-226.
272 Both Kasemann (Romans, 418-419) and Witherington (Romans, 398) fail to provide evidence for their assertions. The early imperial relief evidence shows Claudius pinioning Brittania
with his knee (D. C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered, 2 Fig. 1) and Nero hauling away defeated
Armenia (ibid., 43 Fig. 10). See also the relief at the Sebasteion in Aphrodisias (Lopez, ibid., 33
Fig. 5). The obverse of an Augustan denarius displays a trophy resting on the head of a kneeling
captive (RIC F ~ugustus' 6). More significantly, we have highlighted the singular issue of a
Neronian silver denarius showing on its reverse Virtus' right foot placed on the head of a captive
162
Chapter 4: Imperial Conceptions ofRule and Pauls Reign of Grace
(c) the Claudian numismatic evidence of a winged Pax holding a caduceus over
a snake. 273 I have also referred to Velleius Paterculus' prayer (2.81.1-2: 4.3.5)
that Tiberius and his successors would establish peace by crushing the impious
designs of the wicked.
It is possible that Romans 16:20 could have evoked either a Jewish or Roman
referent in the minds of Paul's auditors, or possibly both. A Roman understanding of Paul's imagery brings the stance of the apostle regarding Rome more into
alignment with the demonisation of imperial power depicted in Revelation and,
ifl am correct, with the Caligulan background underlying 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8
( 3.1- 3.5). But the issue remains whether a Roman referent was actually intended by Paul. Some scholars argue that the crushing of Satan in Romans 16:20
is better explained by the promise of God's eschatological victory over Satan
who currently opposes the gospel (11hess 2:18; 21hess 2:9-10; 2 Cor 12:7) and
sought to divert people from it (1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14). The decisive crushing of Satan's power- and the establishment of peace (Rom 5:1; 15:33) -was inextricably tied to the eschatological victory over death (1 Cor 15:24-28; cf. Rom
5:12-21) and its advent was even closer than before (Rom 13:11).274 However,
as we have noted, the fear of death was also closely attached to the rule of the
Caesars in the first century( 4.2), both in the Julio-Cludian propaganda that
feted the ruler's virtus and in the anti-imperial propaganda critical of Augustus'
blood-stained principate. Death had now become a central part of the imperial
symbolic universe.
Other scholars have agued, in light of Paul's warning of divisions (v. 17a), that
the unified Body of Christ, living in peace as Jew and Gentile (Rom 9-11, 14-15),
would crush the head of the serpent.275 However, in Romans Paul's emphasis is
more upon the peace and unity already established by means of God's justifica(supra 4.2 n. 61). There is later imperial numismatic evidence for the Roman ruler placing his
feet on the neck of the defeated enemy leader as a sign to the other captives to fall to the ground.
For example, coins of Aurelian (AD 270-275) show Oriens - the crown-bearing youth who
symbolized the Sun god - performing the ritual, as well as kicking captives (E. H. Kantorowicz,
'Oriens Augusti- Lever du Roi', DOP 17 [1963]: 117-177, Figs. 18a-c page unnumbered). See
also RIC II 'Trajan' 547; RIC IV 3, 37, No. 2B p. 111 Fig.l4. For Antonine relief evidence of the
humiliation of captives from Roman Britain, see M. Aldhouse-Green, 'Chaining and Shaming:
Images of Defeat, from Llyn Cerrig Bach to Sarmitzegetusa', Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 23/2
(2004): 319-340. For further discussion, seeM. McCormack, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986), 303-304; Beard, The Roman Triumph, 107-142.
273 This is the suggestion of Reasoner, 'Paul's God of Peace'. An aureus (44-45 AD: RIC J2
'Claudius' 9, 27) and a denarius (50-51 AD: RIC J2 'Claudius' 57) of Claudius shows on the
obverse Pax-Nemesis, winged and advancing right, holding a caduceus which points down at a
snake on the right. The legend is PACI AVGVSTAE. For the same motif on a denarius minted
during the chaos of AD 69, see RIC 12 'The Civil Wars' 56, 74. See also the variation of the
motif on an Augustan silver cistophorus from Ephesus (28 BC) in RIC J2 ~ugustus' 476.
274 A. Viard, Saint Paul: Epitre aux Romains (Paris: Gabalda, 1975), 311-312.
275 Thate, 'Paul at the Ball', 166-168.
4.5 Conclusion
163
tion of the ungodly and its maintenance among believers (Rom 5: 1; 12: 18; 14: 17b,
19) rather than its future establishment at the eschaton.
Perhaps it is wise to leave open the resolution of the various contexts (imperial
or ecclesiastical) and ideological backgrounds (Jewish or Roman) proposed for
Romans 16:20. Paul may well have kept the eschatological reference tantalisingly
imprecise, trading on both the Jewish and Roman context of the imagery. This
would have been especially the case if his comments regarding the opponents
were more pastoral aphorisms than specific warnings about the imminence of
intruders in the Roman house churches. Paul was aware that Satan's activity in
the present evil age assumed a variety of masquerades in differing contexts (2 Cor
11: 13-15): the demonic face of imperial power was potentially one disguise and
its impact for the people of God could be significant (2 Thess 2:4). Therefore the
church at Rome had to be encouraged that God's eschatological triumph over the
subtlety of Satan's deceit was imminent.
4.5 Conclusion
In 17 BC the supporters of Augustus seized the propaganda initiative afforded
by the Roman cyclical understanding of time by establishing the Ludi saeculares
to celebrate the fifth saeculum of Rome and the renewal of Augustus' imperium.
Later rulers such as Claudius cleverly manipulated the advent of the saeculum by
prematurely celebrating its recurrence for their own political purposes. Not only
were rulers caught up in this frenzy of self-advertisement, but so also were their
clients, as the elaborate monument of ZoUos of Aphrodisias demonstrates. Also
the erection of Augustus' horologium, a giant sundial, not only pointed to the
establishment of peace in the Greek East at Actium (31 BC), but also signified,
through its shadow intersecting the ara Pacis Augustae on Augustus' birthday,
the establishment of peace in the Latin West. The court poets at Rome - and
the composers of the honorific inscriptions in the eastern Mediterranean citystates - registered in prophetic and providential language their gratitude for the
arrival of the Golden Age of Saturn in the Augustan principate and its recurrence
in the Neronian quinquennium. Thus, the propaganda regarding the cyclical
advent of the Golden Age enabled the Julio-Claudian rulers to celebrate their
lordship over time because of their dominance in the battlefield.
The status of the ruler and the benefits of his rule for his dependants were
also articulated in transcendent terms. The ruler, chosen by the god and embodying virtus, dispensed such unprecedented beneficence that it could only
be eulogised in the language of 'newness' and 'cosmology'. Indeed, the dramatic
visual symbolism of the domus aurea of Nero, with its gigantic statue of the
ruler overlooking the tranquil landscapes of the hortus, may have provoked the
auditors of Romans after AD 64 to consider the 'political' implications of Paul's
164
cosmology in Romans 8:18-23. Finally, as the triumphator over his enemies, the
ruler was the providentially appointed deliverer of Rome and also the extender
and preserver of empire.
This cyclical construct of history- conveyed in prophetic, providential, messianic and cosmological categories with a view to its summation in the JulioClaudian house- could hardly have escaped Paul's notice. In writing about God's
eschatological fulfilment of his promises to Abraham, father of the Jews and
Gentiles, through the messianic Son of God, Paul engaged and critiqued the imperial conception of rule as much as the eschatology of Second Temple Judaism.
To be sure, Paul is nowhere as direct or acerbic in his anti-imperial critique as the
anti-imperial propaganda of ps.-Seneca's Octavia, for example. His pastoral and
theological concerns for the Roman believers lie elsewhere. The members of the
Body of Christ at Rome were to be transformed into Christ's image, as opposed to
the likeness of Nero's body politic, for the missionary service and glory of God by
bringing the nations unto his obedience. However, Paul's concentration on God's
intersection of history in the crucified and risen Christ posed a radically different
solution to humanity's fundamental problem - the reign of sin and death - that
the mortal rulers of Rome did not anticipate or comprehend. At its soteriological core, Paul's gospel of God's triumphant grace in Christ invisibly undermined
the boasting in the benefits dispensed by the ruler and the idolatry of power that
had now become vested for perpetuity, in the minds of the ruler's clients at least,
in the Julio-Claudian house. But, at a more fundamental level, Paul's gospel was
genuinely transformative in its effects, inaugurating a radically different cosmic
fulfilment that superseded the human loss brought about by Adam our forebear.
This new eschatological transformation stood in contrast to the Stoic idea of
apokatestasis according to which the constellations were restored to their original
order at the end of a cosmic cycle.
But how did the ruler's propaganda address those living in Rome, the capital
of the empire? How did this local propaganda differ from the inflated accolades
found on the honorific inscriptions erected by his clients in the provinces of the
Greek East and Latin West? And what difference did this make to Paul's rendering of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans? Even though the apostle was
located at Corinth at the time of composition of Romans (Rom 16:1-2, 23-24),
he still had trusted friends such as Aquila and Prisca who could have informed
him regarding the impact of Julio-Claudian rule upon believers at Rome (Acts
18:1-3, 18-21, 24-26; 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3-4). In Chapter 5 we will explore
the ideology of rule evinced in the forum Augustum at Rome and how it related
to the eschatology of Romans 5:1-11.
CHAPTER5
Paul's 'Dishonoured Benefactor'

in Augustan and Neronian Context
5.1 Political Factionalism and the
Mid-Fifties House Churches of Rome
New Testament scholars have traditionally viewed Paul's understanding of grace
through the lens of theological dogmatics. 1 Only recently have Romans commentators asked how first -century residents of Rome might have perceived Paul's
gospel of grace in its imperial context.2 How would the proclamation of divine
beneficence (xapL<;: Rom 5:2, 15, 17, 20, 21; cf. 1:5, 7; 3:24; 4:16; 6:1, 14, 15; 11:5,
6; 12:3, 6; 15:15; 16:20) -dispensed through a dishonoured and executed benefactor (Rom 5:6-8) - have been perceived by Roman auditors well disposed to
the xapLTE<; of the Caesars?3
The early believers lived in a world overflowing with imperial grace. The decrees erected in honour of the ruler registered for posterity the eternal gratitude
of their beneficiaries in the Greek East, in recompense of the unparalleled beneficence emanating from Rome. The honorific inscriptions demonstrate how the
Julian house had outstripped their competitors in a unilateral display of grace.
In this regard, Augustus' successors acknowledged the reign of Augustus as the
highpoint of imperial beneficence.4 It is likely, therefore, that eastern Mediterranean auditors of Romans would have drawn comparisons between the xaprre<;
('favours') of the apotheosised Augustus and the xapL<; ('grace') of the risen and
1
See J. R. Harrison, 'Paul, Theologian of Electing Grace', inS. E. Porter (ed.), Pauline Studies
Volume Ill. Paul the Theologian (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 77-108.

2 Commentators who are sensitive to the imperial context of Romans includeS. K. Stowers, A
Rereading ofRomans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1994};
B. Witherington III, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, 2004); R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007).
3 See J.R. Harrison, 'Paul, Eschatology and the Augustan Age of Grace', TynBulS0/1 (1999):
79-91; id., Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2003), 224-226. Additionally, D. Georgi, Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991; Gmn. orig. 1987); J. L. White, The Apostle of God: Paul and the Promise of Abraham (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).
4 On the Caeasars as world benefactors, see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 228; E. A.
Judge, 'Thanksgiving to the Benefactor of the World, Tiberius Caesar', New Docs 9 (2002), 10.
Note I. Olympia 53: 'Since lmperator Caesar, son of god, god Sebastos has by his benefactions
to all men outdone even the Olympian gods .. .'.
166
Chapter 5: Pauls 'Dishonoured Benefactor' in Augustan and Neronian Context
ascended Christ. What was the nature of each benefactor's rule and what were
the dimensions of the crisis that each so decisively addressed? Paul's gospel, as I
have argued elsewhere (n. 3 supra), touches implicitly on how Christ's overflowing grace eclipsed the beneficence of the Caesars in Romans 5:12-21.
But it would be unwise to assume that the perception of the 'god-like' status
of Augustus as benefactor in the Greek East was replicated at Rome. Important
methodological issues confront us here. We might ask to what extent the Augustan propaganda of the Greek East - which grew out of the hellenistic ruler cult
(pace, Rubin, 1.3. n. 73) -would have been known to residents of the capitaJ.S
Undoubtedly, knowledge of the Augustan eulogistic culture in the Greek East
trickled back to the capital. This would have occurred either through traders and
craftsmen of the provinces visiting, settling in, or returning to the capital (e.g.
Aquila and Priscilla: Acts 18:2, 18-19, 24-26; 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3; 2 Tim4:19),
or through the return of Roman officials, their retinue, and soldiers to the capital
after overseas service in the provinces, or by the arrival of provincial embassies
at Rome (e.g. Res Gestae 31-33).
However, the perception of the status of the ruler at the capital was different
in Rome as opposed to the city-states of the Greek East. The Roman state did not
apotheosise the ruler while he was alive. Even then the apotheosis of the ruler, if
he was considered worthy of the honour upon his death, was subject to the ratification of the Senate. To what degree did these ideological differences between
the Greek East and the Latin West regarding the status of the ruler in the imperial
cult influence Paul as he thought about presenting Romans living in the capital
with the eternal gospel?
Several observations are apposite if we are to address responsibly these important questions. First, because Paul had travelled throughout the Greek East, he
would have been keenly attuned to the rival provincial gospel of Augustus and
his successors in writing to the Romans. 6 Nevertheless, a strictly 'provincial' ap5 The problem of cultural transfer from the Greek East to the Latin West is illustrated by the
fulsome pharaonic titles attributed to Augustus, conferred on him by Egyptian priests in an honorific inscription: 'The beautiful Youth, dear by his loveableness, the Prince of Princes, chosen
by Ptah and Nun the Father of the gods, King of Upper Egypt and King of Lower Egypt, Lord of
the two Lands, Autocrat, Son of the Sun [the Sun God], Lord of the diadems, Caesar, Ever-living,
beloved of Ptah and Isis' (P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen
zu Judentum und Christentum [Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1907], 102 7). Velleius Paterculus illustrates how the Augustan propaganda of the Greek East could be rendered sympathetically in
the Latin West. In tones reminiscent of the Eastern inscriptions (Priene: DocsAug., 98a, 98b;
cf. Halicarnassus: BMI 894; c Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 228-230), Velleius speaks of
Augustus in providential terms (2.89.2). Conversely, as noted( 1.4.1 n. 113), the Latin version
of the Res Gestae at Rome was adapted for auditors in Greek East through the subtle changes
and additions made to the Greek translation of the text erected in several sites throughout the
province of Galatia.
6 Paul's house churches in the Greek East would have been familiar with Augustus' propaganda because they belonged to the Eastern poleis that competed for the princeps' favour. Some
of the Eastern believers were probably sympathetic to the Roman eschatology of Augustus and
5.1 Political Factionalism and the Mid-Fifties House Churches of Rome
167
proach on the part of Paul would lack the precision required if he were to critique
effectively the imperial conception of rule at Rome in a way that would persuade
Roman auditors of the Lordship of Christ as cosmic Benefactor (Rom 1:2-4; 4:25;
5:6-8, 12-21; 8:12-25, 31-39; 10:8-13; 11:25-26; 14:9; 15:12; 16:20).
Second, Augustus sponsored his conception of rule at Rome through the
construction of his new forum. The portrait statue programme at the forum of
Augustus (forum Augustum) represents Augustus' official rendering of his place
in history and his new formulation of the heroic ideal. 7 Moreover, it accords
superior status to Augustus within the Roman eulogistic tradition and, in some
cases, rendered honour to dishonoured benefactors. Roman auditors may have
been more willing to entertain Paul's idea of a 'dishonoured' benefactor than
we imagine if his theological apologetic was situated within an identifiable set
of rhetorical conventions. In sum, although the ideology of Augustus' forum
was republican in tenor, it would have spoken as powerfully to the residents of
Rome, as did the inflated propaganda of the imperial cult to the city-states in the
Greek East.
But would Paul have been able to engage meaningfully with mid-fifties residents of Rome brought up on the Augustan propaganda of the Res Gestae and
the forum Augustum? We have already argued that it was possible that Paul saw
a Greek rendering of the Res Gestae at Pisidian Antioch, even though only the
archaeological remains of the Latin original have survived at the city( 1.4.1;
8.3). In the case of the forum Augustum, Paul would have been exposed to the
eulogistic traditions of the republic through the public monuments honouring
famous Roman generals in the cities of the Greek East such as Ephesus ( 6.1
n. 14; 8.3). Further, the iconography ofthe imperial governing elite and their
provincial clients celebrated the military triumph of the Roman ruler over Greeks
and barbarians (cf. Rom 1:14) at sites such as Aphrodisias, Pisidian Antioch, and
Nikopolis ( 4.4.1 nn. 223, 229; 8.3). The founding myths of Rome- centred on
Aeneas, Romulus and Remus- were also known throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin( 1.4.1; 8.3 n. 5). Precisely because of Paul's exposure to the
his heirs prior to their conversion (e.g. Phil 3:20-21). However, when they became believers,
they may have been tempted to compromise with the Caesar cult in the civic arena (e.g. 1 Cor
8:5, 10; 10:14, 19-20). Paul allowed no room for compromise with the idolatrous claims of the
Caesars, or those of other cults, where they impinged on or obscured the claims of Christ as Lord
(1 Cor 8:4-6; 10:21-22; 1 Thess 4:13-5:11). See B. W Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence ofSecular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids-Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001), 269-286;
P. Oakes, Philippians: From People to Letter (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2001 ), 138-147.
7 In speaking of Augustus' 'intentions', we acknowledge the difficulty in reconstructing the
intentions of any individual of the past. Augustus may have had input regarding his propaganda
from a group of court advisers (e.g. the trusted Maecenas and his literary circle). But, in the
case of the forum Augustum and the Res Gestae, Augustus' view about his place in Roman history would have prevailed. Roman nobiles were fastidious in recalling ancestral glory and each
generation was zealous in furthering its own family honour through military victories, the attainment of the consulship, and beneficence.
168
Chapter 5: Paul's 'Dishonoured Benefactor' in Augustan and Neronian Context
varied strains of imperial ideology in his missionary outreach from Jerusalem to

Illyricum (Rom 15:19), he would have had adequate resources to communicate
the gospel to Roman auditors in ways that would have intersected with the propaganda of the Res Gestae and the forum Augustum.
Third, we must not forget that Roman believers in the mid-to-late fifties, the
time of Paul's composition of Romans, were living in the halcyon years of the
quinquennium of Nero. According to Aurelius Victor (AD 320-391), the initial
five-year period ofNeronian rule was 'so outstanding ... that Trajan quite often
justifiably asserted that all emperors fell far short of Nero in his (first) five years'. 8
This was reputedly 'the best period of the empire since the death of Augustus'. 9
The new 'god-like' ruler ('a new Apollo' [v<p 'A7t6AXwvL]) 10 - mentored by Burrus and Seneca11 - was present in the capital. Hopes were high that the Augustan
peace had returned because of Nero's clemency and his respect for the senate. 12
As Suetonius writes, Nero 'declared that he would rule according to the principles
of Augustus, and he let slip no opportunity for acts of generosity (liberalitatis)
and mercy (dementiae), or even for displaying his affability (comitatis)'. 13 At the
very least, Paul's portrait of Christ's beneficence in Romans 5:6-8 and 12-21
posed a striking alternative to Nero's age of grace and also to its grim underside,
Nero's age of death( 4.2).
Fourth, there were Roman auditors, however, who were not persuaded by the
Augustan propaganda and who displayed reserve regarding the much-vaunted
Neronian peace. 14 1he early church at Rome, reflecting the diverse political views
of the capital, probably included Jews and Gentiles of differing political persuasions.15 The building programmes and beneficence of Augustus would have en8 Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 5.3; cf. Lucan 1.33. On Victor's historical tradition, see
H. W Bird, Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus (Liverpool: Liverpool University, 1994), 65-66;
M. T. Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1984), 84,
244-245 n. 1.
9 J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992), 26.
10 DocsGaius, 145.
11 On the role of Seneca and Burrus in Nero's formation, see Tacitus, Ann. 13.2, 11.
12 On Nero's attitude towards the Senate in his early years, seeM. T. Griffin, Nero, 55-61.
13 Suetonius, Claud. 10.1. Seneca (Clem. 1.1.6) addresses Nero thus: 'no-one today talks of
the deified Augustus or the early years ofTiberius Caesar, or seeks for any model he would have
you copy other than yourself'.
14 3 infra arises from Professor Lukas Bormann's written response to my paper delivered in
the Interpretation of Romans Section at the AAR and SBL Annual Meetings, Atlanta, Georgia,
November 22-25, 2003. Several of the ancient and secondary source references in nn. 39, 44,
45, 76 are indebted to his suggestions, including the attention given to Paul's theocentric theology( 5.4).
15 The late-fifties synagogues and house churches of Rome would have experienced political
tensions. There were synagogues erected in honour of Augustus and Agrippa, Augustus' colleague from 23 BC onwards ('Synagogue of the Augustans': CIL 284, 301, 338, 368, 416, 496;
'Synagogue of the Agrippians': CIL 365, 425, 503). Roman Jews had flocked to the funeral of Augustus' adoptive father, Julius Caesar (Suetonius, Iul. 84.5), because of the privileges they secured
during his dictatorship (Josephus, A/ 14.214-215). See H.J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome
5.1 Political Factionalism and the Mid-Fifties House Churches of Rome
169
thralled some believers, as did the clemency of Nero early in his reign. But there
would have been believers who were sympathetic to the senatorial traditions of
dissent and who were repulsed by the excesses of the princeps, whether moral,
military, cultic, patronal, architectural or iconographic. 16
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961 ), 140-142; P. Richardson, ~ugustan

Era Synagogues in Rome', inK. P. Donfried and P. Richardson (eds.),Judaism and Christianity in
First-Century Rome (Grand Rapids I Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 17-29. But the pro-Augustan
sentiment of some Jews at Rome may have evaporated when they were expelled from the capital
under Tiberius (AD 19) and Claudius (AD 49). In the case of the early Christians, some believers
belonged to the imperial household at Rome (Phil4:22). It is likely that believers belonged to
the household of Narcissus, a freedman in the Claudian bureaucracy (Rom 16:11 b [cf. Tacitus,
Ann. 31.3; Dio Cassius 60.34]), as well as to the household of Aristobulus, grandson of Herod
the Great and brother of Herod Agrippa 1, Claudius' friend and confidant (Rom 16:10b [cf.
Josephus, BJ 2.221; AJ 20.12]). These believing slaves would have demonstrated loyalty to the
ruler notwithstanding difficult circumstances (M.J. Brown, 'Paul's Use of ~OYAO:E EPI:ETOY
IH:EOY in Romans 1:1', JBL 120/4 [2001]: 730-736). Note in this regard Seneca's advice to
Polybius, the freedman of Claudius: 'Long ago the love of Caesar lifted you to a higher rank, and
your literary pursuits have elevated you ... Think what loyalty, what industry, you owe him in
return for his imperial favour to you ... you owe the whole of yourself to Caesar' (id., Polyb. 6.2;
7.1, 4). M. Tellbe and P. Lampe (respectively, Paul Between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews,
and Civic Authorities in 11hessalonians [Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001],
206; From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First 'IWo [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003],
153-183) also point to Urnbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Julia as slaves and
freedpersons of the imperial household (Rom 16:9, 10, 12, 15). Further, Asyncritus (Rom 16: 10)
is also another name attested of imperial freedman. However, other believers, marginalised
from imperial xapt<; (Rom 8:35b ['persecution', 'sword']) and distrustful of the Roman authorities {13:3a, 4b ['sword']; cf. Acts 18:2), may have had a more jaundiced view of the 'benefits of
Empire'. Scholars have so focused on the development of ethnically polarised house churches at
Rome, arising from Claudius' expulsion of the Jews, that they have overlooked the possibility
that the house churches were also politically polarised, at least in terms of the extent of their allegiance to the ruler, depending on whether they were his dependants or not.
16 It is worth speculating how Roman auditors might have understood Paul's teaching regarding 'holy days' in imperial context (Rom 14:5-6a). To what extent would believers at
Rome and in the Roman colonies (e.g. Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica) have observed the Fasti
anni Juliani ('Calendar of the Julian Year'), given Paul's injunction to honour the rulers (Rom
13:1-7)? Several of the issues dividing the 'weak' and 'strong' may have included the calendrical
holidays, vows, prayers, sacrifices, and games dedicated to the Roman deities and Augustus (7,
16, 17,30 January; 6 March; 16April; 12 May; 19 August; 3, 4 September; 5, 7, 18 October; 15,16
December), as well as participation in imperial coronal rituals {6 March). Even references to the
'Deified' Julius and 'Deified' Augustus may have offended some believers {17 January; 23 April;
18 August; 2, 17 September; 5 October). E. A. Judge ('Documents of Augustan Rome: Calendar
of the Julian Year [Fasti anni Juliani) ]',Ancient Society: Resources for Teachers 1/3 [ 1971)]: 20-25)
translates the twenty fragmentary Julio-Claudian calendars (Jasti). For the text, see DocsAug.,
44-54. On imperial coronal rituals, see J. R. Harrison, 'The Fading Crown: Divine Honour and
the Early Christians', JTS 54/2 {2003): 493-529, esp. 509-513. On how Augustus turned Roman
time into Augustan time, see A. Wallace-Hadrill, 'Time for Augustus: Ovid, Augustus and the
Fasti', in M. Whitby (et al., ed.), Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol: Bristol
Classical, 1987), 221-230, esp. 223-227. I. E. Rock (The Implications ofRoman Imperial Ideology
for an Exegesis of Paul's Letter to the Romans: An Ideological Literary Analysis of the Exordium,
Rom 1:1-17 [unpub. PhD thesis University of Wales, Lampeter, 2005], 382) interprets Romans
170
It is against this ideological backdrop that Paul's heralding of an alternate

reign of grace (Rom 5:21: ~ xapL~ ~aOlAEUO'n; cf. 5:17b: ~aOlAEUO'OUOlV), with its
unconventional benefactor (5:6-8), would have been heard. How would residents
of Rome, aware of the inflated claims made about Augustus' divinity in the East,
have responded to Paul's gospel about an eschatological and cosmic Benefactor
who had been crucified by the Roman prefect of Judaea? What would have been
their response to a dishonoured Benefactor who had squandered his beneficence
on ungrateful clients? Could such a Benefactor conceivably supplant Augustus,
celebrated in the forum Augustum as the culmination of republican history?
Would this benefactor bring peace and clemency superior to that inaugurated by
Nero, 'the New Sun' (voc;"HXtoc;)? 17 Finally, what social and theological features
differentiated Paul's gospel from the imperial propaganda, given the overlap
of benefaction terminology in both traditions? 18 What aspects of Paul's gospel
might have seemed attractive to imperial auditors? What hope did Paul's gospel
of grace offer to those marginalised and alienated by its imperial counterpart?
In what follows I discuss the portrait statue programme at the forum Augustum
( 5.2), the propaganda of the Augustan critics( 5.3), the rhetoric of the exiled
Ovid( 5.4), and conclude with a discussion of Romans 5:1-11 ( 5.5.1- 5.5.4). I
will argue that while Paul's unilateral and cruciform understanding of xaptc; may
have created problems for his auditors, echoes of the Augustan and Neronian
tradition, rhetorically adapted by Paul, softened the offence and lulled the Romans into considering a change of patronage. In regard to the Augustan critics,
I propose that membership in God's household overcame not only the lack of
status for those without access to imperial favour but also opened up new social
networks at Rome that replaced the traditional bonds of amicitia ('friendship').
5.2 The Forum of Augustus and Imperial Eschatology at Rome

The contribution of the forum Augustum to our understanding of Roman eschatology has not fired the interest of New Testament scholars, let alone its contribution in unfolding the beliefs of the Roman residents and of their ruler. 19 Prior to
14:1-15:13 conventionally against the backdrop of the Claudian expulsion of the Jews and Roman anti-Semitism.
17 DocsAug., 64.
18 See Chapter 2 supra; J. R. Harrison, 'Saviour of the People', New Docs 9 (2002), 2.
19 On the Roman forum, see P. Romanelli, The Roman Forum (2"d ed. Rome: Instituto poligrafico dello stato, 1955); M. Grant, The Roman Forum (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970);
F. Coarelli, II Foro Romano (Rome: Quasar, 1992); D. Favro, The Urban Image ofAugustan Rome
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). For ancient texts on the forum Augustum,
see D. R. Dudley, Urbs Romana: A Source Book of Classical Texts on the City and Its Monuments
(London: Phaidon, 1967), 123-129. On the forum Augustum, see H. T. Rowell, 'The Forum and
the Funeral Images of Augustus', MAAR 17 (1940): 131-143; J.D. Crossan and J.L. Reed, In
171
the Augustan era, the ostentatious tomb monuments of the late republican nobiles ('nobles') expressed their self-aggrandisement as they sought to outdo each
other in a quest for ancestral glory. What had been essentially private monuments
became public monuments on a grand scale with the erection of the Theatre of
Pompey and the Forum of Caesar in the mid-first century BC.20 By then the
glorification of the 'great man' in Roman history had reached unprecedented
architectural heights. But, with the triumph of Octavian at Actium and the inability of the republican no biles to compete against the new world benefactor, the
grandiose monuments of the familia Caesaris were enlarged and integrated into
the public life and mythology of Rome. 21
The forum developed out of Augustus' desire to avenge his adoptive father's
assassination at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC. On the eve of the battle, Octavian
vowed that he would construct a temple to Mars Ultor, should he be victorious
(Suetonius,Aug. 29.2; Ovid, Fasti 5.569-578; cf. Res Gestae 21.1). Forty years later
Augustus fulfilled his long-delayed vow when the temple was opened (2 BC),
though in different form than he envisaged because the temple was now included
as part of his forum project. In addition to commemorating the deeds of Julius
Caesar by means of the temple, the forum was intended to relieve congestion
in the existing forum Romanum by expanding its facilities for public business.
Additionally, the victory tokens (e.g. crowns, sceptres) of returned triumphators
were to be placed in the sanctuary of Mars Ultor, and governors on their way to
military provinces took their leave there (Suetonius, Aug. 29.2).
More important is the design of the forum and the ideological purposes served
by the portrait statue programme. The temple of Mars Ultor faced the South
West, with the result that Mars Ultor faced the statue ofJulius Caesar, Augustus'
adoptive father, which was located prominently in the forum Iulium. The forum
Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom. A New Vision
ofPaul's Words and World (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005), 77-90; E. A. Judge, 'On Judging
the Merits of Augustus', in id. (ed. J. R. Harrison), The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Studies (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 235-239; id., 'The Eulogistic
Inscriptions of the Augustan Forum: Augustus on Roman History', in id., The First Christians,
165-181; J.C. Anderson, The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora (Bruxelles: Latomus,
1984), 65-100; P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan, 1990), 201-205; G. Sauron, QVIS DEVM? E expression plastique des ideologies
politques et religieuses aRome (Rome: Ecole FranfYaise de Rome, 1994), 525-536.
20 See Zanker, Power of Images, 11-31.
21 See P. J. E. Davies, Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2000), passim. The sitting rooms
of Nero's Golden House, a Roman domus and garden of 'cosmic' proportions (M. Bradley,
'Fool's Gold: Colour, Culture, Innovation, and Madness in Nero's Golden House', Apollo: The
International Magazine of the Arts [July 2002]: 35-44), exceeded all the land owned by illustrious Republican generals (Pliny [the Elder], HN 36.111). See also A. Cooley, ('Inscribing History
at Rome', in id. [ed.], The Afterlife of Inscriptions [London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2000],
7-20, esp. 12ff) on the how the aristocratic families of the late republic exploited the space of the
Capitol for the erection of inscribed monuments to eulogise their family history.
172
Augustum was set at right angles to the forum Iulium, with two semicircular bays
(exedrae) jutting out on the South East and North West sides of the forum. Arrayed around the two exedrae and porticoes of the forum were statues of famous
republican leaders (principes) and of the ancestors of the Julian nobility. Each line
of republican and Julian luminaries radiated from a different founder of Rome
(Aeneas or Romulus), the republican statues expanding outwards from South
East exedra, the Julian statues from the North West exedra. 22 As Ovid (Fasti
5.563-566; cf. Dio Cassius 56.34.2; Pliny [the Elder], NH22.7.13; Aul. Gell. Noc.
Att., 10.11.10) explains for the observer,
On the one side (one) sees Aeneas laden with his precious burden, and so many members
ofJulian nobility. On the other (one) sees Ilia's son Romulus bearing on his shoulder the
arms of the (conquered) general, and the splendid records of action (inscribed) beneath
(the statues of the) men arranged in order. 23
Each statue was adorned with a distinctive emblem relevant to his career, and
below each statue were boldly lettered laudatory inscriptions (elogia fori Augusti)
that catalogued each man's career achievements. While there is a heavy concentration upon magistracies and military triumphs in the catalogues - many of
which prefigured Augustus' illustrious career in the Res Gestae- there are features in the careers of the republican luminaries that proleptically and symbolically point forward to the civic and moral grounds for Augustus' unprecedented
auctoritas (Res Gestae 34.1, 3). As E. A. Judge observes, 24 each inscription focused
on an episode that involved the republican leader in 'political crisis management',
that is, handling a desperate situation that imperilled Rome. Each inscriptional
vignette of 'crisis management' pointed forward to the decisive way that Augustus
had extinguished the civil wars tearing apart the Roman republic (Res Gestae
34.1) and had returned his official powers (potestas) without recalcitrance to their
owners, namely, the senate, the magistrates, and the people (34.1, 3). By exalting
his auctoritas - his personal dignity and influence in the widest sense25 - over his
rank, Augustus defined exemplary virtue for future generations. Roman history
had found its culmination in Augustus and he provided the yardstick of virtus
('virtue') for all future rulers of Rome.
22 Judge ('The Eulogistic Inscriptions', 175-176) lists the republican principes. SeeN. Horsfall,
'Virgil, Varro's Imagines and the Forum of Augustus', in B. Marshall (ed.), Res Romanae: Essays
on Roman History (Macquarie University: Macquarie Ancient History Association, 2009), 128130; R Tracey, 'The Forum of Augustus: Where were the Statues?', in B. Marshall, ibid., 131-152.
23 Zanker (Power of Images, 201) notes: 'In the Forum of Augustus, in the central niches of
the two large exedrae, Aeneas and Romulus stood as counterparts of Mars and Venus ... Venus'
grandson was depicted fleeing from Troy in flames, the son of Mars as triumphator. The juxtaposition was not intended to measure the two heroes against one another, but to celebrate their
deeds as the embodiments of two complimentary virtues'.
24 Judge, 'The Eulogistic Inscriptions', 169.
25 Res Gestae 30.1: 'I was the leading citizen' (princeps); 34.3: 'I excelled all in influence'
(auctoritate).
5.2 The Forum ofAugustus and Imperial Eschatology at Rome
173
In this regard, Suetonius (Aug. 31.5) provides us insight into Augustus' motives in dedicating statues in triumphal form in the two porticoes of the forum.
Augustus had declared in an edict
I have contrived this to lead the citizens to require me, while I live, and the rulers oflater
times as well, to attain the standard (ad exemplar) set by those worthies of old. 26
The forum became one of the hallowed viewing places for Augustus' civic and
military honours:
During my thirteenth consulship the senate and equestrian order and people of Rome
unanimously saluted me father of my country and voted that this should be inscribed in
the vestibule of my house, in the Julian senate house and in the Augustan forum beneath
the chariot which had been set up in my honour by ruling of the senateP
Finally, what do we learn from the fragments of the elogia fori Augusti about the
fulfilment of the ideals of Roman beneficence in Augustus? 28
First, given the overflow of Augustus' beneficence (e.g. Res Gestae 15-24: cf.
5.2 infra), we observe how comprehensively Augustus replicated and surpassed
the beneficence of the republican principes. Of Manius Valerius, for example, the
statue inscription says that 'on his own initiative the Senate freed the people from
heavy debt' (ILS 50; cf. Res Gestae 15). In the statue inscriptions of Appius Claudius Caecus (ILS 54) and Gaius Marius (ILS 59), we see how both men combined
their military role with that of civic benefactor. 29 In the case of Caecus' beneficence, the inscription states that 'In his censorship he laid the Appian Way and
built an aqueduct into the city; he built the temple ofBelonna'. Regarding Marius'
beneficence, we learn from the inscription that 'From the Cimbric and Teutonic
spoils he built as victor a temple to Honour and Virtue'. 30 In reading these elogia
26 Ibid., 8.5: 'I myself left standards in many matters for the imitation of posterity'. A. Cooley,
('Inscribing History at Rome', 16-17) gives further insight into Augustus' personal motives
in building the forum Augustum: 'This new forum displayed statues of famous Romans ...
Augustus' own ancestors were somewhat lacking in splendour compared with other families at
Rome, such as the noble Claudii Marcelli. By associating himself with all of Rome's most notable
individuals, Augustus basked in their reflected glory'.
27
Ibid., 35.1.
Anderson (Historical Topography, 82) observes regarding the number of triumphatores

originally represented: 'The extant inscriptions from the Forum also fail us, as we have no way
of determining from the fragments how many triumphatores were represented, or which ones
were in the hemicycles and which in the porticos'.
29 Note, however, the military parallel between Augustus and Gaius Marius. Augustus (Res
Gestae 1.1): 'I successfully championed the liberty of the republic when it was oppressed by
the tyranny of a faction'. Gaius Marius (ILS 59): 'while consul for the sixth time, he freed the
republic when it was troubled by the revolt of tribunes of the plebs and praetors, who had seized
the Capitol under arms'.
30 Anderson (Historical Topography 83) observes regarding the elogia fori Augusti that 'Temples built by four of these men were restored by Augustus in confirmation of Suetonius' statement that Augustus restored the works of great generals preserving the original inscriptions
(Aug. 31.1)'.
28
174
literate Roman residents would be aware that Augustus, like the principes, juggled
the roles of general and benefactor during his principate, but on a vastly greater
scale in terms of their scope and longevity.
Second, in the statue inscriptions the piety of the republican principes - a feature of Augustus' rule to which he draws attention (Res Gestae 7.3; 9-12; 19; 24;
29.2) and one which his critics derided- is demonstrated by their commitment
to the traditional cults in times of crisis. Thus it is said of L. Albinus that 'when
the Gauls were besieging the Capitol, he led the vestal virgins down to Caere,
and there made it his concern that the solemn rites and ceremonies were not
interrupted' (ILS 51). Similarly, L. Papirius Cursor 'returned to Rome to renew
his auspices' (ILS 53). In the Res Gestae, however, Augustus underlines his superiority to the principes of the forum Augustum through his telling references
to the vestal virgins and the auspices. In Augustus' case, the vestal virgins made
an annual sacrifice in honour of his return to Rome from Syria (Res Gestae 11),
and the army of the Dacians was defeated and routed under his auspices (Res
Gestae 30.2). The republican principes of the statue inscriptions only anticipate
in rudimentary form Augustus' piety and the central position he assumed in the
state cult.
Third, the statue inscription of Q. Fabius Maximus reveals how the eulogistic
tradition ensured that honour was rendered to dishonoured benefactors. Fortunately, we can determine the extent to which the elogia of the forum Augustum
interpreted the careers of the republican principes. This is because the annalistic
tradition, with its annual record of state magistracies and events of cult importance, is enshrined in Livy. Livy provides us with a point of comparison between
the annalistic tradition and its Augustan reworking in the elogia. The collectors
of moral exempla - including the anonymous author of De Viris Illustribus
('Deeds of Famous Men') and Valerius Maximus (Facta et Dicta Memorabilia
['Memorable Doings and Sayings']) - also discuss the public dishonouring of
Quintus Fabius Maximus (217 BC) and demonstrate how the Dictator redressed
an unprecedented snub with an act of exceptional honour.
The relevant statue inscription of the forum Augustum, cited below, sets the
scene for our discussion of the 'dishonoured benefactor' motif:
Quintus Fabius Maximus, son of Quintus, twice a dictator, five times consul, censor, twice
interrex, curule aedile, twice quaestor, twice tribune of the soldiers, pontifex, augur. In
his first consulship he subdued the Ligures and triumphed over them. In his third and
fourth he tamed Hannibal by dogging his heels though rampant after numerous victories.
As dictator he came to the aid of the magister equitum, Minucius, whose imperium the
people had ranked equal with the dictator's, and of his routed army, and on that occasion
was named 'father' by the army of Minucius. When consul for the fifth time he captured
Tarentum, and triumphed. He was considered the most cautious general of his age and the
most skilled in military matters. He was chosen princeps senatus at two Lustra. 31
31
ILS 56.
175
Faced with the ravages of Hannibal's invasion of Italy in the Second Punic War,
Fabius wore down the Carthaginian general by dogging his heels and avoiding
any costly pitched battles. Fabius' strategy of exhaustion rather than military
engagement of the enemy earned him the abusive title Cunctator ('Delayer') and
many Romans opposed his policy. Not surprisingly, when he was Dictator for
a second time (217 BC), the Senate and the people voted that the imperium of
Fabius' magister equitum, Minucius, should be the same as that of Fabius. Our
writers from the annalistic and exempla traditions comment angrily on the public dishonouring of Rome's benefactor. Livy fulminates thus:
that wonderful leader, to whom his countrymen had turned in their distress as a match
for Hannibal, had by vote of the people had been reduced to a level- the superior with his
subordinate, the dictator with his Master of the Horse; and this action, to which history
could offer no parallel, had been taken in that very state in which masters of the horse had
been used to tremble and shudder at the rods and axes of the dictator; so conspicuous had
been his own success and courage. 32
Valerius Maximus also highlights the enormity of the insult delivered to Fabius'
di$Plitas ('merit', 'dignity', 'rank') and the grace of his response:
The Senate made Master of Horse Minucius equal in magisterial power to him, the Dictator: he held his peace. Provoked by a number of other slights, he remained in the same
frame of mind and never permitted himself to be angry with the commonwealth. Such was
his resolution in loving his countrymen ... 33
Notwithstanding the extent of his public humiliation, Fabius deigned to deliver

Minucius' legion from military disaster at Hannibal's hands. This extraordinary
act of grace from a dishonoured benefactor demanded reciprocation of the
highest order. Livy demonstrates how the reciprocity system reversed Fabius'
dishonour. As Minucius' explains to his rescued legion,
Let us join our camp to that of Fabius; and when we have brought our standards to his
tent, and I have given him the name of'Father'- as befits his goodness to us and his great
position - you, soldiers, shall salute as 'patrons' those whose hands and swords have just
protected you; and, if nothing else, this day shall have at least conferred on us the glory of
possessing thankful hearts. 34
In sum, we are witnessing how the eulogistic tradition dealt with the dishonouring of significant benefactors. It was believed that their virtus would triumph
over their detractors and that the outworking of the reciprocity system would
recompense commensurately their grace and dishonour.
Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 22.27.3-4.

Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 3.8.2. Similarly, De Viris Illustribus 43: 'He
permitted Minucius, his master of the cavalry, to be given command equal to his own. Nonetheless, he aided Minucius when he was in trouble'.
34 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 22.29.10-11.
32
33
176
Augustus endorsed the reciprocity system by including the dishonoured Fabius Maximus as one of the exempla in his forum. But what conclusion did Augustus intend posterity to draw about himself from Fabius' exemplum? Augustus
did not experience Fabius' humiliating reversal of honour in his public career.35
But, in contrast to Fabius, Augustus' virtus shone through all the more because
he voluntarily dispensed with the power and honour of his formal magistracies.
Although pressed by the people and the senate, Augustus refused the dictatorship twice in 22 BC (Res Gestae 5.1; Dio Cassius 54.1; Suetonius, Aug. 52), having
already laid aside his consular powers (23 BC), and having been compensated
for his loss of status with tribunician power (Res Gestae10.1). Indeed, it was the
senate, equestrian order, and the people of Rome who pressed upon Augustus the
title of'Father of my Country' (Res Gestae 35), inscribing it (among other places)
below the chariot honouring him in the forum Augustum.
Undoubtedly, Augustus' intention was to demonstrate how he acquired status
on the basis of his auctoritas and not on the basis of official rank. Conversely, Q.
Fabius Maximus is only acclaimed 'Father' of a single legion and, significantly,
he is accorded that honour while still possessing the imperium of Dictator. Astute readers of the elogia fori Augusti and the Res Gestae would have drawn the
implied contrasts between the republican principes and Augustus, neither diminishing the virtus of the principes, nor failing to see how gloriously Augustus had
excelled them. This was precisely the conclusion that the Augustan propaganda
intended contemporaries to reach.
What this demonstrates is that, notwithstanding the difference in status between Augustus and Q. Fabius Maximus, the Roman eulogistic tradition vindicated those who had voluntarily laid aside their magisterial honour (e.g. Augustus) or who had suffered enforced dishonour (e.g. Q. Fabius Maximus). In Paul's
presentation of Christ, both rhetorical traditions coincide. Christ who voluntarily laid aside honour (Rom 15:8-9; Phil2:5-8) suffered catastrophic dishonour at
the hands of men and God (Rom4:25a; 15:3; 1 Cor 1:23; 2 Cor 5:21a; 13:4a; Gal
3:13), but he was vindicated and exalted by God as Lord of all (Rom 1:4; 15:12;
1 Cor 15:25-27; Phil2:9-11).
The propaganda of the forum Augustum presented Augustus as the culmination of Roman history before whom the great men of the Republic paled
by comparison. Augustus' unparalleled beneficence and his piety towards the
Roman cult ensured that the 'eternal' empire remained indestructible (cf. Rom
16:25-27). I turn to the anti-Augustan propaganda: how did Augustan critics,
alienated by imperial rule, seek to rebut the providential and teleological ideol35 We have substantial evidence to the contrary in Pliny the Elder's catalogue of the reversals
of fortune in Augustus' career (HN 7.45.147 -150). This 'non-official' version of Augustus is our
best hope for reconstructing what the 'opposition' - i.e. the tradition of dissent emanating from
Gaius Asinius Pollio and other principes in Tacitus' Annals -was saying in response to Augustus'
propaganda( 5.3 infra).
5.3 Anti-Augustan Propaganda and Imperial Ideology at Rome
177
ogy of Augustus? The evidence is slim by comparison to the official propaganda

but suggestive.

The most extended critique of Augustus' reign, apart from Tacitus, is found in
Pliny [the Elder], HN7.45.147-150. The focus of the attack is upon the morality
of Augustus - especially his deceitfulness and lust for power - with concentration
on the early part of his career.36 The text, a catalogue of the reversals of fortune
in Augustus' career, is reproduced below.
Also in the case of his late Majesty Augustus, whom the whole of mankind enrols in the list
of happy men, if all the facts were carefully weighed, great revolutions of man's lot could be
discovered: his failure with his uncle in regard to the office of the Master of the Horse, when
the candidate opposing him, Lepidus, was preferred; the hatred caused by the proscription;
his association in the triumvirate with the wickedest citizens, and that not with an equal
share of power but with Antony predominant; his flight from the battle of Philippi when
he was suffering from disease, and his three days' hiding in a marsh, in spite of his illness
and his swollen dropsical condition (as stated by Agrippa and Maecenas); his shipwreck
off Sicily, and there also another period of hiding in a cave; his entreaties to Proculeius
to kill him, in a naval rout when a detachment of the enemy was already pressing close at
hand; the anxiety of the struggle at Perugia, the alarm at the Battle of Actium, his fall from
a tower in the Pannonian Wars; and all the mutinies in his troops, all his critical illnesses,
his suspicions of Marcellus's ambitions, the disgrace of Agrippa's banishment, the many
plots against his life, the charge of causing the death of his children; and his sorrows that
were not due solely to bereavement, his daughter's adultery and the disclosure of her plots
against her father's life, and the insolent withdrawal of his stepson Nero, another adultery,
that of his grand-daughter; and the long series of misfortunes -lack of army funds, rebellion of Illyria, enlistment of slaves, shortage of manpower, plague at Rome, famine in Italy,
resolve on suicide and death more than half achieved by four days' starvation; next the
disaster of Varus and the foul slur on his dignity; and the disowning ofPostumius Agrippa
after his adoption as heir, and the sense ofloss that followed his banishment; then his suspicion in regard to Fabius and the betrayal of secrets; afterwards the intrigues of his wife and
Tiberius that tormented his last days. In fine, this god - whether deified more by his own
action or by his merits I know not - departed from life leaving his enemy's son his heir.
36 As noted, Tacitus presents a similar critique of Augustus' rule (Ann. 1.10). Like Pliny [the
Elder], Tacitus focuses on Augustus' early career and appends vignettes of Augustus' military
disasters, the domestic crises, and the trauma of the dynastic succession. This common historical tradition makes it unlikely that Pliny and Tacitus are simply parroting Flavian propaganda
intended to smear the principate of Augustus. Rather each writer was probably intrigued - as
were many other of their Flavian contemporaries who continued to trawl over the anti-Augustan
propaganda - by the response of Augustus' critics to the ruler's carefully crafted self-presentation. The critics' acerbic response presented a potent counter-blast to the architectural and
iconographic propaganda of Augustus at Rome and to the inscriptional praise of Augustus as a
divine benefactor in the Greek East.
178
What would have been the rhetorical force of Pliny's catalogue when wielded
by Augustus' critics against the princeps? First, the critics asserted that at the
beginning of his career Augustus was surpassed in seniority by his triumviral
colleagues (Lepidus, Antony). The insinuation is that Augustus only gained
real power when the armies of Lepidus and Antony surrendered to him in 36
BC and 31-30 BC. Second, the portrayal of Augustus as a 'cowardly benefactor' who fled the battlefield (e.g. at Philippi and Sicily)- a motif wielded with
crushing effect by Aeschines and Dinarchus against Demosthenes who, his critics claimed, had deserted Athens in a time of crisis37 - robbed the princeps of a
prized boast: namely, that he was the 'endangered benefactor' who had secured
Rome's safety at considerable risk in the Battle of Actium (31 BC}. 38 Third, the
Augustan proscriptions were singled out as chilling instances of the abuse of
power after Philippi (Suetonius, Aug. 13} and Actium (Dio Cassius 51.2; Tacitus,
Ann. 1.2).39 Fourth, the series of plots against Augustus's life, the death of his
two grandchildren (Lucius and Gaius), and his banishment of his adopted son
(Postumius Agrippa) called into question Augustus' ability to secure the dynastic
succession. 40 Fifth, Augustus' failure to control the adultery of his daughter and
37 On the 'cowardly' and 'endangered' benefactor motifs, see J. R. Harrison, Paul's Language
of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tli.bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 335-340. A cutting
epigram concerning Augustus circulated during the Sicilan war: 'After he has twice been beaten
at sea and lost his ships, he plays at dice all the time, in the hope of winning one victory' (Suetonius, Aug. 90.2}.
38 The Fasti anni Juliani 1 Aug. 30 (Judge, 'Documents') praises Augustus as the 'endangered
benefactor' who conquered Egypt: 'A holiday by s.c. because on this day Imperator Caesar Augustus freed the commonwealth from terrible danger'.
39 On one occasion the descendants of republican senatorial principes - whose forebears
had been executed by the triumvirs at Philippi - silently honoured Caesar's murderers as the
preservers of libertas, even though the portraits of Brutus and Cassius were absent from the
funeral procession of Junia, a famous family member (Tacitus, Ann. 3.86}. Tiberius prosecuted
Cremutius Cordus for publishing a history that eulogised Brutus and styled Cassius as last of
the Romans (Tacitus, Ann. 4.34; cf. Suetonius, Tib. 61.3}. In his defence, Cremutius claimed that
the poems of Bibaculus and Catullus were 'packed with scurrilities upon the Caesars' (Tacitus,
Ann. 4.34}. This evidence demonstrates how some of the older senatorial nobiles responded to
the bloody triumph of the second triumvirate (43-38 BC) and to the proscriptions of Augustus
after Philippi and Actium (respectively, 42 BC [Suetonius, Aug. 13]; 31 BC [Dio Cassius 51.2];
Tacitus, Ann. 1.2}. They stubbornly upheld libertas and venerated its iconic figures. They would
have dismissed as lies Augustus' appropriation of the libertas tradition in Res Gestae 1.1-3.2.
On the background to Res Gestae 1.1-3.2, see P.A. Brunt and J.M. Moore (eds.), Res Gestae
Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967),
38-41. A. E. Cooley, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009), 101-118. On Augustus' rhetoric within republican and
imperial conventions, see E. A. Judge, 'Augustus in the Res Gestae', id. (ed. J.R. Harrison), The
First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Studies (Tiibingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2008}, 187-189.
40 On the importance of dynastic succession for the principate, see C. Wirszubski, Libertas as
a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1968}, 154-158. Note the derogatory gossip, cited by Tacitus (Ann. 1.4}, directed against the magisterial colleagues of Augustus, Agrippa and Tiberius.
179
granddaughter tarnished not only his role as paterfamilias but also compromised
his social legislation forbidding the remarriage of an adulteress. Finally, Varus'
military disaster (AD 9) placed in question Augustus' maintenance of the pax
Romana. We are witnessing the dismantling of the literary, inscriptional, architectural, and iconographic conceptualisation of the world in which Augustus
stood at its centre as the cosmological and providentially appointed benefactor.
Another valuable source for public dissent regarding imperial ideology are the
productions of mime artists and actors. In Caesar's dictatorship, the actor Laberius dressed up as Syrus, whom he represented as flogged by whips and beating a
hasty retreat. A line uttered by Laberius - 'Many he needs must fear whom many
fear' - caused the crowd to turn and look at Caesar because the scathing jibe was
interpreted as an attack on his despotism (Macrobius, Sat. 2.7.4-5). 41 In Augustus' reign, Hylas, a pantomimic actor, was publicly scourged in the atrium of his
house upon the complaint of a praetor (Suetonius, Aug. 45.4). Further, the rivalry
between Pylades, the actor, and Hylas, his pupil, created such disturbance that
Pylades earned Augustus' displeasure. Pylades retorted sharply, censuring Augustus for his interference: ~d you, Sire, are ungrateful, for you would do well
to let the populace busy themselves with our affairs' (Macrobius, Sat. 2. 7.12-19).
Pylades was subsequently expelled from Rome and Italy because of an obscene
gesture he made towards a hissing spectator (Suetonius, Aug. 65.4). In a play at
a theatre during the formative years of Augustus' career, Suetonius (Aug. 68)
reports that the people took the following line as directed against Augustus and
loudly applauded: 'See how a wanton's finger sways the world'. 42 In sum, the
personal supremacy of Augustus and his adoptive father, Caesar, had become a
lucrative target for Roman actors' lampoons. 43
An intriguing text emanating from the anti-Augustan tradition is the Culex, a
late Augustan or first-century AD parody ascribed to Virgil. 44 In this allegorical
41 On Laberius, see W.A. Krenkel, Caesar und der Mimus des Laberius (Hamburg: JoachimJungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Jg. 12, 1994}.
42 By contrast, during a farce at which Augustus was a spectator, the princeps reproved the
crowd for flattery when they clapped the line: '0 just and gracious Lord' (Suetonius, Aug. 52).
I am grateful to Professor Laurence Welborn for drawing my attention to this evidence at the
Interpretation of Romans Section at the AAR and SBL Annual Meetings, Atlanta, Georgia, November 22-25, 2003.
43 The Herodian clients of the Caesars became the focus of jibes and ridicule. Flaccus, the
viceroy of Alexandria, employed poets who composed farces, as well as managers of puppet
shows, to belittle Herod Agrippa I, the champion of the Alexandrian Jews (Philo, Place. 34; c
the stage-managed episode involving the 'royal' madman Carabbas: ibid. 36-38). Note the song
of an actor of Atellan farces directed against Nero (Suetonius, Ner. 7.3).
44 On the Culex, see D.O. Ross, 'The CULEX and MORETUM as Post-Augustan Literary
Parodies', HSCPh 79 (1975): 235-263; J. Richmond, 'Recent Work on the "Appendix Vergiliana"
(1950-1975}', ANRW II 31/2 (1981}: 1112-1154, esp. 1125-1131; G. Most, 'The "Virgilian"
Culex', in M. Whitby (et al., ed.), Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol: Bristol
Classical, 1987}, 199-209; P. L. Schmidt, 'Culex', Der Neue Pauly 3 (1997}: 228. Ross ('Post-Augustan Literary Parodies', 243} identifies the work as a parody of the nameless scribblers of verse
180
work dedicated to the boy Octavian (the later Augustus), a kindly gnat stings
a sleeping shepherd in the eye in order to warn him that a deadly serpent was
approaching. Unaware of his benefactor's favour, the shepherd crushes the gnat
and kills the serpent with a tree bough. That night the shepherd is tormented in
his dreams by the gnat's spirit who accuses him of ingratitude and takes him on
a tour of the underworld. Subsequently, the shepherd erects a burial mound with
an epitaph reciprocating the beneficence of the gnat: '0 tiny gnat a shepherd pays
you, who merit it, rite of burial, in return for the gift of life' (Culex 413-414).
Several features of the Culex would have provoked the interest of Julio-Claudian auditors at Rome, schooled as they were on the parade of heroes in the
Aeneid. 45 First, the catalogue of Greek and Trojan heroes in the shepherd's tour
of the underworld (Culex 296-357) would have reminded auditors of Augustus'
claim that the Julian house was descended from the Trojan Aeneas, a claim celebrated in the North West exedra of the forum Augustum (cf. Ovid, Fasti 4.19-124;
c Horace, Carm. 4.15.29-32). 46
Second, the catalogue of famous republican houses (the Fabii, the Dedi, the
Scipios) in the shepherd's tour ofthe underworld (Culex 358-371) would have
recalled some of the republican heroes headed by Romulus, whose statues were
found in the South East exedra of the forum Augustum. One of the Roman leaders
mentioned in the Culex (Camillus) features in the forum Augustum, as do three
representatives from the Fabii and Scipionic houses,47 and a Caecilius (the name
represented in the Priapea collection and Nero's contests. In intentionally writing the poem
poorly, the writer lampoons 'preciosities of style and technique deriving from the neoterics and
their Augustan successors'. While this accounts for the work's literary genre, Ross overlooks the
political intent that such anonymous compositions had as satire.
45 Most ('The "Virgilian" Culex', passim) argues that the structure of the Culex is designed to
make the audience think of the cavalcade of heroes in the Aeneid and is therefore non-Virgilian.
46 On Aeneas, portrayed on the south-west panel of the ara Pacis Augustae ('Altar of Peace': cf.
Res Gestae 12.2), see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 232 n. 80. This identification, however,
has been recenly challenged (P. Rehak, ~eneas or Numa: Rethinking the Meaning of the Ara
Pacis Augustae', The Arts Bulletin 83/2 [2001]: 190-208). Conversely, Romulus and Remus are
depicted on the north-west panel. Further, on the Palatine Hill stood Augustus' modest house,
nearby which was a model of Romulus' house (C. Gates, Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece and Rome [London/New York: Routledge,
2003], 337; M. Beard [et al., ed.], Religions ofRome. Volume 1: A History [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998], 189-192). On the ara Pacis Augustae, see G.M. Moretti, The Ara Pacis
Augustae (Roma: La Libreria Delio Stato, 1939); E. Simon, Ara Pacis Augustae (Tlibingen: E.
Wasmuth, 1967); N. Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus: Aarhus University
Press, 1988), 62-74; D. Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery ofAbundance in Later
Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton: Princeton University, 1995).
47 1he elogia ofM. Furius Camillus (Culex 362) and Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (Culex
368) are found in the South East exedra of the forum Augustum (respectively, A. Degrassi,
Inscriptiones Italiae Vol. 13: Fasti et Elogia [Rome: La Tiberia dello Stato, 1937], 61, 17). The
three representatives from the Fabii and Scipionic houses in the forum Augustum are as follows:
Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator (elogium: Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae 14); L. Cornelius Scipio
Asiaticus (marble statue base, with remnants of name and magistracies only); P. Cornelius Scipio
181
conjectured for the puzzling Flaminius of Culex 368).48 The mention of Mettius
(Marcus) Curtius, the hero said to have plunged himself on horseback into a
chasm opened in the ancient forum Romanum (Culex 363-364) highlights the
motif of devotio (contractual self-sacrifice to save Rome, vowed unto the gods).
That the practise of devotio animated the Roman heroes mentioned in the Culex
is underscored by the author's language of'devotion' in reference to various individuals (364 [devotum]; 368, 3 70 b [devota ]),49 whereas in the forum Augustum
the leaders save republican Rome by means of their crisis management. The Roman heroes, therefore, are models for the gnat in that they surrender their lives
in order to save Rome and are honoured for their devotion. However, the Culex
more emphasises their self-sacrifice than the parade of heroes (culminating in
Augustus) found in the Aeneid and the forum Augustum.
Third, the shepherd's construction of a circular funeral mound, described as
a 'towering work' surrounded by 'stones fashioned from polished marble' (Culex
391-398), is reminiscent of Augustus' mausoleum. 50 The reference to 'polished
Aemilianus (Pliny [the Elder], HN 22.6.13 testifies that Aemilianus' statue and inscription were
in the forum Augustum).
48 On the conjectural restoration of 'Caecilius' instead of 'Flaminius', see W V. Clausen (Appendix Vergiliana [Oxford: Clarendon, 1966]) on Culex 368.
49 I am indebted to Emeritus Professor E. A. Judge's observations in private correspondence
on the role of devotio in Culex 361-370b. On devotio, see Livy,Ab Urbe Condita 8.9.4ff; 8.10.11;
Simon Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), Oxford Classical Dictionary (3'd ed. Oxford/New
York: Oxford University, 1996), s. v. 'devotio'. The three Fabii (Culex 361), sons of M. Fabius
Ambrustus, risked their lives as legates in 391 BC by attacking the Gauls (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita
5.35-36). A second trio, the Decii Mus (Culex 361), 'devoted' their lives for Rome across three
generations spanning 340-279 BC ('vowed himself [se devovit] and the enemy to the shades of
the dead': De Viris Illustribus 26, 27, 29; Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 8.9.4ff; 10:28; Valerius Maximus,
Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 5.6.5; 5.6.6). Another trio, the brothers Horatii, placed their lives at
risk against the Curiatii (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 1.24-25). Probably Culex 361 refers to Horatius
Codes who single-handedly defended the Sulpician bridge against the Etruscans (Livy, Ab Urbe
Condita 2.9). Furius Camillus (Culex 362) captured Veii, freeing Rome from the Gauls in 390 BC
(Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 5.44.1-3 ). Marcus Curtius, in obedience to an oracle, devoted himself as
'a living victim' (devotum livens: Culex 363; cf. 'devoted himself to death': Livy, Ab Urbe Condita
7.6.3-5) by leaping into a chasm in the Roman forum in order to save his city. Mucius Scaevola
(Culex 365) burnt his right hand off to show his contempt for death (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita
2.12-13). Curius Denatus (Culex 367) conquered Pyrrhus (275 BC), among other enemies of
Rome; Valerius Maximus (Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 4.3.5a-5b). Caecilius Metellus (devota
dedit: Culex 368; Livy, Per. 19) rescued the Palladium from the burning temple of Vesta, devoting his eyes to the flames. Regulus (Culex 370a) was the hero of the first Punic war (Horace,
Carm. 3.5). In the view of pseudo-Virgil, the Scipios - presumably Scipio Africanus Major and
Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantius - devoted the enemy as sacrifices to the gods in their
victories over Carthage (quorum devota triumphis: Culex 370b). M. Hengel (The Atonement: The
Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament [London: SCM, 1981], 23-24) has rightly called
the attention of New Testament scholars to devotio as background to Roman ideas of atoning
sacrifice. See 5.3 infra.
50 Strabo 5.3.8: ' ... the tomb, called the "Mausoleum'' [of Augustus] which, situated near the
river, consists of a great mound of earth raised up on a high foundation of white marble, and
covered to the top with evergreen trees'.
182
marble' perhaps alludes to Augustus' claim that he found Rome built of brick and
left it in marble (Suetonius, Aug. 28.3).
Fourth, the fact that the shepherd kills the gnat and the serpent - his benefactor and his enemy - is consonant with contemporary criticism of Augustus' proscriptions. While the Culex echoes the Augustan parades of family and heroes in
the imperial literature (Virgil, Aen. 6.756-846; Manilius, Astronomica 1.777-804;
Propertius 3.11.61-68; Ovid, Fasti 5.545-598; Horace, Carm. 1.12.33-48), architecture (forum Augustum ), and iconography (ara Pacis Augustae), it departs from
the Augustan eulogistic tradition in depicting the princeps' power as arbitrary
and undiscriminating. 51
Another literary source, the non-Senecan tragedy Octavia, contrasts two different views of the Augustan principate. In a conversation between Seneca and
Nero (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 472-478), Seneca advises the ruler to pursue the policy of
clemency, emphasising Augustan precedent in this regard:
It is glorious to be pre-eminent among illustrious men, to watch over the fatherland, spare
the down-trodden, refrain from savage slaughter, give anger the time to cool, and grant
tranquillity to the world and peace to one's own time. This is the highest virtue, this is the
path to heaven. This was how that first Augustus, Father of the Country, gained the stars,
and is worshipped in shrines as a god.
In similar vein to Pliny [the Elder], the writer presents an alternate appraisal
of the Augustan age through Nero's savage critique of Augustus' bloodstained
principate (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 504-533). Nero mentions the proscription lists of the
Second Triumvirate and Augustus' bloody victories in his personal rise to power
(i.e. Philippi, Sicily, Actium). He sums up the ensuing Augustan 'Golden Age' of
peace thus: ~t last the victor now weary, sheathed his sword, blunted with savage
blows, and maintained his sway by fear (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 524-526)'.
Two final sources criticise Augustus for the supreme position he had assumed
in the state's cult, though the historical tradition may reflect later elaborations of
the Flavian imperial cult. Tacitus (Ann. 1.10) reports the contemporary jibe that
Augustus 'had left small room for the worship of heaven when he claimed to be
himself adored in temples and in the image of the godhead by flamens and by
priests'. Suetonius (Aug. 70.1) reports the gossip about Octavian's private party in
which he and twelve other guests dressed up as gods and goddesses, with Octavian representing Apollo, much to the shock of contemporaries such as Antony.
Suetonius clinches his case by citing the well-known but anonymous lines:
As soon as that table of rascals has secured a choragus and Mallia saw six gods and six
goddesses, while Caesar impiously plays the false role of Apollo and feasts among novel
51 On Augustan funerary processions, see J. R. Hollingshead, The Household of Caesar and

the Body of Christ: A Political Interpretation of the Letters of Paul (Lanham: University Press of
America, 1998), 211-212.
5.4 Ovid and the Rhetoric of Imperial Exile
183
debaucheries (nova adulteria) of the gods; then all the deities turned their faces from the
earth and Jupiter himself fled from his golden throne.
Our critic underscores Augustus' abandonment of traditional religio through

the telling use of the adjective novus ('novel', 'new'). This stands in contrast to
Augustus' own portrait of himself as the centre and defender of the mos maiorum
('tradition of the ancestors') and the state cult (Res Gestae 10-11, 12.2, 19.2, 20.4,
21.1-2, 29.2; Appendix 2).
5.4 Ovid and the Rhetoric oflmperial Exile

We turn to a final group that contributed to the political debate of early firstcentury Rome: those who had been amici ('friends') of the imperial household
but who, for some reason, were marginalised from the favour of the ruler and his
family or, worse, were exiled from his presence entirely. In what ways did such
people try to ingratiate themselves with 'the benefactor of the world'?
The poetry of Ovid (43 BC-AD 17) bears eloquent witness to the rhetorical
strategies that an exile used to persuade his imperial benefactor to reinstate him
to favour. Ovid's writings thrust him into prominence until AD 8 when, as the
most popular living poet in Rome at that time, he was banished by Augustus to
Tomis on the Black Sea. The reason for Ovid's exile remains inaccessible to us
apart from two facts (Ovid, Tristia 2.208-214). As Ovid renders his plight, the
banishment revolved around 'two offences, a poem and a mistake' (duo crimina,
carmen et error). Ovid partially clarifies this cryptic summary elsewhere: the
banishment was provoked by the publication of the Ars Amatoria (c. AD 1/2:
cf. Ovid, Tristia 2.8.240)- the poet's celebrated guide to seduction- and by an
undisclosed indiscretion somehow offensive to the princeps (Tristia 3.6.32), the
identity of which remains insoluble to this day.
While scholars have expended much effort in exploring the causes of Ovid's
exile and his purported opposition to Augustanism,52 more important for us is
the effect of the exile upon the poet and the rhetoric by which he tries to effect
reconciliation with his patron. Ovid emphasises how he labours under Caesar's
wrath in exile (Tristia, ex Ponto, passim) and appeals to his mercy (dementia)
for restoration to Rome or relocation to somewhere closer to the capital (Tristia 2.27-32, 147-148; 4.4.49-54; 4.5.30-44). 53 Thus Ovid petitions Augustus
as pater patriae in his poems of exile (Tristia, ex Ponto, Fasti). The senate and
52 On the politics of Ovid's exile, seeR. Syme, History in Ovid (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1978), 215-229. On Ovid and the worship of the ruler, see K. Scott, 'Emperor Worship in
Ovid', TAPA 61 (1930): 43-69.
53 On the dementia of Caesars, see Wirszubski, Libertas, 150-153; D. Konstan, Pity Transformed (London: Duckworth, 2001), 97-104.
184
people of Rome had conferred this title on Augustus in 2 BC (Res Gestae 35.1;
Suetonius, Aug. 58; Dio Cassius 55.10.10; Fasti anni Juliani [5 February]). 54 The
title was conferred in recognition- and Suetonius (Aug. 58.2) is adamant that he
accurately renders the words spoken at the ceremony - of the good fortune and
divine favour attending the house of Augustus and as a prayer for the continued
prosperity of Rome and its subjects throughout his rule. 55 Augustus nominates
the honorific as the basis for his auctoritas (Res Gestae 35.1) and, as noted( 2
supra), it surpassed the best republican precedents (Q. Fabius Ma:ximus). But, as
employed by Ovid during his exile, the address of pater patriae to the princeps
expresses the yearnings and desperation of one who was marginalised from the
imperial favour, with little hope of restoration. It allows us to see in contrast what
might have been attractive to Roman auditors about the divine patronage offered
in Christ. 56
The dissonance between the paternal care of Augustus as a 'super-patron',
with its inherent obligation of reciprocity (amor debitus), and the dishonour and
powerlessness of Ovid as a client in exile is seen in Tristia 2.155-160, 181-186:
Wherefore by the gods above, who give and will give you long years, if only they love the
Roman race, by our native land which is safe and secure under your fatherly care (secura
parente est), of which I as one among the people was but recently a part; so I pray that
there be duly paid by a grateful city (gratae urbis) that debt oflove (amor debitus) which
your constant deeds and spirit deserve ... Spare me, father of our country (pater patriae)!
Do not, forgetful of this name, take from me the hope that sometime I may appease you! I
pray not for return, even though we may believe that more than the prayer has often been
granted by the mighty gods. Grant me a milder and nearer place of exile, and a large part
of my punishment will be lightened.
In another important reference, Ovid speaks of Augustus' house at Rome as

possessing 'eternal glory' because it was continually adorned with the triumphal
wreaths of oak and laurel (Tristia 3.35-46). Appealing to the inscription that
accompanied the wreaths, Ovid asks that Augustus as the 'best of fathers' (pater
optime) might relieve his fears and save him from exile so that he could live at
54 On the terminological precedents of pater patriae, see Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae,
80. For Augustan numismatic occurrences of pater patriae, see RIC J2 'Augustus' 203, 218,
230[ii)l. Judge comments regarding Augustus' new title ('Augustus in the Res Gestae', 223):
'Above all, the new title subjects everyone to a form of dependence, and elevates Augustus to a
form of control, that is more simple, fundamental and universal than any of the bonds that hold
together the organs of state. In the last resort the position of Augustus is paternal, and is founded
upon personal and community relations rather than legal ones'.
55 Ovid confirms Suetonius' understanding of pater patriae in Fasti 2.127-144; 2.635-638;
Tristia 4.3.11-16. In Petronius' Satyricon (Sat. 60}, the guests at Trimalchio's dinner poured out
libations to the imperial ruler, saying 'Augusto patri patriae feliciter' ('To Augustus Father of the
Country [be] congratulations offered').
56 On pater patriae in Ovid, see A. Barchiesi, The Poet and the Prince: Ovid and Augustan
Discourse (Berkeley /Los Angeles /London: University of California, 1997}, 80-83.
5.5 Pauls Dishonoured Benefactor and the Imperial Gospel in Romans 5:1-11
185
peace again under paternal rule of the princeps and the Julian house (Tristia
3.1.47-58).57
Finally, after thanking Cotta Maximus for his gift of a silver medallion, Ovid
looks at the portraits of Augustus, Livia and Tiberius embossed on its surface and
bursts out in impassioned petition to the princeps (Ex Ponto 2.8.20-26):
All I gaze on him (Augustus) I seem to look on Rome, for he embodies the likeness of
the fatherland (patriae). Am I wrong or do the features of his portrait show anger against
me? Is his form somehow grim and threatening? Spare me, you who are mightier in your
virtues than the measureless world, check the reigns of your just vengeance. Spare me, you
imperishable glory of our age, because of your own care.
What we are witnessing in Ovid is the enormous distance separating the princeps
and his clients when the bonds of reciprocity had been violated by unfaithfulness
or ingratitude. While Ovid still experienced amicitia ('friendship') at a distance
through faithful allies such as Cotta Maximus, the poet no longer had Augustus
as an amicus ('friend'). The tragedy for Ovid was that his appeals to the pater
patriae continued to fall on deaf ears into the reign of Tiberius. The heir of the
Julian house, like his adoptive father, had a long memory.
It is now time to see how Roman auditors, imbued with the inflated claims
regarding Augustus, and conversant with the anti-Augustan propaganda and the
appeals of the politically marginalised, would have responded to Paul's dishonoured and vindicated eschatological benefactor.
5.5 Paul's Dishonoured Benefactor and the

Imperial Gospel in Romans 5:1-11
5.5.1 Preliminary Comments
Roman auditors would have noticed a terminological overlap between Paul's
proclamation of the gospel and the inscriptional propaganda of Augustus and
Nero. 58 The early Christians were heralding the advent of a new Benefactor,
whom they credited with the same honorifics as the Caesars and whose benefits
(they claimed) surpassed the imperial household. Before we analyse the imperial
terminology of Romans 5:1-11, a hermeneutical problem needs to be aired. If
Paul is critiquing Augustan and Neronian propaganda in Romans, why doesn't
he refer to the Caesars directly by name, as Epictetus did in criticising the imperial peace (e.g. Arr. Epict. Diss. 3.13.9-11)?59
57 Note Ovid's petition for deliverance in Tristia 5.2.491f: 'you glory, you image of a fatherland
(imago patriae)'.
58 See Harrison, 'Paul, Eschatology', passim; Chapter 2 infra.
59 Professor John Barclay posed this question at the Pauline Epistles Section of the AAR and
SBL Annual Meetings, San Antonio, Texas, November 22-25, 2004.
186
First, one might point to the presence of'hidden transcripts' that marginalised
groups employ when obliquely criticising their oppressors. The imperial reference of Paul's 'political' terminology would have been understood in the Roman
house churches, even though Paul does not name the ruler{s). 60
Second, we only have one end of the conversation in Romans, unlike 1 Corinthians (m:pl 6: 1 Cor 7:1; 8:1; 11:1; 12:1; cf. 1:11; 5:9-10). We do not know
what Paul said pastorally and theologically about the imperial rulers to believers
expelled from the capital (Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3-4) while in the Greek East (cf.
Rom 16:5b).61 We do not know whether Roman believers raised political questions when Paul's papyrus was read out in the house churches, or whether Paul's
co-workers (Rom 16:3-5a [-roue; cruvepyouc;], 9a [-r6v ouvepy6v ~f!WV]) or the
letter-bearer {16:1-2) would have responded to the enquiries.
Finally, if the Roman house churches reflected a spectrum of political viewpoint (supra 5.1 n. 15), Paul had to be diplomatic in helping divided believers
recognise the God-given authority ofthe rulers (Rom 13:1-7). Simultaneously,
the apostle needed to assert the Lordship of Christ over the symbolic universe
of the Caesars' propaganda and to empower believers to act counter-culturally
where the gospel collided with imperial ideology and structures. In what follows
we explore how Paul engages the Augustan and Neronian rhetoric of beneficence
with a view to maintaining the social distinctiveness of the new creation (Rom
6:4; 7:6; cf. Gal6:15; 2 Cor 5:17).
5.5.2 Peace, Grace, the Hope of Divine Glory, and Love: The Rhetoric of Paul's
Gospel in Its Imperial Context (Rom 5:1-5)
In verses 1-5 Paul employs terminology that would have resonated with believers who had lived through the Augustan age of grace or who were experiencing
its restoration under Nero. In verse 1 Paul highlights the first effect of justification by faith, namely, peace towards God (eip~VT]V EXOf!EV 7tpoc; -rov 8e6v).
I have discussed elsewhere the peace of Augustus, 62 while D. Georgi and B.
Witherington III have emphasised the centrality of peace in Nero's propaganda
(Seneca, Clem. 1.2-4; Calpurnius Siculus, Eclogue 1.45-65: 1 nn. 2 -3 supra).
Additionally, Nero's peace acquired a cosmological dimension in the Eclogues of
Calpurnius Siculus (82-146) and in the Einsiedeln Eclogues ofNero (15-38). The
numismatic evidence is also important. A Neronian dupondius (Roman mint:
AD 62-68) bears 'Security of Augustus' as a legend (Securitas Augusti: RICZ 160
112-114), underscoring the freedom characteristic of Nero's 'Golden Age'.
On 'hidden transcripts', see 1.5.2; 2.2.3 n. 57; 7.4.
P. Lampe (From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 157) argues that sixteen of the twenty-six people in Romans 16 must
have met Paul in person in the Greek East.
62 See Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 230 n. 69.
60
61
187
The reverse side of an aureus (Roman mint: AD 64-65) shows the doors of the
temple of Janus closed (RIC2 153 50), as was the case three times previously
under Augustus (Res Gestae 13). Tiridates, king of Armenia, had come to Rome
to prostrate himself before Nero, who seizing the diplomatic opportunity, closed
the temple doors, declaring there was no war anywhere (Suetonius, Nero 13).
Undoubtedly, Paul's understanding of peace is primarily informed by the 'peace'
traditions associated with Israel's restoration, as depicted in Isaiah, Jeremiah and
Ezekiel.63 But Paul is also addressing believers in mid-to-late fifties Rome. Christ,
the messianic King of the restored people of God (Rom 1:2-4, 4:11-18; 10:12;
11:1-5; 15:8-12; 16:25-27), offers a peace that outshone all imperial substitutes
because of his sacrificial death on behalf of Abraham's 'counter-imperial' household offaith (3:25; 4:23-25). 64
In verse 2a Paul says that through Christ believers have obtained royal access
(-r~v npoaaywy~v EOX~KUJ.lEV: cf. Xenephon, Cyr. 7.4.45) to the grace in which
they now stand (Ei<; T~V xapLV TUUT'lV EV EO"T~KUJ.1EV). 65 I have discussed elsewhere the eastern documentary evidence on the grace of Augustus and Nero.
Paul's unilateral understanding of grace (Rom 4:4-5; 5:15b, 17b; 11:35) captured
an important emphasis of the imperial propaganda: namely, that no one could
compete against the grace of Augustus or Nero. 66 Paul's language of 'overflow'
(Rom 5: 15: ~ llwpea EV xapm E1tEp[aaEUO"EV) - terminology belonging to the imperial propaganda67 - magnified the grace of Christ over the reigning powers of
sin and death (Rom 5:12-21). Paul's Roman auditors would have readily understood Paul's concept of overflowing grace because the central section of the Res
Gestae at Augustus' mausoleum was devoted to the vast array of benefactions (Res
Gestae 15-24; cf. Appendix 1-4) that secured Augustus' auctoritas as the preeminent Roman magistrate (34.1, 3). But, over against Paul's understanding of
grace, Nero distinguished hierarchically between the recipients of his benefits.68
63 See F. Thielman, 'The Story oflsrael and the Theology of Romans 5-8', in D. M. Hay and
E. E. Johnston (eds.), Pauline Theology Volume III, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 178.
64 A Greek epigram from Egypt (R. K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988], 70A) vows sacrifices for Nero's safety: 'having vowed to
make sacrifice for the preservation of Caesar; one hundred ox-felling axes stained the willing
necks of the bulls with blood on the heavenly altars of Zeus'. Whereas in the Caesar cult clients
sacrifice on behalf of their benefactor, Christ as benefactor sacrifices himself on behalf of his
dependants.
65 N. T. Wright ('The Letter to the Romans', in anon. [ed.], The New Interpreter's Bible Volume X [Nashville: Abingdon, 2002], 516 n. 183) argues against J.D. G. Dunn's suggestion (Romans 1-8 [Dallas: Word, 1988], 248) that the imagery of npoaaywy{Jv (Rom 5:2a) referred to the
access to the ruler's throne room. In response, Wright (ibid.) points out that since 'npoaayw ...
occurs very frequently in cultic contexts in the LXX', the context of the metaphor is more likely
the coming of the worshipper into God's presence. G.R. Osborne (Romans [Downers Grove:
IVP, 2004], 127) argues for the connotation of royalty as opposed to the idea of cultic access.
66 Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 226-234.
67 Ibid., 231.
68 Ibid., 88-89.
188
Finally, as T. R. Schreiner observes,69 the perfect tense of eo. r~Ka~ev points to

the ongoing access to divine grace and the new standing before God that believers now have. Such grace, in contrast to the experience of Ovid( 4 supra), would
not be withdrawn. Paul has already established that the believer can now address
God as 'Father' with hope (Rom 4:16a, 18a, 20; cf. 8:15a: 'without fear') because
they experience the justifying faith of Abraham and know the indwelling of the
Spirit of Christ though love (5:5) Access to this new 'Father' may have appealed
to former clients of the Caesars who had either incurred the ruler's wrath or were
excluded from his favour.
In verse 2b Paul highlights the fact that the believer can boast (Kauxw~e9a) in
the hope of the glory of God (en' tXnlcSL l"J'i<; M~TJ<; t"oii 9eoii).70 Hope featured
prominently in the imperial rhetoric. 71 Augustus, for example, realises the hopes
of humanity by exceeding all expectations regarding his beneficence, whether it
be measured by the munificence of benefactors of the past or by their successors:
(since) with his appearance] Caesar exceeded the hopes (-ra<; hi6a<; [intEp]8!]KEv) of
all those who had received [glad tidings] ([EuavyeALa]) before us, not only surpassing
([unEp~a]A6f.LEVo<;) those who had been [benefactors] before him, but not even [leaving
any] hope [of surpassing him] (hi6[a] unEp~oA~<;) for those who are to come in the
future .. .72
The draft of a papyrus proclamation of Nero's succession after the death of Claudius ( 17 Nov. 54 AD) celebrates the ruler's assumption of power as the fulfilment
of Roman hopes occasioning thanksgiving to the gods:
The Caesar who was owed to his ancestors, god manifest (tvcpav~<; 8E6<;), has gone to join
them, and the emperor whom the world expected and hoped for (Ama8Ei<;), has been
proclaimed; the good genius of the world and source of all blessings. Therefore ought we
all wear garlands and with sacrifices of oxen give thanks (xaprra<;) to all the gods. Year
1 of Nero Claudius Caesar Germanicus, the 2Pt of the month New Augustus (Ne(ou)
l:E~a( OTOU)). 73
T. R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998}, 254.

R. Jewett (Romans: Commentary [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 351-352} notes how Paul,
by boasting in the hope of eschatological glory in Romans 5:2b, undermines the Graeco-Roman
boasting culture. Further, Jewett (ibid., 353} notes regarding Paul's boasting in his sufferings in
Romans 5:3: 'The idea of boasting in sufferings is so remarkable in its social context and the
reference to experiences known to the congregation is so specific that direct relevance for the
experience of that congregation must be inferred. In the extreme version of an honour I shame
environment present in Rome, where triumphs over enemies were celebrated on every side, to
boast in a group's adversities not only is counter-cultural in the general sense but also probably
counters specific interpretations of such adversities by the competing churches in Rome'.
71 On hope in the imperial propaganda, see Chapter 2 2.2.5 infra; cf. the supplications to
Spes (Hope) in Fasti anni ]uliani 18 Oct. 48 BC, 1 Aug 30 BC (Judge, 'Documents').
72 DocsAug., 98b (ll.37-41}.
73 DocsGaius, 47.
69
70
5.5 Paul's Dishonoured Benefactor and the Imperial Gospel in Romans 5:1-11
189
According to Paul, hope focuses on the divine glory as a gift of grace distributed
through Christ to believers at the eschaton, notwithstanding the fact that they
had previously scorned it and fallen short ofits perfection (Rom 1:21-23; 3:23 ). 74
What is remarkable about the promise of hope of divine glory in verse 2b is the
transfer of the language of glory from Caesar's household to the household of
God. As noted( 4 supra), Ovid attributed to Augustus' house 'eternal glory' and
addressed the princeps as either the 'imperishable glory of our age' or 'you glory,
you image of a fatherland'. For auditors of Romans, however, the glory attributed
to Augustus as paterfamilias is democritised through the Body of Christ, though
it is the eschatological glory of the Father (Rom 3:23; 5:2; 8:18) that believers
inherit when they are glorified with the Davidic Son (Rom 8:17b [iva Kal ouvc5o~aoewllev], 30b [c56~aoev]).
In verse 5 Paul asserts that the hope of divine glory will not disappoint the believer at the eschaton because of the experience of divine love (~ ciyan11) poured
into their hearts (EKKEXUTat tv Tai<; Kapc5(au;) through the Spirit. Initially, there
seems to be no challenge to imperial rhetoric here. But the perfect passive form
of EKKEXUTat emphasises that ciyan11 is God's work, experienced at conversion,
and maintained as an ongoing reality in believers' lives. 75 Paul evinces no interest
in the love that is kindled in return by God's work: the emphasis is theocentric
( 5.4 infra), not reciprocal.
By contrast, reciprocity ideology animated imperial benefaction.76 Contemporaries would have been surprised that Paul avoided the inscriptional language of
recompense (allot~~, ci!ll~etv). 77 Even the exiled Ovid( 4 supra) highlighted
the 'debt oflove' (amor debitus) owed by grateful city-states to the princeps, as he
sought to breach his impasse with Augustus. But, for Paul, the 'debt oflove' (Rom
13:8b) replaces-reciprocity rituals (13:7-8a)- with their emphasis on commensurate return - as the dynamic for social relationships within the Body of Christ
(12:8b-10a, 13ff; 13:8c-10; 14:15; 16:2, 8).78 Thetheocentricnature oflove (Rom
5:5a: ~ ciyanll TOU eeou; 5:8a: T~V tauTOU ciya1t11V), expressed in Christ (5:8b) and
empowered through the Spirit (5:5b), informs this new social construct.
See Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 214-224.
Schreiner, Romans, 257.
76 The Asian League and provincial client-kings acknowledged the difficulty of reciprocating
the beneficence of Augustus and Gaius (DocsAug., 98a [11.15-17); SJG3 798; Harrison, Paul's
Language of Grace, 50, 228). But beneficiaries could make powerful counter-demands on their
imperial patrons and representatives (e.g. John 19:12b). During Gaius' reign, Flaccus, viceroy
of Alexandria, persecuted the Jews of the city. The Jews repeatedly reminded Flaccus of their
loyalty to Augustus and insisted that the viceroy maintain the honour of the princeps (Philo,
Place. 47-50, 52, 74, 81, 83). Ultimately, by approaching Herod Agrippa I, a faithful client ofthe
Caesars, they secured Flaccus' downfall (ibid., 103ft").
n See Harrison, Paul's Language ofGrace, Index s. v. 'Reciprocity' - 'reciprocity terminology'.
78 Hollingshead (The Household of Caesar, 136) observes regarding Romans 13:8: 'It is difficult
to imagine anything that would have been more shocking, or more incomprehensible, to a firstcentury Roman citizen than Paul's rejection of the routine practises of patronage'.
74
75
190
By abandoning dependence upon imperial benefits and construing the reciprocity system in a radically different way, though without jettisoning the honour
system (Rom 12:10b; 13:7), the first believers created communities that were
considered 'un-Roman' and threatening to the social fabric due to their ethos.
The rulers soon viewed the house churches as a degenerate superstitio because of
their distinctive group behaviour, among other reasons( 7.4).
5.5.31he Death of Christ and Imperial Rhetoric (Rom 5:6-9)
Paul's message of a 'dishonoured' Benefactor created the greatest potential misunderstanding for his Roman auditors. Paul highlights the fact that Christ died
for the ungrateful enemies of God who had spurned his beneficence (Rom
5:6a [ovTWV ~JlWV cicr9Evwv], 6b [intep aO"E~wv], 8b [ciJlapTWAWV OVTWV], lOa
[txSpo[]). The social dishonour involved in Christ's death drove Paul to underscore the divine love prompting it (Rom 5:8 [cf. v. 5]: TTJV auToii ciycinT)V Ei<;
~Jlii<;). Elements of Paul's description of Christ's death in verses 6-9 would have
registered with auditors familiar with the claims of the imperial propaganda and
the counter-claims of its opponents.
First, in verse 6 Paul underscores the fact that Christ died at the appointed time
(en KaTa Katp6v) for the weak and ungodly. There are similarities here between
Roman imperial and Christian eschatology that may have provoked the interest
of Roman auditors familiar with the Augustan and Neronian propaganda. Providence had determined that humanity would be blessed through Augustus, so
the famous inscriptions ofPriene and Halicarnassus assert,79 whereas the propaganda of forum Augustum depicted Augustus as the culmination of republican
history( 2 supra).It is partially in response to Augustan imperial 'eschatology'
that Paul portrays Christ as dying for his dependants 'at the right time' (Rom
5:6). 8 Christ established the reign of grace (5:21: ~ xapt<; ~acrtAEU<J'!1; cf. 5:17b:
~acrtAEucroumv), dispensing new life through the Spirit (6:4: tv KatVOTT)TL <wfi<;;
7:6: tv KatVOTT)TL1tVEUJlTo<;). 81 This momentous act of beneficence stood op-
79 DocsAug., 98b (Priene: 9 BC); BMI 894 (Halicarnassus: 2 BC). See Harrison, Paul's
Language of Grace, 228-230. The same emphasis on Providence occurs in Fasti anni Juliani 15
Dec. 19 BC (Judge, 'Documents'): 'On this day the Altar of Fortuna Redux was dedicated, she
having brought back Caesar Augustus home from the overseas provinces. Prayer to Fortuna
Redux'.
80 As noted( 4.2 supra), the meaning offn Ka'Ta KaLp6v (Rom 5:6) is disputed. Many scholars take the phrase to refer to the eschatological time appointed by God for Christ to die for the
ungodly. Dunn (Romans 1-8, 254-255; c D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996], 307) sees the phrase as modifying t'TL ov-rwv ~f.IWV ao8Evwv: i.e. Christ dying
for us at the time 'when we were still weak'. Fitzmyer (Romans, 399), while translating 'appointed
time', concedes that the phrase might simply mean 'then'. Although we perhaps face a false
dilemma here (Schreiner, Romans, 260), Paul's auditors probably understood the phrase in an
eschatological sense because of their imperial and Jewish contexts.
81 Regarding Paul's language of 'newness' in its mid-to-late fifties context, Nero is called
'New Sun' (DocsGaius, 64: vto<;"HALO<;). Gaius and his sister Drusilla had been called (respec-
191
posed to the ruling powers of sin and death in the present evil age (Rom 5:14a,
17a: t~a<JLAE\J<JEV 6 eavaTo~; 5:21: t~a<JLAE\J<JEV ~ Ctf.LapT(a). 82 While ETL KaTa
Katp6v emphasised the cruciform fulfilment of covenantal promises for Jewish
and Gentile believers, Paul's evocative phrase spoke to Romans dazzled by Augustus' beneficence.
Also the phrase en KaTa Katp6v (Rom 5:6) may have recalled the providential
'timeliness' of Nero's liberation of Hellas (AD 67) for a later generation of Romans auditors (cf. 4.1.1- 4.1.4). The decree ofthe general assembly ofHellas
introduces Nero thus:
Whereas Nero- Lord of all the Cosmos ( 6 TOU nav<o<; KO<Jf!OU KUpto<;), Supreme lmperator, designated Tribune for the thirteenth time, Father of his country (na<~p na<pi<So<;),
New Sun (veo<;"HAto<;) that brightens Hellas, who has chosen to be benefactor ofHellas,
and with piety requites (af!EL~OflEVO<;) our Gods, who are always at his side and look out
for his safety (awnlPIQ:) - is unique in the annals of time (<~v am) nav.o<; <oii aiwvo<;
au9tyevfj) ... 83
Second, that the xapt~ of a dishonoured Benefactor (Rom 5:6-9)- crucified by

an imperial prefect in a provincial backwater - outshone the overflowing xaptTE~
of Augustus probably stretched credibility to breaking point for many Roman
auditors, whether Jew or Gentile. In verse 7, therefore, Paul adopts the rhetorical
strategy of parading two lines of heroic martyrs (one Jewish, one Graeco-Roman)
that climax in Christ's incomparable act of soteriological beneficence (v. 8).84 This
tively) 'the New Sun' (SIG3 798: 6 veo<; "HAto<;) and the 'the new Aphrodite' (DocsGaius, 128:
vea l\.cppo6(<a). On Paul's language of'newness', see Chapter 2 2.3 n. 78 supra.
82 On the 'two ages' in Romans 5, see Harrison, 'Paul, Eschatology', 80-83.
83 DocsGaius 64 (my emphasis).
84 In adopting this approach, I signal my disagreement with many Romans commentators who
consider that 6 cS!Ka(o<; (Rom 5:7a) is synonymous with 6 ciya96<; (Rom 5:7b). Jewett (Romans,
360) acknowledges A. D. Clarke may well be correct in saying that 6 ciya96<; refers to a benefactor (n. 92 below), but counters that 'this raises the question about why Paul would insert a social
concept in the midst of a discussion of the atonement'. Jewett (ibid.) resolves the issue theologically, pointing to the tension between the selfless death of'good man' (Rom 5:7b) and the fallen
state of humanity (1: 18-3:23). However, I would posit that there is also a rhetorical solution to the
issue that Jewett airs: namely, Paul's use of two lines of heroes, a motif employed in the Roman
literature and in the forum Augustum ( 5.2- 5.3). Alternatively, L. E. Keck (Romans [Nashville:
Abingdon, 2005], 140) denies that Paul is illustrating the total superiority of Christ's death on behalf of the godless by referring to the unlikelihood of people dying on behalf of their benefactor (6
ciya96<;). As Keck argues (ibid., Keck's emphasis), 'For (Paul), Christ's death is the eschatological
event through which the New Age breaks into the present, comparable to creation, not a specially
impressive instance of self-giving'. Thus Keck (ibid.) dismisses verse 7 as the insertion of a copyist,
with verse 6 being 'created as a transition'. In Keck's view, 'The verses belong to the history of the
interpretation of 'Paul' (ibid.). It seems to me that Keck creates an unnecessary hiatus between
Paul's rhetorical strategy in verses 6-7 and his eschatological theology: Paul's rhetorical strategy
(two lines ofheroic martyrs compared with Christ in verses 6-8, as well as the Adam-Christ contrast in versus 12-21) is designed to illustrate the infinite grace of Christ's eschatological death
over against the best sacrificial act that the Graeco-Roman and Jewish world had to offer. As
noted, since Roman auditors would have been familiar with the two lines of heroes culminating
192
rhetorical presentation of two lines of heroes culminating in an eschatological

figure would have communicated to Romans familiar with the portrait statue
programme of the forum Augustum ( 2 supra), the propaganda of the imperial
poets, the iconography of the ara Pacis Augustae at Rome (n. 50 supra) and, in
the Greek East, of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias ( 8.3 n. 5).
In the case of the Jewish line of heroes (v. 7a), the hero might conceivably die
for 'a righteous man' (Rom 5:7a: imtp &Ka(ou). An allusion to the Maccabean
martyr tradition is likely.85 This tradition of self-sacrifice on behalf of the nation
poses the question regarding the soteriological nature of the divinely appointed
time of the cross (Rom 5:6 [Tt KaTa Katp6v]; cf. 3:26 [v T(j> viiv Katp(j>]; 8:18;
11:5; Gal4:4). 86 The shock registered by the dependants for whom Christ had
died - not the Torah obedient representative of the covenantal community (v. 7a:
'a righteous man' [<')tKa(oc;]) but rather 'the ungodly' (v. 6b: oi aoe~o(; Rom 4:5
[cf. Exod 23:7 LXX] )87 - removes Paul's soteriology from the paradigm of Jewish martyr theology. While the deaths of the Maccabean martyrs were perceived
to have atoning value for the nation oflsrael {2 Mace 7:37-38), Christ's sacrifice
embraced the Gentile world through the justifying faith of the uncircumcised
Abraham. Christ's death had surpassed the best that Judaism had to offer (v. 7a:
'rarely [f16Au:;] will anyone die').
In the case of the Graeco-Roman line of heroes (v. 7b), Paul airs the possibility (Taxa) that the hero might, as a remarkable act of honour and gratitude,
reciprocate the generosity of his benefactor by dying for him (6 aya66c;: Rom
5:7b).88 Pseudo-Demetrius envisages the situation of verse 7b in describing the
indebtedness of a beneficiary to his benefactor:
I hasten to show in my actions how grateful I am to you for the kindness you showed me
in your words. For I know that what I am doing for you is less than I should, for even if I
gave my life for you, I should still not be giving adequate thanks (a~(av ano6waLV xaptv)
for the benefits I have received. 89
in Augustus at the forum Augustum, it is likely that Paul devised his own version of the rhetorical
motif in order to drive home the incomprehensibility of the magnitude of Christ's propitiatory
sacrifice and beneficence. A better contextual understanding of Paul's rhetoric eliminates the
need for Keck's textually unfounded speculation regarding verses 6-7 and allows Paul's eschatology to come even more boldly to the fore in its Roman context.
85 Dunn, Romans 255, 266; C. B. Cousar, 'Continuity and Discontinuity: Reflections on Romans 5-8', in Hay and Johnston, Pauline Theology, 202. P. Achtemeier (Romans [Atlanta: John
Knox, 1985], 93) and B. Byrne (Romans [Collegeville: Michael Glazier/Liturgical, 1996], 171)
refer to the Suffering Servant oflsaiah as another paradigm for Rom 5:6 ff.
86 On Paul's KaLp6<; terminology in Romans, see Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 212213 n. 2.
87 On the sadiq ('the righteous man': 6 c'iLKa(m;) in the Psalms, wisdom literature, and intertestamental writings, see Dunn, Romans, 45.
88 On 6 O.ya86<; as benefactor, see A. D. Clarke, 'The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7', TynBul
41/1 (1990): 128-142.
89 Pseudo-Demetrius, 'llir!oL'EmaToALKO~ 21 (II cent. BC-III cent. AD). G. W. Peterman
(Paul's Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving [Cambridge: Cam-
5.5 Paul's Dishonoured Benefactor and the Imperial Gospel in Romans 5:1-11
193
Here we see encapsulated the expectations that would have resonated with Roman auditors as they pondered the circumstances in which one might legitimately die for another. Valerius Maximus, too, refers to L. Petronius who reciprocated
the munificence of his benefactor, Caelius, in sacrificial manner. 90 Petronius
took his own life and that of Caelius, thereby enabling his benefactor to escape
an ignominious death at the hands of his enemies. The action of L. Petronius, in
particular, might assign nobility to the death ofJesus in the estimation of Roman
auditors familiar with the mores of the reciprocity system.
One should not overlook, however, the readiness of individuals to die for the
ruler (e.g. Dio Cassius 80.20).91 The loyalty oath of the Paphlagonians to Augustus and his descendants (6 March 3 BC), sworn by the inhabitants and Roman
businessmen of the province, affirms their readiness to die for Augustus and his
household:
... and for things that are of interest to them I will spare neither my body [nor] my soul
nor my life nor my children, but in every way for the things that affect them I undergo
every danger ... 92
Even the gnat's death in the Psuedo-Culex underscored the cost of a sacrificial
act of benefaction on behalf of the ruler and the importance of its reciprocation
by the imperial beneficiary (Culex 413-414). The role of devotio, therefore, may
have emerged as a useful paradigm for Roman auditors, assigning sacrificial
significance to Jesus' death on behalf of others.
For Paul, Christ's death surpasses in scope the deaths of grateful GraecoRoman clients on behalf of their benefactors because it was conditioned by God's
aycinTJ rather than by reciprocity (Rom 5:5, 8). In the case of the Graeco-Roman
line of heroes (v. 7b) -excluding the gnat of the Psuedo-Culex- the scenario
involves the beneficiary dying in gratitude to his benefactor. In Christ's death,
however, the benefactor dies in love for his ungrateful beneficiaries.
M. Hengel correctly observes that Paul's emphasis on the Son dying for God's
enemies (Rom 5:5-10) outstripped the ancient ideal of dying for the citizens
of one's city,93 as in the Roman devotio tradition. Both the Psuedo-Culex and
Paul emphasise that the death of their benefactors (the gnat and Christ) was on
behalf of ungrateful beneficiaries (the imperial paterfamilias and the household
of God). Ultimately, the Psuedo-Culex endorses the reciprocity system when the
shepherd erects a burial mound in recompense (Culex413-414), whereas Paul's
theocentric emphasis undermines any expectation of return.
bridge University, 1997], 82, 194) has noted the same text in discussing Rom 5:7, though he has
incorrectly referred to the author as 'Ps-Dionysius' in ibid., 194.
90 Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 4.7.5.
91 Cited by P. Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1994), 81.
92 See Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 238-242.
93 Hengel, The Atonement, 13.
194
Third, the unworthiness of those receiving the benefits of Christ's death collided with traditional benefaction ideology. The issue would have troubled many
of Paul's Roman auditors. The philosophers stressed that the benefactor should
carefully study the disposition of his projected beneficiaries in order to circumvent the humiliation of an unworthy response.94 Christ, however, took no such
precaution. He squandered his beneficence on thankless enemies. We see the
contemporary social perception of this in Lucian, Timon 8. There the god Hermes
is critical of Timon because the Athenian benefactor did not show discrimination
regarding the character of his recipients:
... (Timon) was ruined by kind-heartedness and philanthropy and compassion on all those
who were in want; but in reality it was senselessness and folly and lack of discrimination
in regard to his friends. He did not perceive that he was showing kindness to ravens and
wolves.
Finally, how might the elogium of Q. Fabius Maximus ( 2 supra) have contributed to a better understanding of'dishonoured' benefactors for Roman auditors?
One might speculatively (and somewhat romantically) imagine the scenario
where some of the literate Roman believers strolled around the forum Augustum
studying the statues and their elogia, pondering their fulfilment in the Res Gestae
inscribed at Augustus' mausoleum, and then discussing why the dishonoured
and vindicated benefactor of Paul's recently arrived papyrus was superior to
Augustus and Nero. 95 The elogium demonstrated that public dishonour did not
disqualify a benefactor's merit or munificence, notwithstanding public perceptions to the contrary. Had not Augustus himself nominated Q. Fabius Maximus
as a forerunner of his own unprecedented public honour: namely, 'Father of the
Country'? The reciprocity system had ensured that Fabius was awarded the honorific of 'father'. Roman believers, familiar with the rhetorical type exemplified
by Fabius' elogium, may have come to believe that a similar process of reversal
had occurred in Christ's ministry: God had intervened to reverse the dishonour
of the cross by crowning his Son with eschatological honour. The obedience of
the incarnate Son (Rom 1:3-4; 5:18b, 19b; 8:3b; 15:8-9a) was vindicated by his
resurrection from the dead and by his heavenly installment as 'Son of God in
power' (Rom 1:4; 4:24-25; 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34).96 In so doing, God had declared
that Abraham was the true 'father' of believers and that his fatherhood resided not
in the Roman commonwealth but in the entirety of humanity (Rom 4:llb-12,
94 Seneca (Ben., 4.27 .5; 4.34.2) says that benefactors should not benefit those with an ungrateful disposition. For the Jewish side, see Sir 12.1-2.
95 F. G. Downing(~ Bas Les Aristos: The Relevance of Higher Literature for the Understanding of the Earliest Christian Writings', NovT 30/3 [1988]: 212-230) argues that the views of the
literary elite trickled down to the base of the social pyramid.
96 On 'Son of God' in the imperial cult, see T. H. Kim, 'The Anarthrous ui6~; 9EOii in Mark
15:39 and the Roman Imperial Cult', Biblica 79/2 (1998): 221-241.
195
16-18; cf. Isaac as 'father': 9:10). 97 The Spirit of the indwelling Christ gave Roman believers, marginalized from the imperial paterfamilias, the right to address
the God of Abraham and Jesus as 'Abba, Father' (Rom 8:14-16). 'Dishonoured'
benefactors like Fabius would have afforded a handy rhetorical model for Roman
auditors to make sense of the reversal of the cross, notwithstanding the fact Augustus intended the exemplum to underscore the triumph of his auctoritas. Thus
Paul's dishonoured and vindicated benefactor would have occasioned flashes of
cultural recognition among Roman his auditors.
But what do we make of Paul's emphasis on divine reconciliation in verses
10-11? How would they have been understood in an imperial context?
5.5.4 Divine Reconciliation and Imperial Rhetoric (Rom 5:10-11)

In verses 10-11 Paul says that the glorious Benefactor of the universe (Rom
1:19-20, 25b; 4:17b; 8:31-39; 11:33-36; 16:27)- angry with his dependants because of their ingratitude and idolatry ( 1:20-21) - had reconciled his enemies to
himself (5: 10-11; cf. 15:8-13).98 Consequently, alienation from the house of the
Caesars was supplanted by access to a merciful God through the grace ofhis Son,
a descendant of David's royal house (Rom 1:3; 5:1-2; 9:5; 15:12). The transfer of
loyalty involved in moving from the patronage of the Caesars to the Lordship of
Christ was made been easier for Roman auditors as they understood better the
cosmic scope of Christ's reconciliation and the dramatic change in family status
they experienced under his patronage. As noted( 4.2), Christ, the heavenly Lord
of the nations (Rom 1:5; 15:12; 16:26b), continually intercedes for his siblings
and coheirs of glory and protects them from the hostile cosmic powers and their
earthly Roman representatives - symbolized by the imperial sword of capital
punishment (8:35; cf. 13:4)99 - until the arrival of the eschatological glory (8:17,
26-30, 34-39).
The Augustan critics ( 3) had argued that the supremacy of the princeps was
illegitimately acquired and impiously maintained, with the result that his rule
was marked by excess and disorder. The theocentric emphasis of Romans ensures that this insinuation could not be made of the rule of the Davidic Son. 100
97 On the 'father' in its imperial context, see E. M. Lassen, 'The Use of the Father Image in
Imperial Propaganda and 1 Corinthians 4:14-21', TynBul4211 (1991): 127-136, esp. 129-133;
M.R. D'Angelo, 'Abba and "Father": Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions', JBL 111/4
(1992): 611-630, esp. 623-626; T. R. Stevenson, 'The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in
Greek and Roman Thought', CQ 42/2 ( 1992): 421-436; Hollingshead, The Household of Caesar,
136-137; White, The Apostle of God, 139-172. On the contrast between Roman leadership and
the leadership of Abraham, see Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 339-343.
98 On Paul's benefaction imagery in Rom 1:20-21, see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace,
214-219.
99 Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans, 233.
100 R. W. Pickett ('The DeathofChristas Divine Patronage in Romans 5:1-11', in E. H. Lovering [ed.], Society ofBiblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers [Atlanta: SBL, 1993), 738) comments:
196
Christ did not arrogate unto himself illegitimate powers: God took the initiative in reconciling his enemies through the death of his Son (5:8, 10-11); God
declares Christ the 'Son of God in power' through the resurrection (Rom 1:4);
God presents the Son as the lAaOT~pLov to satisfy the holy demands of his justice
(2:11; 3:25-26); God justifies the wicked by handing his Son over to death and
by raising him for their justification (4:5, 24-25; 6:1-1 0; 8:2b-4); God conforms
his dependants to the likeness ofhis Son {8:29). 101
Above all, it is by Christ becoming a servant to the Jews that God extends
mercy to the Gentiles (Rom 15:8-9; cf. 10:12). The choice between Augustus' offer of clemency (Res Gestae 3.1), founded on the proscriptions, and Christ's offer
of mercy, founded on his radical self-emptying, must have appealed to opponents
of the Augustan and Neronian regimes. To experience divine mercy (Rom 12:1a:
liLa T<ilv oiKTLpJlWV Toii ewu) in a community that exercised mercy towards others ( 12:8: 6 EAWV) broke the cycle of political retaliation that marked republican
and imperial politics (12:14, 17-21). 102 Believers who had experienced God's
peace in Christ {Rom 5:1: t:ip~VTJV) had to live in peace with others (12:18: t:lpTJvt:uovTt:<;). Paul hoped that the transforming experience of divine reconciliation
(Rom 5: 10-11) would effect reconciliation between the politically and ethnically
divided house churches (supra 5.1 n. 15; Rom 10:12; 11:17-22; 15:7-9), with
the result that Roman believers might support the extension of his ministry into
the Latin West (Rom 15:20-21,23-24, 28b-29). 103
Finally, D. Odell-Scott has provided an insightful analysis of the 'reconciliation' that the Roman state sought to impose by force or by negotiated surrender
upon its 'barbarian' subjects( 4.4.1 n. 220):
The singularity that the empire seeks to bring the peoples entails an over-coming of
non-Roman identity. Roman reconciliation is presented in terms of a movement from
differences to the progressive integration of the individual as a Roman. The state sought
to 'reconcile' the peoples of the world by assent to the supremacy of Roman law and political authority. Reconciliation so conceived served the political ambitions of the empire
to mingle the people to such an extent that the social and cultural distinctions might be
overcome. Non-Roman social groupings were devalued as incidental. Such reconciliation
served to overcome the influence and authority of political and cultural identifications that
might disrupt the peace and authority and Rome ... Roman 'reconciliation' is possible only
'The theocentric point of view, the emphasis on God's sovereignty, the rhetoric of peace and
loyalty (nlc:mc:;) and the focus on God's beneficence (xaplc:;) are all features of Romans which
suggests that Paul intends to engage the imperial ideology'.
101 On the theocentric emphasis of Romans, see L. Morris, 'The Theme of Romans', in W. W.
Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays
Presented to F. F. Bruce on His 60th Birthday (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 249-263; H. Moxnes,
Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul's Understanding ofGod in Romans (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980);
J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (London: Doubleday, 1992), 104-110.
102 A. W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University, 1999).
103 See Winter, 'Roman Law and Society', 76-81.
5.6 Conclusion
197
in a process of individualization whereby previous identifications, such as the identification with one's ancestral societies, communities and cultures, are severed. 104
Paul's understanding of reconciliation upends the imperial vision of empire

outlined above. Because of the reconciliation of enemies to God that has been
effected through the atoning work of Christ (Rom 5:9-11), there is now unity for
Jew and Gentile in the 'one God' (3:29-30). In Christ diversely gifted members
of Christ 'form one body' (Rom 12:5). Paul's prayer-wish is that God would give
Jews and Gentiles 'a spirit of unity' as they followed Christ and accepted each
other in him (Rom 15:5-7). What is remarkable in this new social construct is
that cultural, ethic and social distinctions do not become grounds for communal
exclusion or for enforced communal change, as was the case in Roman 'reconciliation'. The reason is that such distinctions were totally irrelevant as far as God's
justification of the ungodly (Rom 1:14, 16b; 4:11-12, 16-18; 10:11-12; 14:1-8).
Significantly, ancestral heritage is still valued (Rom 1:16b; 3:2; 4:11-12; 9:3-5,
lOb; 11:1-2, 28-29), provided that its teleological focus and origins in divine
grace are not overlooked (10:4; 11:5-6). 105
5.6 Conclusion
An appreciation of the Augustan and Neronian context ofbeneficence allows us
to consider how Roman auditors might have responded to Paul's proclamation
of grace. This is true whether we explore the rich providential and cosmological
themes of the imperial provincial inscriptions, or examine Augustus' conception
of his place in Roman history as rendered in the portrait statue programme of the
forum Augustum. The terminological and conceptual overlap between the imperial and Pauline gospels ensured that Romans 5: 1-11 would have either attracted
or repulsed Roman auditors.
The chief obstacle for Roman auditors was reconciling Paul's proclamation
of a 'dishonoured' benefactor with the operations of the reciprocity system. The
'worthiness' of the recipient had to be determined in advance. Seemingly Christ
had squandered his life on those who could not provide commensurate return
and who were his enemies anyway. Roman auditors would have found this unfathomable. However, the exemplum of Q. Fabius Maximus, discussed in the
annalistic and exempla tradition and celebrated in the forum Augustum, may
have tempered hardened Roman attitudes towards 'dishonoured' benefactors.
The devotio tradition of the Culex perhaps enabled enquiring Roman auditors
104 D. Odell-Scott, Paul's Critique of Theocracy: A/Theocracy in Corinthians and Galatians
(London/New York: T & T Clark International/ Continuum, 2003), 161-162.
105 On Paul's attitude to ancestral honour, see J. R. Harrison, 'Excels Ancestral Honours', New
Docs 9 (2002), 9. See also Jewett's helpful discussion in terms of'honour' categories (Romans,
367-368).
198
to assign sacrificial value to Christ's death for the 'ungrateful', even though the
LXX sacrificial traditions would have been initially unfamiliar to them. However,
as they grew in understanding of the Jewish sacrificial heritage into which they
were grafted (Rom 11:17-21), it would have become clear that God's gracious
provision of a hilasterion (Rom 3:25) underscored the divine initiative that stood
behind Christ's atoning self-sacrifice. Paul's choice of the phrase ETL Kanx KaLp6v
(Rom 5:6) not only implied that Christ's death fulfilled the eschatological promises oflsrael, but also that Christ's incomparable act ofbeneficence had surpassed
the best that Providence had to offer in Augustus as the culmination of grace
in republican history. At the time when the 'peace' traditions associated with
Israel's restoration were being realised in believers' lives (Rom 5:1), the advent
of peace under Nero had also been supplanted by Christ's reign of overflowing
grace (5:2, 15, 16, 17b, 20b, 21b). Thus Paul's portrait of Christ as a dishonoured
and vindicated benefactor would have spoken to those familiar with pro- and
anti-Augustan propaganda.
The democritisation of M~a through the Body of Christ would have appealed
to socially and politically marginalised believers. In contrast to the 'prosperity
theology' of Augustus and Nero, Paul's approach is marked by eschatological reserve: the glory was still to come (Rom 5:2; cf. 8:18b-19, 21, 24a) and entry into
its incomparable joy (8:18) was though endurance of suffering (5:3-5; cf. 8:25).
The unilateral emphasis in Paul's understanding of grace was reinforced by the
apostle's avoidance of reciprocity terminology and by his radical redefinition of
reciprocity conventions within his house churches. 106 Such changes would have
shocked many contemporary observers dependent on the Caesars and their
representatives for beneficence.
Conversely, those who did not subscribe to the Augustan and Neronian propaganda had the opportunity of being incorporated into the household of God
though the mercy of the royal Davidic Son. Admittedly this transfer of patronage
placed its adherents outside the security of the 'Father of the Country', but the
lavish benefits that flowed from divine reconciliation ensured their protection
and glorification as coheirs. Moreover, they were placed in a new household
where former enemies, as Spirit-bonded siblings, could live in peace outside
of the traditional networks of amicitia. Through these subtle but penetrating
changes to the social operation of grace, we are witnessing the advent of a new
Benefactor who not only challenged the imperial networks of obligation, but who
also undermined the Augustan age of grace through his creation of beneficent
communities of faith that would transform the world.
106 For a comprehensive challenge to my emphasis on Paul's 'unilateral' understanding of

grace in Romans, see T. Engberg-Pedersen, 'Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in
Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God's Xapu; and Its Human Response', HTR 101 {2008): 15-44.
5.6 Conclusion
199
In this chapter we have seen how the eulogistic culture of the Republican Rome
and its leaders culminated in Augustus as 'Father of the Country' in the statue
programme of the forum Augustum. However, the quest for 'glory' on the part
of the Roman nobles in the late Republic also faced a similar constriction in the
first century AD in that the glory of the old noble houses became increasingly
concentrated in the house of the Julio-Claudian rulers. In Chapter 6, therefore,
we will investigate the late republican and early imperial conceptions of glory and
how it intersected with Paul's presentation of eschatological glory in Romans. Do
we see here another implicit critique of the imperial gospel?
CHAPTER6
Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory

in the Epistle to the Romans
6.1 A Scholarly Oversight in the Study of Romans
It is a curiosity of Romans scholarship that the Roman context of glory has been
overlooked in discussions of Paul's use of cS6~a and its cognates. 1 Not unexpectedly, New Testament scholars have admirably distilled the Jewish background
of glory. 2 But the drive to sustain the ancestral glory that animated the Roman
nobility in the late Republic, 3 before the unparalleled ascendancy of the house
of the Caesars eclipsed all political competition, is bypassed as irrelevant. Even
in the classical tradition, the topic has been little discussed. The major work still
remains that of A. D. Leeman on the role of gloria in Cicero's thought. 4
The reasons for this neglect are easily enough discerned. First, the fate of the
Roman nobility and the progressive restriction of its quest to uphold ancestral
glory under the Julio-Claudian principate is probably seen as remote to the
experience of the predominantly the 'lower class' or 'slave-based' constituency
1 The sole exception is R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 4951. However, Jewett does not explore the use of gloria in the Roman literature, but discusses the
honour-driven nature of Roman culture as an important aperture through which interpreters

should view Paul's epistle to the Romans. H. Moxnes ('Honour and Righteousness in Romans',
JSNT [1988]: 61-77) anticipates Jewett's discussion. I am grateful to B.C. Blackwell (Durham
University) for drawing my attention to this reference. See Blackwell's article ('Immortal Glory
and the Problem of Death in Romans 3:23', JSNT 32 (2010): 285-308.
2 C. C. Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992).
G. H. Boobyer ("Thanksgiving" and the "Glory of God" in Paul [Borna/ Leipzig: Universitatsverlag von Robert Noske, 1929], 81, 83) has investigated the interrelation of glory and thanksgiving
in Romans 1:2 and 15:5-6.
3 In speaking of the Roman drive to sustain 'ancestral glory', I am referring throughout to the
desire of the republican nobles to match the glorious feats of their ancestors.
4 A. D. Leeman, Gloria: Cicero's Waardering van de Roem en haar Achtergrond in de Hellenistische en de Romeinse Samenleving (Rotterdam: N. V. Drukkerij M. Wty & Zonen, 1949). See
the helpful article of E. A. Judge, 'Roman Literary Memorials', in id. (ed. J. R. Harrison), The First
Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (liibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008), 69-71. On eschatological glory from a rhetorical and philosophical perspective, see W. T.
Wilson, The Hope of Glory: Education and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Colossians (Leiden:
Brill, 1997). On the eastern Mediterranean benefaction context of glory, see J. R. Harrison, 'The
Brothers as "The Glory of Christ" (2 Cor 8:23): Paul's Doxa Terminology in Its Ancient Benefaction Context', NovT 52 (2010): 1-33.
202
Chapter 6: Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory in the Epistle to the Romans
of the house churches at the capital. Unfortunately, the older paradigms of the
social constituency of early Christianity that we have inherited from Adolf Deissmann are difficult to shake off. 5 To the contrary, some of the early believers
were probably upwardly mobile freedmen in the imperial bureaucracy at Rome,
including the emperor's own household (Rom 16: 10-11; Phil4:22). 6 They would
have understood as imperial 'insiders' the one-sided nature of the triumph of the
house of the Caesars over the old noble houses of the republican past with their
venerable traditions of ancestral glory.
Moreover, the dependence of first-century nobiles ('nobles') upon the JulioClaudian rulers for their advancement within the traditional cursus honorum
(literally, 'course of honour': i.e. a magisterial career) would have been increasingly obvious to all. The old days when young nobles automatically inherited
substantial reserves and the political support of clients because of the ancestral
glory of their households were long since gone. 7 The ruler, with his unparalleled
wealth, had swallowed up as his personal clients the traditional support base of
the Roman nobles.
Second, Romans scholars have been interested in the ruler at Rome only in
so far as the (purported) expulsion of Jewish Christians under Claudius helps
us to understand the ethnic divisions within the Roman house-churches (Rom
14:1-15:13). Alternatively, they have focused on the popular tax revolts under
Nero in AD 57 as background to Romans 13:6-7,8 or on the Augustan moral
revolution in understanding Paul's teaching on self-mastery in Romans. 9 But
the question as to what Paul's understanding of eschatological glory might have
meant to Roman believers living in the city of the glorious benefactor of the
world remains unexplored.
5 For an overview of the debate regarding the social constituency of early Christianity, see J. R.
Harrison, 'Introduction', in id., The First Christians, 17-25.
6 For documentary evidence regarding the upward social mobility of freedmen in the first
century AD, see G. H. R. Horsley, 'Joining the Household of Caesar', New Docs 3 (1983), 1.
7 Speaking to the propraetor P. Silius in 51 BC about the possibility of the advancement in
honour ofTiberius Claudius Nero, Cicero emphasises the privileged position that young nobiles
('nobles') had in terms of their ancestral clients (Pam. 13.64.2): 'Your province ... affords a
prominent stage for the applause and glorification (gloriam) of a youth of high birth, ability, and
selfless character. If, therefore, he has the advantage of your patronage as he assuredly will have,
and has had in the past, it will enable him to strengthen, and by his acts of kindness to oblige,
highly influential bodies of clients bequeathed to him by his ancestors'.
8 J. Friedrich, W Pohlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher, 'Zur historischen Situation und Intention
von Rom 13, 1-7', ZTK73/2 (1986): 131-166; J.D. G. Dunn, 'Romans 13:1-7- A Charter for
Political Quietism?', ExAud 2 (1986): 60; T. M. Coleman, 'Binding Obligations in Romans 13:7:
A Semantic Field and Social Context', TynBul48/2 (1997): 307-327.
9 S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven/ London: Yale
University Press, 1994). On the imperial context of Romans, see I.E. Rock, The Implications of
Roman Imperial Ideology for an Exegesis of Paul's Letter to the Romans: An Ideological Literary
Analysis of the Exordium, Rom 1:1-17(unpub. PhD theis UniversityofWales, Lampeter, 2005).
6.1 A Scholarly Oversight in the Study of Romans
203
Third, the continued interest in the Jewishness of Paul has probably led scholars to overlook the cultural implications of his Roman citizenship, assuming
that the Acts account is correct on the issue (Acts 16:21-38; 22:25-29). Paul may
have had a greater understanding of the ethos of Roman culture than we have
previously imagined, given the progressive romanisation of the Greek East. 10 This
impression is reinforced when we realise that one third of the co-workers around
Paul bear Latin names, most of which suggest the possession of the Roman citizenship or the preliminary rank of Junian Latin. 11 Moreover, Paul seems sensitive
to the ethos underlying the traditional Roman quest for gloria, if Romans 2:7 is
indicative, even though he postpones the allocation of glory until the arrival of
the eschaton (2:10)_12
Thus an investigation of the Roman sources on gloria seems fruitful for our
understanding of M~a and its cognates in the epistle to the Romans. This is especially the case when we remember that in the epistle to the Romans the combined
occurrences of M~a (16), <'lo~a<w (5), and cruv<'lo~a<w (1) exceed those in Paul's
other letters, 2 Corinthians running a close second (M~a [18]; <'lo~a<w [2])P
Perhaps one reason for the preponderance of'glory' terminology in Romans was
Paul's general awareness of the preoccupation of the Roman elite with ancestral
10 On Roman patronal conventions in the Greek East, see J. R. Harrison, Paul's Language of
Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 16. For scholarly discussion
of romanisation in the Greek East, see the references cited in E. A. Judge, 'The Roman Base of
Paul's Mission', in id., The First Christians, 566-567 nn. 18-22.
11 See E. A. Judge, 'The Roman Base of Paul's Mission', in id., The First Christians, 553-567.
12 Note the observation of E. A. Judge, 'The Appeal to Convention in Paul', in id., The First
Christians, 710: '... "glory'' (doxa) ... is a prized social reward (Rom 2:7), the only credible form
of immortality according to Cicero, but Paul defers it until the final day of judgement (Rom
2:10)'.
13 M~a: Rom 1:23; 2:7, 10; 3:7, 23; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 8:18, 21; 9:4, 23 (2x); 11:36; 15:7; 16:27;
2 Cor 1:20; 3:7 (2x), 8, 9 (2x), 10, 11 (2x), 18 (2x); 4:4, 6, 15, 17; 6:8; 8:19, 23; 8o~a~w: Rom
1:20; 8:30; 11:13; 15:6, 9; 2 Cor 3:10; 9:13; (Jl)V<'io~a~w: Rom 8:17. For an excellent discussion
of the semantic range of M~a and its cognates in Paul, see Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology,
157-163. See also R. W. Yarbrough, 'Paul and Salvation History', in D. A. Carson (et al., ed.),
Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2004), 297-342, esp. 322-339. In the case of2 Corinthians, the occurrences ofM~a
and 8o~a~w congregate around 2 Cor 3:7-18. In this passage, Paul discusses the Sinai glory associated with Moses (Exod 24:38-45), with a view to combating proto-rabbinic traditions that
attributed an ever-increasing glory to Moses. By contrast, the 'glory' terminology of Romans is
spread throughout the epistle, with a wide-ranging focus as far as the pastoral needs of its Roman
audience. See L. L. Belleville, Reflections of Glory: Paul's Polemical Use of the Moses- Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991); S.J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses,
and the History of Israel (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996). Contra, P. Duff, 'Glory in the Ministry
of Death: Gentile Condemnation and Letters of Recommendation in 2 Cor 3:6-18', NovT 46/4
(2004): 313-337. More recently, see id., 'Transformed "from Glory to Glory: Paul's Appeal to
the Experience of His Readers in 2 Corinthians 3:18', /BL 127/4 (2008): 759-780. For lexical
references to M~a, see E. C. E. Owen, ~o~a and Cognate Words', ITS 33/130 (1932): 132-150;
ITS 33/131 (1932): 265-279. For the benefaction context of M~a in the eastern Mediterranean
world, see Harrison, 'The Brothers as "The Glory of Christ'".
204
glory and its decline in the first century AD because of the triumph of the allglorious Caesars. 14 What would Paul's gospel of the 'Lord of glory' (1 Cor 2:8;
2 Cor 4:4, 6) have meant for Romans attached to the old republican perspectives
of glory and for those who were grateful clients of the new imperial Lords of
glory at Rome?
However, before we begin our discussion on the Roman ideal ofgloria, several
brief comments on ancient discussions of glory are apposite. We will not discuss
Dio Chrysostom's three discourses entitled llepl M~T)c; (Or. 66-68) because they
uniformly dismiss 'opinion' or 'reputation' (M~a) as a matter of indifference from
a Cynic point of view - the very opposite to Roman boasting culture. Unfortunately, Cicero's treatise on glory, De Gloria, written in c. 45-44 BC (Att. 15.27.2;
16.2.6; 16.3.1), is now lost to us, though Petrarch had seen a copy of the text. 15
14 Two examples from Ephesus demonstrate Paul's exposure in the Greek East to republican
traditions of ancestral glory and its later monopolisation by the Caesars. First, Roman boasting
in ancestral glory was expressed both architecturally and epigraphically at Ephesus during the
late republic. During his long stay at Ephesus (Acts 18:8, 10), Paul would undoubtedly have seen
the monument (late 1st cent. BC) ofGaius Memmius (ca. 106-46 BC), the grandson of Cornelius
Sulla, the famous Roman general. This monument is now located in a prominent position on
the north side ofDomitian Square. On the upright blocks of the monument are three sculptures
representing Memmius, his father Gaius, and his grandfather Sulla. Collectively, the figures
personify the virtues of the grandson. The Latin inscription on the architrave underscores Memmius' illustrious ancestry and his beneficence as a magistrate: 'Gaius Memmius, the saviour, is
the son of Gaius, grandson of Cornelius Sulla'. See P. Scherrer (ed.), Ephesus: The New Guide
([Turkey]: Ege Yayinlari, 2000), 96; S. Erdemgil, Ephesus (Instanbul: Net Turistik Yayinlar A.S,
1989), 53. However, this monument, while celebrating Memmius' ancestral glory, was also a
humiliation for the Ephesians. It signalled their intention to submit to Rome in the future after
their short-lived flirtation with King Mithridates VI ofPontus in his war against Rome in 88-86
BC. Second, Paul, a reader of the inscriptions (Acts 17:23), would have been sensitive to the
concentration of glory in the house of the Caesars that had occurred in the imperial period.
An Ephesian inscription (I. Eph VII 2 3801) speaks of hymnodists gathering from all Asia to
hymn Augustus Tiberius Caesar on his birthday at Pergamum. The hymnodists 'complete a
magnificent work for the glory of the guild (Eic; n)v [-rfjc; auv66ou 1)6~] av ), singing of the Sebastos
house and discharging sacrifices to the Sebastoi gods and keeping feasts and festivals'. The guild
of hymnodists at Pergamum acquired thereby its own 'glory' by virtue of its association with
the Caesars through its hymn-singing on imperial calendar days. Thus 'glory' terminology was
probably applied to the Caesars in the Greek East as it was in the Latin West, though, as we have
seen, only by indirect association in some cases. P. A. Harland ('Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults and associations at Ephesus [First to Third Centuries C. E.]', SR 25/3 [1996]:
333) points to inscriptional evidence for the hymnodists of Pergamum celebrating Augustus'
birthday (I. Pergamon 374). See also id., 'Imperial Cults within Local Cultural Life: Associations
in Roman Asia', AHB 17 (2003): 88-107. For inscriptional evidence of the guild's activity in
Claudius' reign, see E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius
and Nero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 372. Finally, for an interesting inscription tracking ancestral honour at Corinth, another city in which Paul had an extended stay
(Acts 18:18), see J.H. Kent, Corinth Vol. VIII Part III: The Inscriptions 1926-1950 (Princeton:
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966), 266; cf. 170.
15 1he general sweep of the argument can probably be gauged from Cicero's discussion of
gloria in De Officiis. See S. Gurd, 'Cicero and Editorial Revision', CA 26/1 (2007): 49-80, esp.
73; P.R. Coleman-Norton, 'The Fragmentary Philosophical Treatises of Cicero', CR 34/4 (1939):
6.2 The Roman Nobiles and the Quest for Ancestral Gloria
205
Finally, there is also Valerius Maximus' brief comparison of Roman and Greek
historical figures who had an appetite for glory (De Cupiditate Gloriae ['Of Appetite for Glory']). While we will briefly touch on the Roman evidence of Valerius
Maximus (Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 8.14), the text lacks the force of the discussions of Cicero and Sallust on glory by its refusal to discuss theoretically the
central questions relating to the quest for glory. 16
The time has come, therefore, to investigate Paul's language of glory against the
backdrop oflate republican and early imperial discussions of gloria in the city of
Rome. Initially I will set out the quest for glory on the part of the Roman nobiles
in the Republic, using the literary and documentary evidence (e.g. the Scipionic
elogia, the honorific inscription of C. Duilius, and the writings of Plautus, Sallust
and Cicero). I will then concentrate on the dramatic concentration of glory in the
house of the Caesars, using a range of archaeological, documentary and literary
evidence, and discuss how that affected the traditional quest for glory at Rome.
What would Roman auditors, schooled in the boasting tradition of the nobiles,
and disenchanted by its appropriation by the Caesars, have made of Paul's understanding of glory in the epistle to the Romans? What would have attracted and
repelled them? Equally, what would supporters of the house of the Caesars have
made of Paul's presentation? What difference ultimately did the arrival of divine
grace and its offer of the riches of glory make?
6.2.1 Defining Gloria
The Roman aristocracy, or nobilitas ('nobility), was the upper stratum of the
senatorial order in republican and early imperial times. 17 The status of nobilitas
belonged to the family descendants, patrician and plebeian, of that elite group of
individuals who had held either the dictatorship, consulship, or consular tribunate at Rome. An oligarchy of merit defined republican politics. Each generation
of nobles invoked the gloria maiorum ('glory of the ancestors') as the defining
213-228. For a fragment of the text, see A. Souter,~ Probable Fragment of Cicero's De Gloria',
CR 46/4 (1932): 151-152. Contrast the more qualified comment of A. R. Dyck regarding Cicero's
writing of De Gloria in 44 BC (A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis [Ann Arbor: The University
of Michigan Press, 1996], 30-31): '... when (Cicero) wrote his essay De Gloria in June and July,
the case of Caesar was surely a major concern, though this work survives only in such pathetic
scraps that we cannot say subsequently how the argument developed'. Note, however, the more
positive assessment ofR. Syme (The Roman Revolution [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939],
145): 'De Gloria was written, no doubt showing how far, for all their splendour and power,
Crassus, Caesar and Pompey had fallen short of genuine renown'.
16 Valerius Maximus admits as much in Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 8.14 (praef.).
17 On the Roman nobility, see M. Gelzer, The Roman Nobility (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969).
206
ethos of their family, civic and military life. 18 Whereas fama ('reputation') attached itself to a man in a negative or positive way, the boni - that is, the 'best
men' from the political aristocracy who alone judge the virtuous correctly - appraised the reputation of those individuals who were deemed to possess the
requisite gloria {'glory') to be called nobilis ('noble'). 19
Cicero is very clear as to the criterion of judgement invoked. Gloria is the
'praise given to right actions and the reputation for great merit in the service of
the Republic which is approved not merely by the testimony of the multitude but
by the witness of all the best men' (Sest. 66.139; cf. Phil. 1.29). Hence, by the possession of gloria, the nobilis ('noble') has acquired 'the good reputation of good
men' (ibid.). The best men were led by gloria (Cicero, Arch. 10.26) and the leader
of the state, in particular, should be nourished on gloria (Cicero, Rep. 5.7.9).
Metaphors of 'light' underscored the immortality of gloria. 20 Ennius speaks
of the perpetuity of gloria and the progression of its intensity with the passing
of time: 'Hence to this day the warrior's glory shines (gloria claret) - in after a
time, and more than it shone once' (Ann. 362). Cicero, speaking ofJulius Caesar
(Marc. 12), notes that
this justice and lenity of yours will every day grow brighter and brighter, so that, in proportion as time takes away from the effect of your deed, in the same degree it will add to
your glory (laudibus). And you had already surpassed all other conquerors in civil wars,
in equity, and clemency, but this day you have surpassed even yourself.
Moreover, according to Sallust, the perpetual glory of the ancestors should motivate later generations to equal the fame of their illustrious forebears by new deeds
in service of the state (Jug. 4.5-6):
I have often heard that Quintus Max:imus, Publius Scipio, and other eminent men of our
country, were in the habit of declaring that their hearts were set mightily aflame for the
pursuit of virtue as they gazed upon the masks of their ancestors. They of course did not
mean to imply that the wax or the effigy had any such power over them, but rather that it
is the memory of great deeds that kindles in the breasts of noble men this flame that can-
18 In addition to A. D. Leeman, Gloria, supra, see also D. C. Earl, The Political Thought of
Sallust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), Index s.v. gloria; id., The Moral and
Political Tradition of Rome (London/Southampton: Thames and Hudson, 1967). For an article
on glory in Seneca, see R. L. Newman, 'In Umbra Virtutis: Gloria in the Thought of Seneca the
Philosopher', Eranos 86 (1988): 145-159.
19 D. C. Earl ('Political Terminology in Plautus', Historia 9/2 [1960): 240) explains the difference between fama and gloria in this manner: 'Fama is the report of anyone personally, good
or bad. Gloria is also a report, and, therefore, part of fama, but whereas fama is general and
personal, gloria is aristocratic and exclusive. Fama rests on the multitudo, gloria on the ruling
class, although recognised by the state and so by all citizens qua citizens. Since the proper activity for a noble was the respublica, recognition of success was formally gloria, although informally
it was also fama'.
20 On ll6~a as divine light-substance in the Jewish and Hellenistic world, see G. H. Boobyer,
"Thanksgiving", 35-72.
6.2 1he Roman Nobiles and the Quest for Ancestral Gloria
207
not be quelled until they by their own prowess have equalled the fame (jama) and glory
(gloria) of their forefathers. 21
Again, in another important passage, Sallust explains how ancestral glory is

the yardstick for evaluating the progress of the family descendants in achieving
virtue (Jug. 85.23):
... the glory of the ancestors (maiorum gloria) is, as it were, a light shining upon their
posterity, suffering neither their virtues nor their faults to be hidden. 22
Cicero clarifies the link between virtus ('virtue') and gloria in regard to posterity
and the contemporary generation of senatorial 'good men' in this manner:
For though consciousness will have gone, nevertheless the dead, unconscious though
they be, are not without their own peculiar blessings of fame and glory (laudis et gloriae).
There is, it may be, nothing in glory (gloria) that we should desire it, but nonetheless it
follows virtue (virtutem) like a shadow ... Far more slowly will the glory (jama) fade of
Curius, Fabricius, Catulinus, the two Scipios, the two Africani, Maximus, Marcellus, PaulIus, Cato, Laelius, and countless others; he who has once managed to gain some shadow
of resemblance to these men, measuring it not by popular repute (jama populari), but by
the genuine approval of good men (vera bonorum laude), will with confident spirit, if so
it is to be, advance to meet death, in which he will have found that the highest good or at
any rate no evillies.23
In sum, the Roman traditions of glory are largely different to those found in the
Greek ethical tradition. To be sure, Panaetius (ca. 185-109/108 BC) and Posidonius (135-51 BC) make concessions to Roman ideas about glory. Panaetius acknowledged but did not finally resolve the conflict between absolute norms and
21 Note Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 5.30: 'that memorial of his glory (gloriae) should give him daily
delight, that he should have before his eyes the city which had been carried in his triumphal
procession, and that all should tread in the track of his renown (laudem)'; 10.13: 'I have grown
up to the measure of the glory (gloriam) of my seniors, and I would gladly see others rising to the
height of my own renown (gloriam)'; 10.38: 'who not only inherited his father's glory (paterna
gloria) but enhanced it by his management of a great war and victory over the Samnites, second
only to the one which his father had won'. Cicero observes of Pompey (Leg. Man. 10.27): 'Gnaeus
Pompeius stands alone as one whose merit has surpassed in glory (gloriam) not only his contemporaries but even the annals of the past'. Note Plautus, Cist. 201: 'earn laud (laudem) and laurels'.
22 Note Cicero (Off 2.44}: 'For when from his youth a man possesses some claim to fame and
distinction - whether it be inherited from his father ... or the consequence of other fortunate
circumstances - all men's eyes are upon him. They keep track of what he does and how he lives,
and just as if he were standing in a bright light, no action of his can remain in darkness'.
23 Cicero, Tusc. 1.46.109-110. Cicero (Mil. 97} comments similarly: 'among all the rewards
of virtue (virtutis) ... the noblest is glory (gloriam); this alone is enough to compensate for life's
brevity by the remembrance of future ages, to make us present in absence and alive in death'.
Seneca (Ep. 79.13), borrowing Cicero's metaphor, speaks of fame (gloria) as the shadow of
virtue (virtutis). As Seneca (ibid., 13-14) elaborates, 'it will attend virtue even against her will.
But, as the shadow sometimes precedes and sometimes follows and sometimes lags behind, so
fame (gloria) sometimes goes before us and shows herself in plain sight, and sometimes is in
the rear, and is all the greater in proportion as she is late in coming, when once envy (invidia)
has beaten a retreat'.
208
actions aimed at glory (cf. Cicero, Off. 1.7, 9, 152, 161; 2.16, 35, 51, 60, 76, 86; on
gloria: id., op. cit., 2:31,43, 88). Posidonius, familiar with Roman politics through
personal contact with Pompey and Cicero, upheld the old idea of heroic glory (-ro
as distinct from M~a (Seneca, Ep. 79.13-18; 102.11-19). In Posidonius'
view, the soul must be immortal if it is to enjoy glory. Cicero and Seneca articulate the same viewpoint (Cicero, Rab. Perd. 10.29; Seneca, Ep. 102.30).
However, in contrast to the philosophers above, Plutarch regards the quest
for glory as a fatal flaw in the character of the Roman nobility. Comparing Demosthenes favourably with Cicero, Plutarch says 'It is necessary, indeed, that a
political leader should prevail by reason of his eloquence, but ignoble for him
to admire and crave the fame (-r~v M~av) that springs from his eloquence'. 24 As
indicated( 1 supra), the three volumes ofDio Chrysostom on M~a are entirely
dismissive of the quest for fame. 25 Thus it is essential that we appreciate more
fully the understanding of gloria in the writings of Sallust and Cicero.
KAEo~)
24 Plutarch, Comparison of Demosthenes with Cicero 2.3. Philodemus ('On the Good King
according to Homer': IIEpi Toii Ka8' 'Oj.LTJpov aya8oii ~amll.twc; [Leipzig: Teubner, 1909)) criticises the members of the Homeric aristocracy for their excessive desire for glory. See Col XXIII.
1.7: A[l]av [npo]O~KOV T[otc;]j.LclALO[Ta]/M~[TJc; o]pEyOj.LEVOLc; ... However, Philodemus speaks
positively of glory as a natural sentiment: it righdy belongs to the Homeric heroes and is their
just reward at death (ColXXIY. 1.1-18). SeeP. Grima!, 'Le "bon roi" de Philodeme etla royaute
de Cesar', REL 44 (1966): 254-285, esp. 268-269; M. 0. Murray, 'Philodemus on the Good King
according to Homer', JRS 55 (1965): 161-182. At times the Roman philosopher Seneca follows
the negative evaluation of glory in the Greek ethical tradition (Ep. 44.5; 109.18; 123:16).
25 There were positive evaluations of glory in the Greek ethical tradition. In the honorific
inscriptions M~a and cptll.ollo~[a usually refer to the public honour accorded the benefactor
by his community for his benefits and to the love of honour that animated the benefactor's
munificence. For examples of M~a ('reputation', 'honour', 'good report', 'glory'), see SEG XXVI
1021: 'for you glory shines forth'. I. Ephesos Ia 6 speaks of the gymnasiarch Mithres thus: 'for
the remaining gymnasium affairs he took care, hating the bad and loving the good, in nothing
neglectful of what relates to honour and fame (tv ou8Evi EVAEL7IWV Tw[v]npoc; TLV~V Kai M~av)
for the sake of establishing as worthy of memory and praise the preference which he shows for
the best'. A decree of the Dionysiac craftsmen (IG XI[4]1061) also describes the craftsmen's
immortal glory (a8avaToc; M~a) as lasting forever. For additional occurrences of ll6~a, see
SEG XXVIII 143. For cptll.ollo~[a ('love offame', 'love of glory'), see I. Ephesos Ia 6: 'the people,
being familiar both with the man's love of fame (cptll.ollo~[a[v)) and with his justness, and with
his demonstrated enthusiasm for the gymnasium in everything to do with his charge and his
care (for it)'. In particular, the decree in honour of Menas, the gymnasiarch of Sestos, is replete
with glory terminology (OGIS 339: M~a [1.10: 'to acquire for himself and his family imperishable glory']; cptll.ollo~[a [II. 38, 62, 71]; cptA61lo~wc; [II. 99, 101]; cptll.ollo~Eiv [II. 89, 92]; fvllo~ov
[1. 76)). For a translation, see F. W Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and
New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1982), 17. For additional
examples of cptll.ollo~[a, see Michell007; SEG XXXII 1243, 109, 114, 118; I. Mylasa 110; I. Delos
IV 1504. For cptll.61lo~oc; ('loving honour', 'loving glory'), see IG VII(2) 2712. For cptll.61lo~wc;
('serving with distinction'), see I. Priene 108, 114, 118; I. Delos IV 1504; IG VII(2) 2712. For cptll.ollo~Eiv ('to love fame', 'to seek honour'), see Michel236; SEG XVI 94, XXI 254; I. Mylasa 110.
For vllo~oc; ('held in repute', 'honoured'), see SIG3 709, 800; Michel515; SEG IV 598; I. Magnesia
61. For EMo~[a ('good report', 'good name', 'credit', 'glory'), see Michel 515. Surprisingly, F. W
Danker (ibid.) does not discuss M~a in the inscriptional benefaction language.
209
6.2.2 Sallust and Cicero on Gloria

6.2.2.1 A Survey of Sallust's Understanding of Gloria
Sallust argues that the traditional Roman respect for the 'glory of the ancestors'
(gloria maiorum) enabled the senatorial order to govern the state successfully
in the early republic. As noted above, a passionate commitment to ancestral
glory inspired each new generation of nobiles to equal or surpass the exploits
of their famous forebears. Conversely, a proper understanding of glory enabled
the boni to discern clearly the virtues and vices of the descendants of the great
noble houses. In explaining the way in which the aristocratic elite imitated and
evaluated ancestral merit, Sallust is highly sensitive to the importance of correct
motivation for the young noble in his pursuit of glory. Sallust advises that one's
mind should pursue glory along the path of true virtue, without any expectation
of help from fortune (lug. 1.3; cf. Cat. 1.3; 2.2). 26 Consequently, nobles should
prefer true glory to unjust power or wealth (lug. 41.10; 85.40). 27
But how does 'true glory' differentiate itself from 'false glory' in Roman society? Sallust affirms the importance of public competition for honour and virtue
between the nobiles in the civic arena or on the battlefield. This point is relentlessly hammered home by a series of phrases centred upon glory: 'the thirst
for glory (cupido gloriae)' (Cat. 7.3 [cf. lug. 94.6]), 'a grand rivalry for glory
(gloriae maxumum certamen)' (Cat. 7.6), 'unbounded glory (gloriam ingentem)'
(Cat. 7.6), 'immortalised by glory (gloria aeterni .fierent)' (lug. 1.5), and 'contending for glory (pro gloria) and dominion' (lug. 94.5), to cite a few examples.
However, Sallust concedes that such a competitive atmosphere could arouse
jealousy among peers if it was not accompanied by right motivation. The Roman
noble Metellus, for example, was aware that there was a dangerous underside to
the quest for glory: 'envy (invidia) follows hard upon glory (gloriam)' (lug. 55.4;
cf. Tacitus, Ann. 2.26; Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 2.7). But, irrespective of the innate
dangers, the quest to uphold ancestral glory in service of the state was inherently
good if Rome was to escape (in Sallust's view) its current moral decline. 28 A right
focus on motivation and service of the state, therefore, would ensure that the
pursuit of glory would strengthen the social order rather than destabilise it in
the manner of the disastrous figure of Cataline.
One of the interesting sidelights of Sallust's presentation of gloria is his use of
the word in triads that speak of political and social status. In contrast to Paul's eschatological triads of'glory, honour and immortality' (Rom 2:7) and 'glory, honOn Fortune granting glory, see Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 1.10.
Note Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 6.22: 'he was more anxious to win the other's gratitude after
retrieving his error than to win glory (gloriam) for himself'; 9.31: calling 'Jupiter, Mars, and the
other gods to witness that he had not gone into that place in quest of any glory (gloriam) for
himself'.
28 On Rome's moral crisis, see Earl, Political Thought, 41-59.
26
27
210
our and peace' (2:10), Sallust articulates a different set of triads: 'glory (gloriam),
honour and power' (Cat. 11.1); 'riches, honour and glory (gloriam)' (Cat. 58.8;
20.14); 'honour, glory (gloria) and authority' (Cat. 12.1).29 Significantly, there is
no eschatological dimension to Sallust's understanding of glory, as there is in
Paul (i.e. 'immortality', v. 7: cup6apo(a; 'peace', v. 10: ip~vTJ). 30 In the case of Sallust, 'power', 'riches', and 'authority' represent the Roman political equivalent to
the Christian hope of heavenly 'immortality'. 31
Above all, Sallust's understanding of gloria is conditioned by his moralistic
understanding of Roman history. According to Sallust, the ills of Rome are traceable to a perverted ideology of glory. Before the destruction of Carthage in 146
BC, the early development of Rome was characterised by a passionate quest for
glory in governing the state. Two extracts will illustrate Sallust's idealised portrait
of the Roman state before its rapid deterioration after the Carthaginian wars:
For before the destruction of Carthage the people and the Senate of Rome together governed the republic peacefully and with moderation. There was no strife among the citizens
either for glory or for power (gloriae neque dominationis }; fear of the enemy preserved the
good morals of the state. 32
.. . still the free state, once liberty was won, waxed incredibly strong and great in a
remarkably short time, such was the thirst for glory (cupido gloriae) that had filled men's
minds ... as soon as the young men could endure the hardships of war, they were taught a
soldier's duties in camp under a vigorous discipline, and they took more pleasure in handsome arms and war horses than in harlots and revelry ... their hardest struggle for glory
(gloriae maxumum certamen) was with one another; each man strove to be first to strike
down the foe, to scale a wall, to be seen of all while doing such a deed. This they considered
riches, this fair fame (bonam farnam) and high nobility (magnamque nobilitatem). It was
praise they coveted (laudis avidi), but they were lavish of money; their aim was unbounded
renown (gloriam ingentem), but only such riches as could be gained honourably. 33
However, according to Sallust, the competition for glory was beneficial for the
early republic before it was corrupted by the wealth and greed characteristic of
the post-Carthaginian era. A lust for money and power (primo pecuniae, deinde
imperi cupido), as well as avarice (avaritia) and ambition (ambitio), overturned
29 Note Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 6.37: 'power, dignity, military glory (gloriam belli), the stamp
of nobility'.
30 On the parallelism of Romans 2:7 and 10, seen. 31 below.
31 The linking of acp8apa(av with ~wl)v aili>VIOV in Rom 2:7 seals the eschatological context.
J.D. G. Dunn (Romans 1-8 [Dallas: Word, 1988], 85) notes that in the intertestamentalliterature
acp6apa(a is the end for which humanity has been created (Wis 2:23; cf. the parallel to Rom 2:7 in
4 Mace 17:12). Regarding dpiJvTJ in Rom 2:10, cicp8apa(a in v. 7 clearly parallels dpiJvTJ. Therefore,
'peace' comes 'to describe the final state of the good individual' (J.D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 88).
Contra, D. Moo (The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19?6], 139} who understands dpfJVTJ more in terms of realised eschatology. 'Peace' in v. 10, according to Moo, is 'the state
of perfect well-being created by God's eschatological intervention and enjoyed by the righteous'.
32 Sallust, lug. 41.2.
33 Sallust, Cat. 7.3-7; cf. 9.2: 'Quarrels, discord, and strife were reserved for their enemies;
citizen vied with citizen only for the prize of merit'.
211
the traditional aristocratic values by enshrining self-interest at the core of the

Roman political system (Cat. 10.3-6). Sallust unveils the catastrophic results for
Rome by means of series of ethical abstractions that graphically catalogue the
moral slide of the late republic:
As soon as riches (divitiae) carne to be held in honour, when glory (gloria), dominion (imperium) and power (potentia) followed in their train, virtue ( virtus) began to lose its lustre,
poverty to be considered a disgrace, blamelessness to be termed malevolence. Therefore as
the result of riches (divitiis), luxury (luxuria) and greed (avaritia), united with insolence
(superbia), took possession of our young manhood. They pillaged, squandered; set little
value on their own, coveted the goods of others; they disregarded modesty, chastity, everything human and divine; in short, they were utterly thoughtless and reckless. 34
In a manner similar to Cicero (infra, 2.2.2), Sallust asserts that the boni ('the
good') sought glory (gloriam), honour (honorem) and power (imperium) 'by
the true path' (vera via). By contrast, the morally base- those without any fine
qualities- pursued the same outcomes by craft and deception (Cat. 11.1-2). We
are witnessing here the gradual disenchantment with the quest for glory that
characterised the thought of several influential Roman intellectuals (e.g. Sallust,
Cicero, Seneca) in the late republic and early empire. Thus, in this regard, Sallust's
Catiline is marked by the same inordinate cupiditas ('passionate desire', 'lust':
Cat. 5.4-6) as Cicero's Caesar. 35 Whoever the real 'villain' is in the perception
of these authors, true glory is at extreme risk in the age they are writing about.
Last, to what extent did Sallust value gloria in his political career? It is clear
that Sallust continued to pursue glory (Cat. 2.9-3.5), even though he was forced
to withdraw from public life after the assassination of Caesar (Cat. 4; BJ 4.3-4).
The reasons for Sallust's political withdrawal are well known. After taking part in
the African campaign (46 BC: Appian, BAfr. 8; 34), he assumed the proconsular
governorship of Numidia and Africa in the next year (Appian, BAfr. 97; cf. Appian, BCiv. 2.100.415). However, upon his return to Rome, Sallust was charged
with extortion, allegedly escaping any penalty only because of Caesar's intervention (Orosius 6.15.8; Dio 43.9.2; Inv. in Sall. 8, 19). Withdrawing to private life
in order to write, Sallust came to consider his vocation as an historian to be an
equally viable route for benefiting the republic in comparison to the traditional
military or magisterial cursus honorum (Cat. 3.1-2).
Sallust's personal quest for glory, therefore, was achieved by commemorating
the 'distinguished merit and fame of good men' in his writings (de magna virtute
atque gloria bonorum memores: Cat. 3.2). The same phenomenon also marked
the career of Cicero. Cicero, after handling the Catilinarian conspiracy in a legally questionable manner during his consulship (63 BC: cf. Sull. 67; Plane. 85;
Sallust, Cat. 12.1-2.
A. A. Long, 'Cicero's Politics in De Officiis', in A. Laks (ed.), justice and Generosity: Studies
in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 217 n. 11.
34
35
212
Pam. 5.7; Cat. passim), sought to overturn his dishonour by achieving immortal
glory as the pre-eminent advocate, rhetorician, speech-writer and philosopher
of Rome. In this process, even the great Cicero was forced to redefine the quest
for glory as the established republican houses of the nobiles were increasingly
outstripped in their political and social influence by ruthless careerists who
operated outside of the traditional cursus honorum in the early SO's to the late
40's. But what precisely is the shift in understanding that we observe in Cicero?
6.2.2.2 A Survey of Cicero's Understanding of Gloria

In investigating the evidence of Cicero, we will not adopt the approach of A. D.
Leeman who skilfully discusses the orator's evidence according to genre (orations, philosophical works, epistles). 36 Rather we will concentrate on the personal
reaction of Cicero as a novus homo to the quest for glory in the late republic, with
a view to unmasking the heated competition for glory among the nobiles, and
appreciating the social dislocation created when the normal operations of the
cursus honorum were bypassed by careerists in their pursuit of glory.
Cicero recapitulates several motifs that we have already dealt with and we need
not be detained in an extended discussion of them. The language of 'eternity'
and 'immortality' characterises Cicero's discussions of gloria. 37 'Light' imagery
often accompanies occurrences of gloria in Cicero. 38 Gloria is also linked closely
with virtus ('virtue': that is, in the sense of 'manly initiative') and, in a manner
reminiscent of Sallust, the word is sometimes employed in triads. 39 With Cicero,
too, there is emphasis on equalling or surpassing the deeds of the ancestors. 40
Leeman, Gloria, 138-167, 187-190 (English summary).
Examples from Cicero: 'eternal glory (aeternam gloriam) for this city' (Mur. 10.22); 'cherish
their glory with undying recollection (gloriam immortalitatis memoria)' (Phil. 2.13.33); 'divine
and immortal glory (divina atqe immortali laude)' (Phil. 10.3.7); 'everlasting glory (gloriam
sempiternam)' (Phil. 14.11.31); 'ceaseless and ever-springing fountain ofhis glory lfontem perennem gloriae)' (Mil. 13.34); 'my claims to everlasting glory (sempiternae gloriae)' (Pam. 5.12.6);
'the duration oflife is short, that of glory everlasting (gloriae sempiternam)' (Sest. 21.47); 'equal
in glory to the immortal gods (cum deorum immortalium laude coniungo)' (Pis. 9.20). Cicero
(Sest. 68.143) emphasises the transitoriness oflife over against the immortality of glory achieved
in benefiting the state: 'Lastly, let us remember, that if the body of a brave and great man is
mortal, yet the impulses of the mind and the glory of virtue are eternal (virtutis gloriam sempiternam) ... let us nonetheless believe that those who have enlarged, defended, or preserved this
mighty state by their counsels or labours have obtained immortal glory (immortalem gloriam)'.
On the immortality of a glorious name, see Plautus, Capt. 683-690.
38 Examples from Cicero: Gnaeus Pompeius, 'the glory and light (decus ac lumen) of the
empire' (Phil. 2.22.54; 5.13.35); 'the light and glory (lumen et decus) of that army, Gaius Annius
Cirnber' (PhiL 11.6.14); 'Brutus the light and glory (lumen et decus) ofthe state' (Phil. 11.10.24).
39 For gloria linked to virtus, see 'glory of virtue' (Cat. 3.13.28). For examples oftriads, see
'Gnaeus Pompeius, the greatest man for virtue and glory (gloria) and achievements' (Red.
Sen. 3.5); 'in virtue, glory (gloria) and dignity' (Gael. 14.34).
40 An example from Cicero is'... he had surpassed all his predecessors in glory (gloria) as
much as you have surpassed all the world' (Deiot. 12). On the importance of not disgracing
ancestors, see Plautus, Trin. 641-654.
36
37
213
One impressive example is the example of Lucius Flaccus who is said to have
imitated the ancient glory of the Valerian family nearly five hundred years after
the establishment of the Republic. 41
Cicero, like Sallust, believes that the evaluation of posterity drives the Roman
preoccupation with glory. As Cicero states (Cat. 3.11.26), 'In your minds I wish
all my triumphs, all my decorations of honour, the monuments of my glory
(monumenta gloriae), the badges of my renown, to be stored and laid up'. As
with Sallust, gloria is for Cicero more the product of a disciplined striving than
the allocation of fortune:
For when I was burning with a desire for glory (laudis ), he first encouraged me to hope that
virtue without any assistance from fortune could, by means of labour and perseverance,
arrive at the object of its desires. 42
Indeed, glory had to be defended in the present if it was to remain a potent force
for the future fame of one's house. As Cicero advises his brother, Quintus Tullius,
in a brief comparison of their careers towards the end of 60 BC,
And now that fortune has assigned the management of public affairs to me among magistrates in the city, and to you in a province, if I yield to no man in the part that I have to
play, see to it that you excel all others in yours. At the same time bear in mind that we are
not striving after a glory (gloria) that remains to be won, and that we but hope to win, but
fighting for a glory already ours - a glory which it was not so much our object to gain in
the past, as it is to defend in the present.43
Cicero, as a novus homo ('new man') in Roman politics, understood well that he
did not automatically inherit or attract the requisite fama of a nobilis ( Sest. 9.21 ),
being the very first of his family to achieve the consulship. 44 Consequently, unCicero, Flac. 1.1.
Cicero, Scaur. 1.4. Note also the comments of Cicero (Pam. 1.7.9) to Publius Lentulus
Spinther (56 BC) regarding the legacy of his hard work: 'Men think highly of you, highly commend your generosity, and highly appreciate the memory of your consulship. You surely see
for yourself how much more clearly marked and vivid these impressions will be, when a large
contribution of glory (laudis) accrues to you from your work in your province and in your imperium'. Cicero (MarcelL 7) also says that Caesar's glory was not allocated by fortune: 'this glory
(gloriae), Gaius Caesar, ... none shares with you ... even Fortune herself, the mighty mistress
of human destinies, does not obtrude herself into partnership in this your glory (gloriae)'. Notwithstanding, Cicero (Leg. Man. 47) concedes 'some great men have undoubtedly been helped
to the attainment of honour, glory (gloriam), and success, by a kind of Heaven-sent fortune'.
43 Cicero, Quint. fratr. 1.1.43.
44 Note the comment of Cicero in Sest. 65.136: 'You, young Romans, who are nobles (nobiles)
by birth, I rouse you to imitate the example of your ancestors; and you who can win nobility
(nobilitatem) by your talents and virtue, I will exhort to follow that career in which many "new
men'' (homines novi) have covered themselves with honour and glory (gloria)'. On the issue
of having to establish one's glory continually as a novus homo, see the fascinating letter to the
consul Dolabella (Att. 14.17a: 43 BC) where Cicero debates the propriety of sharing in Dolabella's glory because of the astute political advice Cicero had given him during his magistracy.
This tendency to monopolise glory that was not solely one's own was a strategy employed by
41
42
214
like other nobiles, Cicero did not have a substantial reserve of ancestral glory to
fall back on if his political career was destabilised or tarnished at some point. As
noted( 2.2.1), as an orator he spent a substantial part of his life justifying the
illegal actions of his consulship - which were intended to save Rome from the
threat posed by Catiline - as notable and glorious acts performed on behalf of the
state in a time of crisis.45 In this regard, it is intriguing to see how Cicero handles
the traditions of ancestral glory in defending his management of the Catilinarian
conspiracy and in exculpating those who, like Valerius Flaccus, had helped him
bring the crisis to an end and who, later, needed his help as an advocate. The very
sensitivity of the 'Catilinarian' issue for Cicero helps us to see how a novus homo,
with no ancestral glory to parade, nonetheless tries to establish his claim to gloria
in a deft manner before his contemporaries.
First, in his conclusion to In Catilinam IV, Cicero skilfully compares his liberation of the Roman state from the threat of Catiline to the glory achieved by the
great republican principes ('leaders') of the past and present, notwithstanding
the opprobrium that Cicero's actions in 63 BC had brought him. In recompense
for his labours, Cicero not only asks for the perpetuation of his own glory in
the memory of his contemporaries but also its continuation in his family line
through his son,46 even though Cicero knows that as a consul he achieved none of
the provincial triumphs of the republican luminaries to whom he refers. Significantly, Cicero draws on a standard rhetorical inscriptional motif, when he portrays himself as the 'endangered benefactor' ('the man who saved the entire state,
risking himself alone') deserving of recognition and praise. 47 As Cicero explains,
Granted that Scipio be famous, by whose wisdom and valour Hannibal was compelled to
leave Italy and return to Africa; granted that the other Africanus who destroyed two citthe members of the older patrician families. Valerius Maximus notes how the young L. Sulla
(Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 8.14.4), as the quaestor under Marius, magnified inordinately his
own role, over against that of Marius, in bringing the Jugurthan War to an end: 'However, he
claimed for himself the whole credit for king Bocchus' bringing Jugurtha to Marius, so eagerly
that he kept the surrender engraved on a ring which he used as a signet. And however great
he subsequently became, he never despised the slightest trace of glory (gloriae)'. See also the
helpful discussion of R. E. Smith, The Aristocratic Epoch in Latin Literature (Sydney: Australasian Medical Publishing, 1947), 5-6 regarding the difficulty for a novus homo in attracting and
maintaining the requisite fama.
45 We must not forget the important way in which literary memorials could enhance one's
gloria, as Valerius Maximus observes of the elder Africanus, D. Brutus and Pompeius Magnus
(Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 8.14.1-3). See E. A. Judge, 'Roman Literary Memorials', in id., First
Christians, 69-71. See also Cicero, Arch. 6.18, 23-24,28.
46 Cicero makes a similar point regarding family honour to his brother, Quintus, when he
counsels him with these words (Quint.fratr. 1.1.44): 'you also should bear in mind that you are
not seeking glory (gloriam) for yourself alone- though even so you should not be regardless
of it, especially since it has ever been your desire to hallow the memory of your name with the
most magnificent memorials - but you have to share that glory with me, and bequeath it to
your children'.
47 On the 'endangered benefactor' motif, see Danker, Benefactor, 417-427.
215
ies of our greatest enemies, the cities of Carthage and Numantia, be exalted with especial
praise; granted that that noble Paulus be a man renowned, whose triumph the once powerful and noble king Perseus adorned; granted that Marius have eternal glory (aeterna gloria)
who twice freed Italy from siege and the fear of slavery; granted that Pompey outrank them
all, whose deeds and virtues are limited only by those regions and boundaries that will confine the sun; certainly there will be amid the praise of these men some place for my glory
(nostrae gloriae), unless perhaps it is a greater thing to lay open for ourselves provinces to
which we may go forth than to take care that those who have gone forth may have a place
to which they may victoriously return ... I have taken up an unending war with wicked
citizens ... for my unparalleled ardour in your behalf and for the watchfulness with which
you see me preserving the state I ask nothing of you, except that you remember this time
and all my consulship ... But if the power of criminals shall disappoint my expectation and
shall triumph, I commend to you my little son who will certainly have enough protection,
not only for his safety but also for his career, if you will but remember that he is the son of
the man who saved the entire state, risking himself alone ... You have a consul who does
not hesitate to obey your orders, who can uphold your decrees as long as he shall live and
who can by himself warrant their accomplishment. 48
Second, of particular interest is the skilful rhetorical technique employed by

Cicero in presenting a striking vignette of Roman glory in his speech entitled Pro
Fiacco (59 BC). At the outset, two important pieces of background information
are essential if we are to understand the force of Cicero's argument.
(a) The family of Lucius Valerius Flaccus belonged to the famous Valerian
gens, of which the Flacci was one family among the ten others belonging to the
gens in the republic.49 The most famous member of the Valerian gens, P. Valerius,
later surnamed Publicola, played a distinguished role in the expulsion of the last
Tarquin king from Rome. He become the first consul of Rome in 509 BC, along
with Junius Brutus as his consular colleague, after the initial consul designate, L.
Tarquinius Collatinus, was forced to resign over suspicion regarding his alleged
'Tarquin' sympathies. 50
(b) In Pro Fiacco, Cicero is defending a distant descendant ofP. Valerius Publicola, namely, Lucius Valerius Flaccus. He was on trial for extortion in office while
he was governor of Asia in 62 BC. Cicero notes at the outset of his speech that
'Lucius Flaccus revived in the state after almost five hundred years the ancient
glory (laudem) won by the Valerian family in freeing our fatherland' (Flac. 1.1}.
The mention of glory 'almost five hundred years' ago is a clear allusion to Lucius'
illustrious Valerian forebear, Publicola. Undoubtedly, in referring to Lucius' revival of ancestral glory, Cicero has in mind his important role as praetor in 63 BC.
In the midst of the Catilinarian conspiracy, Lucius had helped Cicero by seizing
Cicero, Cat. 4.10.21, 4.9.22, 4.11.23-24.
See W. Ramsay, 'Varia Gens', in W. Smith (ed.), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography
and Mythology Vol. III (London: Walton and Maberly, 1861), 1215-1216.
50 For discussion and ancient sources, see P. Smith, 'Publicola Valerius', in Smith, Dictionary
Vol. III, 691-692.
48
49
216
and passing on the documents which the Allobrogian ambassadors had received
from the accomplices of Catiline.
Cicero paid off his legacy of indebtedness to Lucius by acting as his advocate a
few years later. In an important passage, Cicero defends (the undoubtedly guilty)
Lucius in this manner:
But when the interests of Lucius Flaccus are at stake, a man of whom I may say that the
first man who was made consul (primus consul factus est) of his family was the first man
that was ever consul in this city (prim us in hac civitate consul fuit); a man by whose valour
the kings were banished, and liberty (libertas) was established in this republic; a family
which has endured to this time with a continued series of honours and commands, and
of glorious achievements (rerum gestarum gloria); and when Lucius Flaccus has not only
not degenerated from this everlasting (perenni) and well-attested virtue of his ancestors
(virtute maiorum ), but as a praetor has especially devoted himself to the glory (laudem)
of asserting the liberty (libertatem) of his country, seeing that this was the especial glory
(sui gloria) and characteristic of his family, - can I fear lest any mischievous precedent be
established in the case of this defendant when, even if he had committed any slight fault,
all good men would think that they ought rather to connive at it? 51
Here we see Cicero's rhetorical skill at its peak as he highlights the ancestral fame
of the consular house of the Flacci from whom his defendant in 59 BC, Lucius
Flaccus, was a descendant. Cicero spotlights that the 'first' consular member of
the Valerii Flacci was the famous Publicola who had expelled the last Tarquin
king from Rome. Cicero's repetition of primus, while true historically, also allows him to enhance the prestige of the founder of the Flacci. The multiple use
of primus, as the Duilius inscription discussed below shows, was a common
rhetorical feature in the Roman eulogistic texts. Cicero draws a parallel between
libertas established by the original Valerian of 509 BC, P. Valerius Publicola, and
the libertas established by his contemporary descendant, Lucius Valerius Flaccus,
whom Cicero is defending in 59 BC. As noted, this later Valerian descendant
had helped Cicero in bringing the Catilinarian conspiracy to an end in 63 BC.
Therefore, as Cicero adumbrates, Flaccus is a man of conspicuous merit because
he has preserved the glory of his ancestors by replicating the glorious actions of
his consular ancestor in liberating the state from tyranny of Catiline.
Further, Cicero's language of'perpetuity' (perennis ['everlasting']) enhances his
description of the ancestral glory. In the process, seven other famous consular
members of the Valerii Flacci (cos 261 BC, 227 BC, 195 BC, 152 BC, 131 BC,
100 BC, 93 BC), though acknowledged by Cicero ('a continued series of honours
and commands, and of glorious achievements'), are effectively bypassed so that
the comparison between the two 'liberators' of the Republic might be clearer and
more forceful. 52
Cicero, Flac. 11.25.
For the details, see L. Schmitz, 'Flaccus, Valerius', in Smith, Dictionary Vol. II, 157-159. For
Cicero on the generational imitation of the virtue of the fathers, see Rab. Post. 1.2.
51
52
217
However, in so emphasising the august tradition of the Flacci and their importance in preserving the libertas of the state, Cicero was also gilding his own
much-maligned involvement in the Catilinarian conspiracy of 63 BC. As L. E.
Lord astutely observes regarding the subsequent acquittal of Flaccus,
Flaccus was acquitted, though Macrobius thought him guilty, and that impression is
strongly given by the speech itself. It is a pathetic sight, Cicero dragging out once more the
spavined stalking horse of the Catilinarian conspiracy. It took no Daniel now to read the
writing on the wall. Flaccus was acquitted in 59. In 58 Cicero went into exile. 53
Thus, in Cicero's management of the unfavourable legacy of the Catilinarian

conspiracy, we are witnessing the centrality of gloria in the rhetorical tradition
of Rome and how it could be cleverly turned to one's own advantage, directly
or indirectly, in the political arena. In our next section( 2.3), we will explore
whether a similar process is happening in the inscriptional epitaphs of the famous Scipionic family in the republic.
An important question remains for us to explore. Does Cicero maintain this
positive attitude towards gloria until the end of his career? Significantly, there
emerges in Cicero an increasing reserve and equivocation regarding the acquisition of gloria, a stance markedly different to Cicero's earlier ambition to acquire
immortal glory (e.g. Cicero, Rab. Perd. 10.29; Arch. 6.16; 11:28; Leg. Man. 7; Leg.
Agr. 2.91). 54 The stages of Cicero's political disenchantment are easily enough
charted. During 59-54 BC, Cicero wrote twenty-seven letters to his brother
Quintus (Quint. fratr. 3.6.3), who at the time was in command abroad in the
provinces. In one of his letters to Quintus, Cicero speaks defensively about his
own ambitions in the face of Caesar's growing power:
I do not depend to any great extent on the offers (Caesar) holds out; I do not thirst for
public offices, nor do I pine for glory (gloriam); and I look forward more to the continuation of his goodwill, than to the fulfilment of his promises.
A decade later, when the state tottered on the brink of civil war after Caesar's
assassination (March 15,44 BC), Cicero wrote to Lucius Munatius Plancus (late
September, 44 BC), the governor of Gallia Comata, regarding supporting the
cause of the Republic:
You are consul-designate in the prime oflife, your eloquence is of the highest order, and
the state is more destitute of such men than ever. I adjure you by the immortal gods, throw
all your mind into the careful consideration of such measures as may bring you the highest
dignity and glory (gloriam). Now to that glory (gloriam) there is but one path, especially
in those days when the Republic has been harassed to death for so many years - and that
is upright administration of the same Republic. 55
53 L. E. Lord, In Catilinam IV - Pro Murena - Pro Sulla - Pro Fiacco (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1967), 358-359.
54 See the excellent discussion of Long, 'Cicero's Politics', 213-240.
55 Cicero, Pam. 10.3.3.
218
Plancus' care for the Republic would be best exercised, in the view of Cicero,
by the consul-designate aiding the Senate in the war against the future triumvir, the general Antony. Cicero repeatedly presses Plancus in his letters of 43
BC to pursue traditional glory by fighting Antony in defence of the Republic
(Pam. 10.5.2-3; 10.10.2; 10.19.2).56 Plancus followed Cicero's suggested 'path of
glory' (Pam. 10.7.2) until, in 42 BC, he abandoned the cause of the Senate for the
increasingly powerful alliance of Antony and Lepidus. We do not know Cicero's
response to Plancus' volte-face, but it must have seemed to Cicero a violation of
fides among amici and a savage betrayal of the republican traditions of glory. 57
Finally, Cicero's philosophical and political discussion of glory in De Officiis,
finished November 44 BC, represents his response to the crisis now facing the
Roman republic. In Cicero's opinion, it was in grave danger of imploding. In
preparation for his response, Cicero had read Panaetius' Tiepl Toii Ka8~KovTo<;
('Concerning Duty': Cicero, Att., 16.11.4; 16.14.3), written ca. 138/138 BC.58
Having decided that Panaetius' ethical and political world-view was compatible
with a Roman outlook, Cicero decided to transform the political culture of late
republican Rome by demonstrating that the recent egotistical quest for glory and
self-aggrandisement on the part of the populares (e.g. Caesar: Off 1.26, 112; 2.2,
23-28) could only result in tyranny. Consequently, Cicero reduced the amount
of illustrative matter appearing in Panaetius (Off 2.16) and added material to the
philosophical and social arguments of Panaetius at various junctures in his new
work (1.7b-8, 152ff; 2.86ff.; 3).
In De Officiis Cicero distinguishes between the 'highest, fullest glory' (summa
... et perfecta gloria: Off 2.31), discussed in 2.31b-38, and 'true glory' (vera
gloria: 2.43), discussed in 2.42b-3. Both types of glory are legitimate as far as
the focus of their quest (iustitia or 'justice' for those it helps), but each adopts a
radically different approach. illtimately, however, Cicero does not integrate the
two types of glory in his thinking. Instead they are presented in De Officiis as
equally viable paths for the young man seeking glory (Att. 2.45-51), provided
that iustitia undergirds his quest in either instance. The first type of glory is based
on popularity with the masses and is best secured by justice. The second type of
glory- as Cicero's pejorative references to Tiberius Gracchus here (Off 2.43) and
elsewhere (Off 1.109; 2.72, 80; cf. id., Cat. 1.4; Har. 41; Prov. 18; de Orat. 1.38;
56 Note the comment of Earl (Political Thought, 27) regarding the aristocratic ideal of gloria
expressed in service of the republic: "Outside the service of the respublica there can be no magistratus and therefore, no gloria, no nobititas, no virtus'.
57 In his court cases, Cicero often highlights the glory of his defendants (e.g. Titus Annius
Milo, Publius Sestius) or himself in defence of the state and the senatorial cause. E.g. Cicero,
Sest. 22.49; 23.51; 32.70; 66.138; 68.142-69.144; Mil. 34, 35, 38, 63, 72. In his speech on behalf
of Marcus Marcellus, Cicero (Marcell. 25-26) encourages Caesar to be consumed by a glory that
leaves the state in its present condition of constitutional stability.
58 I am indebted to the discussion ofDyck, Commentary, 29-36.
219
Fin. 4.65) demonstrate - does not resort to pretence but establishes a reputation
for justice in the judgement of the senatorial boni. 59
The political context of Cicero's discussion of gloria in De Officiis is clear
enough, even though it has a strong philosophical base inherited from Panaetius.
Cicero desired to reign in the self-aggrandising quest for glory that had increasingly characterised the late republic. This had spiralled out of control during the
struggle between Marius and Sulla, the conspiracy of Catiline, the illegalities of
the 'First Triumvirate', the violence of Clodius and his henchmen, and, above all,
Caesar's dictatorship. In Cicero's mind, the solution to the social disintegration
at Rome was to subordinate the self-centred craving for personal glory and to
concentrate more upon justice with a view to revitalising the republic. In sum, if
gloria was to have any utility for the individual, Cicero believed that it had to be
grounded in honestum ('honesty', 'integrity', 'virtue': Off. 1.15; 3.101), that is, in
the virtuous conduct which found its ethical expression in support of the state. 60
Since Roman ancestral glory was inexorably tied to the old noble houses that
provided the magistrates and commanders of the res publica, the emergence of a
different political order in late first-century Rome would surely have posed serious social questions for perceptive political thinkers such as Cicero. What would
happen to the traditional value of glory when a new ruler eventually rose out of
the present chaos? As the fear of social disintegration increasingly gripped the
hearts of ordinary Romans, there arose the opportunity for a new understanding
ofgloria to emerge. 61 In this regard, Paul's gospel interacted equally with republican and imperial notions of ancestral glory. As will be argued below, Paul's letter
to the Romans represented a death knell for the traditional noble quest for glory
and issued a bold eschatological challenge to the new concentration of glory in
the rulers of the Julio-Claudian house.
6.2.3 The Scipionic Elogia and Gloria
The epitaphs of the republican Scipionic family set out the pedigrees (filiation,
magistracies, military victories and official posts, priesthoods, Board memberships etc.) of each of the deceased members. 62 While 'glory' terminology is used
59 See the excellent discussion of Dyck, ibid., 423-426. The same diagnosis of 'true glory' is
also found in Cicero, Phil. 1.14.33. In Cicero's 'Dream of Scipio' (Rep. 6.9.9-6.26.29), transitory
glory (6.19.20) gives way to 'true glory'. This is because ancestral virtue, being linked to one's
immortal soul and the afterlife, is not affected by the forgetfulness of posterity (6.23.25-6.23.26).
For discussion, see J.G.F. Powell (ed.), Cicero On Friendship and The Dream of Scipio (Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 1990), 119-172. Finally, Long ('Cicero's Politics', 230) cites Phil. 1.29 and 1.33 as
two further examples of Cicero's reformist ideology of 'true glory' based on justice.
60 See the excellent discussion of Long, ibid., 216-219.
61 Cicero does speak of a 'new sort of glory' (novum genus hoc gloriae: Rab. Post. 14.39), but
the use is ironical and is rhetorically intended to endorse the legitimacy of traditional forms of
patronal self-advertisement.
62 For discussion, see Smith, The Aristocratic Epoch, 8-10.
220
sparsely in the ten epitaphs, the ethos evinced by the epitaphs points to the vitality of the Roman nobleman's quest for ancestral glory. Two epitaphs in particular
demonstrate this. Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus (praetor peregrinus, 139
BC) lists the magistracies of his pedigree and then adds this highly revealing
elogium:
By my good conduct I heaped virtues on the virtues of my clan: I begat a family and
sought to equal the exploits of my father. I upheld the praise (laudem) of my ancestors, so
that they were glad that I was created of their line. My honours have ennobled (nobilitavit
honor) my stock. 63
This epitaph sums up succinctly the world-view of the Roman nobiles. The
ancestral virtues of the noble house had to be replenished by each new generation. The praise accorded the ancestors placed enormous expectations on each
new generation of nobles. Each noble had to equal (and, hopefully, surpass) by
virtuous conduct the achievements of the ancestors,64 with the exploits of the
immediate father being the starting point. If this replication of ancestral merit
was successfully carried out by each new generation, the nobilitas of the family
was rendered even more noble and virtuous. Remarkably, the dead ancestors
are depicted as still vitally interested in the replenishment of the family honour
attached to their line. 65
What happens, however, if the noble's life was prematurely cut short by his
death before he could add to his ancestral glory? The answer is given with moving
simplicity in the epitaph of a young Scipio who had only achieved 'the honoured
cap of Jupiter's priest' before he died:
Death caused all your virtues, honour, good report and valiance, your glory (gloria) and
your talents to be short-lived. If you had been allowed long life in which to enjoy them,
an easy thing it would been for you to surpass by great deeds the glory of your ancestors
(gloriam maiorum). Wherefore, 0 Publius Cornelius Scipio, begotten son ofPublius,joyfully does earth take you to her bosom. 66
Here we see how the Scipios handled their less successful members, when their
advancement in the cursus honorum was either cut short by death, as was the case
63 E. H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin: Archaic Inscriptions (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1953), 'Epitaphs', 10. For all the Scipionic epitaphs, see ibid., 'Epitaphs', 1-10.
64 Note that Cicero (Pam. 12.7.2) also speaks of the nobilis surpassing his own accomplishments: 'do your utmost to surpass yourself in enhancing your own glory'.
65 Note the comment of Earl ('Political Terminology', 242) regarding the role of virtus in
Plautus and the Scipionic elogia: '(Virtus) consists in the gaining of pre-eminent gloria by the
winning of office and the participation in public life. It concerns not only the individual but the
whole family, not only its living members but the dead members and the unborn posterity as
well'.
66 Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, 'Epitaphs', 5. Smith (The Aristocratic Epoch, 10)
observes: 'We see the constancy of the ideal, consisting still in public honours and public office,
to the extent that even where the dead man took no part in public life, the only comment is on
what he would have done had he lived longer'.
221
with Publius Cornelius Scipio above, 67 or by a lack of significant magistracies, as

was the case with the two family members named Lucius Cornelius Scipio below.
The elogium of Lucius Cornelius Scipio, the twenty-year-old who died c. 160
BC without achieving any magistracies at all, adds somewhat self-consciously:
'Whose life but not his honour fell short of honours, he that lies here was never
outdone in virtue'. 68 This elogium is particularly interesting because it demonstrates that whereas virtus had traditionally been understood to be an active
demonstration ofleadership in the public arena( 4.2; 4.3.6), in this case virtus is
conceived as an inner quality that animated the honour of Lucius, notwithstanding his lack of any public profile.
Similarly, the elogium of another Lucius Cornelius Scipio, the thirty-threeyear old quaestor (167 BC) and tribune of the soldiers, finds refuge in ancestral
honour: 'His father vanquished King Antiochus'. 69 Just as Cicero manipulated the
gloria tradition to overcome the debilitating blight of the Catilinarian conspiracy
upon his career, so these less known Scipios are made to avoid scrutiny of posterity by basking in the gloria of more famous relatives or by vaunting what could
have been if circumstances had been otherwise.7
6.2.4 Funeral Processions and the Commemoration of Ancestral Gloria

Another important dimension to the publicising of ancestral glory was the funeral ceremony.71 In an extended discussion, Polybius (6.53.1-6.54.4; cf. Valerius
Maximus Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 5.8.3) describes the elaborate funeral rites
67 See also Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, 'Epitaphs', 8: 'Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus
Nevershorn, son of Lucius, grandson of Lucius, sixteen years of age'.
68 Ibid., 'Epitaphs', 6.
69 Ibid., 'Epitaphs', 7.
70 Even the more famous Scipios were not immune from criticism. Smith (The Aristocratic
Epoch, 21-22) refers to the fragment of the dramatist Naevius (d. 210 BC) which exposes the
youthful sexual indiscretions of the great Scipio (Gellius, 7.8.5):
Even him whose hand did oft

Accomplish mighty exploits gloriously
Whose deeds wane not, but live on to this day,
The one outstanding man in all the world,
Him, with a single mantle, his own father
Dragged from a lady-love's arms.
71 For discussion, see O.C. Crawford, 'Laudatio Funebris', CJ 37 (1941): 17-27; Smith, The
Aristocratic Epoch, 8-11; W. Kierdorf, Laudatio Funebris. Interpretationen und Untersuchungen
zur Entwicklung der romischen Leichenrede (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1980); H. I.
Flower, Aristocratic Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1996), 91-222. However, see the counter-cultural critique of Roman glory from a Greek philosophical perspective in Seneca (Ep. 44.5): ~ hall full of smoke-begrimed busts does not make
the nobleman (nobilem). No past life has been lived to lend us glory (nostram gloriam), and that
which has existed before us is not ours; the soul alone renders us noble (nobilem), and it may
rise superior to Fortune out of any earlier condition, no matter what that condition has been'.
222
accorded those who had achieved fame and glory as statesmen or generals among
upper-class Roman families. He isolates two customs for special mention: first,
the practice of the living ancestors publicly displaying at funeral processions the
wax mask-portraits of the illustrious ancestors of the household, including the
immediately deceased member; second, the delivery of a funeral speech (laudatio funebris) praising the virtues of the departed, his notable achievements, and
his famous ancestors (e.g. Cicero, Brut. 16.61-62). Polybius sums up the social
impact of the ceremony upon the younger generations present in this manner:
And, therefore, since the renown of these noble men and their reputation for excellence is
constantly being recalled to mind, the fame of men who have done great deeds is made immortal (a8ava-c[~e-cat), and the glory (M~a) of those who have faithfully served fatherland
becomes well known to the people and is handed down as a model to future generations.
The most important thing, however, is that young men are inspired to endure or suffer
anything on behalf of the common good in order to achieve the glory that surrounds men
who are brave. 72
In regard to the wax images, we have already drawn attention to Sallust's comment (supra, 6.2.1) that the image 'kindles in the breasts of noble men this
flame that cannot be quelled until they by their own prowess have equalled the
fame (jama) and glory (gloria) of their forefathers' (Jug. 4.6). In addition to the
parading of these wax images, records, written memorials, and the victory spoils
of the dead ancestors that were kept in the houses of the no biles. It was forbidden
to remove any of these victory spoils from the house even if it changed owners
because, as Pliny [the Elder] explains (HN 35.6-7), 'the mansions eternally celebrated a triumph'.
Finally, we have an extract of the laudatio cited in honour of a famous family
member from the Metelli clan (d. 221 BC):
Metellus wished to be a champion warrior, the best orator, the bravest general, to hold
command in the greatest undertakings, to meet with the highest official preferment, to be a
leader in wisdom, to be deemed the leading Senator, to gain great wealth by honest means,
to leave many children, and to be the most distinguished man of the state. These things fell
to his lot, and to the lot of no other man since the founding of Rome. 73
The continuous use of the superlative throughout this laudatio highlights the
intense public rivalry, the heated competition for glory, and the inflated selfadvertisement that characterised the republican principes and their households.
But, as R. E. Smith observes, it is also a moving tribute to the aristocrat's ideal:
namely, 'to be a leading man in the state's service both in war and in peace'.74
Polybius, 6.54
Pliny [the Elder], HN 7.43, 139.
74 Smith, The Aristocratic Epoch, 11. In private correspondence, E. A. Judge noted that Smith's
reference to 'service' of the state in this context would have been incomprehensible to Roman
ears: 'Smith has forgotten that this ideal is utterly un-Roman, at least in the basic meaning of the
term "service"'. We are facing here a significant collision of ideological traditions. The Isaianic
72
73
223
The fleeting reference to leaving 'many children', too, points to the importance
of the perpetuation of the family line so that ancestral glory might continue to
be bequeathed to and inspire each new generation of nobiles to greater accomplishments.
6.2.5 Roman Boasting Culture: the Duilius Inscription and Plautus

While the famous inscription of the consul Gaius Duilius does not use gloria terminology, it is, in my view, one of the best examples of boasting that the Roman
quest for ancestral glory spawned. Duilius was the consul of 260 BC who singlehandedly brought the First Punic War to an end by his invention of the corvus
or 'crow', a clever grappling device (specifically, a rotatable spiked boardingbridge) that immobilised the Carthaginian ships and allowed the Roman troops
to board the enemy vessel and conduct the battle on deck. Above the inscription
in honour of Duilius rose a large column from which jutted representations of
the different prow types belonging to the Carthaginian ships sunk by Duilius
(Pliny [the Elder], HN 34.5; Silius Italicus, Pun. 6.663; Quintilian 1.7.12). On
top of the column, not unexpectedly, stood Duilius' statue.75 The inscription, as
I have observed, exemplifies the republican tradition of boasting in deeds done
on behalf of the state:
... and the Segestaeans ... he (Duilius) delivered from blockade; and all the Carthaginian
hosts and their most mighty chief after nine days fled in broad daylight from their camp;
and he took their town Macela by storm. And in the same command he as a consul performed an exploit in ships at sea, the first (primos) Roman to do so; the first (primos) he
was to equip and train crews and fleets of fighting ships; and with these ships he defeated
in battle all the most mighty troops of the Carthaginians in the presence of Hannibal
their commander-in-chie And by main force he captured ships with their crews, to wit:
one septireme, 30 quinqueremes and triremes; 13 he sank. Gold taken: 3,600 (and more)
pieces. Silver taken, together with that derived from booty: 100,000 ... pieces. Total sum
taken, reduced to Roman money ... 2,100,000 ... He also was the first (primos) to bestow
on people a gift of booty from a sea-battle, [and the first (primosque)] to lead native freeborn Carthaginians in triumph ... 76
The fourfold repetition ofprimos underscores cumulatively the contribution that

Duilius made to ending the war and securing the safety of Rome. By contrast,
'servant' songs (Isa 42:1; 49:3, 5, 6, 7; 50:10; 52:13; 53:11) found their culmination in the 'servant
theology' ofJesus and Paul (e.g. Matt 23:11-12; Mark 10:43-45; Luke 22:27-28; John 13:12-16;
2 Cor 4:5; Phil2:7; Acts 13:47 [Isa 49:6]), with the consequence that our modern understanding
of 'service' is heavily indebted to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The closest approximation of
the Judaeo-Christian understanding of service in the Graeco-Roman world is the ideal of the
'enslaved leader'. For discussion, see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 256-268.
75 For a nineteenth-century reconstruction of Duilius' triumphal column, see P. Matyszak,
Chronicle of the Roman Republic: The Rulers of Ancient Rome from Romulus to Augustus (London: Thames and Hudson, 2003), 83.
76 Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, 'Honorary Inscriptions', 1.
224
each single use of primos shows the novelty of Duilius' accomplishment in each
case. The achievements are tabulated by means of mnemonic diagrams. By recounting tallies of various kinds (e.g. totals of ships captured and sunk; booty in
gold and silver, reduced to Roman currency) and by listing different categories
of victory (e.g. battles waged on land and sea; ships sunk; booty captured; triumphs celebrated), the composer of the inscription was able to underscore the
breath-taking scope of Duilius' achievement. 77 The 'glory' that the house of the
Duilii inherited as a result of their famous consular forebear is left in no doubt.
Not unexpectedly, Duilius was one of the republican principes celebrated in the
Augustan forum.7 8
Finally, the famous Roman comic playwright, Plautus, was alert to the ubiquity
of the rhetorical conventions of Roman boasting, of which the Duilius inscription is a prime example. 79 With delightful conceit, Plautus presents his soldier,
Pyrgopolynices, and his accomplice, boasting in a manner similar to Roman
inscriptions such as those ofDuilius and the Scipios (The Braggart Warrior40ff).
Plautus captures perfectly in mock-heroic form the same mnemonic diagrams
that characterised the eulogistic inscriptions:
Pyrgopolynices: So you remember, eh?
Indeed I do, sir. One hundred and fifty in Cilicia . . . a hundred in
Artotrogus:
Jugotheevia ... thirty Sardians ... sixty Macedonians- that's the list of
the men you slew in a single day, sir.
Pyrgopolynices: The sum total being what?
Seven thousand, sir.
Artotrogus:
Pyrgopolynices: Yes, it should come to that. Your computation is correct ...
And how about that time in Cappadocia, sir, when you would have slain
Artotrogus:
five hundred men all at one stroke, if your sword had not been dull?
Pyrgopolynices: Ah well, they were but beggarly infantry fellows, so I let them live.
Artotrogus:
Why should I tell you sir, what the whole world knows - that you are the
one and only Pyrgopolynices on earth, peerless in valour, in aspect, and
77 See E. A. Judge, 'Roman Literary Memorials', in id., First Christians, 69-71. The same type
of mnemonic diagram is found in the triumphal citation of Pompey, cited in Pliny [the Elder],
HN7.97-98.
78 A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae Vol. 13: Fasti et Elogia (Rome: La Libreria dello Stato,
1937), 13: '[ ... ] ships[ ... ] did he capture. First was he over [the Carthaginians a] naval [triumph to lead]. To him it was permitted after dining out to return home with [fluteplayer and]
torchbearer, and a statue with [a column] near the court of Vulcan was placed'. Schooled in the
same eulogistic tradition as Duilius, Augustus leaves it in no doubt that he was the 'first and
only' to achieve various feats as well (RG 16.1; 22.3). But it is the extent and variety of Augustus'
achievements and accolades, relentlessly driven home with carefully tabulated figures and lists
throughout the Res Gestae, that ensures that the Roman boasting tradition finds its glorious culmination in Augustus. Note the comment of M. Reinhold ('Augustus' Conception of Himself',
Thought 55/216 [1980]: 40): '... Augustus took pains throughout the Res Gestae to parade the
many unparalleled 'firsts' and 'mosts' in his career, including honours, victories, offices, in his
private expenditures for public purposes, in census statistics, in his building program, shows
and spectacles provided for Rome, and in expansion of Roman territory'.
79 For discussion of glory in Plautus, see Earl, 'Political Terminology', 235-243.
6.3 The Concentration of Gloria in the House of the Caesars
225
in doughty deeds? All the women love you, sir, and you can't blame them,
when you're so handsome. Those girls, for instance, that caught me from
behind by the cloak, only yesterday. 80
In sum, this spoofs the type of self-advertisement that characterised the Roman nobiles in their quest for glory, military and civic. It helps us to see what
so provoked Augustus in the celebrated case of Cornelius Gallus and, more
importantly for our purposes, what provoked Paul regarding human boasting in
his letters (e.g. Rom 3:27; 5:3, 4, 11; cf. 1 Cor 1:28-29a; Phil3:5-ll). In 2 Corinthians 11:16-12:10 the apostle ruthlessly parodied his ancestral inheritance and
personal achievements in the grand boasting style of the Scipionic elogia and
the professional rhetors, with a view to demolishing the invidious comparisons
that the Corinthians had began to draw between himself and the boastful 'superapostles' intruding at Corinth. 81 Paul set the foundation for the ultimate triumph
of humility as a virtue in Western civilisation. It is therefore all the more surprising that New Testament exegetes have not sought to understand Paul's 'boasting'
and 'glory' terminology in Romans against the backdrop of late republican and
early imperial discussions of gloria.

6. 3.1 The Application of Gloria Terminology to the Caesars
and the Decline of the Traditional Cursus Honorum
We have seen how the republican houses of the nobles sought to acquire additional fame by equalling or surpassing ancestral glory through magistracies and
military victories( 6.2.3). However, with the triumph of the Julian house over its
political rivals, the heated competition for ancestral glory among the traditional
noble houses at Rome waned because Augustus, as the world benefactor and supreme general, rapidly became the embodiment of glory and virtue in the Roman
state. 82 Literary texts and inscriptions chart this trend in the first century AD.
80 Plautus, Mil. Glor. 41-47,52-58. In a letter ofPublius Vatinius to Cicero (Pam. 5.10b [December 5, 45 BC] ), Vatinius outlines his (largely successful) Dalmatian campaign in a mnemonic
diagram similar to the honorific inscriptions: 'six towns I stormed by force and captured ... This
single town, the largest of them all, I have now taken four times; for I took four towers and four
walls, and their whole citadel as well, whence I was forcibly dislodged by snow, cold, and rain'.
81 On Paul's rebuttal of boasting, see J. R. Harrison, 'In Quest of the Third Heaven: Paul and
His Apocalyptic Imitators', VC 58/1 (2004): 24-55, esp. 46-55; id., 'The Imitation of the Great
Man in Antiquity: Paul's Inversion of a Cultural Icon', inS. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Classical Culture: Sodal and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (Leiden,
Brill, forthcoming).
82 Seneca (Clem. 1.9.1-1.11.1) endorses the Augustan propaganda (Res Gestae 3.1) that the
princeps spared the lives of the nobiles from the great republican houses. According to Seneca,
this ensured their survival in the early principate, demonstrating thereby that the ruler's glory
226
Regarding the ascendancy of Julian house, Valerius Maximus (Facta et Dicta

Memorabilia 3.2.19) refers to Augustus' apotheosised father, Caesar, in the language of glory: 'let us set forth the bright glory of the stars (siderum clarum
decus), as formerly of arms and the gown, the divine Julius, surest image of true
valour'. As noted ( 5.4), Ovid asserts that eternal glory resides permanently in
the house of Caesar (Tristia 3.35-46; Ex Ponto 2.8.20-26: 5.5 supra). 83 Elsewhere, Ovid addresses Augustus as 'you glory (decus), you image of a fatherland
(imago patriae)' (Tristia 3.35-46). Similarly, Valerius Maximus (Facta et Dicta
Memorabilia 2.8.7) speaks crisply of the civic crown awarded to Augustus in
January 27 BC (Res Gestae 34.2) in these terms: 'With it the doorposts of the
August dwelling triumph in eternal glory (sempiterna gloria triumphant)'.
This phenomenon was not confined to the imperial poets of the Latin West.
We have already seen how the guild of the hymnodists at Pergamum was able
to assert its own glory by virtue of its association with the cult of the Caesars (I.
Eph VII 2 3801 ).84 1he slaves of the familia Caesaris also sought deflected glory as
they boasted on their tombstones, in a manner similar to the senators, regarding
their acquisition of posts in the imperial cursus honorum. 85
More significantly, in a decree ofMytilene honouring the benefactions of Augustus, the city acknowledges that the honours returned to the ruler are vastly
inferior when one remembers the enormity of the glorious honours that the ruler
possesses as a 'godlike' being. Consequently, Augustus
should ponder on his own self-esteem because it never is possible to match those honours
which are insignificant both in accidence and in essence to those who have attained heavenly glory (Toic; oupav[ov TETE[ v
M~TJc;) and possess the eminence and power of gods.
But if anything more glorious than those provisions is found hereafter the enthusiasm and
piety of the city will not fail in anything that can further deify him. 86
Jxom
Augustus, in a personal letter to Tiberius (Suetonius, Aug. 71.3) about his gambling on the festival of Minerva (the Quinquatria, March 20-25), reveals how he
was primarily seen in his clemency (Clem. 1.17.3: 'no glory [gloria] redounds to a ruler from
cruel punishment').
83 Earl (The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome, 73) says: 'It was not so much that Augustus ... had all the pride of family typical of a Roman aristocrat. It was that when one princeps
displaced the principes, he inevitably concentrated on himself all the privileges and prerogatives
which they had shared and for which they had struggled. All real power and position, auctoritas,
dignitas and gloria, had passed into the possession of one man'.
84 Supra, n. 14. Cicero (Lig. 10), speaking ofJulius Caesar, refers to 'the glory (laus) of your
clemency'.
85 J. E. Lendon, Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (rpt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 102. Lendon (ibid., 97) cites Dio Chrysostom's comment
(Or. 34.51) regarding 'fellow slaves wrangling with one another over glory and precedence (nepi
c56~T]c; KQL 1tpWTELWV)'.
86 OGIS 456 II. 35-49. For discussion of the decree, see S. R. F. Price, 'Rituals and Power', in
R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg:
Trinity International, 1977), 54.
227
lost a large amount of money. In language similar to the decree ofMytilene above,
Augustus speaks humorously regarding his generosity at the gaming-board in
the language of glory:
For my part, I lost twenty thousand sesterces, but because I was extravagantly generous in
my play (sed cum effuse in lusu liberalis fuissem ), as usual. If I had demanded of everyone
the stakes which I let go, or had kept all that I gave away, I should have won fully fifty thousand. But I like that better, for my generosity (benignitas mea) will exalt me to immortal
glory (me ad caelestum gloriam efferet).
The language of glory is extended to the successors of Augustus and their immediate family circle. In an ode commemorating the deeds of Augustus' stepson
Tiberius, Horace highlights how Fortuna had given Augustus unprecedented
military glory since his victory at Actium:
... the troops, the plan, the favouring gods provided all by thee. For on the self-same day
that suppliant Alexandria opened her harbours and her empty place to thee, propitious
Fortune, three lustrums later, brought a happy issue to the war and bestowed fame and
hoped-for glory upon deeds wrought in fulfilment of thy commands (laudemque et op-
tatum peractis imperiis decus adrogavit)P
In an intriguing text, Valerius Maximus (Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 4.3.3; cf.

Horace, Carm. 4.4.1-76) asserts that the glory of the Claudian branch of the
imperial house - embodied in Drusus Germanicus, Livia's son by a previous
marriage - equalled the prestige of the Julian rulers:
It is well known that Drusus Germanicus, the particular glory of the Claudian family (eximiam Claudiae familiae gloriam), his country's rare ornament, and, best of all, one who
by the grandeur of his achievements, in the perspective of his years, marvellously matched
the Augusti, his stepfather and his brother ...
In a highly flattering gambit to the young Nero, Seneca (Clem. 1.1.) plays down
the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, positing that Nero was the only model worthy of imitation in his principate. In saying this, Seneca deliberately ignores Augustus' iconic legacy of imitation to posterity (Res Gestae 8.5). Although Seneca
does not employ the language of glory in this instance, the imitation of ancestral
glory is totally bypassed by the philosopher because exemplary virtue had found
its incarnation in Nero as the new world benefactor:
Thanks are rendered to you; no human being has ever been so dear to another as you are
to the people of Rome - its great and lasting blessing. But it is a mighty burden that you
have taken upon yourself; no one today speaks of the deified Augustus or the early years
of Tiberius Caesar, or seeks for any model he would have you copy than yourself (quod
te imitari velit, exemplar extra te quaerit); the standard for your principate is the foretaste
87 Horace, Carm. 4.33-40. Ovid speaks of the deceased Drusus being the 'glory' (gloria) of
Livia, his aged mother (Consolatio ad Liviam 122) and affirms that the 'hard-won glory of his
exploits' (operosaque gloria rerum) would continue into posterity (ibid., 365).
228
you have given. This would indeed have been difficult if that goodness of yours were not
innate but only assumed for a moment.
Finally, at the end of the first century, the Latin poet Martial employs the 'glory'
terminology of Domitian: 'Caesar, the world's sure salvation, glory of the earth
(terrarum gloria), whose safety is our assurance that the great gods exist' (Martial,
Spect. 2.91). The cultic glory that was concentrated in the Julio-Claudian house
through the worship of the ruler in the Greek East was also transferred across
to the rulers of the Flavian house (i.e. Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian). Martial
speaks of the temple ('ornament': decus) that Domitian erected in honour of the
Flavian dynasty in the language of glory: '(thus long) shall the lofty ornament
(alternatively, 'exalted glory' [altum decus]) of the Flavian race endure, together
with sun and stars and Roman daylight. Whatever an unconquered hand has
founded, belongs to heaven' (Martial, Ep. 9.1.8-10). 88
Notwithstanding this concentration of gloria in the ruler, Augustus personally
wanted to keep the competition for ancestral glory alive so that the rewards of
victory over his contemporaries, in his own case, would be won in an open and
satisfying public contest (e.g. RG 20.1). His hope was that the leadership of Rome
would continue to be revitalised and replenished for the future. Despite the good
intentions of Augustus, the magnitude of his victory at Actium and his status as
'super-patron' of the world meant that this became increasingly difficult. Four
pieces of evidence secure the point.
First, the crisis precipitated by Cornelius Gallus highlights the increasing sensitivity of the Augustus and the Senate to independent careerists. The grievance
was that careerists like Gallus aspired to the style of leadership characteristic of
the nobiles of the past, without sufficient reference to the new military and patronal dominance of the house of Caesar in the present. In 30 BC Augustus had
appointed Gallus as the first praefectus of the new Roman province of Egypt. At
the command of Augustus, Gallus built the Forum Julium at Alexandria and duly
dedicated it to his patron and friend, Augustus, and his son, Tiberius. 89 Moreover, as a professional poet, Gallus also wrote an epigram in honour of Augustus'
forthcoming victorious return to Rome in 29 BC.90 So far his career reflected the
gratitude of a grateful cliens and amicus to his patron.
88 It is very likely that in Ep. 9.1.8-10 Martial is specifically referring to Domitian's 'temple'
in honour of the Flavians, not just Flavian 'glory' generally, as subsequent texts demonstrate. In
Ep. 9.3.12, Martial, addressing Domitian, speaks of the 'Flavian temple (Flavia templa) added
to the Latin sky'; in Ep. 9.34.2 and 9.34.8, Martial presents Jupiter who, after seeing 'the Flavian
temple of the Augustan heaven', effusively says 'how much a greater thing it is to be Caesar's
father'.
89 D.C. Braund, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC-AD 68 (London/
Sydney: Croom and Helm, 1985), 424.
90 Ibid., 426. See, however, R. D. Anderson, P. J, Parsons and R. G. M. Nisbet ('Elegiacs by
Gallus from QASR !BRIM', IRS 69 [1979]: 125-155) who argue that Gallus' epigram refers to
Julius Caesar, not Augustus, and is datable to c. 45-44 BC. In my opinion, the honorific senti-
6.3 The Concentration of Gloria in the .House of the Caesars
229
However, upon crushing local rebellions and receiving Ethiopia into Roman
protection, Gallus erected a boastful tri-lingual inscription on 15th April29 BC
at Philae celebrating the feats of his unprecedented expedition in the grand style
of the Scipionic elogia and the inscription of Duilius:
Gaius Cornelius Gallus, son ofGnaeus, Roman eques, first (primus) prefect of Alexandria
and Egypt after the defeat of the kings by Caesar, son of a god, put down the uprising of
the Thebaid in 15 days, in which he defeated the army, having won two pitched battles and
taken five cities by storm - Boresis, Coptus, Ceramice, Diospolis Magna and Ophieion; the
leaders of these uprisings were captured and our army was led beyond the (first) cataract
of the Nile, whither neither the arms of the Roman people nor those of the kings of Egypt
had previously advanced; the Thebaid, a source of fear for all kings alike, was subdued
and envoys of the king of the Ethiopians were given audience at Philae and that king was
received into protection, and a ruler of the Ethiopian Triakontaschoenus was established;
he made this dedication to the ancestral gods and to the Nile, his helper. 91
This inscription was accompanied by further inscriptions being inscribed on the

pyramids, in addition to his statues being erected throughout Egypt. Augustus reacted immediately, recalling Gallus from his post and renouncing his friendship,
with the result that Gallus committed suicide in 26 BC (Suetonius, Aug. 66.1-2;
id. 16; Dio 53.24.1).
What was wrong with the tenor of the inscription? Gallus did not mention
that he was sponsored by Augustus, which the inscriptions of Augustus' senatorial, equestrian and military proteges were very careful to do. 92 We have seen
ments of the epigram are consonant with the honorific sentiments of the 30 BC inscription and
thus point to the epigram being written a few months later.
91 Braund, Augustus to Nero, 425. For a discussion of this inscription within the framework
of Roman boasting conventions, see E. A. Judge, 'Veni. Vidi. Vici, and the Inscription of Cornelius Gallus', in id., The First Christians, 72-75. The new work ofF. Hoffmann ([etal., ed.], The
Trilingual Stela of C. Cornelius Gallus from Philae. Translation, Commentary and Analysis in Its
Historical Context [Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2009]) was unavailable to me.
92 E.g. Braund, Augustus to Nero, 360 ('proconsul for the second time, outside the lot, by
authority of Augustus Caesar'); 446 ('in the military service of the divine Augustus'); 465
('awarded gifts by the divine Augustus in his triumph - a turreted crown and a banner and a
headless spear'); 467 ('friend of Caesar, friend of Augustus, friend of the Romans'); 479
('camp-prefect of Imperator Caesar Augustus and Tiberius Caesar Augustus'); 721 ('a son
who held the highest municipal posts through the favours of Augustus Caesar'). In the case
where a singular accomplishment is claimed( 370: 'first of all the Paelignians to become a
senator and to hold these offices'), the patronage of Augustus is clearly acknowledged ('legate
of divine Augustus for two years'). For discussion of how the ruler controlled the wealthy and
the aristocrats through the offer of honours and priesthoods, see Lendon, Empire of Honour,
131-139, 166-168. Concomitantly, eulogistic speeches in praise of the republican houses and
their ancestral heroes, delivered publicly at the funerals of Roman nobiles, were curtailed in the
early imperial period. As V. M. Hope (Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome
[London and New York: Continuum, 2009], 78) observes, 'In Imperial Rome family praise of the
dead may have been better placed in private contexts. In public any praise had to be tempered
by the knowledge that the emperor was not to be surpassed'. Also seeM. B. Roller (Constructing Autocracy: Aristocrats and Emperors in Julio-Claudian Rome [Princeton/ Oxford: Princeton
230
that the outstanding accomplishments of Roman nobles were signalled in the

inscriptions by the adjective primus ('first'). Gallus' deliberate use of the word
for his prefecture, though technically true, can only mean one thing: he locates
his claim within the rhetoric of the boasting of the Roman no biles, as the Duilius
inscription demonstrates. The fleeting mention of Augustus' defeat of Antony
and Cleopatra in 31 BC ('after the defeat of the kings by Caesar, son of a god') is
overwhelmed by the carefully tabulated list of Gallus' victories. The list adheres
to the literary eulogistic convention of multiples of fives {i.e. five cities taken in
fifteen days, in the case of Gallus). 93 The rapidity with which Gallus' victories
were accomplished is then topped by another singular accomplishment that distinguished Gallus from the rest of the commanders, a refrain also characterising
the Duilius inscription: neither the Romans {including the victorious Augustus)
nor the Egyptian kings had ever advanced militarily beyond the first cataract of
the Nile. 94 Indeed all kings, with the sole exception of prefect Gallus, feared the
Thebaid. Finally, Gallus ends the inscription on a very Augustan note with the
foreign kings either being subdued or seeking his protection (RG 27-33). All
this stands in vast contrast to the previously restrained self-estimate of Gallus' 30
BC inscription ('prefect of engineers of Caesar, son of a god'), mentioned above,
with its clear indication that the building of the Forum Julium was 'by order of
Imperator Caesar'. Augustus recognised a serious challenge to his honour early
in his rule and did not let the issue slide.95
Second, Tacitus tells us that Augustus did not debar a Taurus, a Philippus, or a
Balbus from applying the spoils of war or the overflow of their wealth 'to the greater splendour of the capital and the glory of posterity (posterum gloriam )' (Tacitus,
Ann. 3.72; cf. id., Hist. 3.34; Velleius Paterculus 2:89; Suetonius, Aug. 89). Tiberius,
like Augustus, also allowed Marcus Lepidus, a man of moderate wealth, to restore
and embellish at his own expense the Basilica ofPaullus, a famous building of his
Aemilian family. The revealing phrase that Tacitus lets slip, however, in describing the early principate is 'public munificence was a custom still' (Ann. 3.72). The
implication is plain: public munificence would be progressively wrested from the
University Press, 2001], 99-101) for a balanced discussion of the reduced aristocratic military
activity under the Julio-Claudians.
93 Judge, 'Veni. Vidi. Vici', 72.
94 RG 26.1-27.3 can be seen as Augustus' elaborate reply to self-serving careerists like Gallus
who wanted to boast about the extent of their military conquest.
95 This same lack of tolerance of potential rivals is seen in the coinage of Augustus and his
successors. Note the comment of A. Wallace-Hadrill ('Image and Authority in the Coinage of
Augustus', ]RS 76 [1986]: 85): 'What emerges as the central feature of autocracy is the urge to
monopolize all the symbols of authority. The spread of the head of Augustus to the obverse is
the most dramatic sign of this; but no less significant is the spread of supplementary "images" of
imperial power, celebrations of imperial success, power and glory that became characteristic of
the reverse. It is this tendency, an intolerance of rival images of power, even of the gods, unless
their power can be identified with that of the emperor, which dictates the pattern of the coinage
of Augustus' successors'.
231
nobiles, thereby cutting off one traditional route of establishing ancestral glory. No
one now had the reserves to compete against the Julio-Claudian benefactors of the
world (e.g. RG 15-24, Appendix 1-4). Moreover, Augustus severely restricted the
ways in which public largesse was distributed as well as the festivals and gladiatorial shows funded by private beneficence (Dio 54.2; cf. 55.5). There was one benefactor in the capital and increasingly, although he might have wished otherwise,
he would share his glory with no one else. 96
Third, in Tacitus' monograph honouring his father-in-law, Cn. Iulius Agricola
(AD 49-93), the governor of Britain, the historian reveals a personal family
perspective on how the pursuit of military glory, a traditional pathway to ancestral glory for the nobilis, had ended under the principate by the turn of the first
century. As Tacitus reports (Agr. 5.3), 'There entered (Agricola's) heart a desire
for that military glory (miltaris gloriae) which was unwelcome to an age which
regarded eminence of every kind unfavourably and in which good report (magna
fama) was as perilous as bad'. With Domitian firmly in view (Agr. 41-42), Tacitus
concludes (Agr 42.2) that gloria now consisted in a prudent submission to the
ruler while one was of use to the state:
Let those whose way it is to admire only what is forbidden learn from him that great men
can live even under bad rulers; and that submission and moderation, if animation and
energy go with them, reach the same pinnacle of fame (laudis ), to which more often men
have climbed by perilous courses but, with no profit to the state, have earned their glory
(inclaruerunt) by an ostentatious death. 97
Fourth, the savage eighth Satire of Juvenal (AD 50/65-post 120) makes fun of
the traditional values of the Roman no biles as they recalled their ancestral glory
through the continuous parade of genealogies, ancestral busts, honorific names,
and so on. 98 Rome was free, Juvenal asserts, only when the Republic was led by
principes of exceptional merit such as Marius and Cicero (Sat. 243-253). However, Rome had by Juvenal's time experienced the bloodied sword of Augustus
96 See the excellent discussion of P. Veyne, Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (London: Penguin, 1990; Fr. orig. 1976), 386-390. Note the astute comment ofR.
Syme (The Augustan Aristocracy [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986], 9) regarding the role of Caesar
in relation to the decline of the nobiles: 1\t Rome the aristocracy demanded deference, and it
was not denied, but their clientelae were lapsing to the patronus of the plebs, the dispenser of
games and largesse'. However, see Earl (Moral and Political Tradition, 85) on the nobiles being
'natural enemies' of Augustus.

97 As Earl (ibid., 90-91) notes of the period leading up to Cn. Iulius Agricola: 'Gloria was to
be no longer the pursuit of individual pre-eminence ruinous to individual and state alike. It was
to be tempered by obedience, obsequium, above all a military virtue. Public men must act as
soldiers, winning by their deeds in the service of the state such glory as was consistent with their
position, but obedient always to their commander, the emperor ... Gloria with moderation and
prudence, obedience and subordination: the Republican noble would have termed it slavery'.
98 For an excellent translation and discussion of the text, see J. Henderson, Figuring Out Roman Nobility: fuvenal's Eighth Satire (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1997).
232
(240-243}, the humiliation of nobles performing on the stage and in the arena
(185-210), and the horrid singing of the 'megastar' Nero (211-230}. Here we
have a radical dismantling of the Roman ideal of ancestral glory. Under the
Principate, the Roman nobiles had been unable to replenish themselves with new
leadership equal to that of the Republican past. 99 The Julio-Claudian rulers too
were a pale shadow of the great republican principes. Above all, Juvenal's satire is
a systematic debunking of the lists of republican nobiles, culminating in Augustus
and his family line, which were mentioned in the imperial propaganda of Horace
(Carm. 1.12ll. 33-60} and Virgil (Aen. 6.808-886).
How does Paul speak to a generation of Romans disenchanted with ancestral
glory? In the next section( 6.4.1- 6.4.3}, we will examine the Jewish traditions
of eschatological and ancestral glory that Paul would have theologically inherited
as a Jew. How would Roman auditors, familiar with the Jewish traditions of glory,
have responded to Paul's presentation of eschatological glory in Romans? Then,
in 6.5, we will conclude by exploring the intersection of Paul's understanding
of M~a with the Roman ideal of glory.
6.4 Paul and the Jewish Ideal of Glory

6.4.1 Paul's Theological Inheritance: The Jewish Context of Glory
and Its Impact on Paul's Thought in Romans
6.4.1.1 Glory in the LXX
An analysis of the Hebrew terminology of glory (kiibod) in the Masoretic Text
(MT) will not be undertaken in this section. Paul used the Septuagint (LXX) in
teaching his Gentile churches, so we will confine our analysis to the Greek text
as opposed to the Hebrew. 100 The Hebrew word kiibOd ('glory') derived from
99 Earl (Moral and Political Tradition, 86) observes regarding the demise of the Roman aristocracy: 'But when Juvenal mocked the value of pedigrees, his examples, the descendants of the
Republican nobility, were dead and of no account'. On the rapid decline of the aristocracy under
the Julio-Claudian and Flavian rulers, see ibid., 85-86.
10 For discussion of the Hebrew terminology, see B. Stein, Der Begriff Kebod Jahweh und
seine Bedeutung for die alttestamentliche Gotteserkenntnis (Munster /Westfalia: Heinrich & J.
Lechte, 1939); P. van lmschoot, Theologie de l'ancien testament. Tome 1: Dieu (Tournai [Belg.]:
Desclee & Co, 1954), 212-220; E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1958; Fr. orig. 1955), 79-82; G. von Rad, 'kabOd in the OT', in G. Kittel (ed.), TDNT
II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964): 238-242; Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology, 17-133. On
the LXX terminology, see L. H. Brockington, 'The Septuagintal Background to the New Testament Use of flOE/\, in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H.
Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 1-8; G. Kittel, '116~a in the LXX and Hellenistic
Apocrypha', in id. (ed.), TDNT II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964): 242-245; Newman, Paul's
Glory-Christology, 134-153; W. Brueggemann, Ichabod Toward Home: The Journey of God's
Glory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Where the referencing for the LXX differs from the MT,
this is indicated in brackets in our discussion.
233
kiibed ('to be heavy') and came to be associated with the idea that those possessing glory were laden with riches (Gen 31:1), power (Isa 8:7) and position (Gen
45:13). Consequently, the LXX translators rendered kiibOd as M~a because the
Greek word carried the notion of'honour', 'fame' and 'reputation'. C. C. Newman
has argued convincingly that M~a belonged to a semantic field of signifiers that,
advantageously for the LXX translators, made reference to visionary revelations,
sensory perception, light terminology, and divine epiphanies. Contemporary
auditors, therefore, could not easily confuse the M~a of Yahweh with the distinctive technical language used of epiphanies of the gods in antiquity (tmcpcieta,
cpaVTacr[a), even though M~a belonged to the same semantic field of revelation
and epiphany. Thus the LXX translators used M~a to translate kiibod, preserving
thereby for Greek readers the wide-ranging aspect of the 'glory' tradition in the
Hebrew Bible. The LXX translators were so effective in this process that by the
first century AD the old Greek meaning of M~a ('opinion') is not to be found in
the New Testament. 101 In sum, cS6~a captures well overall the 'glory' traditions
behind the Hebrew text: 102 namely, the Israelites' experience of divine theophany,
particularly at Sinai; the tabernacle and the Temple; the rule of God as king over
the Israel and the world; and, last, the eschatological prophetic hope.
From the period of the wilderness wanderings to the establishment of the Davidic monarchy, Israel experienced God's glory in mighty acts of saving power. 103
Early in their history, the Israelites witnessed a theophany of divine glory in the
form of a cloud before God provided the quail and manna for sustenance (M~a:
Exod 16:7, 10). Similarly, the divine glory was revealed in the fire on Mount
Sinai prior to Moses receiving the Decalogue (M~a: Exod 24:16-17; cf. Deut
5:4). Later, Moses radiated God's splendour after he had received the Decalogue
Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology, 134-153, esp. 149-151.
Brockington ('The Septuagintal Background', 3) argues that there exists a difference in
shade of meaning between kiib6d in the MT and c56~a in the LXX: 'In the Hebrew the emphasis
falls on the fact and apprehension of God's presence but in the Greek the translators moved
away from the idea of the knowledge of the presence of God to that of the saving power of his
presence'. In my opinion, Brockington's distinction is not only overly subtle but is also a false antithesis: each element exists in the MT and LXX. The LXX rendered faithfully the MT emphasis
on the presence of divine glory (e.g. Exod 33:12-23) and its link with knowledge (e.g. Hab 2:14).
103 Note the comment ofW.H. Schmidt (The Faith of the Old Testament: A History [Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1983], 155): 'Glory is therefore not something which Yahweh has in himself or
is, but which is active in the world'. While the second part of the statement is certainly correct,
one wonders of Schmidt has been too hasty in dismissing glory as something intrinsic to God.
OnglorybeingpartofGod's essential being in the LXX, see Exod 15:11; 1 Chr29:11. Fora more
balanced assessment, see Imschoot (Theologie de l'ancien testament, 213): 'La gloire de Yahweh
est done originairement quelque chose d'intrinseque aDieu, mais manifeste exterieurement. Elle
est, en realite, ce qui fait Dieu est Dieu, c'est-3.-dire, suivant !'idee des Hebreux, sa saintete et
sa puissance, mais manifestees' (my emphasis). Similarly, S. Terrien (The Elusive Presence: The
Heart ofBiblical Theology [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983], 146), speaking of the theophany
in Exod 33:18-22, states: glory 'remains, as the inner characteristic of the Godhead, beyond the
reach of even a man like Moses'.
101
102
234
(cSeM~aoTat: Exod 34:29-30, 35; cf. 2 Cor 3:7-18). He also saw God's glory, albeit
indirectly, when God passed him by in the cleft of a rock (M~a: Exod 33:19, 22;
Num 14:22). 104
With the establishment of the Tabernacle for Israelite worship of and intercession to God, the cloud covered the Tent of the Meeting and God's glory filled the
Tabernacle (M~a: Exod 40:34, 35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14: 10; 16:19, 42; 20:6)_15 The
~rk' narrative recounts the departure of the glory of God from Israel with the
capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines ( 1 Sam 4:21-22 ). However,
God's kiibOd 'weighed heavily' in judgement upon the Philistines until they returned the ark to the Israelites (1 Sam 5:1-7:1). 106 When Solomon was divinely
commissioned to build a house for the Lord (2 Sam 7:11-13), the presence of
God's glory came to reside in the Temple (M~a: 1 Kgs 8:10 [LXX 3 Kgs 8:10];
2 Chr 5:14; 7:1, 2, 3; Ps 29[LXX 28]:9; 63[LXX 62]:2; 85[LXX 84]:9; cSo~ao8~oE
Tat: Isa 60:7; miVTa vcSo~a ~flWV: 64:11), though theophanies of the divine
glory still occurred during the exile (M~a: Ezek 3:23). 107 There is little interest
in the angelic world in the Old Testament Temple traditions apart from the fact
that the seraphim surrounding the throne of God praise the divine glory (M~a:
Isa 6:3). 108
Eschatological 'glory' traditions, centred upon the idea of a restored Temple
in Jerusalem, surface in the prophetic writings after the destruction of the First
Temple. Although God's glory had departed from the Temple because oflsrael's
sin (M~a: Ezek 9:3; 10:4,18; cf. Isa 17:3-4), God's glory would return (M~a: Ezek
43:5; 44:4) and reside in the eschatological Temple after the Exile (Ezek 40-48). 109
Jerusalem would be graced with the new name of 'God is there' (Ezek 48:35).
Other texts, too, speak of the eschatological return of God's glory to a restored
For discussion, see Stein, Der BegriffKebod jahweh, 12-48.

Ibid., 48-56.
106 See especially the discussion of Brueggemann, Ichabod Toward Home, 25-52.
107 For discussion, see G. R. Berry; 'The Glory of Yahweh and the Temple', JBL 56 (1937):
115-117; Stein, Der BegriffKebod /ahweh, 62-64.
108 C. Rowland (The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity
[London: SPCK, 1982], 94-97), however, discusses the difference between the two visions of
Ezek 1:26-27 and 8:2 and posits from Ezek 8:2 the emergence of a mediatory function for the
mal'ak YHWH (~ngel of the Lord'), a motif that was subsequently expanded in the literature
of Second Temple Judaism. Regarding the 'glory' praised by the angels in Isaiah 6:3, Stein (Der
BegriffKebod Jahweh, 179) observes -because of the parallelism of verses 3a and 3b - that the
inner glory of God must refer in the context to the uncovering of the divine holiness.
109 In an excellent article, J. T. Strong ('God's Kabod: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of
Ezekiel', in M.S. Odell and J. T. Strong [eds.], The Book ofEzekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000], 69-95) explores what is meant
by the departure and return of glory in Ezekiel. He argues that kabod is a hypostasis of the
enthroned divine king, Yahweh. When Yahweh's glory departed from the Temple in Ezekiel,
'Yahweh remained enthroned until his hypostasis once again purified the earth, preparing Mt.
Zion once again to be the place of the divine throne' (ibid., 95). More generally, see H. G. May,
'The Departure of the Glory of Yahweh', JBL 56 (1937): 309-321.
104
105
235
Temple (M~a: Ps 102 [LXX 101]:16; Isa 60:13; 66:18-21; Hag 2:4, 8; Zech 2:5),
with the post-exilic sanctuary being named 'the place of my feet' (Isa 60:13).
In the royal theology of the Psalms, God is described as the 'King of Glory'
(M~a: Ps 24 [LXX 23]:7, 8, 9, 10). While the earthly king oflsrael was not considered divine like the other monarchs of the ancient Near East, God establishes
a special relationship with him through his divine glory. God glorifies his own
king and protects him with his glory (M~a: Ps 3:3; 21 [LXX 20] :5-6) and, reciprocally, David worships God's glory in the sanctuary (M~a: Ps 63 [LXX 62]:2).
Thus God's glory is uniquely displayed in Israel (M~ao6v f.LE: 1 Sam 15:30 [LXX
1 Kgs 15:30]; So~aoO~oETUL: Isa44:23) and God promises to be her eschatological
glory (So~aom: Isa 60:13).
Moreover, as the King of the universe, God extends his glory over the nations
(M~a: 1 Chr 16:24; Ps 96 [LXX 95]:3; 97 [LXX 96]:6; Isa 60:2-3; 66:18-19; Ezek
39:21) and throughout the entire earth (M~a: Pss 57 [LXX 56]:5, 11; 72 [LXX
71]:19; 108 [LXX 107]:5; 113 [LXX 112]:4; Isa6:3; vSo~ov EOTaL: Isa24:15). God
gains glory for himself (Toi<; vM~to<;: Isa 26:15; M~a: 43:7; vSo~aoO~oof.LUL:
Ezek28:22) and gives his glory to no other (M~a: Isa42:8; 48:11). Consequently,
shock is registered when Israel exchanges the divine glory for idolatry at times in
her history (M~a: Pss 4:2; 106 [LXX 105]:20; Jer 2:11; Hos 4:7; 9:11; 10:5). Many
ofthe Psalms, especially the hymns of creation (Pss 8, 19, 24, 104), extol God's
glory as lasting forever (M~a: Ps 104 [LXX 103]:31) because he is the King of
Glory (M~a: Ps 24 [LXX 23]:7-10). His glory is located in the heavens (M~a:
Pss 19 [LXX 18]:1; 113 [LXX 112]:4), radiates throughout the earth (M~a: Ps
57 [LXX 56]:11b; Ezek 43:2), is revealed in his handiwork (M~a: Ps 104 [LXX
103]:31) and in divine theophany (M~a: Ps 29 [LXX 28]:3; cf. Gen 1:1), and culminates in humanity as the apex of creation (M~a: Ps 8:5).uo It is not surprising,
therefore, that the glory of God's name is a constant refrain in the LXX (M~a:
1 Chr 16:29; Pss 29 [LXX 28]:2; 66 [LXX 65]:2).
Finally, the Old Testament writers also articulate an eschatological hope of
glory that does not have the cultic focus of the 'restored Temple' traditions (M~a:
Num 14:21; Isa 40:5; 58:8; To OVOf.LU TO vSo~ov: 59:19; M~a: 60:1; 62:2; Hab
2:14). Psalm 73 [LXX 72]:24, however, may refer to the 'glory to come' (f.LETa
<')6~'1<; npooEM~ou f.LE) awaiting the saints, although this is hotly debated among
Old Testament scholars.llL
In 6.4.1.2 we will observe that in the Old Testament pseudepigrapha the
reference of S6~a broadens as its focus moves from an exclusive focus on God
to a description of the personnel and activities of the heavenly realms per se. In
no For discussion of glory in nature, see Stein, Der BegriffKebod ]ahweh, 148-167.
Stein, Der Begriff Kebod ]ahweh, 218-219 argues for an eschatological understanding.
According to Stein, Psalm 73 [LXX 72]:24 does not speak of the universal apocalyptic scenario
of resurrection of the just at the end-time (as found in Isa 26:19), 'sondern von dem Fortleben
der einzelnen Frommem im Jenseits' (ibid., 220)
Ill
236
the LXX apocryphal writings, to which we now turn, the same trend emerges,
though without the same versatility or scope as the pseudepigrapha. The LXX
language of glory is applied conventionally in ways entirely consonant with the
MT: the glory of God's temple; 112 the extension of his glory to the Israelites and
their descendents; 113 the dishonouring of God's glory through idolatry; 114 the
glory of his wisdom; 115 his universal glory; 116 the glory of his name; 117 the glory
of Moses at Sinai,ll8 and so on.
Also the Old Testament emphasis on the eschatological glory remains undiminished in the apocryphal writings. In the book of Baruch 5:1-9, the author
(late II. cent. - early I cent. BC) celebrates the eschatological return of the exiles
from Babylon in a passage that is intriguing for two reasons. First, the passage,
especially in vv. 5-9, 'follows closely, and at some points recontextualises verbatim, Psalms of Solomon 11', as well as supplementing and expanding the text in
Bar 5:7 with images drawn from Isa 40:4. 119 Second, and more importantly, is the
explosion of the language of glory that occurs throughout the passage. In place
of her current garment of affliction and sorrow, Jerusalem has 'put on forever the
beauty of the glory from God' (T~<; napa TOU eeou M~'l<;: Bar 5: 1) and places on
her head 'the diadem of the glory of the Everlasting' (T~v JlLTpav T~<; M~'l<; Toii
aiwv[ou: 5:2). The wonder of the return of Israelites from exile is set forth as a
transfer of God's glory to the Israelites (5:4, 6b) and as a vindication of his own
glory (5:7b, 9a):
For God will give you evermore the name,
"Righteous Peace, Godly Glory" (M~a 8waE~la<;).
Arise, 0 Jerusalem, stand upon the height;
look toward the east,
and see your children gathered
from west and east at the word of the Holy One,
rejoicing that God has remembered them.
For they went out from you on foot,
led way by their enemies;
but God will bring them back to you,
112 Jdt 9:8; Pr Azar 1:31; 1 Mace 1:40; 2:8; 2 Mace 5:16, 20; 3 Mace 2:14. For glory and the
temple in Sirach, see our discussion in 6.4.2.2. Note the perceptive comment of Newman,
Paul's Glory-Christology, 114: 'Dedicated to and prepared for God's glory, the temple, when
properly cleansed, is the place where God chooses to reveal his Glory. Through Glory, God has
so closely identified with the temple that the destruction of the latter called into question the
authority of the former'.
113 1 Esdr 5:61; 9:8; Tob 13:14, 16; Bar 5:9; 3 Mace 2:16.
114 Wis 15:9.
115 1 Esdr 4:59; Wis 7:25; 10:14; 4 Mace 1:12.
116 Pr Azar 1:22; 1 Mace 15:9.
117 Pr Azar 1:3; 3 Mace 2:9.
118 2 Mace 2:8.
119 D. A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Content, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 209.
6.4 Paul and the jewish Ideal of Glory
237
carried in glory (flETCt M~TJ<;), as on a royal throne.

For God has ordered that every high mountain
and the everlasting hills be made low,
and the valleys filled up,
to make level ground,
so that Israel may walk safely in the glory of God (-rfi -rou 9eou M~n).
The woods and every fragrant tree
have shaded Israel at God's command.
For God will lead Israel with joy,
in the light of his glory (li> cpw-ri Tfj<; M~TJ<; amou),
with the mercy and righteousness that come from him. 120
While the 'glory' texts above fall within the parameters of the Old Testament
concentration of glory in God exclusively, two LXX apocryphal texts fall outside
the theocentric boundaries of glory. First, an independent interest in the glorious
role of angels emerges in the book of Tobit (c. 250-175 BC) in contrast to their
sparse presence in the Old Testament. 121 In particular, there is emphasis on the
role of Raphael, one of seven intermediary archangels, in transmitting the prayer
petitions of the righteous before the glory of God (Tob 17:11 [vM~wc:;], 15 [Tijc:;
M~T)c:; Toii ciy[ou]; cf. T. Levi 3:5-7). Second, there is mention of the 'throne of
glory' as the site from which wisdom is sent to the earth (cino 8p6vou M~T)c:; aou:
Wis 9:10). But, as will be argued( 6.4.1.2), the Old Testament interest in the
throne of God is primarily as the seat of judgement (pace, Jer 14:21, discussed
below).
6.4.1.2 Glory in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Rabbinic Literature
F. Ruarell has proposed that in late Judaism the understanding of M~a differs
from the Old Testament 'in that it no longer limits itself to the self-revelation
of God, but to the whole celestial reality: throne, angels, (and the) righteous
who share the angelic splendour'. 122 The Old Testament Greek pseudepigraphic
literature confirms the truth of Ruarell's observation regarding the shift that
had occurred in the semantic range of cS6~a. In terms of the angelic world, for
12 For another eschatological 'glory' text, though 'realised' by virtue of the saints having
inherited glory, see 4 Mace 18:24. In Tob. 14:5, we read of the eschatological rebuilding of the
Temple with a glorious (tvM~'!') building.
121 DeSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 79.
122 F. Raurell, 'The Religious Meaning of"Doxa" in the BookofWisdom', in M. Gilbert (ed.),
La sagesse de l'ancien testament: nouvelle edition mise jour (Leuven: Leuven University Press/
Uitgeverij Peeters, 1990}, 380-381 n. 32. For an excellent discussion of the eschatological 'glory'
traditions in Apoc. Mos. and 2 Bar. and their relation to Romans, see P. Sprinkle, "The Afterlife in
Romans: Understanding Paul's Glory Motif in Light of the Apocalypse of Moses and 2 Baruch',
in M. Labahn and M. Lang (Hrsg.), Lebendige Hoffnung- ewiger Tod?! jenseitsvorstellungen im
Hellenismus, ]udentum und Christentum (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008}, 201-233.
I am indebted for this reference to B.C. Blackwell (Durham University).
238
instance, we are told that the angels were destined to glorify God (<')o~ci~OflaL urco
TWV ayyfA.wv flOU: Gk. Apoc. Ezra 3.8). The angel of the Holy Spirit is described
as glorious (Mart. Ascen. !sa. 9:33-36), as is the archangel Michael (Syriac version 3 Bar. 13:4). 123 But, while the angelic world had acquired deflected glory in
Second Temple Judaism, the six-winged seraphim are still presented as falling
terrified before the face of God's glory (Lad. ]ac. 2:15). God's majesty remains
unchallenged. A sample of angelic liturgy reinforces the point: ~eluia, to whom
be glory (Elc; M~av 8emj) and power forever and ever' (L.A. E. 43:4).
Regarding God's throne, the author of Ladder of Jacob (c. I cent. AD?) mentions the 'fiery throne of your glory' (2:7; cf. Dan 7:9), while Levi ascends through
the heavens to the throne of glory (trcl 8p6vou M~T)c;: T. Levi 5:1; cf. 2:6-5:3).
4 Ezra 8:21 (late I cent. AD) speaks succinctly of God's throne and glory in this
manner: 'whose throne is beyond measure and whose glory is beyond comprehension'. There is also the vivid reference to the 'great throne of the Divinity,
opposite the garden, facing the glory of God, where the sublime light is' ( Ques.
Ezra A 21).
To be sure, in the Old Testament the divine throne was seen in prophetic and
apocalyptic visions (Isa 6:1-3; Ezek 1:4-28; Dan 7:9-10). The divine throne,
composed oflapis lazuli (Ezek 1:26) or flames (Dan 7:9), has cherubim accompanying it (Ezek 1:22; Isa 6:2) and it is variously located (Ps 11:4; Isa 66:1; Jer
3:17; 14:21; Ezek 43:7). But God's throne in the Old Testament is the primarily
seat of his judgment (Ps 9:4) and any reference made to 'glory' in the theophanies is exclusively applied to God (Isa 6:3; Ezek 1:28). 124 The sole reference to the
throne of glory in the Old Testament (LXX Jer 14:21) underscores the issue of
God's covenantal honour as the King oflsrael: 'For the sake of your name do nor
despise us; do not dishonour your glorious throne (8p6vov M~T)c;). Remember
your covenant with us and do not break it'.
Finally, the titular address of God is 'The Great Glory' (Mart. Ascen. Is a. 9:37;
T. Levi 3:4; 3 En. 1:6, 10, 12 etc.), or, alternatively, 'the Glorious One', whose
glory cannot be beheld (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 10:2). The display of God's glory is his
intention across the ages: 'You who fill heaven and earth, the seas and abysses
and all the ages with you glory' (Lad. ]ac. 2:20). Glory is the resting place of the
righteous, the hope of which the pious are continually reminded (Syriac version:
3 Bar. 6:12; 7:2; 11:2; 16:4; Greek version: 6:12; 7:2; 11:2). In this respect, one
writer considered the glory of God to be the climax of the soul's ascent through
the 'seven ways' or 'orders' (4 Ezra 7:87, 98). Thus, as the pseudepigraphic literature of Second Temple Judaism increasingly focused on heavenly ascents, angelic
123 Newman (Paul's Glory-Christology, 88-89) demonstrates from 1 Enoch (45:1-3; 55:3-4;
61:8; 62:1-6; 69:29) that the 'Elect One' /'Son of Man', a chosen angel of extraordinary eminence,
occupied the heavenly chair, along with God, in carrying out the eschatological judgement.
124 See L.E. Toombs, 'Throne', in G.A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible.
Volume 4: R-Z (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 636-637.
239
intermediaries and the throne room, it is not surprising that the focus of M~a
widened well beyond its Old Testament theocentric confines.
Turning to the literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a motif that surfaces frequently is the 'glory of Adam'. God has chosen the 'sons of light' to participate in
an everlasting covenant and the glory of Adam will be their eschatological gift. 125
Whereas in the Community Rule the pious must hold fast to the covenant in order
to receive Adam's glory, 126 in other scrolls their eternal inheritance is secured by
God's gracious forgiveness of sin. 127 The glory of Eden is affirmed, 128 as is the
original likeness of Adam in God's glory. 129 Given the strength and ubiquity of
this tradition in Second Temple Judaism, 130 it is surprising that Paul bypasses any
mention of Adam's original glory in Romans, concentrating instead on the reign
of sin and death inaugurated through his disobedience (Rom 5:12-21).
The writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the early Christians believed that they
belonged to a new eschatological Temple with an alternate priesthood to the
hereditary priesthood of Jerusalem( 6.4.3), even though the social and theological vision of each group differed radically. 131 While various texts in the Dead
Sea Scrolls corpus speak of the presence of God's glory in a new eschatological
Temple, 132 the most important text in this regard is 11 Q'P XXIX ll. 7-10:
I shall accept them and they shall be my people and I shall be for them forever. I will dwell
with them for ever and ever and will sanctify my s[an]ctuary by my glory. I will cause my
glory to rest on it until the day of creation on which I shall create my sanctuary, establishing it for myself for all time according to the covenant which I made with Jacob in Bethel.
The link of the temple imagery with creation theology shows that the building
of the new eschatological temple ('for all time') is 'a subsequent stage in a process of ongoing creation' (cf. Jub. 1:27-28). 133 The mention of the covenant with
Jacob (Genesis 32:22-32; 35:1-15) affirms God's faithfulness to his promises in
125 1QS IV II. 22-23. On the 'glory of Adam' motif, consult the excellent discussion of C. H. T.
Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden:
Brill, 2002).
126 CD III I. 30.
127 1QH IV 1.15.
128 1QH XVI 1.20; 4Q504 (4QDibHam Col. VII Frag. 81. 7).
129 4Q504 (4QDibHam VII Frag. 81.4).
130 See also 3 Bar. 4:16 (Greek): ~dam through this tree was condemned and was stripped
from the glory of God (fJc; c56~1]c; 8EOii) ... thus men ... have become distant from the glory of
God (TfJc; Toii 8eoii c56~!]c;) .. .'.For further references to the glory of Adam in the literature of
Second Temple Judaism, see Raurell, 'The Religious Meaning of"Doxa"', 377; ]. R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988),
passim. See also our discussion of Sir. 49:16 (infra, 6.4.2.2).
131 On 'temple' theology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see the excellent discussion of A. L.A. Hogeterp, Paul and God's Temple (Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2006), 75-114.
132 E.g. 4Q400 (4QShirShabb Frag. 1 col. 111. 4, 7-9); 4Q521 (4QFlor [MidrEschat"]l. 5).
133 Hogeterp, Paul and God's Temple, 96-97.
240
the past and lays the foundation for confidence regarding his eternal residence
with his people in the future.
There is also reference to the dwelling of glory in the 'heavens' or 'heaven'. 134
However, because of the perfection of divine holiness, human beings cannot
endure the full revelation of God's glory in their mortal state. 135 This dilemma
is resolved by the extension of divine mercy to those who glorify God. 136 The
Dead Sea Scrolls also articulate the importance of a right response to the divine
glory: 'Serve you master freely and do not sell your glory for a price'. 137 Hence
correct motivation is crucial for God's people in his service, as the emphasis on
the glorification of God demonstrates. 138 This is reinforced by the verbs that accompany the language of 'glory': 'walk [in] the lot of [God] according to [his]
glory', 139 'recount all Thy glory', 140 'rejoice in the era of Thy glory', 141 and so on.
Not unexpectedly, God is praised as the 'King of Glory' because ofhis universal rule. 142 1he hope of the arrival of God's eschatological Kingdom is mentioned
in the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521 [4QMessAp l. 7]): '... he will glorify the
pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom'. 143 In another messianic text, the
134 1QS (IQS X. l. 3); 1QM (1QWarScroll XII l. 2). Note 1QM (1QWarScroll X 1.12): 'the
treasure of glory [and the canopy of the] clouds'. 1QH IX 1.10: 'Thou has spread the heavens
for Thy glory'.
135 1QS (IQS X. l. 20); IQH XVIII 1.11. Note, too, 4Q377 ll. 9-10: 'trembling seized them
because of the glory of God and the marvellous voices ... and they stood at a distance'; 1QH
XX l. 30: 'not even [the wonderful] Heroes [can] proclaim Thy glory or stand in the face of Thy
wrath'. The theme is also present in the Old Testament pseudepigrapha: e.g. 4Ezra 7:87.
136 4Q448 (Col. A ll. 6-8)
137 4Q416 (4Qsap.WorkAb Frag. 2 col. II 1.18)
138 E.g.: 4QSd Frag. 2 col. IV l. 8: 'allmymusicisforthe glory of God'. 1QHXIXl.10: 'for your
glory, you have purified man from sin'. 4Q504 (4QDibHam Col. III l. 4): 'Thou hast created us
for Thy glory'. 1QH XV l. 24: 'I shall shine in a seven-fold light [in the Council appointed by]
Thee for Thy glory'.
l39 4Q511 Frag. 2 col. 11.9-10.
140 1QH XXIII Frag. 2 l. 4.
141 1QHXX 1.22.
142 For 'King of Glory', see 1QM XII l. 8; 4Q403 (4QShirShabbdCol. 11. 3): 'My glory is with
the sons of the King'. For additional glory terminology applied to God, see 'Summit of Glory'
(1QS X 1.12); 'Well of Glory' (1QH XX l. 29).
143 Additional 'glory' texts dealing with the eschaton are easily cited. For example, 1QS (IQSa
IV ll. 7-8): those who walk in the spirit will have 'eternal life in joy without end, a crown of glory
and a garment of majesty in unending light'. A pesher on Nahum 3:6-7a (4Q169 [4QpNah
ll. 4-5]) provides an eschatological commentary on the text: 'When the glory ofJudah shall rise,
the simple of Ephraim shall join Israel; they shall abandon those who lead them astray and shall
join Israel'. Newman (Paul's Glory-Christology, 127) sums up insightfully the meaning of the
interpretation in its historical and literary context: 'In canonical Nahum, Israel is judged in front
of the nations; in the Qumran commentary, however, the judgement falls upon the Pharisees,
the "Seekers-After-Smooth-Things" and upon those who follow the Pharisees, the "simple of
Ephraim': When the "glory of Judah" appears, he shall purge and restore'. IQM IV 6 says that
before the Qumran covenanters go into the eschatological battle, they are to write on their banners "'God's glorification", "God's greatness~ "God's praise~ "God's glory"'. I am indebted to
Professor B. R. Gaventa for this reference.
241
Isaianic pilgrimage of the nations is invoked (Isa 60:1-14; 66:19-21) and the
Messiah is understood to be the revealer of the divine glory (4Q504[ 4 QDibHama
Col. IV] ll.1-12):
... Thy dwelling-place ... a resting-place in Jerus[alem, the city which] Thou has [chosen]
from all the earth that Thy [Name] might remain there for ever. For Thou has loved Israel
above all the peoples. Thou has chosen the tribe of Judah and hast established Thy covenant
with David that he might be as a princely shepherd over Thy people and sit before Thee
on the Throne of Israel for ever. All the nations have seen Thy glory, Thou has sanctified
Thyself in the midst of Thy people Israel. They brought their offering to Thy great name,
silver and gold and precious stones together with all the treasure of their lands, that they
might glorify Thy people, and Zion Thy holy city, and the House of Thy majesty. 144
On that day, God's truth shall be revealed in eternal glory and everlasting
peace. 145 All the nations, with their peoples, will know God's truth and glory. 146
Currently, however, the glory of the archangel Michael dwells with the congregation of holiness: '[F]or I am reckoned with the "gods" and my glory is with the
Sons of the King' (4Q491 [4QMa Frag. 11 col. 11.18]). 147 An apocryphal psalm
(llQPsa XXII ll.4-6) articulates eloquently the joyous anticipation of God's
eschatological salvation that uplifts the pious in the meantime:
They who desire the day of your salvation
shall rejoice in the greatness of your glory.
They shall be suckled on the fullness of your glory,
and in your beautiful streets they shall make tinkling sounds.
You shall remember the pious deeds of your prophets,
and shall glorify yourself in the deeds of your pious ones.
Because of this fervent expectation of end-time glory, the writers of the Dead
Sea Scrolls are able not only to persevere in the face of opposition but also to
be humble in the times of God's withdrawal and rebuke (lQH XVII ll. 23-25):
Thou wilt conceal the truth until [its] time,
[and righteousness] until its appointed moment.
Thy rebuke shall become my joy and gladness,
and my scourges shall turn to [eternal] healing
and everlasting [peace].
144 See also the messianic texts of 4Q161 (4Qpis Frag. 8-10 col. III 11.17-21) and 4Q174
(4Florilegium Frags. 1-3 col. I II. 1-10), discussed respectively in Newman (ibid., 120, 122-126).
However, the 'glory' reference in the latter text is a restoration: '[Its glory shall endure] for ever'
(4Q174 [4Florilegium Frags. 1-3 col. I I. 5]).
145 IQH XIX II. 26-27.
146 IQH XIV I. 12
147 The angelic world celebrates and reflects God's glory: 'Celebrate all celebrating gods, the
King of Majesty, for all the gods of knowledge celebrate his glory' (4Q403 [4QshirShabb Frag. 4
= 4Q403 I, 44-47]11. 6-7): '... the lot of God with the ange[ls] of the luminaries of his glory'
(4Q511 Frag. 2 col. 11. 8). The glorying of God by the angels in the angelic liturgy is a central
theme of the Songs for the Holocaust of the Sabbath (4Q400-407).
242
The scorn of my enemies shall become a crown of glory,

and my stumbling shall (change) to everlasting might.
Given that the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the early Christians ( 1 Cor
10: 11 b: d~ ou~ L'Ct TEAll L'WV alwvwv KaL'JlVL'IlKEV) believed themselves to be God's
end-time community, it is not surprising that eschatological 'glory' appears as
prominently Paul's epistle to the Romans as it does in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The
curiosity is that it has been so little explored by New Testament scholars.
Finally, three texts from the rabbinic corpus throw, among many others, light
on themes relevant to Paul's exposition of glory in Romans. First, in a discussion of suffering from the text Deuteronomy 8:5, R. Jose b. Judah is reported to
have said: 'Beloved are sufferings before God, for the glory of God rests upon
suffers'. 148 Second, after citing Proverbs 25:6, a rabbinic commentator reveals the
vast gulf that existed between the Hebrew understanding of glory and Roman
boasting in ancestral glory:
If a man exalts the glory of God, and diminishes his own glory, God's glory will be exalted
and his own too, but if he diminishes God's glory, and exalts his own, then God's glory
remains what it was, but the man's glory is diminished. 149
Third, kiibod was used of the 'honour' or 'glory' of the house of Caesar (b.Jeb.,
65b). 150 We are witnessing in this Jewish source the realisation that, politically,
all honour ('glory') was now invested in the house of the Caesars - a realisation
that was also apparent in the Roman sources( 6.3.1).
6.4.2 Case Studies of Glory in Jewish Thought

In this section we will undertake four case studies on glory (Philo; Josephus;
Sirach; Psalms of Solomon: 6.4.2.1- 6.4.2.3) that provide a Jewish perspective
on the Roman quest for ancestral glory and its monopolisation by the JulioClaudian house in the first century AD. What diplomatic conventions did Jewish
client-kings adopt in interacting with the all-glorious Roman ruler, especially
in times of crisis? What did Jewish writers think about the quest for ancestral
glory in an honorific culture? To what extent did Jewish writers evince a 'realised
eschatology' in their understanding of glory? How did Jewish writers use 'glory'
traditions to critique the Roman hegemony over the Mediterranean basin and
its far-flung territories? We will conclude our investigation with a discussion of
148 Sifre Deut., Wa'enthanan, 32, f. 73b (cited C. G. Montefiore and H. I. Loewe, A Rabbinic
Anthology [New York: Shocken, 1974], 1530). For further 'glory' references in the rabbinic
literature, see J. Bonsirven, Textes rabbiniques des deux premieres siecles Chretiens pour servir al'
intelligence du Nouveaux Testament (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1955), Index AnalytiqueLexique, s. v. 'Gloire de Dieu', 'Glorifier'.
149 Num.R., Bemidbar, 4.20, init. (cited Montefiore and Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology, 1358).
15Cited in G. Kittel, '66(a', in id. (ed.), TDNT II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964): 245.
6.4 Paul and the jewish Ideal of Glory
243
Paul's understanding of glory from the perspective of the Jewish minority living
under the demands of the imperial ruler( 6.4.2.4).
6.4.2.1 The Perspective of Philo and Josephus on Glory

In his philosophical and allegorical writings on the Old Testament, Philo (20 BCAD 50) adopts the dismissive attitude of the Greek ethical tradition towards the
quest for glory in antiquity (cf. 6.2.1 supra). The following quote, representative
of many in Philo's corpus, 151 will suffice to illustrate the largely negative connotation to M~a in Philo's thought. In Decal. 153, Philo observes in a moralistic
manner regarding glory:
For, both among the Greeks and barbarians, the wars between one another, and between
their own different tribes, which have been so celebrated by tragedians, have all flowed
from one source, namely, the desire of money, or glory (~ M~T]c;), or pleasure: for it is on
such subjects as these that the race of mankind goes mad. 152
This perspective on glory extends to the covenantal basis of Israel's faith. Abraham, the patriarch of Israel, was not influenced by a 'thirst for glory' (oi 8
M~'lc; Kai TII!Jic; tcpt11evot) in offering up his son Isaac to God (Abr. 184; cf. 190).
It is also significant that Philo rarely refers to the divine glory in his writings
(Opif. 171; Spec. 1.45, 311). Presumably the reason is that the negative perspective of the Greek popular philosophers towards glory had theologically shaped
Philo's thought.
However, Philo does occasionally speak of glory in a positive manner because the Old Testament wisdom tradition could be brought into dialogue with
the concerns of Greek philosophy: but in so doing, Philo invariably contrasts,
implicitly or explicitly, 'true glory' with a debased version of glory. Thus Philo
mentions that 'true and honourable glory' (Tile; 'l'eu8ouc; eMo~iac;) is procured
by wisdom (Pug. 17; cf. Her. 48). Further, the man who has attained from God,
as son of Abraham, his inheritance of wisdom was, in Philo's view,
... a man not of fair reputation, but of exceeding glory (fvlio~oc;) and receiving praise, not
of that bastard sort which proceeds from flattery, but that which is founded on truth. 153
In sum, notwithstanding the occasional positive reference to 86~a in his writings, Philo was generally critical of the quest for honour that undergirded the
151 For texts revealing Philo's negative estimation of M~a. see Opif. 79; Leg. 1.75; 2.107;
Cher. 117; Det. 122, 136; Gig. 15, 36-37; Deus 150-151; Ebr. 57; Conf 48, 112; Migr. 172;
Her. 48, 92; Congr. 27; Fug. 15-16,25, 47; Somn. 1.248; 2.12, 93;Abr. 184,187, 263-264; los. 254;
Mos. 1.293; 2.53; Decal. 151, 153; Spec. 1.208; 3.1; 4.82; Virt. 161-162; Praem. 24.
152 Similarly, see Philo, Gig. 36: 'Now, let all these men learn not to cleave in their minds to
any one of these qualities ... that is to say on riches, on glory (<'iO~av ), and on bodily strength,
not only not as intrinsically good, but as the greatest of evils'. Again, id., Fug. 47: '... examine
accurately also the peculiar qualities of Laban; the things which are accounted brilliant instances
of the success of empty glory (TJ)c; KEviJc; <'16~1];); but do not be deceived by any one of them '.
153 Philo, Sobr. 57.
244
operations of the eastern Mediterranean reciprocity system (Cher. 122-123). 154

Undoubtedly, Philo would have disapproved of the heated competition for ancestral glory that animated late republican Rome. In Philo's view, the quest for 'vain
glory' led to the death of the soul (Mut. 96). By means of an allegorical exposition
of Benjamin's name (Gen 35:18), Philo (Mut. 93) pillories the seductive public
honours associated with 'vain glory':
For the name Benjamin being interpreted means 'the son of days': and the day is illuminated by the light of the sun which is perceptible by the outward sense: and to this we liken
vain glory (t~v KEV~v M~av). For that has a certain brilliancy appreciable by the outward
senses in the praises which it receives from the multitude and from the common herd of
men, in formally enrolled decrees, in the erection of statues and images, in purple robes
and golden crowns, in chariots and teams of four horses, and processions of the multitude.
He therefore who is an admirer and desirer of such things is very appropriately called a
'son of days': that is to say, of that light which is perceptible by outward senses and of the
brilliancy which attends vain glory (tij<; nepl 'T~V KEV~v M~av ~af17tp6'TI]'TO<;).
Last, Philo was well aware that political glory in the first-century was concentrated in the person of the ruler and was dependent upon his patronage ( 6.3.1 ).
The benefits of imperial favour and the deflected glory of its clients had to be
acknowledged, even in cases where relations with the Roman ruler were severely
strained. King Agrippa I, a member of the Jewish delegation that visited Caligula
regarding his proposed desecration of the Temple (AD 40), reveals the type of
political rhetoric employed by his clients in petitioning the ruler. In Philo's rendering of Agrippa's letter to Caligula, Agrippa acknowledges that the 'brilliant
light' of his rule as a client-king was dependent upon imperial grace. Agrippa's
deferential approach to ruler would allow him to raise the diplomatic stakes at
the end of his letter:
You have made me (exap[crw flO!) the greatest and most glorious inheritance among mankind, the rank and power of a king, at first over one district, then over another and a more
important one, adding to my kingdom the district called Trachonitis and Galilee. Do not
then, 0 master!, after having loaded me with means of superfluity (a npo<; nep1oucrlav
flOl xap!O"aflEVo<;), deprive me of what is actually necessary. Do not, after you have raised
me up to that most brilliant light (Ei<; <pw<; civayaywv 'TT]~auyeO"Ta'tov ), cast me down again
from my eminence to the most profound darkness. Iss
Agrippa emphasises that he did not want to betray his people by failing to uphold
their ancestral customs; but, conversely, he did not want to violate his friendship
with Caligula by opposing his decision to establish his cult in the Temple (Legat.
328-329). In a high-risk strategy, Agrippa concludes that his immediate execution by the ruler would be the most desirable path should he not relent from his
provocative policy:
1s4 Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 130-131.
Iss Philo, Legat. 326.
245
For you, great men preserve the property of your companions and of those who take refuge
in your protection by your imperial splendour and magnificence (npo6oa[a~ t~o[oof.1al
M~av). And if you have any secret grief or vexation in your mind, do not throw me into
prison, like Tiberius, but deliver me from any anticipation of being thrown into prison at
any future time; command me at once to be put away. For what advantage would it be to
me to live, who place my whole hopes of safety (flla OW1"TJpla~ ant~) and happiness in your
friendship and favour? 156
The effusive benefaction language that surfaces in Agrippa's petition to Caligula

is not without precedent in the ruler's interactions with client-kings. A decree
from Cyzicus (c. 38 AD) not only registers the gratitude of two client-kings to
Caligula for their ancestral kingdoms but also celebrates the city's piety in honouring the 'New Aphrodite', namely, the 'goddess' Drusilla (Caligula's sister),
with games. The decree employs the language of grace, light, and immortality to
eulogise the ruler in rapturous tones as the 'New Sun'. 157 Thus the language of
'glory' was but one semantic expression of the diplomatic conventions carried out
between client-kings, city-state, and the ruler.
In contrast to Philo, Josephus (AD 37/38-c. 100) affirms the intrinsic value of
the quest for glory for the Israelites. 158 As was the case with other writers in the
Old Testament apocrypha and pseudepigrapha ( 6.4.1.1- 6.4.1.2), Josephus
moves away from an exclusively theocentric concentration on glory to a more
anthropocentric approach to glory. His emphasis falls most heavily upon the
quest for glory by God's servants in Israel from the patriarchal period to the
mid-first century AD, 159 although other non-Israelite quests for glory are also
mentioned. 160 We are not implying by this that Josephus abandons the theocentric focus of the Old Testament. Josephus, a descendant from the Hasmonean
high priestly line (Vita 1-6), refers to the revelation of the divine glory in the
Temple (Tai<; eSt cStavo(at<; Tai<; amivTWV cpavTaO"(av Kal M~av napeixev W<;
156 Ibid., 328-329.
157 SIG3 798. For a translation,
seeR. K. Sherk (ed.), The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 42B.
158 Note what the Maccabean High Priest Simon says regarding his continuing opposition to
the Seleucid overlords: '... since I have therefore, such plenty of examples before me, and we of
our family have determined with ourselves to die for our laws and our divine worship, there shall
be no terror so great as to banish this resolution from our souls, nor to introduce in its place a
love of life and a contempt of glory (M~TJ~ KaTa<pp6V!]OW)' (A/ 13.198).
159 For Josephan uses of 116~a for the Israelites and their rulers, see Abraham: A/ 1.165; Jacob:
1.275, 280; 2.78, 175; Moses: 2.205, 268; Joshua: 3.51; 5.115; Jephtha: 5.267; Samuel: 5.351;
Abinadab: 6.18; Saul: 6.80, 144, 368; Jonathan: 7.304; Jehoshaphat: 8.394; 9.16; Shallum: 10.59;
Esdras: 11.158; Joseph: 12.160, 191, 350; Onias: 13.63; Herod: 14.398; Phasaelus: 15.13, 316;
Manahem: 15.376; Agrippa: 18.129; Ananias: 20.205. For Josephan uses of 116~a for gentile rulers
and their armies, see Queen of Sheba: 8.166; Nebuchadnezzar: 10.204; the last king of Daniel's
vision: 10.272; Ptolemy Philadelphus: 12.49; Antoichus: 12.295; the army of Bacchides: 12.425.
For Josephan uses of 116~a for Israel as a nation, see 8.129; 12.118; 13.168; 16.158; 19:178.
160 E.g. Josephus refers to the 'glory of the Olympic games' (~ 116~a ;GJv 0AUj.11tlaatv ciy<ilvwv:
BJ 1.426).
246
Toii 7taTp6c:;: A/ 8.106; n;c:; m:pl Ta liyta M~T)c:;: B/ 6.267). God's personal glory
and his role in conferring glory on his servants - including the providentially
appointed Roman rulers 161 - are also briefly touched on (M~a: A/ 4.48; 7.95;
10.204; 18.297). But, while Josephus attributes glory to Moses several times
(M~a: A/ 2.205, 268; cf. 4.15, 158), he bypasses, as does Paul ( 6.4.3), God's
indirect revelation of his glorious form to Moses (Exod 33:12-23), as well as
Moses' radiation of the divine glory after descending from Sinai {34:29-35; pace,
Paul, 2 Cor 3:7-18). 162 Josephus' priestly ancestry, therefore, ensured that his
understanding of the revelation of the divine glory would be primarily Temple
and Torah-centred.
Given the well-known pro-Roman sympathies of Josephus, 163 it is not surprising that the historian refuses to promote a militant Davidic messianism. Instead
he underscores the humility of David's origins before his rise to royal glory (M~a:
A/ 6.200; cf. 6.343). Josephus also emphasises that God's promise to Solomon of
'riches, glory (and) victory over his enemies' (n;\oiimv M~av VLKT)V 7tOAflLWv)
had strict conditions pertaining to its fulfilment: Solomon had to obey God and
imitate his father's piety if the promise of a Davidic Kingdom was to be divinely
maintained (A/ 8.24). Moreover, the future prosperity of the Davidic line had a
definite end-point in time {'a very long time': A/ 8.24). Josephus' stance flies in the
face of the unconditional nature of God's promise of an 'eternal' Kingdom to the
Son of David (2 Sam 7:1lb-16; Ps 89:3-4,29, 35-37; Isa 9:7; 16:5; Jer 17:25; 33:17;
Dan 7:27). Reading the Old Testament messianic texts against the backdrop of
Israel's rebellion against Rome and the Temple's consequent destruction (AD
66-70), Josephus empties the Davidic covenant of any assured eschatological
fulfilment and replaces the covenantal language of eternity with the language of
conditionality. Josephus' Flavian benefactors would not have perceived any threat
to the 'eternal' rule of Rome( 7.3) in this truncated rendering of the Davidic
messianic hope.
Finally, Josephus interacts with Graeco-Roman honorific culture on two occasions, both positively and negatively. First, in the case of Herod I, Josephus
observes how the Jewish nation refused to honour Herod because of its commitment to righteousness - understood here in a moralistic rather than a covenantal
sense- as opposed to honorific glory. As Josephus observes (A/ 1.158-159),
But, as it happens, the Jewish nation is by law opposed to all such things and is accustomed
to admire righteousness rather than glory (1Ipoc; M~av). It was therefore not in his good
graces, because it found it impossible to flatter the king's ambition with statues or temples
or such tokens. And this seems to me to have been the reason for Herod's bad treatment
Vespasian: Josephus, BJ 4.372; cf. 4.366; Titus: 5:498.

See Belleville, Reflections of Glory, 36-39.
163 See especially P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works
and Their Importance (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), Index s. v. 'Josephus: Roman writer I propagandist'.
161
162
247
of his own people and his counsellors, and of his beneficence toward foreigners and those
who were unattached to him. 164
Second, in an important aside (A! 19.211), Josephus contrasts the insolence of

Caligula, revealed in his hubristic plan for the Temple precincts( 3.3), with the
traditional Roman pathway of imitating the glory of the best men:
At the first he got himself such friends as were in all respects the most worthy, and was
greatly beloved by them, while he imitated their zealous application to the learning and
the glorious actions of the best men (imb TE nat6E!a~; Kai M~I"JI; <~Xov TWV KpELTTovwv);
but when he became insolent towards them, they laid aside the kindness they had for him,
and began to hate him; from which hatred came that plot which they raised against him,
and wherein he perished.
Here we see dangerous results of concentrating all glory in the hands of the imperial ruler, as opposed to previous generations where the aristocracy of merit
resided in a small group of eminent men. Although Josephus was a grateful recipient of the benefits of imperial rule, he was well aware of its shortcomings and
used traditional 'glory' motifs to expose the fracture lines caused by Caligula's
frenzied reign to the Roman honour system.
6.4.2.2 Ben Sira on Ancestral Glory in Sirach 44:1-50:29.

Whereas Philo depreciated of the value of c56~a in Graeco-Roman honorific culture, the author of Sirach, the scribe Ben Sira, upheld the importance of ancestral
glory for the nation of Israel. In this regard Ben Sirah's approach is similar to
Josephus, though his emphasis is even more Temple-centred. 165 Sirach- composed originally in Hebrew (c. 190 or 180 BC) and later translated into Greek by
his grandson (c. 117 BC) - was probably written during the high priesthood of
Simon II (219-196 BC: Sir 50:1-21). 166 Although Ben Sira was familiar with the
wisdom of the Greeks, 167 he encouraged his readers to grow in Torah wisdom
if they were to resist the spread of Hellenisation in Palestine from the late third
century BC onwards. Ben Sira's concern about the danger that Hellenism posed
to Jewish identity (36:1-3) proved to be correct. In the early second century BC,
the widespread acceptance of Jason's Hellenistic reform in Jerusalem (175 BC)
attested to the significant inroads that Hellenism had made. It was only the cata164 For discussion, see J. Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors (Tlibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2009), 129-130.
165 On the dating of Sirach, see B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1957), 78; P. W. Sheken and A. A. di Lelia, The Wisdom of Ben Sirah
(New York: Doubleday, 1987), 8-16; D. J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 79; DeSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 157-158.
166 For a discussion of glory in the Hebrew text of Sirach, see J. K. Aitken, 'The Semantics of
Glory in Ben Sira- Traces of a Development in Post-Biblical Hebrew', in T. Muraoka and J. F.
Elwolde (eds.), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages (Leiden-Boston-Koln: Brill, 1999), 1-24.
167 See DeSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 165-169.
248
clysmic threat posed by Antiochus Epiphanes IV to the Jewish nation (175-169

BC) that roused those zealous for the Torah to oppose the Seleucids and their
supporters.
According to Ben Sira, the faithfulness of Israel's ancestors to the Torah ( 19:20;
24:1-29, esp. v. 23) had ensured the continuing vitality of covenant loyalty and
the wisdom traditions for his contemporaries. 168 Moreover, it provided the true
path of honour for coming generations (10:19, 22-24). The work concludes with
an encomium (a celebratory speech) on the Jewish heroes from Enoch to Simon
II (44:1-50:29). This is signalled in the Greek text (43:33b) by the section headed
'Hymn in Honour of Our Ancestors' (IIATEPON"YMN01:). In this regard, T. R.
Lee has argued that Sirach is unique among the works of Jewish literature in that
it celebrates in an extended hymn the glorious deeds of human heroes as opposed to the glorious deeds of God. 169 However, apart from sidelining Hebrews
11:1-12:3 from consideration, Lee overlooks a series of references, scattered
throughout the Jewish literature, to the glory of the ancestral heroes of Israel. 170
Finally, in light of our discussion of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls( 6.4.1.2), the
leitmotif of the glory of Israel's past in Sir 44-50 (44:1-2: noU~v M~av EK"ttot:v
6 Kupto<;) is a restoration of Adam's original glory of the primordial past (49:16:
6o~aoeTJoav). 171
What do we learn from Sirach that might throw light on Paul's approach to
glory in Romans? First, as we have seen ( 6.4.1.2), wisdom was inextricably
linked to glory in the Jewish mind. At the outset of his work, Ben Sira describes
the fear of the Lord- the beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7; 9:10; 15:33)- as 'glory
and exultation' (Sir. 1:11: M~a Kal KUUXTJ!la). The 'glory of wisdom' motif regularly reappears in the subsequent chapters. The fear of the Lord 'covers a person
better than any glory' (40:27: imtp mioav M~av). Wisdom exalts the glory of
168 Note the comment of DeSilva (ibid., 185): 'In 44:1, the "famous men'' (Greek) are really
the "men of hesed, of covenant loyalty" (Hebrew) .. .'.
169 T. R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986). See also the discussion
of DeSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 184-187. More generally, see A.A. di Leila, 'Wisdom
of Ben Sira', in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 6: Si-Z (New York:
Doubleday, 1992): 931-945; D. A. deSilva, 'The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Honour, Shame, and the
Maintenance of the Values of a Minority Culture', CBQ 58 (1996): 433-455.
170 1 Esd 1:33: 'the acts of Josiah and his splendour (TfJ<; M~J]<; aliToii)'. Wis 18:24 (speaking of
Aaron's priestly ministry to Israel): 'For on his long robe the whole world was depicted, and the
glories of the ancestors (naTtpwv 116~a1) were engraved on the four rows of stones'. 1 Mace 1:51:
'Remember the deeds of the ancestors, which they did in their generations; and you will receive
great honour and an everlasting name'. 2 Mace 3:3: Maccabeus 'extended the glory (M~av) of
his people'. 1 Mace 14:35: 'The people saw Simon's faithfulness and the glory (T~v M~av) he had
resolved to win for his nation'. 4 Mace 7:9 (speaking of Eleazar): 'You, father, strengthened our
loyalty to the law through your glorious endurance ( Ei<; M~av tKupwOl<;)'.
171 For discussion, see Levison, Portraits of Adam, 44-45, 152-153. The Hebrew text, as opposed to the Greek text, is clearer in its reference to the glory of Adam in Sir. 49:16: 'Shem, Seth
and Enosh were remembered, but above all humans is the glory of Adam'. See Aitken, 'The
Semantics of Glory', 4-5.
249
those who faithfully hold to her (1:19: M~av Kpa-rouv-rwv ath~<; civu'l'wcre).
It also ensures that they will inherit eschatological glory (4:13: KATJpOVOf!~O"L
M~TJV). Wisdom is a glorious robe to be worn by its possessor (6:29, 31: cr-roX~v
M~TJ<;), as is justice (27:8). Ultimately, the person who is truly happy dwells in
the midst of wisdom's glory (14:27: ev -rft M~n).
However, the real surprise for Ben Sira's audience is that wisdom has taken the
initiative in coming to dwell with humanity. In 24:1-12 we learn that wisdom
left her heavenly throne and sought a place of rest on the earth. She tabernacled
temporarily in Jacob but eventually found her final resting place in Jerusalem
and the Temple. As a result, wisdom grew tall like a cedar in Lebanon, producing
glorious branches and blossoms (24:16: ol KAcicSOL M~TJ<;; 24:17: Kapm'><; M~TJ<;).
What is the polemical intent behind this presentation? C. T. R. Hayward postulates that Ben Sira is here defending the sanctity of the Second Temple and its
glory against contemporary detractors, who, like the Samaritans, had set up an
alternative temple at Mount Gerizim, or who, like the Righteous Teacher and his
followers, had established an alternate temple community at Qumran. 172 In sum,
Ben Sira's approach to cS6~a here is consonant with some of Philo's positive perspectives( 6.4.2.2). But, as we shall see, in contrast to Philo, Ben Sira considers
that cS6~a is an appropriate motif when speaking about the honour of the heroes
of Israel. Moreover, in light of the movement of wisdom to dwell with humanity
in Sirach, we are better placed to see why Paul spoke of Christ as divine wisdom
and divine glory in his epistles (8eoii crocp[av: 1 Cor 1:24; crocp[a ~viv cino 8eoii:
1:30; ev 4J eimv nciv-re<; oi 811craupol T~<; crocp[a<;: Col 2:3; -rov Kuptov -r~<; M~TJ<;:
1 Cor 2:8; -r~v M~av Kup[ou: 2 Cor 3:18).
Second, the major contribution of Ben Sira to the Jewish understanding of
M~a is how he celebrates the revelation of glory in the live.s of famous Israelites.
The issue is important because it allows us to compare the Jewish approach to
ancestral glory with the Roman approach, outlined above ( 6.2- 6.3). In the
encomium concluding the work, Ben Sira eulogises a vast array of Old Testament
heroes (44:1-49:16), adding, as a contemporary appendix, a lengthy panegyric
on the High Priest, Simon II, the son ofJohanan (50:1-24: though, pace J.C.
Vanderkam, who identifies the priest as Simon 1). 173 Simeon had undertaken
extensive renovations to the Temple, fortifying its precincts, constructing a reservoir, and fortifying Jerusalem against siege (Josephus, A/ 12.3.3; Sir 50:1b-4).
172 C. T.R. Hayward, 'Sirach and Wisdom's Resting Place', in S.C. Barton (ed.), Where Shall
Wisdom Be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World (Edinburgh:
T &T Clark, 1999), 31-46, esp. 38-46.
173 J. C. Vanderkam (From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile [Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2004], 137-157) has recently argued that the High Priest being referred to is Simon
I, living some time after 300 BC, as opposed to Simon II, living not far from 200 BC. Since our
discussion focuses on the understanding of glory in Sirach, I will leave the ultimate identification
of Simon open to debate, even though I opt for Simon II in my discussion.
250
Which Israelites in Ben Sira's encomium are specifically associated with M~a
and why? We shall proceed by a series of points.
(a) Although Ben Sira commences his encomium with Enoch, the first Israelite he credits with glory is Moses. God made the patriarch 'equal in glory
to the holy ones' (M~n ay(wv: 45:2) and 'glorified him' in the presence of kings
(tcSo~aot:v au-r6v: 45:3). The elevation of Moses to angelic glory is explained by
his personal encounter with the divine glory (Ex 33:18-23; cf. Philo, Spec. 1.45).
Moreover, the traditions of Second Temple Judaism and the early Christians
spoke of the angelic mediation of the Torah through Moses (e.g. Deut 33:2 [LXX];
Josephus, A] 15.136; T. Dan. 6; Jub. 1:29-2:1; Acts 7:38; Gal3:19; Heb 2:2). By his
reference to Moses' glory, therefore, Ben Sira indirectly highlights the role of the
Torah in dispensing wisdom for the nation of Israel.
(b) Ben Sira alludes to the 'glory' traditions of the Tabernacle in the time of the
wilderness wanderings. He refers to the increase in the glory of the High Priest
Aaron (npoo9TJKEV Aapwv M~av: 45:20), whereas Phinehas, the leader of the
sanctuary (45:24), is rated 'third in glory' (-rp(-ro<; El<; M~av: 45:23). The 'zeal'
tradition associated with Phinehas (45:23; cf. 1 Mace 2:26, 54; 4 Mace 18:12) became a rallying cry for those opposing the desecration of the Temple cultus under
Antiochus Epiphanes IV, as the grandson of Ben Sira, the translator of Sirach into
Greek, undoubtedly knew. These early priestly figures who ministered before the
glory of the tabernacle prefigured the glorious priests of the Second Temple in
Ben Sira's day (Sir. 50:1-24).
(c) David is glorified with glorious crown for his conquests (cSuicSTJ!lU M~T)<;:
47:6), proclaims God's glory in grateful response (f>~lla"tt M~TJ<;: 47:8), and is
rewarded with 'a glorious throne on Israel' (9n6vov M~T)<;: 47:11). David's son,
Solomon, was blessed with peaceful borders so that he 'might build a house in
(God's) name and provide a sanctuary to stand forever' (47:13). But, apart from
David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, all the kings of Judah were sinners and 'gave their
glory to a foreign nation' (-r~v M~av: 49:5; cf. 47:19-21; 48:15-16), with theresult that Jerusalem was destroyed and its inhabitants exiled to Babylon (49:4-7).
Seemingly any hope of a return of the divine glory to the Jerusalem Temple had
been dashed.
(d) Ben Sira's reference to Ezekiel's 'vision of glory' (oamv M~T)<;: 49:8) is
strategically placed in Sirach before the striking vignette that describes the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple upon Israel's return from exile (49:11-13). 174
Undoubtedly, Ben Sira's allusion to the divine theophany at the outset of Ezekiel's
prophetic ministry (Ezek 1:1-28) would have provoked his audience to consider
the glorious culmination of Ezekiel's prophecy. In the final chapters of Ezekiel
(Ezek 40-48), the prophet describes the eschatological return of God's glory
174 4Q405 [4QShirshab Frags. 20-21-22 col. II II. 8-9] speaks of the glorious theophany in
Ezekiel!.
251
to the Temple of Jerusalem (LXX Ezek 43:1-3, esp. v. 2 [M~a Seou 'Iopa~A
upxeo KaTa T~v Mov T~v npo~ avamAO:~]). along with the restoration of the
Temple precincts, cult and personnel. In the view of Ben Sira, Ezekiel's vision
of the eschatological Temple finds its fulfilment in the rebuilding of the Temple
and the city of Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel, Jeshua and Nehemiah (Sir 49:11-13). The Second Temple, we are told, is destined 'for everlasting
glory' (Ei~ M~av aiwvo~: 49:12). Consequently, the High Priest of the Second
Temple, Simon, who presided over the rites ofYom Kippur in the age of Ben Sira
(50:12-21), is clothedinglory(m6ATJV M~TJ~= 50:11; cf. Exod28:5-ll), as are the
priestly 'sons of Aaron' serving in the Temple with him (tv c56~n: 50:13). Finally,
the Hebrew text ofSirach (50:24) concludes the section about Simon with a reference to the High Priest and his descendants being kept by God in the covenant
of Phinehas. It is difficult to understand the Hebrew text of 50:24 in any other
way than the eschatological fulfilment of the promise made to Phinehas and his
descendants in 45:24. 175
In sum, Ben Sira articulates a Torah-based and Temple-centred theology of glory,
with a strong focus on its eschatological fulfilment in his own age in the figure
of the High Priest. 176 It poses the question whether Paul was animated by similar
theological concerns in his presentation of c56~a in Romans, a question to which
we will return in 6.4.3.
6.4.2.3 Divine Glory and the Roman Conquest: The Perspective

of the Psalms of Solomon
The Psalms of Solomon (post 48 BC [Pss. Sol. 2:26-27]) articulate an antiHasmonean perspective on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Roman general
Pompey in 63 BC. 177 In three of the Psalms (2, 8, 17), the pseudonymous author
175 J. C. Vanderkam (From Joshua to Caiaphas, 157) translates Hebrew text of Sir. 50:24 thus:
'May his love abide upon Simeon, and may he keep him in the covenant of Phinehas; may one
never be cut off from him; and as for his offspring, (may it be) as the days of heaven'.
176 C. A. Evans ('Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity', JGRChJ 3 [2006],
20) observes: 'Ben Sira transfers the functions and prerogatives of the King to the High Priest
There is therefore no Davidic messianism in Ben Sira'. Metzger (Introduction, 87-88) argues that
Ben Sira exhibits a proto-Sadducean viewpoint.
177 For a discussion of the provenance of the Psalms of Solomon, rejecting their purported
Pharisaic and Essene origins, see R. B. Wright, 'Psalms of Solomon (First Century BC): A New
Translation and Introduction', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
Volume 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 640-646. Contra, see G. WE. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1981), 203, 212; WL. Lane,
'Paul's Legacy from Pharisaism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon', CJ 8 (1982): 130-138. On
the late Hasmonean context of the Psalms of Solomon, see G. L. Davenport, 'The "Anointed of
the Lord" in Psalms of Solomon 17', in J.J. Collins and G. WE. Nickelsburg (eds.), Ideal Figures
in Ancient Judaism (Chico: Scholars, 1980), 67-92. R.K. Atkinson ('On the Herodian Origin
of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17', JBL 118/3
[1999]: 435-460; id., 'On the Use of Scripture in the Development of Militant Davidic Messian-
252
unfolds how the Hasmonean priest-kings illegally seized power and abused their
royal prerogatives through a 'lawless' lifestyle (2:3-5, 11-14; 8:8-13; 17:5-6).
Consequently, God raised up Pompey to overthrow the illegitimate interlopers
(2:1-2, 15-21; 8:14-17; 17:7-8), either by executing or deporting them (2:6-10;
8:18-22; 17:11-17). In Pss. Sol. 2:3-5 the author employs the language of'glory'
to expose the disastrous results of Hasmonean rule for the state of Israel. The
Levitical cultic system had been defiled because of the high-handed sinfulness
of the Hasmonean rulers before God:
Because the sons of Jerusalem defiled the sanctuary of the Lord
they were profaning the offerings of God with lawless acts;
Because of these things he said, 'Remove them far from me;
they were not sweet-smelling:
The beauty of his glory (<fjc; M~'lc; a\rr'lc;) was despised before God;
it was completely disgraced.
The referent of the language of 'glory' is unclear here. The phrase, 'beauty of his
glory', could equally denote the Jerusalem Temple (lsa 60:7), the theophany of
Ezekiel (Ezek 1:28; 10:18), or the Temple hangings (lsa 6:1). 178 Whatever the
referent might be, the Hasmoneans had hard-heartedly disgraced God's honour
while they served God as priests and kings. Our author returns to the leitmotiv
of the dishonouring of God's glory when he highlights the defiling presence of
the gentile Romans in the holy precincts (Pss. Sol. 2:18-21):
ism at Qumram: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17', in C. A. Evans [eel.], The Interpretation
of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition [Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 2000], 106-123) proposes a Herodian provenance for Pss. Sol. 17. Atkinson argues that the militant Davidic Messiah of Pss. Sol. 17 and the Qumran texts are 'used to
portray this redeemer as a righteous, yet violent, counterpart to Herod the Great' (id., 'On the
Use of Scripture', 107). Atkinson argues that the Greek future tenses employed in Pss. Sol. 17:8b,
lOb, lla pointto the Herodian invasion ofJerusalem (37 BC) and the future punishment ofthe
Hasmonean descendants as opposed to Pompey's siege ofJerusalem (63 BC). But, as G. B. Gray
argues ('The Psalms of Solomon', in R. H. Charles [ed.], The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
the Old Testament in English. Volume II: Pseudepigrapha [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913], 648
n. 8b-12), 'the verbs in the Greek are in the future sense; they represent Hebrew imperfects
referring to the past'. Moreover, as Atkinson concedes ('On the Herodian Origin', 458-460),
since the palaeo graphic dating of the 'messianic' Qumran texts to the early Hero dian period is
insecure, they could equally be assigned to the late Hasmonean period. Finally, Atkinson overlooks important differences between the portrait of the Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon and
in the Qumran writings. See Evans, 'Messianic Hopes', 27.
178 Wright, 'Psalms of Solomon', 652 n.g. In Pss. Sol. 2:19 the writer says that 'he dragged her
beauty down from the throne of glory (cmo Bp6vou 66~1Jc;}'. If the 'throne of glory' here refers to
the Temple or the holy of holies, then it would be likely that 'beauty' (Pss. Sol. 2:19) and 'beauty
of his glory' (2:5} refers to the Temple hangings. The allusion would be consonant with Pompey's infamous entry into the holy of the holies in the Jerusalem Temple (Josephus, BJ 1.152; AJ
14.72}. However, the issue is not necessarily resolved because the phrase 'throne of his glory'
could equally refer to the heavenly powers (T. Levi 3:8; 2 En 20:1), Jerusalem (Jer 14:21), or the
honorific site on which the holy city was located ( 1 Sam 2:8; Isa 22:23}. See Wright, ibid., 653 n.r.
6.4 Paul and the Jewish Ideal Qj Glory
253
God is a righteous judge and he will not be impressed by appearances.

For the Gentiles insulted Jerusalem, trampling (her) down;
he dragged her beauty down from the throne of glory (a7to 8p6vou M~'lc:;).
She put on sackcloth instead of clothes,
a rope around her head instead of a crown.
She took off the wreath of glory (f!hpav M~'lc:;) which God had put on her;
in dishonour her beauty was thrown to the ground.
We see here the ease with which the author employs the priestly language of
cultic 'glory' in order to expose both the arrogance of the Roman conquerors and
the impenitence of the Hasmonean dynasty. It should alert us, by analogy, to the
rhetorical potential of Paul's M~a terminology as a political weapon in the epistle
to the Romans. Our author concludes his damning case against the Hasmonean
dynasty in Chapter 2 by reminding his readers that God had raised up Solomon
to glory (6 avto-rwv EflE Eic:; M~av) and that he had reserved 'the arrogant for
eternal destruction in dishonour' (2:31).
In Pss. Sol. 17:5-7 our author acknowledges the corporate sin oflsrael ('our
sins'), but repeats his charge against the Hasmonean 'monarchy' that they had
abandoned the glory of God. Because of this, God had delivered Israel into the
hands of the 'alien' Pompey who removed the Hasmonean 'descendents', Aristobulus and his sons, to Rome:
But (because of) our sins, sinners rose up against us,
they set upon us and drove us out,
Those to whom you did not (make the promise),
they took away from us by force;
and they did not glorify (tM~acrav) your honourable name.
With pomp (tv M~n) they set up a monarchy because of their arrogance;
they despoiled the throne of David with arrogant shouting.
But you, 0 God, overthrew them and uprooted their
descendents from the earth,
for there rose up against them a man alien to our race.
However, in response to the chaos of the Hasmonean dynasty, the author embarks upon two extended descriptions of the kingdom of Davidic Messiah in
Pss. Sol. 17 and 18 (17:21-44; 18:5-10). 179 The Messiah, God's anointed (17:32;
superscription to 18:1) and Spirit-endowed agent of God's rule (17:21, 37; 18:7),
was assigned a mission with a two-fold focus. First, the Messiah was to purge
Jerusalem from the defiling presence of the Roman overlords and, as God's Shepherd, to gather the dispersed tribes of Israel (17:21-28; 17:40; 18:5a). Second,
the Messiah was to establish his kingdom, purify Jerusalem as the capital for all
179 For discussions of how the Messiah is presented in Pss. Sol. 17, see Davenport, 'The
"Anointed of the Lord"', 67 -92; R. P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian
Students. Volume 1: The Four Gospels (rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994}, 109-115. More
generally, see Evans, 'Messianic Hopes', 9-40.
254
nations, and revive the glory of the Temple cultus. Our writer infuses his eschatological vision of the renewed Jerusalem with the language of glory (17:30-32):
And he will have gentile nations serving him under his yoke,
and he will glorify (<'lo~acret) the Lord in (a place) prominent (above) the whole earth,
And he will purge Jerusalem
(and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning,
(for) nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his glory (T~v M~av a\Yroii),
to bring as gifts her children who have been driven out,
and. to see the glory of the Lord (T~V M~av Kuplou ),
with which God has glorified (M~acrev) her.
And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God.
There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days,
for all shall be holy,
and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.
As we shall see ( 6.4.3), Paul was sensitive to the eschatological theme of the
messianic purification of Israel, as well as to the establishment of the messianic
kingdom over the Gentiles. But, in contrast to the militant Davidic messianism
of some of his contemporaries, Paul inverts the Old Testament Zion traditions
and relocates the divine glory associated with the Temple cultus. Paul, therefore,
adopts a more tempered approach to God's revelation of his eschatological
glory to the gentile world, including the Romans, than did many of his Jewish
contemporaries.
6.4.3 What Would Jewish Auditors Have Made of Paul's Ideal of Glory?
Recently, A. A. Das has argued powerfully that the ethnic constituency of the
house churches at Rome was entirely Gentile (Rom 1:5-6, 13; 11:13), consisting
of God-fearers familiar with the Torah. 180 IfDas is correct regarding the ethnic
composition of the house churches in the capital, then Paul is either employing
the LXX eschatological 'glory' traditions to critique the Roman ideal of glory,
or to explain to Gentile God-fearers and proselytes how the crucified Lord
of glory fulfilled the prophetic hope of eschatological glory. We will argue in
6.4.3- 6.5.1 that the apostle is working on both fronts. Paul's use of the LXX
'glory' traditions is intended to teach God-fearers and proselytes about the eschatological riches they possess in Christ, the Root ofJesse (Rom 15:12), because of
their incorporation into the 'olive tree' of Israel ( 11: 17-24). The God-fearers and
proselytes would have attended one of the first -century synagogues in the capital, of which there were at least four in the Trans-Tiber region of Monteverde. 181
A. A. Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 53-148.
See B. N. Fisk, 'Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge among the Christians at
Rome', inS. E. Porter and C. D. Stanley (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul's Use of Scripture
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 172-174. For further discussion, see H. J. Leon,
The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960),
180
181
255
Paul, in addressing these Gentile auditors, could count on their familiarity with
the public reading of the LXX in their local synagogue, 182 as well as the conventions of communal prayer and the delivery of a sermon in response to the text
(cf. Luke 4:16-22). 183
However, we should not assume that Paul's heavy emphasis on the LXX in
Romans is primarily conditioned by the presence of Gentile proselytes and Godfearers in the Roman house-churches, as Das proposes. Many scholars overlook
the obvious point that in instructing Gentile converts who never had any contact with the synagogue, Paul would have used the LXX in similar ways to his
teaching of other converts (i.e. proselytes, God-fearers, Jewish believers). What
sacred story or sacred text would Paul have used in helping uninitiated Gentiles
to understand their privileged position in the 'olive tree' other than the LXX?
A more important consideration, however, is whether Das is actually correct
in denying the presence of any Jewish auditors in the Roman house churches.
While it is true that Paul is writing to a Gentile-dominated audience, Das is not
successful in dismissing the countervailing evidence that there was a minority
of Jewish believers in the Roman house churches. The ouyyevei<; ('kinsmen') of
Rom 16:7 and 16:11 (cf. 16:21) clearly belong to the Body of Christ at Rome,
notwithstanding their meagre numbers. 184 Das also attempts to sideline Prisca
and Aquila in the 'constituency' debate by casting them in the role of 'missionar-
135-166; W. Wiefel, 'The Jewish Community in Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity',
inK. P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate; Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991}, 89-92; P. Richardson, 'Augustan-Era Synagogues in Rome', inK. P. Donfried and P.
Richardson (eds.), Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 17-29. Fisk ('Synagogue Influence', 173} nominates only the synagogues of the Hebrews
(CJJ291, 317,510, 535}, Augustans (CJJ284, 301,338,368,416, 496), Agrippans (CJJ365, 425,
503), and Volumnians (CIJ 343, 402, 417, 523) as belonging to the first-century A.D., whereas
P. Richardson ('Augustan-Era Synagogues', 23-28) also argues for the first-century provenance
of synagogue of the Herodians (CIJ 173), though his proposed restoration of the inscription is
conjectural.
182 See Fisk, 'Synagogue Influence', 177-180.
183 For discussion of the Diaspora synagogal sermons of Pseudo-Philo (De Jona; De Sampsone), see Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 151-157.
184 Das (Romans Debate, 91-93; cf. id., Paul and the Jews [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003], 6369} tries to evade the force of this observation by interpreting <JUyyevEic; (Rom 16:7, 11; cf. 16:21)
as a case of metaphorical kinship language as opposed to ethnic identification. However, the
four Pauline occurrences of <JUVyevfJc; appear only in Romans (9:3; 16:7, 11, 21), whereas Paul's
metaphorical kinship metaphors are spread widely throughout his epistles. In other words,
<JUyyevfJc; is a technical term for ethnic origin in Romans, as the Jewish context and wording of
9:3 in particular makes perfectly clear (l"WV <JUyyevwv f.l.OU Ka"ta aapKa). Equally important is
the fact that the other New Testament occurrences of <JUVyevfJc; ('relative': Luke 1:58; 2:44; 14:12;
21:16; John 18:26; Acts 10:24} and <JUyyev[c; ('relative': Luke 1:36) are all non-metaphorical. Why
would Paul suddenly shift in Romans 16 to a metaphorical use, as Das asserts, without flagging
the semantic change? Rather Paul assumes that the ethnic reference of <JUyyevEic; in verses 7, 11,
and 21 would be read in light of his prior Jewish identification of <JUVyeveic; in 9:3.
256
ies' on behalf of Paul (Rom 16:3: Toil~ auvepyou~ JlOU tv XptoT<!J). 185 While this
correctly highlights the vital role that the couple played in promoting Paul's
gospel at Rome( 7.3), Das abstracts the couple from their historical and social
context. As Jewish believers, the couple had returned from ministry in Ephesus
to the capital early in Nero's reign (Acts 18:1-3, 18-21, 24-26; 1 Cor 16:19; Rom
16:3-4). Presumably they already possessed important civic, religious and trade
contacts - outside those of their house church (Rom 16:5a) - among the independent Jewish synagogues of the city. 186 This would have been especially the
case if the couple were not believers when they first left Rome, a possibility that
should be left open. 187
Moreover, as Paul's co-workers, Prisca and Aquila would have been alert to the
priority of proclaiming the gospel to the Jews ( 'loU<')a(q> T npwTov Kal "EAATJVl:
1:16; 3:1-4; cf. 9:1-5; 11:1-2, 26-32; 15:8). Jewish believers, although a minority within the Roman house-churches, had to be taught, along with the Gentile
believers, that the eschatological glory - presaged in Old Testament revelatory
events (Rom 9:3-4; 1 Cor 10:1-4; 2 Cor 3:7-18)- had found its fulfilment in the
all-glorious Christ (Rom 9:5b; 10:4a; 1 Cor 2:8b; 10:11; 2 Cor 3:18b). Believers
needed to appreciate the glorious role that believers now possessed as heralds of
the gospel of Christ (Rom 15:15-20; 2 Cor 3:18; 8:23b). 188 In this regard, there
was always the potential for a political misunderstanding of the eschatological
hope among the early Jewish believers from the SO's onwards (e.g. Mark 10:37;
Luke 24:21; John 6:15; Acts 1:6; 3.4.1 n. 67). A militant anti-Roman nationalism
was emerging in the tinderbox of Judaea and, according to one interpretation of
Suetonius' pro impulsore Chresto (Claud. 25.4), Claudius had earlier expelled the
Jews from Rome because of the (messianic?) disturbances of the obscure figure
of Chrestus in the city. 189 Thus Jewish auditors of Romans would have perceived
a difference in Paul's approach to eschatological glory as opposed to the antiRoman stance of the Psalms ofSolomon.
Das, ibid., 101.
Note the perceptive comment of Fisk ('Synagogue Influence', 171) regarding the interaction between synagogue and the early believers at Rome: 'With so much focus on the expulsion,
it is tempting to exaggerate signs of ethnic resentment, schism and social distance and, perhaps,
to miss signs of overlap, Jew-Gentile interaction and positive Jewish influence on early Roman
Christianity. Correspondingly, without the conceit of Claudius' edict dominating the skyline, we
are in a better position to see possible signs of the influence that Rome's Jewish community- its
synagogues, leadership and practice - had on the Jesus movement'.
187 Fisk (ibid., 162 n. 18) astutely observes: ~quila is called "a certain Jew" (nva 'Iou<'iaiov:
Acts 18:2), not, say, a "certain disciple:' to parallel the expression Luke uses a chapter later to
refer to Paul's presumed brothers in Christ (nva, lla6T]Ta,) in Acts 19:1'.
188 See J. R Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul 'in Concert' in the Letter to the
Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
189 For a recent discussion, see Fisk, 'Synagogue Influence', 160-165. For discussion of Jewish
nationalism and the response of Paul to its threat, see J. R Harrison, 'Why Did Josephus and Paul
Refuse to Circumcise?', Pacifica 17/2 (2004): 137-158.
185
186
257
How would Roman believers- whether ethnic Jews, God-fearers, or proselytes - have responded to Paul's presentation of eschatological glory, given their
familiarity with the LXX traditions? What expectations would have been aroused
by his presentation and what omissions would have surprised his auditors?
First, Paul operates conventionally in depicting creation as the arena in which
God's glory is displayed for all to see, though he does not, like the Psalmists
( 6.4.1.1 ), employ M~a terminology to denote the splendour of God's revelation
in creation. Rather, creation reveals God's 'everlasting power and divinity' (Rom
1:20b: TE cit6toc; auTOii 6uval-uc; Kal 8ELOTT)c;). Paul focuses instead on the dishonourable response of the Gentile world to God's natural revelation, drawing from
the semantic domains of honour (66~acrav) and benefaction (TJuxap{OTTJOav)
to depict the sin of human ingratitude (Rom 1:21a). Drawing upon the LXX
traditions that speak of Israel exchanging the divine glory for idolatry (M~a: Pss
4:2; 106 [LXX 105]:20; Jer 2:11; Hos 4:7; 9:11; 10:5; cf. Sir 49:5), Paul states that
Gentile idolaters make the same mistake in the present (Rom 1:23: ~Ua~av T~v
M~av TOii cicp8apTou 8eou ev 6~-LOLW!-laTL EiKovoc;). 190
What is fascinating is that Paul nominates the types of image worshipped by
the Gentiles: corruptible man, birds, quadrupeds, and reptiles. Jewish auditors
familiar with the Genesis narrative would have spotted Paul's clear allusion
to the subjugation of the created order (Gen 1:26b: birds, livestock, creeping
things) that mankind, as the image of God (Gen 1:26a), was commanded to undertake.191 In an ironic reversal of the 'dominion' mandate (Gen 1:26, 28), Paul
implies, human beings are subjecting themselves to created beings, including
their own species, instead of to the glorious Creator of all.
But, as I. E. Rock has insightfully demonstrated, 192 there is also imperial reference in Paul's critique which Roman auditors would have discerned. Caligula had
recently attempted to install his image in the Jerusalem Temple ( 3.3). Nero, too,
was infamous for identifying himself with the Roman pantheon (Zeus, Apollo,
Hercules) and for placing his statue in the temple of Mars Ultor. Rock notes how
Seneca advised the young Nero that if he demonstrated dementia as ruler, then
'all things will be moulded into your likeness' (Clem. 2.2.1). For Paul, however,
the Gentile world foolishly worshipped the 'imperial likeness' instead of praising
the glory and mercy of the immortal God (Rom 11:36; 16:27).
19For full discussion of the Old Testament echoes in Romans 1:21-25, see G. K. Beale, We
Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology ofIdolatry (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), 204-216.
For an insightful discussion ofRom 1:23, see Sprinkle, 'The Afterlife in Romans', 221-223.
191 See the excellent discussion of Rock, Roman Imperial Ideology, 303-309. Rock (ibid., 307)
refers to Gen 1-3, Deut 4:15-18 and Psa 106, as well as the wider prophetic polemic against
idolatry. G.R. Osborne (Romans [Downers Grove, 2004], 50) adds Exod 20:3-4.
192 Rock, Roman Imperial Ideology, 304. Jewett (Romans, 162 n. 138) refers to 'the images
of humans, birds, and quadrapeds on Roman coins', as well as depictions of 'eagles dragons,
wolves, minotaurs, horses, boars, bulls, rams, images of the emperors, and a human hand' on
the Roman military standards (ibid., 162 n. 139).
258
Second, in Romans 2:7 and 2:10 Paul sides with the traditions ofJudaism that
spoke positively about the quest for glory by God's saints and the remembrance
of ancestral glory (e.g. Ben Sira, 6.4.2.2; Josephus, 6.4.2.1), as opposed to
Philo, who, because of his attachment to the Greek ethical tradition( 6.4.2.1),
dismissed glory as a morally tainted prize. In this respect, as we shall see ( 6.5.1 ),
Paul was closer to the Roman traditions concerning ancestral glory than was
Philo. For instance, Paul speaks positively of the patriarch Abraham giving glory
to God (Rom 4:20: 6ouc; M~av T(il 8E(il; cf. 9:5a: wv oi na-rtpEc;), though, unexpectedly for Jewish auditors, Abraham delivers his doxology as the father of
the circumcised and uncircumcised (4:16-18, 23-25). But, while Paul does not
dismiss the quest of glory as of no account, he disqualifies human beings from
attaining their quest on their own terms apart from God's soteriological provision in Christ (Rom 3:23: UO'TEpofivTaL Tiic; M~llc; TOU ewu).
Nevertheless, Paul does depart from one significant ancestral glory tradition
in Second Temple Judaism. Over against the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls
( 6.4.1.2) and other intertestamental writers ( 6.4.1.2 n. 126), Paul does not
speak in Romans of Adam's pre-fall glory being transferred to the righteous at
the eschaton. Rather Jesus is the predestined 'image' to which believers are to be
conformed (Rom 8:29: OUJ.1J.16pcpouc; -rflc; ElK6voc; -rou uiou). Paul's ultimate focus
is clearly upon the life-giving obedience of the second Adam as opposed to the
disobedience of the first Adam (Rom 5:14b: A6aJl oc; EOTLV runoc; TOU JlEAAOv-roc;; cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). Instead of the pre-fall Adam being a source of
eschatological glory, as several traditions of Second Temple Judaism asserted,
Paul argues that humanity is held hostage to the debilitating effects of Adam's sin.
Because of Adam's disobedience, the reign of death and eschatological judgement
confront inhumanity (Rom 5:12a, 14a, 15b, 16a, 17a, 18a, 19a, 20a, 21a). Only
the reign of divine grace in Christ would undo the disastrous effects of Adam's
sin (Rom 5:15c, 16b, 17b, 18b, 19b, 20b, 21b). In sum, Paul's evaluation ofthe
legacy of Adam is starker than many of his Jewish contemporaries.
Third, Paul speaks conventionally of the eschatological expectation of glory in
Romans on several occasions. Believers, because of their access to divine grace
in the present (Rom 5:2a), could legitimately boast in the hope of sharing the
glory of God (5:2b: KaUXWJ.1E8a en' EA7tl6t Tflc; M~llc; TOU ewu). N. T. Wright
interprets this as a messianic restoration of Adam's lost glory (Rom 3:23), in
the sense of Adam being God's vicegerent over creation. 193 However, as I have
argued, Paul's focus is more on the eschatological conformity to the glorious
image of Christ than the restored glory of Adam. The sufferings of the present
age could not be compared with the glory about to be revealed in believers (Rom
193 N. T. Wright, 'The Letter to the Romans', in anon. (ed.), The New Interpreter's Bible Volume X (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002}, 516, 524. Wright (ibid.) considers that a cultic reference to
the Temple 'glory' dwelling in believers might also be involved in Romans 5:2.
259
8:18: T~v llEAAouoav M~av anoKaAucp9fjvat Ei<; ~!la<;). At the eschaton and the
renewal of the groaning creation, believers would enter the freedom of the glory
of the children of God (Rom 8:21: T~v tAEU9ep(av Tfj<; M~T)<; Tv TEKvwv Toii
9eoii). However, Paul also highlights the breaking in of eschatological glory
into the present age of sin and death through the resurrection of Jesus (Rom
6:4: '1 'yp9T) XptoTo<; EK VEKpv ~u1 Tfj<; M~T)<; Toii miTpo<;). Consequently, Paul
speaks of believers as having already being glorified in Romans 8:30b (To'6Tou<;
Kal M6~aoev ), even though, as we have seen, he describes eschatological glory as
still being EA1tL<; ('hope': Rom 5:2b). This sense of'realised eschatology' in Christ
is what differentiates Paul's understanding of glory from the eschatological hope
of his Jewish contemporaries.
Furthermore, in Romans 8:17 Paul speaks of believers being heirs of God and
joint heirs with Christ provided that we suffer with him (OU!!1taoxo!lV) in order
that we might be glorified with him ('iva Kal ouv~o~ao9!!EV). 194 The use of
ouv- compounds points to the believer's identification with and incorporation
into the sufferings and glorification of Christ, replicating thereby in the believer's
experience of discipleship the journey of Christ to Golgotha and his subsequent
vindication to heavenly glory. This sense of believers being 'in Christ' and their
sufferings and exaltation by God being the paradigm of Christian experience
marks off Paul's understanding of glory from later rabbinic thought. The latter
spoke of God's glory resting on those who suffer (Sifre Deut., Wa'enthanan, 32,
f. 73b: 6.4.1.2), but Paul's understanding of glory here is entirely Christocentric.
J. Coppens has also highlighted this feature of Paul's thought over against the
notion of kiibOd ('glory') found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
II est vivement interessant de comparer la notion paulinienne de la doxa a celle de kab6d
dans les textes qumraniens. Les deux traditions se recoupent dans ce qu'on peut appeler
leur affinities veterotestamentaires, mais la doctrine paulinienne se distinguee de celle
Qumran surtout par deux aspects: la mediation d 'un sauveur messianique et l' importance
attribuee ala glorification des corps appeles a ressusciter en union avec le Christ Jesus. 195
Fourth, while Paul affirms the fundamental importance of divine epiphany in

Israel's history (Rom 9:4 [~ M~a]: cf. 6.5.1 n. 200), he redefines the LXX
'epiphany' traditions in relation to the revelation of glory. The epiphany of divine
glory is now located in Christ and his church (1 Cor 2:8 [Tov Kuptov Tfj<; M~T)<;];
2 Cor 3:18 [!lTallopcpoull9aano M~T)<; Ei<;M~av]; cf. 3:8, 9b, lOb). Moreover, in
Romans 9:15, Paul cites Exodus 33:19 to illustrate God's freedom in electing the
'vessels of mercy' over against the 'vessels of wrath' (Rom 9:16-18, 23a ). But what
is intriguing is that Paul abandons any reference to the epiphany of glory granted
194 For discussion of Romans 8:17-22, seeM. Carrez, De Ia souffrance alagloire (Neuchatel:
Delachaux et Niestle, 1964), 113-115. Additionally, see Sprinkle, 'The Afterlife in Romans',
213-213-220.
195 J. Coppens, 'La gloire des croyants d'apres les letters pauliniennes', BTL 46 (1970): 392.
260
to Moses in Exodus 33:20-22. The reason for Paul's omission is clear enough. For
Paul, 'God's glory is salvific'. 196 In the glorious covenant of the Spirit, the riches
of glory (Rom 9:23: Tov 7tAOiiTov Tiic:; M~'lc:;) are lavished upon those whom God
has prepared beforehand for his glory (9:23: a 1tPO'lT0lflUO'EV Eic:; M~av). The old
covenant in which Moses tried to manipulate God into revealing his glory (Exod
33:18) had long since been superseded. 197
Fifth, Paul interacts with the 'glory' traditions touching on the pilgrimage of
the Gentiles in a way that would have surprised his Jewish contemporaries. Two
messianic texts speak of the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem
in the language of glory( 6.4.1.2: 4Q504[4 QDibHam"Col. IV] ll.l-12; 6.4.2.3:
Pss. Sol. 17:30-32). Upon the arrival of the Messiah's kingdom, we are told, the
Gentiles would submit to his rule and give glory to the nation of Israel, the city
of Jerusalem and its majestic Temple. Thus, as far as the Gentiles are concerned,
the eschatological reign of the Messiah is Zion-centred and situated within the
framework of the covenantal holiness code.
In an extended plea for the social integration of Jews and Gentiles in the
house-churches (Rom 14:1-15:13), Paul responds to the judgemental attitudes
of the Roman Gentile believers towards their Jewish brethren {11:18-24; 14:1,4,
lOa, 13a; cf. 7.1.3.1 n. 86) and addresses the social impact of the anti-Semitism
of the intelligentsia at Rome. 198 The apostle crowns his discussion with a repeated
use of 'glory' terminology (Rom 15:6 [c')o~a~'lTE], 7 [M~av], 9 [c')o~aoa1]) and
LXX texts {15:9-12). What would have gripped Jewish auditors is the way that
Paul linked the messianic reign of Jesus to the unexpected incorporation of the
Gentiles into his church in advance of the eschaton. Indeed, Christ had become
a servant of the circumcised precisely so that the promises given to the patriarchs
might be confirmed in the Gentiles glorifying God for his mercy (Ta c') 8v'l imtp
Uouc:; c')o~aoa1 Tov 8t:6v: Rom 15:9; cf. Isa 42:4b, 6-7; 49:6; 52:15).
The messianic dimension of this act of grace is unveiled in Paul's typological
use of various LXX texts in Romans 15:3 (LXX Ps 68:10a; ET 69:9a), 15:9 (LXX
Ps.l7:50;ET 18:49; cf. 2 Sam22:50), 15:10 (LXX/ETDeut32:43) and 15:11 (LXX
Ps 116:1; ET 117:1). 199 As the link between Romans 15:3a and 15:3b makes clear,
the Messiah is the speaker in the LXX text cited in v. 3b. This messianic refrain
continues in the LXX texts cited in vv. 9, 10 and 11. 200 If the original exegetical
196 M.A. Seifrid, 'Romans', in G.K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids; Baker Academic, 2007), 642.
197 Siefrid ('Romans', 642} observes: 'Moses' request was not at heart a longing to know the
glory of God's character, but rather was an illegitimate desire to name and know God in a way
that would obligate him to Israel'.
198 See Wiefel, 'The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome', 85-10 1; J. C. Walters, Ethnic Issues
in Paul's Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-Definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity (Valley
Forge: Trinity International, 1993}, 1-66.
199 Seifrid, 'Romans', 686-691.
200 Ibid., 688.
261
context of these LXX texts is respected, then the following picture emerges: the
Messiah praises God before the Gentiles for his salvation and Davidic descendants (v. 9), invites the Gentiles to rejoice in God's salvation from their enemies
(v. 10), and summons them to praise God for his steadfast love and faithfulness
(v. 11).201 The messianic address to the Gentile nations in vv. 9-11 is then rounded off in v. 12 with a messianic proof-text from Isaiah (LXX Isa 11:10). Thus the
risen and reigning Messiah, as depicted in Paul's typological use of the LXX,
brings the nations under his personal rule and affirms their current incorporation into the Body of Christ through the summons of divine grace. Paul abandons the Zionist focus of the Second Temple 'pilgrimage' traditions and brings
the eschatological hope of glory for the Gentiles to fulfilment in the present age.
Sixth, Paul infuses the 'pilgrimage' traditions of Second Temple Judaism with
a new social impetus in regards to the glory of God. The soteriological 'welcome'
that Christ has extended to Jew and Gentile would resonate to the glory of God
(Rom 15:7b: Eic; M~av TOU eeou) when each group unreservedly welcomes each
other in love (15:7a) and sets aside the divisive differences over the maintenance
ofJewish boundary markers {14:5-6, 13-21).202 For Paul, God is glorified where
there is unity in worship between both ethnic groups (Rom 15:6: tva 6flo8uf.1a8ov
tv tvl oT6flaTL 8o~O.~TJTE -rov Se6v Kal7ta-rpa -rou Kup[ou ~flWV 'IT)oou Xpto-rou).
This social definition of the locus of divine glory represents a novel element in
the 'pilgrimage' traditions of Second Temple Judaism. 203 Paul's messianism stood
opposed to the contemporary hatred of the Romans articulated in the Jewish
apocalyptic literature and in the Qumran writings. The hope of glory realised in
the messianic community of Christ reconciled and unified diverse ethnic groups
whose tortured history, up till then, had made them implacable enemies.
Seventh, where does Paul fit into the wider Jewish debate regarding messianism and the kingdom of Rome? Paul does not empty the messianic hope of
Second Temple Judaism of its political significance by using the language of conditionality regarding its promises, as does the pro-Roman Josephus( 6.4.2.1).
The eternal God had commanded Paul to call the Gentile nations to obedience
under the rule ofthe root ofJesse. In a counter-imperial strategy, Paul declared
that Christ was the 'Son of God in power' by virtue of his resurrection and asserted that, as the eschatological Deliverer, he would return from the heavenly
Zion to save national Israel (Rom 1:1-6; 11:26-27; 15:12; 16:25-26). In all of this,
the binding authority of the prophetic Scriptures regarding the messianic hope
201 Ibid., 688-690. See also M. V. Novenson, 'The Jewish Messiahs, the Pauline Christ, and the
Gentile Question', JBL 2/128 (2009): 357-373.
202 Seifrid (ibid., 687) observes: 'The reality of love is an essential dimension of glory that the
believing community renders to "the God and father of Jesus Christ" (15:6). There is no true
worship without love, and no true love without worship. Both are given by the hope found in
the Messiah'.
203 6.4.1.2: 4Q504(4 QDibHarnCo1. IV) 11.1-12; 6.4.2.3: Pss. Sol. 17:30-32.
262
is heavily underscored for his Roman auditors (Rom 1:2; 16:26). To be sure, in
writing to the Roman house-churches, Paul did not need to employ the delicate
diplomatic conventions of an Agrippa, as evidenced in Philo's rendering of
Agrippa's petition to Caligula ( 6.4.2.1). But, as noted( 6.1), there were probably upwardly mobile members of the imperial bureaucracy in the Roman house
churches. They could hardly have missed the intersection of Paul's distillation of
the messianic hope with the eschatology of the Roman ruler.
Finally, Paul does not engage in the pointed polemic of his Jewish contemporaries against the Roman overlords. As noted, in Pss. Sol. 17 we are told that
the Messiah would purge Jerusalem of the defiling presence of the Romans and
restore the glory of the Temple cultus ( 6.4.2.3). By contrast, Paul avoids the
political use of Jewish cultic imagery to announce the messianic destruction of
Roman power. Instead, he deploys 'priestly' and 'sacrificial' imagery in a new
context, with a view to articulating his understanding of apostolic mission and
the soteriological content of the gospel. Paul asserts that he administers an acceptable priestly offering of Gentiles in proclaiming the gospel (Rom 15:16b:
iEpoupyoiiv-ra To EuanDuov -roii 8wii; 15:16c: Tva )'EVT)TaL ~ npoocpopa -rwv
t8vwv Eunp6acSEKToc;; cf. 11:13b: -r~v cStaKovlav flOU .So~a~w). Moreover, God
had provided a propitiatory iAam~ptov in the crucified Christ (Rom 3:25) that
turned away the divine wrath against Jew and Greek (1:18-3:20). The reconciliation and unity established thereby between Jews and Gentiles (Rom 1:16;
3:28-30; 4:9-15; 11:30-32; 15:5-7) mapped a different route for ethnic relations
in antiquity. It clearly differentiated the communities of the first Christians from
the anti-Semitism of the Roman intelligentsia and the anti-Roman nationalism
of Palestine in the first century AD.
6.5 Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory

6.5.1 What Would Roman Auditors Have Made of Paul's Ideal of Glory?
The Jewish background of M~a has been well covered in recent discussions
of Pauline theology, 204 though, as we have seen, not in discussions of Romans
( 6.4.3; pace, P. Sprinkle, supra, n. 122). However, the significance of Paul's approach to eschatological glory against the backdrop of the late republican and
early imperial traditions of ancestral glory has not yet been properly appreciated,
apart from Robert Jewett's brief reflection on Graeco-Roman honour culture in
his magisterial commentary on Romans (supra, 6.1). What would Paul's auditors, faced with the increasing concentration of the republican boasting traditions in the ruler ofJulio-Claudian house, have made of his provocative presentation of glory in Romans? I will argue that Paul addressed this issue especially for
204
See Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology, passim.
263
the benefit of Roman believers living in the capital in the late SO's and integrated
his presentation with the eschatological traditions of glory that he inherited from
the Septuagint and from Second Temple Judaism. Thus Paul's understanding of
glory, while being profoundly theological, was also political in its polemic.
Paul's perspective on glory is positively rooted in the inviolable boundaries of
creation, in the christological fulfilment of salvation history, and in the approach
of the eschaton. At the beginning of Romans, Paul says that humans exchanged
the glory of the immortal God (TI'Jv M~av <oii cicp8ap<ou Swu) for a corruptible
image (eiKovo.:; cp8ap<oii) resembling human beings or the animal and reptile
world (Rom 1:23). While Paul's teaching here reflects traditional Jewish polemic
against idolatry( 6.4.1.1; cf. Sir 49:5), 205 it also dismantles central claims ofthe
Roman ideal of glory. Three observations should be made.
First, Paul transfers the language of 'immortality' from gloria, as was the
Roman tradition, to God himself, as was the Jewish tradition. God alone is immortal and glory is his exclusive preserve (Isa 42:8; Prov 25:2; cf. Exod 14:4,
17, 18; 1 Chron 16:29; Ps 29:2; 79:9; 96:8; lsa 43:7; 4 Ezra 8:21). Paul's strategy
immediately demotes the importance of the Roman ruler who had been exclusively ascribed glory in the imperial propaganda (e.g. Augustus: Ovid, Ex Ponto
2.8.20-26; Horace, Carm. 4.33-40; Domitian: Martial, Spect. 2.91). The point is
even more dramatically rendered at the end of the epistle where Paul's doxology
to God employs the language of eternity: 'to God, through Jesus Christ, to whom
[be] the glory into the ages (~ M~a ei.:; <ou.:; aiwva.:;)' (Rom 16:27; cf. 11:36: ~
M~a ei.:; <ou.:; aiwva.:;).
Second, the demotion of the ruler is reinforced when Paul describes idolatry,
including the imperial cult, as an eiKwv cp8ap<o.:; (Rom 1:23). In Paul's understanding, this illegitimate exchange of divine glory for a mortal substitute
(Rom 1:23: uUa~av ~v M~av "(OU cicp8ap<OU Stoii) represents 'an improper
relationship between God and humanity'. 206 Humanity had always been divinely
intended to share in the glory of God but, because of the rebellion of Adam (Rom
5:12-21), it had foolishly 'exchanged' and tragically lost its most prized possession (Rom 1:23; 3:23). This lost glory, a legitimate object of pursuit for humanity
(Rom 2:7), would only be secured again through the resurrection of Christ (5:2:
6i ou; 6:4: ~ytp8T] Xpu:rro.:; EK VEKpwv 6ta tij.:; M~T]I:;) and experienced in its fullness again at the eschaton (5:2b; 8:21b).207 But, as we have seen, Paul does not
show an independent interest in the pre-fall glory of Adam, after the manner of
205 See especially Metzger (Introduction, 159) on the parallels of Romans 1:20-29 with Wisdom of Solomon.
206 Newman, Paul's Glory Christology, 225.
207 I am indebted here to the insights ofJ.D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word, 1988),
534. IQS IV 22-23 also speaks of the eschatological restoration of Adam's pre-fall glory in the
'sons of heaven': 'For God has chosen them for an everlasting Covenant and all the glory of
Adam shall be theirs'.
264
his Jewish contemporaries ( 6.4.3), but instead relocates the source of soteriological glory in the image ofJesus (Rom 8:29; cf. v. 30: t6o~aoev). 208
Third, Paul, by employing traditional benefaction language, highlights for his
late- fifties Roman auditors a political and theological irony. Despite the arrival of
the iconic Augustan age of grace and its purported revival under Nero, the new
ruler, humankind had neither glorified (tM~aoav) nor thanked (rJl)xap(<TTTJOav)
the only true Benefactor of the universe (Rom 1:21 ), even though they had always
known his eternal power and divinity (Rom 1:20b: TE a't&o<; aUTOU Mvaj.ll<; Kal
6ELOTTJ<;).
However, Paul does not diminish the importance of the believer seeking 'glory
(M~av), honour (TL!l~v) and immortality (a<p6apo(av)' (Rom 2:7). For Paul, the
Romans are correct in highlighting the importance of the quest for glory over
against certain representatives ofthe Greek ethical tradition (e.g. Plutarch, Dio
Chrysostom) who dismissed the acquisition of M~a as misguided and ephemeral. But the allocation of M~a for the believer is an eschatological gift and Paul
differentiates his triads from Sallust and Cicero precisely by the addition of the
parallel eschatological terms of 'immortality' (Rom 2:7: a<p6apo[a) and 'peace'
(Rom 2:10: Eip~VTJ). Thus, according to Paul, the significance and worth of glory
is not determined by the estimation of the Roman elite - as Sallust, Cicero and
the Scipionic elogia proposed - but rather by the God who judges the secret
thoughts of all (Rom 2:16).
Moreover, the truthfulness of God enables one to see clearly the intimate connection between human unfaithfulness and injustice and the coming judgement
of God (Rom 3:3-6). In the diatribe of Romans 3:1-8, Paul responds to an imaginary interlocutor who wants to sever the connection between ethical behaviour
and the eschatological judgement (Rom 3:3, 5). In reply, Paul asserts that our
falsehood should never be conceived as somehow serving God's truthfulness
in a way that somehow enhances his glory (Rom 3:7: El<; T~v M~av auTou). The
implication of what Paul is saying is that God's glory resides precisely in his untarnished truthfulness and in his right judgement. Therefore the judgement of
the 'best men', as Cicero argued, could never be determinative in the allocation of
glory: only the truthful Judge of all can make that assessment. In this theocentric
emphasis, Paul has effectively deflated the aristocracy of merit and esteem that
was the driving force behind the old republican quest for glory.
Above all, in the view of Paul, humanity falls far short of the 'glory of God'
(Rom 3:23: U<TTEpouvTat Tti<; M~TJ<;). This is not because the apostle is somehow
208 S. Byrskog ('Christology and Identity in an Intertextual Perspective: The Glory of Adam
in the Narrative Substructure of Paul's Letter to the Romans', in B. Holmberg and M. Winninge
[eds.], Identity Formation in the New Testament [Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 1-18) argues
that behind Romans 1:23, 2:23 and 3:23 stand not only several LXX texts (Ps 105:20; Jer 2:11;
Deut 4:16-18) but also L.A. E. 20:2, 21:6, 33:5, and 35:2. These pseudepigraphic texts speak of
being estranged from Adam's glory.
265
referring to the loss of the glory that Adam possessed at creation before the fall,
as was the case in the Greek Apocalypse of 3 Baruch (3 Bar. 4:16). Rather the
emphasis is on the ruptured relationship that had occurred with God when humanity exchanged the divine glory for a corruptible image (Rom 1:23; 3:23). 209
What must have been surprising for first -century Romans is the way in which
Paul connects the human failure in the quest for glory with its turning away from
God. By contrast, the Roman quest for glory was anthropocentric in focus and
that was precisely the point that Paul wanted his auditors to understand and address. The divine rupture that had occurred between humanity and God could
only be breached by God's presentation of the hilasterion for the satisfaction of
his righteousness, both in the past and in the present (Rom 3:25-26). For Roman
believers, therefore, the ruler could no longer be the priestly mediator between
the state and the god(s); nor should they mistakenly believe, like Cicero and
Posidonius, that ancestral glory somehow pointed to the immortality of soul.
Consequently, Roman believers should not engage in the competitive boasting culture of late republican and early imperial society, with its invisible ties
of clientage to powerful noble families or to the ruler himself. The inflated selfadvertisement of a Gaius Duilius or a Cornelius Gallus was totally excluded for
the believer (Rom 3:27a: nou ouv ~ KaUXTJOL~;). Even the deflected glory inherited
from a client relationship with the ruler was excluded (supra n. 14). The reason
was that believers had entered into an act of commitment (Rom 3:27: <'ha v611ou
n(crn:w~) to the grace of a crucified Benefactor (Rom 3:23: Tft au-rou xapm).
Humility, therefore, would progressively become a prized virtue of Western civilisation as the understanding of Paul's doctrine of justification by grace through
faith impacted upon social relations. Paradoxically, however, believers could
legitimately boast in their tribulations because through their trails they were being progressively conformed to and oriented towards the eschatological hope of
glory (Rom 5:3 [Kauxwlleea E7t' EA7tL<5L ~~ <56~TJ~]. 4 [Kauxwlleea EV Tai~ eAL'I'EOlV], 11 [KauxwllEVOL EV Tip eeq, ]).2 LO The cruciform nature of the faith, therefore,
transformed the focus of Christian boasting and the understanding of how glory
was acquired. This differentiated the Christian understanding of glory sharply
from the traditional view of the Roman nobility.
Nor could Roman believers continue to subscribe to the glorious founding
myths of Rome, based on Aeneas and Romulus, now spectacularly fulfilled in the
house of the Caesars. As we have seen ( 5.2), Augustus had celebrated Rome's
mythological origins architecturally in his forum through his statue programme,
with two lines of descendants emanating from Aeneas and Romulus - the Ae209 Newman, Paul's Glory Christology, 225. Jewett (Romans, 280) addresses the honour context of Romans 3:23: 'To fall short is an honour issue and it resonates with the competition for
honour within and between groups in the Greco-Roman world'.
210 See Carrez, De Ia sou.ffrance, 121-122. See Jewett (Romans, 353) on the counter-cultural
dimension ofboasting in 'afflictions' (Rom 5:3} in the honour-driven boasting culture of Rome.
266
neas line of statues consisting of Augustus' Julian descendants, the Romulus line
of statues consisting of famous republican principes. In each case, the inscriptions accompanying the statues highlighted the glorious achievements of the
honorands from the perspective of posterity, with special emphasis on their crisis
management. Both ancestral lines (republican and Julian), however, converged
in Augustus as the Pater Patriae ('Father of the Country'). 211
By contrast, Paul underscores for his Roman auditors that Abraham or Isaac is
their father (Rom 4: 16-18; Rom 9: 10). Moreover, as Abraham's children through
faith, they are also to give glory to God like their forefather (Rom 4:20: Sou<;
M~av T(jl eeq, ). In saying this, Paul opens up for the Roman believers a new
ancestral heritage that is more glorious than the ancestral glory of the Roman nobility of the past and which far surpasses in its antiquity the alternative founding
myths of Rome and their fulfilment in Augustus. This new ancestry is founded
on Abraham 'our forefather' (Rom 4:1: -rov npom'mopa ~fl<i'>V) and on the other
patriarchs (Rom 9:5: oi na-repec;) who knew the glorious presence of God (Rom
9:4: ~ M~a). 212 As elect vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23), therefore, the gentile Roman believers have the extraordinary privilege of being prepared beforehand for
glory (Rom 9:23 b: npOTJTOLflUOEV eic; M~av) and of knowing the riches of that
glory in the present (Rom 9:23a: -rov nXou-rov T~<; M~TJ<;). Conversely, this also
distinguished the position of the early Christians from Jewish understandings of
'ancestral glory' based upon the possession of the high priesthood or some other
inherited religious status (e.g. Phil3:5-6). 213
211 See E. A. Judge, )\ugustus in the Res Gestae', in id., The First Christians, 182-223.
212 Along with other scholars, Jewett (Romans, 563) observes that the use of the article with
c'i6~a in Romans 9:4, without an accompanying genitival construction (e.g. 'his glory', 'the glory
of the temple'), is unprecedented in Judaism. This position is somewhat overstated, given the use
of'the Great Glory' (T. Levi 3.4; 1 En. 14:19; 102:3) and 'the Glory' (hakkabod: 4QShirShabb")
as titles for God in Second Temple Judaism. Notwithstanding, Jewett draws the conclusion
that Paul is not primarily alluding to Israel's concept of glory( 6.4.1.1- 6.4.2.3) in Romans
9:4. Instead Paul is referring back to~ cSO~a cinoKaAucp8fJval ei~ ~flii~ in Romans 8:18. While a
backward reference to Romans 8:18 is lexically and theologically possible, it is unlikely that a
reference to Israel's glory is ruled out in 9:4. As T. R. Schreiner (Romans [Grand Rapids: Baker,
1998), 484) notes, 'the context indicates that the meaning ofthe term should be sought in the
OT, not in Paul's general usage'. It is more likely that in verse 4 Paul wanted to highlight the
glory of Israel in a stylistically unconventional manner for polemical reasons. 'The glory' (~
c'i6~a) resided exclusively in Israel because of her covenantal election. In this regard, L. Morris
(The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 348) writes that 'God was manifestly present among the people of Israel in a special way, a way not granted to other peoples'.
God's glory, therefore, stood over against the eternal glory of the Caesars and the glory of the
Gentile cultic associations (supra nn. 14, 25: c I. Eph VII 2 3801; IG XI[4)1061). The imperial
and indigenous cults were simply another expression of humanity's exchange of the glory of the
immortal God for idolatrous images (Rom 1:23).
213 In 2 Mace 14:6, the former high priest Alcimus, who had willingly defiled himself, says
to King Demetrius: 'Therefore I have laid aside my ancestral glory (T~v npoyov1K~V c'i6~av) -I
mean the high priesthood - and have now come here'.
267
In other words, instead of the Roman ruler being the only person a diis electus
('chosen by the gods'), the God of Israel had transferred that privilege to the
Body of Christ and had sealed its reality for believers with the experience of
divine glory in the present. 214 Here we see Paul retelling the story of Israel and
its fulfilment in Christ (Rom 1:4: 0"7tEpflaToc:; 8aulcS; 1:5: uiou eeou tv cSuvcif!El;
3:25: iAaO"'t~ptov; 9:5a: t~ wv 6 Xptcr-r6c:;; 9:5b: eeoc:;; 10:4: -rA.oc:; VOflOU; 10:9, 13:
Ki>ptoc:;; 11:26b: tK 1:uiJv 6 pu6f1evoc:;; 15:12: ~ pl<a -rou 'Iecrcral) as a powerful
counterpoint to the ancestral stories of glory that framed the Roman understanding of history, republican and imperial. Moreover, it is also a telling of the story
of Christ that still awaits its eschatological fulfilment in glory. As Paul states in
Romans 8:17, '... we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him
(auvcSo~acr6wf1Ev}'. 215
The eschatological emphasis of Paul's understanding of glory also has dramatic

implications for the present. Because Christ has already been raised by the glory
of the Father (Rom 6:4: cSta Tfic:; M~T]c:; -rou na-rp6c:;), the new way of the Spirit
had broken in (Rom 6:4b [tv KUlVOTT]Tl <wTJc:;]; 7:6b [tv KUlVOTT]Tl1tVEUf1UTOc:;];
8:4-11 ), with the result that Roman believers, as adopted children, could now cry
out through the Spirit abba, 'Father' (8:15b). Thus, as part of this new counterimperial family, the Roman believers, in contrast to Ovid (Ex Ponto 2.8.20-26),
need not fear that their Father of glory would reject them (Rom 8: 15a). Whereas
the divinely elected Augustus embodies all glory in the imperial gospel, the
process is democratised in Paul's thought through the 'called' being justified and
glorified in advance of the eschaton (Rom 8:30: MtKalwcrev Kal tM~acrev; 10:4b).
In the case of the Jews and Gentiles, Christ has received them to the glory of God
(Rom 15:7: eic:; M~av TOU eeou), with the result that the Gentiles glorify God for
his extraordinary mercy (15:9a: cSo~cicrat TOV etov). 216 Indeed, Paul glorifies his
ministry to Gentiles (Rom 11:13: -r~v cStaKov(av f!OU cSo~a<w) throughout the
Roman world in the East and the West so that historic Israel, being provoked to
jealousy, might return to the God of glory well before the eschatological return
of the heavenly messianic Lord from Zion (11:26).
Finally, in contrast to the 'realised eschatology' of the Roman ruler - in which
glory is a present reality - Paul emphasises the gravity of the sufferings of the
present creation, though with a strong focus on the superiority of the coming
apocalyptic glory (Rom 8:18: T~v flEAAoucrav M~av anoKaA.ucp6t;vat). Only in
214 See J. R. Harrison, 'Paul, Theologian ofElecting Grace', inS. E. Porter (ed.), Pauline Studies
Volume III. Paul the Theologian (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 77-108, esp. 101-107.
215 P. Marshall (Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians
[Ti.ibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987], 362-363) cites literary sources where Roman generals glory in
their weakness, shame and suffering.
216 Jewett (Romans, 890), speaking Christ's acceptance of Jew and Gentile (Rom 5:7), sums
up the social outworking of divine glory in the Body of Christ thus: 'It is particularly significant
that this passage overturns a triumphalist biblical tradition, echoes in the Roman civic cult, that
assumed that divine glory would be manifest only in the total victory of one side over the other'.
268
the future will the entire creation be freed from its bondage to decay and obtain
the freedom 'of the glory of the children of God' (Rom 8:22: T~v tXeu9ep[av T~<;
M~T)<; l'WV l'EKVWV Toii 9eoii). This stands in contrast to the language of'cosmic'
redemption used of Augustus in Philo and in the Priene inscription: it also stands
in contrast to the pastoral idylls lauding the peace of Augustus (e.g. Horace) and
the new age of Nero (e.g. Calpurnius Siculus). 217 While Paul in traditional Jewish
manner sees God's glory intimately displayed in his creation, he postpones its full
realisation until the eschaton.
It is therefore no surprise in this theocentric epistle that Paul concludes Chapters 11 and 16 with a doxology to God: 'to whom be the glory into the ages'
(Rom 11:36: 16:27: ~ M~a ei<; Toi><; aiwva<;)'. God's glory travels to encounter his
ancestral people and returns to him with their paeans of praise. 218
6.6 Conclusion
The orator Cicero (106-43 BC) and the Roman historian Sallust were highly
sensitive to the Roman nobleman's quest for gloria ('glory'). Each new generation
of nobiles ('nobles') was expected to replicate and surpass the glorious achievements of their ancestors through military victory or public magistracies in order
to acquire the much-prized gloria. Ancestral glory, the nobiles believed, shone out
brilliantly from the famous members of the household and illuminated all the
more clearly the merits of its possessors. But the fama ('reputation') of the nobiles
had to be publicly talked about for glory to shine out properly. This explains the
boastfulness, distasteful to the modern mind, which characterised the carefully
tabulated self-advertisement found in the Scipionic elogia.
During the principate of Augustus, however, a narrowing of focus gradually
occurred in Roman boasting culture. Now glory resided in one house alone: that
of the apotheosised Caesar and his adopted son. The elogia of the forum Augusti
and its statue programme, the Res Gestae, and the writings of the imperial poets
(e.g. Ovid, Tristia 3.35-46; Ex Pont. 2.8.20-26) testify to this dramatic shift in
the allocation of honour and glory, even though Augustus kept the traditional
pathways of competition for magistracies open to the nobiles, with a view to
replenishing the future generation of leaders.
217 See Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace, 226-234; R. Jewett, 'The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Reading Rom 8:18-23 within the Imperial Context', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul
and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2004), 25-46. Note Jewett's
comment (Romans, 510) regarding the future glory in Romans 8:17: 'Despite the illusions of the
Roman civic cult, the originally intended glory of the creation shall yet be restored, including
specifically the glory humans were intended to bear'.
218 On the theocentric emphasis of Romans, see L. Morris, 'The Theme of Romans', in W. W.
Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays
Presented toE E Bruce (Exeter; Paternoster, 1970), 249-263.
6.6 Conclusion
269
There is an ethical contrast between the conspicuous merit of the republican Roman nobiles - which fed on an eternal quest for glory that culminated
in the triumph of the Julio-Claudians over their competitors - and the radical
disavowal of boasting and self-glorification on the part of the apostle Paul. For
Paul in Romans, glory was a gift of divine grace dispensed to his dependants
through the dishonour of the crucified Christ who had become their hilasterion.
Glory was democratised throughout the Body of Christ and its full expression
postponed till the eschaton. As such, it must have appealed to Romans who were
marginalised by the 'glory' of the rich and powerful celebrity circuit. It challenged
the anthropocentric boasting of the Roman nobiles, as much as it challenged
the cosmic and ancestral myths of the imperial ruler. Paul's radical inversion of
the traditional understanding of gloria ultimately changed the face of Western
civilisation by enshrining humility as the distinguishing sign of a truly great and
successful man.
In Chapters 2-6 we have argued that Paul's gospel does interact critically with
the imperial conception of rule in the Thessalonian epistles and in Romans. Admittedly, the imperial cult was but one expression of the widespread idolatry in
Graeco-Roman society against which Paul warned his converts. Nevertheless, as
a social and religious phenomenon, the imperial cult was ubiquitous and powerful in its local expressions. The civic elites who were clients of the ruler aggressively cultivated his benefactions for their cities and also sponsored his ideology
of rule, priesthoods, and civic celebrations throughout the Greek East and Latin
West. The early Christians, as 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 demonstrates, could hardly
have ignored the implicit challenge to the eschatological rule of Christ posed by
the imperial cult, even if the Romans themselves and their clients were initially
unaware that they were engaging the early Christian understanding of the denouement of history. The early believers, the Romans believed, simply belonged
to the defeated peoples of the world that Rome ruled by the providential appointment of the gods for eternity. If Paul, as we have argued, critiqued the imperial
conception of rule in his gospel, among other issues, how do we explain what
seems to be an unequivocal endorsement of Roman rule in Romans 13:1-7? In
Chapter 7 we turn to this 'bete-noir' of Pauline interpretation.
CHAPTER
Did Paul Found a New Concept of State?

7.1 A Survey of Recent Scholarship on Romans 13:1-7
Among New Testament scholars, Romans 13:1-7 remains one of the most hotly
debated passages of the Pauline corpus, with seemingly little hope of a consensus
emerging in the future. However, this result is not as negative as it first seems.
There have been advances in our understanding of the text. The older conjectures
that the passage is an interpolation have all but disappeared, 1 and the idea that
the authorities (ai e~oua(m) in Romans 13:1 are angels lies abandoned. 2 M.D.
Nanos' proposal that ai e~oua(m are synagogue rulers has also failed to convince. 3
Increasingly, scholars have focused on the social, historical and rhetorical context
of the passage, with the result that the reasons for its apparently conservative tone
are now better appreciated.
In terms of the historical and social context, scholars have highlighted the
popular protests in AD 58 over Nero's collection of indirect taxes (Tacitus,
Ann. 13.50-51) as central to understanding Romans 13:6-7.4 Paul, it is suggested,
was encouraging Roman believers to maintain a low profile regarding a poten1 J. Kallas, 'Romans XIII.1-7: An Interpolation', NTS 11 (1964-1965): 365-374. Contra, F. F.
Bruce, 'Paul and "The Powers That Be~ BJRL 66/2 (1984): 78-83.
2 0. Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1957), 50-70; C. D. Morrison
(The Powers That Be: Earthly Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7 [London: SCM,
1960], passim) takes a mediating position, arguing for a human and angelic referent. Contra,
C. K. Barrett, 'The New Testament Doctrine of Church and State', in id., New Testament Essays
(London: SPCK, 1972), 14-15; Bruce, '"The Powers That Be'", 87-89; W. Carr, Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase HAI ARCHAI KAI
EXOUSIAI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 115-118; R.H. Stein, 'The Argument of Romans 13:1-7', NovT 31/4 (1989): 328; M. Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue and State:
Christians, Jews, and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians (Stockholm:
Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2001), 173.
3 M. D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1996), 296-314. Contra, Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue and State, 173-174 n. 136.
4 J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher, 'Zur historischen Situation und Intention
von Rom 13, 1-7', ZTK 73/2 (1986): 131-166; J.D. G. Dunn, 'Romans 13:1-7- A Charter for
Political Quietism?', ExAud 2 (1986): 60; T. M. Coleman, 'Binding Obligations in Romans 13:7:
A Semantic Field and Social Context', TynBul48/2 (1997): 307-327; Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue and State, 177-188; N.T. Wright, 'Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans', in C.
Bartholemew (ed. ), The Royal Priesthood: The Use of The Bible Ethically and Politically (Carlisle:
Paternoster, 2002), 173-193; R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007),
798-803.
272
Chapter 7: Did Paul J<ound a New Concept of State
tially explosive political issue. 5 Other scholars maintain that the expulsions of the
Jews under Tiberius (AD 19) and Claudius (AD 49), Caligula's attempted desecration of the Jerusalem Temple (AD 41), and the imperial response to the tensions between Greeks and Jews at Alexandria (Philo, Place. 41-72; Leg. 120-136;
Josephus, AJ 18.261-272) provide us with exegetical insight into the interpretation of Romans 13:2.6 1he rising tide ofJewish nationalism, it is claimed, allows
us to discern why Paul adopted such a socially conservative approach towards the
ruler and his representatives. 7 Paul's intention was to encourage believers to be
submissive so that the ruler would not view the movement of the early believers
as a socially destabilising superstitio. In an interesting variation on this thesis,
N. T. Wright argues that Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7 to counter some believers
who mistakenly thought he was saying that 'the church was to become a Christian version of the Jewish "fourth philosophy': owing allegiance to no one except
God and therefore under obligation to rebel violently against human rulers'. 8
While these suggestions have cumulative strength and clarify aspects of Romans 13:1-7, N. Elliott has rightly asked whether Paul's audience would have
been persuaded to obey the rulers, either by paying taxes or avoiding nationalism, on the basis of a few 'platitudes' about the Roman magistrates rewarding the
5 Dunn, 'Romans 13:1-7', 60. Contra, K. Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ
(Fortress: Philadelphia, 1987), 82-83; N. Elliott, Liberating Paul: 7he Justice of God and the
Politics of the Apostle (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 219-226; D. G. Horrell, 'The Peaceable, Tolerant Community and the Legitimate Role of the State: Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in
Romans 12:1-15:13', RevExp 100/1 (2003): 85-86.
6 For insightful comments on the ambivalent nature of Claudius' intervention on behalf of the
Jews at Alexandria (R. K. Sherk [ed.], The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], 44), seeP. Oakes, 'Christian Attitudes to Rome at the Time of
Paul's Letter', RevExp 100/1 (2003): 107. On Jewish nationalism and the writing of Galatians, see
J. R. Harrison, 'Why Did Josephus and Paul Refuse to Circumcise?', Pacifica 17/2 (2004): 137-158.
7 M. Borg, 'A New Context for Romans XIII', NTS 19 (1972-1973): 205-218; E. Bamme!,
'Romans 13', in id. and C. F. D. Moule, Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984), 365-383. Contra, J.I. H. McDonald, 'Romans 13:1-7: A Test Case for
New Testament Interpretation', NTS 35/4 (1989): 545-546. R. L. Parrott (Paul's Political Thought:
Rom 13:1-7 in the Light of Hellenistic Political Thought [unpub. PhD diss. Claremont Graduate
School, 1980], 270) argues that Paul probably had 'in view middle level (i.e. provincial) rulers'
rather than Nero. Undoubtedly, Paul is encouraging obedience to all levels of imperial administration, as his focus on indirect taxation shows (Rom 13:6-7). But, in a letter addressed to
believers living in the capital of the Roman empire, the focus would surely have been on the
ruler, especially since some of the believing freedmen and slaves belonged to his household
(Phil4:22). L. E. Keck (Romans [Nashville: Abingdon, 2005], 316) confines Paul's reference to
the authorities bearing the 'sword' (Rom 13:4) to 'Rome's law-enforcement power, including the
police'. While this interpretation is possible, it abstracts Paul's rhetoric from its contemporary
imperial context( 7.4) where the ruler's sword is the emphasis.
8 Wright, 'Paul and Caesar', passim. For a comprehensive coverage of Wright's position, see
id., 'The Letter to the Romans', in anon. (ed.), The New Interpreter's Bible Volume X (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2002), 716-720. See also id., 'Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire', in R.A. Horsley
(ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister
Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000), 168.
273
good and punishing the unjust (Rom 13:3-4).9 More importantly, the suggestions
falter because we only gain a truncated view of how the passage functions rhetorically and contextually within the larger letter. Further, they bypass the wider
debate of the late Hellenistic and early imperial political theorists regarding the
status and function of the ruler. In the Greek East and the Latin West, this debate
continued unabated in the first century AD and it seems highly unlikely that
Paul, writing to believers in the capital where the ruler lived, would have been
oblivious of its import.
T. L. Carter and N. Elliott have injected fresh life to the debate by discussing
the means of persuasion employed in Romans 13:1-7: that is, 'irony' or 'hidden
transcript'. 10 Paul, in a coded warning, is warning the Roman believers about the
danger posed by the rulers if they act unwisely towards them. Such an approach
jettisons the assertion that Romans 13:1-7 is simply another version of the 'subjection' tradition of the household codes. 11 Furthermore, given the savagery of
Nero's pogrom against the Roman believers a few years later (AD 64), the suggestion of Carter and Elliott frees Paul of the charge that he tragically miscalculated
in endorsing Roman rule. 12 In this scenario, Paul is no longer thought to be
promoting unquestioning obedience to the ruler. Rather, he is rousing believers
to act in a politically astute manner that will earn the ruler's praise or, at the very
least, not provoke his wrath. 13 In this regard, B. W Winter has discussed the benElliott, Liberating Paul, 219-220.
T. L. Carter ('The Irony of Romans 13', NovT 48/3 [2004]: 209-228) agues that Paul's overly
positive commendation of the state in Romans 13 would have been interpreted as a case of irony
by Roman auditors suffering oppression at the hands of the imperial rulers. Paul's rhetorical
technique - censuring with counterfeit praise (Quintilian, Inst. 8.6.55) - 'is sufficiently overstated for his readers to understand it as a covert exposure of the shortcomings of Roman rule'
(ibid., 226). Contra, Horrell ('The Peaceable, Tolerant Community', 87) says regarding Paul's
argument: 'it is striking that he can speak here without any hint of reserve or irony of the state
as God's servant in rewarding good and punishing evil'. On 'hidden transcripts', see our discussion in 1.5.2. For Elliott on 'hidden transcripts' in relation to Romans 13:1-7, see 7.3- 7.4.
11 See W Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983 ),
3, 556-56; id., 'Romans 13:1-7: Apartheid's Last Biblical Refuge', BTB 20 (1990): 161-168; U.
Wilckens, Rechtfertigung als Freiheit: Paulusstudien (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1974), 211-214. Contra, Bruce, '"The Powers That Be"', 83-85.
12 E. A. Judge ('The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution?', in id. [ed. J. R. Harrison], The First Christians in the Roman Empire: Augustan and New Testament Essays [Tiibingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2008], 455) observes regarding Paul's miscalculation: 'Secure in the repeated
demonstrations of the integrity of Roman justice abroad, lulled perhaps by the specious promise
of Nero's first five years, he took his unexpected detention in Rome as an invitation to abandon
the long restraint. Not only the fond confidence of the writer of Acts ("openly and unhindered"),
but Paul's own earlier plea for honour to Nero ("he does not bear the sword in vain") acquires a
horrible irony'. Similarly, see Jewett, Romans, 796.
13 Note the comment ofTellbe (Paul between Synagogue and State, 181): 'Because Paul was
familiar with the anti-Jewish sentiments in Rome, the recent expulsions of Jews from Rome
under Tiberius and Claudius, as well as the prevailing tax complaints under Nero, he did not
want the Alexandrian tragedy to be repeated in the imperial capital'.
9
10
274
Chapter 7: Did Paul Found a New Concept of State
efaction language of Romans 13:3-4 and the civic strategies Paul recommends if
believers are to win over the authorities. 14
One suspects, however, that Paul's political thought is more holistically gauged
by being attuned to what the apostle is not saying about the ruler 15 - in comparison to the ancient political treatises - as much as discerning what he is (purportedly) saying ironically. In this regard, we need to be alert to the seamless way that
Paul transfers the functions and titles of the ruler to Christ and his church. This
means that Paul is promoting not only a 'counter-imperial theology' in Romans, 16
but also establishing a counter-imperial community which, through the life of the
Spirit and the power of the gospel, seeks to bring the nations to obedience to the
Davidic 'Son of God' and 'Lord' (Rom 1:4-6, 16; cf. 15:7-13; 16:26) over against
the Julio-Claudian 'Son of God' and 'Lord'.
This new household of faith, by virtue of its 'fictive kinship-groups that cut
across household lines', challenged the Roman mos maiorum ('custom of the
ancestors') through its distinctive social practices. 17 When God raised his dish onoured benefactor - crucified by the Romans and despised by the ungrateful - to
the status of world benefactor and 96<; (Rom 5:12-21; 8:31-39; 9:4; 15:9-12), the
early Christian households participated in his reign of grace (5:20) and brokered
his benefits to those who were willing to transfer their loyalty from the house of
the Caesars to the house of David (15:12; cf. 1:3-4). We need to situate Romans
13:1-7, therefore, in its ancient literary and documentary context, observing
carefully how Paul allocated to the church as much as to the risen Christ the roles
traditionally assigned to rulers in the writings of the ancient political theorists.
Thus P. H. Towner is correct in saying that Romans 13:1-7 does not articulate a
'universal theology of the state' but provides a parenesis that seeks, though the
gospel proclamation of the church, to engage and transform the structures of the
wider society. 18
14 B. W Winter, 'The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13:3-4 and 1 Peter
2:14-15', JSNT 34 (1988): 87-103. See, however, the critique of Winter's case in B. Blumenfeld,
The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 2001), 395-396. Keck (Romans, 315-316) claims that Winter is incorrect because of
the implausibility of the emperor honouring the good behaviour of individuals. However, Keck
fails to dislodge Winter's ancient evidence supporting his case, ending up his critique of Winter
with mere assertion: 'Significant as the terminological evidence in itself is, Winter's interpretation does not comport easily with the concerns of the passage as a whole' (ibid., 316). Other than
this bald statement, Keck provides no arguments, theological or historical, to support his claim.
15 Keck (Romans, 319-321) makes the same point, though with several different observations
tome.
16 The term is N. T. Wright's (Paul: Fresh Perspectives [SCM: London, 2005], 69). In endorsing
the phrase, I am not suggesting that Paul is promoting the demise of the imperial authorities
in the present age.
17 See the helpful comments of Oakes, 'Christian Attitudes to Rome', 109.
18 P. H. Towner, 'Romans 13:1-7 and Paul's Missiological Perspective: A Call to Political Quietism or Transformation?', inS. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (eds.), Romans and the People of
God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 149-169.
275
Another approach to studying Romans 13:1-7 has been to situate the passage in the debate of the late Hellenistic and early Roman political theorists
regarding the status and responsibilities of the ruler. In an excellent unpublished
doctoral dissertation, R. L. Parrott has examined Paul's discussion of submission
to the ruler from the perspective of select popular philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Plutarch). 19 Surprisingly, Parrott omits the discussions of kingship by Dio
Chrysostom and Musonius Rufus, only touches very briefly on the Pythagorean
theorists, and confines his discussion of the Jewish literature exclusively to Philo.
Parrott's survey of the philosophical and Jewish literature, therefore, is somewhat
truncated for our purposes. Last, as noted, Parrot claims that Paul is more speaking about the provincial proconsuls and their retinue in Romans 13:1-7 than the
ruler at Rome. His conclusion is that while believers are to obey their provincial
official, they are not to do so blindly. 20
In seminal work on the political implications of Paul's thought in its Hellenistic framework, B. Blumenfeld discusses Romans 13:1-7 from the perspective
of the Pythagorean literature on kingship. Blumenfeld argues that Paul creates a
parallel state that poses no immediate threat to the existing structures of imperial rule. According to Blumenfeld, Paul and Sthenidas, the Pythagorean political
theorist, are novel among the late Hellenistic philosophers in saying that the king
was the 'servant' of God. 21 Overall, Blumenfeld concentrates more on the Hellenistic context than the imperial context. Furthermore, he does not engage with the
LXX and the literature of Second Temple Judaism as the dynamic shaping Paul's
response to the theocracy of the Pythagorean theorists and imperial propaganda
more widely. 22 In sum, although Parrott and Blumenfeld have powerfully contributed to our understanding of the debates among the late Hellenistic and early
imperial political theorists, there remain several important strands of evidence
still to be explored.
Finally, of particular interest for our purposes, is the debate regarding the
eschatological context of Romans 13:1-7. M. Hengel points out that Paul's call
for obedience to the authorities is followed in Romans 13:11-14 'by a reference
to the kairos of the parousia, coming nearer all the time'. 23 As Hengel expands,
'the significance of governmental authorities is limited and relativised. They are
Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, passim.
On this point, see also W. E. Pilgrim, Uneasy Neighbours: Church and State in the New
Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 31-33; A. T. Monera, 'The Christian's Relationship to
the State according to the New Testament: Conformity or Non-conformity?', AfT 19/1 (2005):
106-142.
21 Blumenfeld, The Political Paul, 189-274, 389-396.
22 Note the absence of citations from the LXX and the literature of Second Temple Judaism
in Blumenfeld's book in comparison to the wealth of the other literature discussed (The Political
Paul, 479, 491). One recognises here the importance of Wright's heavy emphasis on the retelling
and fulfilment oflsrael's story in Christ and his church (id., Paul, passim).
23 M. Hengel, Christ and Power (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1977), 35.
19
20
276
instituted by God and surely necessary and salutary, but their days are numbered,
their significance only transitory'. 24 With even greater precision, B. W Winter
argues that Paul's apocalyptic transcript in verses 11-14 has direct imperial reference, critiquing the ubiquitous imperial propaganda regarding the 'eternity' of
Rome and its empire (e.g. Virgil, Aen. 1.275ff). 25
Other writers seek to reconcile Paul's endorsement of the authorities in Romans 13:1-7 with his apocalyptic polemic against the Pax Romana in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. K. Wengst reads both texts in a complementary way: the loyalty
that Paul demands of his converts to the state is the loyalty of believers who are
aliens to this world (1 Cor 7:29-31) and citizens of the heavenly city (Phil3:20). 26
By contrast, E. Bam mel claims that both traditions are irreconcilable. We are witnessing, Bammel claims, a lessening of eschatology in Paul's thought in Romans
13:1-7. In Bammel's view, the pericope represents a 'foreign body' in the central
concerns of Paul's theologyP
Last, Botha brings Romans 13:1-7 into dialogue with the apocalyptic 'two
ages' doctrine in Romans 12:1-2 and 13:11-14. Whereas in Romans 12:1-2
and 13:11-14 Paul uses confrontational language to establish a paradigm of
non-conformity to this age for believers, in Romans 13:1-7 Paul demonstrates
that believers must establish their new social reality by means of 'strategies of
conformity'. 28 E. Adams comes to a similar conclusion by comparing Romans
13:1-7 with Romans 1:18-31:
... Paul's advice in 13:1-7 is not to be linked with the negative command of 12:2, 'Do not
be conformed to this age', but with the positive appeal to discern the will of God the creator
and to live in the light of it. Rom 13:1-7 resists all attempts to set it within an apocalyptic,
dualistic framework. The political order is located incontrovertibly in the creative and
providential purposes of God. Paul legitimates the imperial government by incorporating it within the reign of God ... Paul addresses the Roman believers as part of society as
a whole, not as demarcated from it or exempt from obligation toward it. It is their duty
as members of the wider society to be subjects ... The idea of a positively valued, ordered
world was expressed in 1:18-32. Rom 13:1-7 shares this understanding. In both passages,
it is assumed that there is a natural and moral order, reflecting the divine will, in accordance with which one is expected to live. Also, both passages articulate the idea that God's
wrath in its present expression is a retributive process built into the fabric of the world.
In 1:18-32, God's wrath operates in and through the natural, moral structures of human
society. In 13:4-5, the divine wrath works through the political structures of society ... 29
Ibid., 36.
B. W Winter, 'Roman Law and Society in Romans 12-15', in P. Oakes (ed.), Rome in the
Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 88-89.
26 Wengst, Pax Romana, 84.
27 Bammel, 'Romans 13', 380-381.
28 J. Botha, Subject to Whose Authority? Multiple Readings of Romans 13 (Atlanta: Scholars,
24
25
1994),206-207,209.
29 E. Adams, Constructing the World: A Study in Paul's Cosmological Language (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 2000), 205, 206-207 (emphasis Adams'). Keck (Romans, 324-325), after surveying
7.2 Greek and Roman Political Theorists on Submission to the Ruler
277
The apocalyptic context of Romans 13:1-7, therefore, needs to be further clarified if we are to discern clearly what Paul is saying about the alternate imperial
conception of rule in the Latin West to Roman believers.
A series of questions emerge from our survey of the scholarly debate on
Romans 13:1-7. Does Paul implicitly critique imperial rule in Romans 13 or,
alternatively, does he endorse the political status quo? Does he place limits on the
believer's submission to the Roman ruler? What is the believer's responsibility
towards the imperial cult in an honorific culture? How does the story of Israel,
fulfilled in a crucified and vindicated Messiah, shape Paul's response to such
complex issues? How does Romans 13 fit contextually into the wider apologetic
sweep of the epistle? What do we make of Paul's decentralisation of many of the
prominent functions of the ruler and their reallocation to the risen Christ and
his Body? 30 In his first -century context, has Paul ultimately pioneered a new
understanding of state?

In this section we will confine our discussion of the ruler's authority in the late
Hellenistic and the early imperial period to three strands of literary evidence.
First, we will investigate the writings of the Hellenistic Pythagorean philosophers on kingship, namely, Diotogenes, Sthenidas, and Ps.-Ecphantus ( 1.2.1.1).
Second, we will discuss the evidence of popular philosophers on the topic,
focusing on Dio Chrysostom ( 1.2.1.2), Musonius Rufus ( 1.2.1.3) and Plutarch( 1.2.1.4). Third, Seneca's De Clementia( 1.3.1), a speech of exhortation
addressed to the imperial ruler, will be examined. Seneca's De Clementia has
intrinsic interest because Seneca, as the tutor of Nero, counsels his young charge
on the necessity of mercy as a ruler at the outset of his rule. Although this work
is riddled with flattery, Seneca does speak critically elsewhere of other JulioClaudian rulers (e.g. Gaius and Claudius: Seneca, Ben. 4.31.1-4.32.4)_31
a range of positions on Romans 13:1-7 (ibid., 322-324), concludes that the passages resists all
historical explanation. Rather, Keck asserts, the passage is intended to help its readers cope with
the authorities, positively and negatively, as a mark of the new creation (Rom 12:1-2). But in
grappling with Keck's 'timeless' construct of Romans 13:1-7, we are plunged back into historical
contingency: why did Paul want to help mid-fifties Roman auditors 'cope' with the authorities?
What issues were driving his pastoral concern? We cannot answer this basic exegetical question
from Keck's non-historical hermeneutic.
30 See the suggestive comments of D. Georgi, Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991; Gmn. orig. 1987), 102.
31 I am indebted to Parrott (Paul's Political Thought, 117-118) for these references. For brief
discussion of Seneca's Apocolocyntosis, see supra 2.3. For positive references to the Caesars
elsewhere in Seneca, see id., Polyb. 12.3-5; 15.3 (Parrott, ibid., 125 n. 1). S. Krauter's important
new work (Studien zu Rom 13,1-7: Paulus und der politische Diskurs der neronischen Zeit [Tiibin-
278
Our discussion, therefore, is exclusively focused on the evidence of the philosophers. The reason is that Paul, like the philosophers, argues theologically for
the divine origin of the ruler's authority but, in contrast to most of the philosophers, underscores the ethical and social consequences arising from the divine
ordering of government for subjects of the ruler. Significantly, too, three of the
philosophers to be discussed were either exiled by the imperial ruler (Musonius
Rufus, Dio Chrysostom) or were killed by him (Seneca). As such, the collision
of the philosophers with the imperial rulers resonates with the experience of Roman believers under Nero in AD 64. This poses the question whether Paul, writing in Nero's quinquennium, foresaw the potential of the Julio-Claudian rulers
being corrupted by their hubris and turning against believers, notwithstanding
the rapturous acclamation accompanying Nero's accession to rule.
We will, however, bypass the evidence of the Cynic-Stoic philosopher Epictetus who relentlessly criticised of the imperial pax Romana and its purported
benefits (Arr., Epict. Diss. 3.13.9-13; 4.1.11-14; 4.1.41-50; 4.1.95). Paul's strategy
of simultaneously affirming and demoting the authority of the ruler in Romans
13 has greater subtlety than the full frontal attacks of Epictetus. Moreover, in
contrast to Epictetus, Paul does not exalt the moral purpose of the philosopher
king over the earthly ruler (1 Cor 1:20), but endorses the ruler's right to govern
as God's servant within the confines of Christ's heavenly rule in the present and
the coming eschatological kingdom of the Father (2:6-8; 8:4-6; 15:24-27). 32
Several other texts will also not be examined. Due to the fragmentary state
of Philodemus' I1epi TOU KaO, o~'lPOV ayaOou pamA.Ew<; ('On the Good King
according to Homer'), we will not discuss the text. 33 While the evidence of the
papyri and inscriptions could be profitably looked at, such a full-orbed investigation of the late Hellenistic monarchs would take us wide of the imperial context. 34
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009]), which explores Romans 13:1-7 within the framework ofNeronian
political discourse, was not available to me.
32 See Parrott, ibid., 129-143. Parrott (ibid., 143) observes that Epictetus' radical redefinition
of social relationships 'means every kingdom human kingdom is superseded; none has a claim
to absolute authority. Instead of being subject to the natural social relationships, the Cynic is
their critic. Instead of being in another's kingdom, the Cynic is lord of a kingdom in which
every man is a member. God did not place the Cynic under any of the kingdoms but his own,
but in so doing, he placed the Cynic over all men'. The difference in the political stance between
Paul and Epictetus is vast and does not bear closer examination for our purposes. On Epictetus
and the New Testament, seeP. Oakes, 'Epictetus (and the New Testament)', VoxEv 23 (1993):
39-56; C. Forbes, 'Epictetus', in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament
Background (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 321-324.
33 The fragmentary text ofPhilodemus on kingship ('On the Good King according to Homer':
Tiepl TOU Ka9' 'OflTJPOV ayaeou ~a<HAEW<; [Leipzig: Teubner, 1909]) is discussed by M.O. Murray, 'Philodemus on the Good King according to Homer',JRS 55 (1965): 161-182; P. Grima!, 'Le
<<bon roi>> selon de Philodeme et Ia royaute de Cesar', REL 44 (1966): 254-285.
34 See W Schubart, 'Das hellenistische Kiinigsideal nach inschriften und papyri', AFP 12
(1937): 1-26. The inscriptions and papyri more emphasise the virtues of the king in the same
manner as the eulogistic inscriptions of civic benefactors, bypassing the central concerns of
279
Nor will we will touch on Augustus' personal understanding of the basis of his
rule in the Res Gestae, 35 or on the senatorial investiture of Roman rulers with
imperial authority and power, as encoded in the famous law from Vespasian's
principate (ILS 244). 36 Paul was more interested in how the claims of the imperial
rulers impinged upon the honour of the risen Christ as opposed to how the imperial rulers understood their powers within the checks and balances of republican
and Julio-Claudian precedent. Last, the treatise ofHierocles on 'On Duties: How
to Conduct Oneself Toward the Fatherland', written in the second century AD,
does not discuss the ruler of the fatherland. Instead it focuses instead on the laws
themselves and the importance of not diluting tradition and precedent by legal
novelties. The focus of this work, therefore, is fundamentally different to Paul's. 37
7.2.1 Greek Political Literature on the Ideal Ruler

7.2.1.11he Pythagorean Political Theorists
By the Hellenistic age, Greek monarchy had undergone multiple transformations.38 Initially, monarchy had evolved from the Mycenaean warrior-priest 'king'
the philosophers (i.e. the king's divine mission, his imitation of God, and his role as VOJ..Loc;
Eflljluxoc;). Similarly, see C. Preaux, 'L'Image du roi de l'epoque hellenistique', in F. Bossier (et
al., ed.), Images of Man in Ancient and Medieval Thought: studia Gerardo Verbeke ab amicis et
collegis dicata (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1976), 67, 75. This documentary emphasis on
the royal virtues is picked up later in the imperial cult of the virtues (J. R. Fears, 'The Cult of
the Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology', ANRW II 17/2 [1981]: 736-826). On the virtues of
eastern Mediterranean benefactors, see F. W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a GraecoRoman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1982), passim.
For additional documentary evidence, see C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic
Period (Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1934).
35 See especially E. A. Judge, 'Augustus in the Res Gestae', in id., The First Christians, 182-223.
36 For a translation, see Sherk (ed.), The Roman Empire, 82. The powers and authority
conveyed at Vespasian's investiture are said to be in harmony with the policies and piety of the
earlier Julio-Claudians rulers towards the res publica and the gods (though Caligula and Nero
are excluded because of the imposition of damnatio memoriae): 'whatever (Vespasian) decides
will be in accordance with the advantage of the Republic and with the majesty of things divine,
human, public, and private, he shall have the right and power so to act and do, just as (such right
and power) were possessed by the deified Augustus and Tiberius Iulius Caesar Augustus and
Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus'.
37 For an English translation, see A. J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 88-90.
38 On the development of the Greek monarchy institutionally and ideologically, see A. Delatte, Essais sur Ia politque pythagoricienne (Liege: Bibliotheque de Ia Faculte de Philosophie
et Lettres de l'Universite de Liege, 1922); E.R. Goodenough, 'The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship', YCS 1 (1928): 55-102; A.D. Nock, 'Notes on the Ruler Cult, I-IV', JHS 48
( 1928 ): 21-43; C. W. McEwan, The Oriental Origin of Hellenistic Kingship (Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1934); M.P. Charlesworth, 'Some Observations on Ruler-Cult Especially in Rome',
HTR 28 (1935): 5-44; L. Delatte, Les traites de Ia royaute d'Ecphante, Diotogene et Sthenidas
(Liege: Bibliotheque de Ia Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Universite de Liege, 1942); L.
Cerfaux and J. Tondrian, Le culte des souverains dans Ia civilisation greco-romaine (Paris: Tournai
Descee & Co., 1956); V. Ehrenberg, The Greek State (2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1960); T. Adam,
280
(i.e. the wan ax of the Linear B tablets) to the hereditary military chiefs presiding
over the tribal society of the Greek colonisation period (750-550 BC). 39 In this
process, tyrants often emerged as the de-facto monarchs of the aristocratic Greek
city-states in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. But with the triumph of democracyin fifth-century Athens and the inability of the democratic city-states to meet
the dislocating challenges of the fourth century, a more theoretical construct of
monarchy began to emerge. The Sophist and Socratic thinkers - opponents of
Greek democracy - argued that the king governs fitly 'by nature' (qr6aL: e.g.
Aristotle, Pol. 1248a-1288a). In this regard, the Socratic tradition- and popular
Stoicism as well - had argued that virtue was to be identified with the universal
law and consequently only the most virtuous had the right to rule. 40 This culminated in Plato's famous ideal of the philosopher-king (Resp. 6.484a-502c)_4l Conversely, other fourth -century writers such as Xenephon and !socrates abandoned
the theoretical constructs of classical Athens (e.g. Aristotle, Pol. 1310b-1315b)
in describing the monarchies of the Greek and Persian world. 42 These writers
produced highly eulogistic monographs on individual Greek and Persian monarchs (e.g. Xenephon: Agesilaus, Cyropaedia; !socrates: Evagoras, To Nicocles, To
Philip), 43 with !socrates dispensing with any religious or mystical conception of
monarchy in Evagoras 21 and 72. 44
Clementia Principis: Der EinflujJ hellenistischer Furstenspiegel auf den Versuch einer rechtlichen
Fundierung des Principats durch Seneca (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1970), 12-18; Pn!aux,
'L'Image du roi', 53-75; Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, passim; A. Momigliano, "How Roman
Emperors Became Gods', American Scholar 55/2 (1986): 181-193, esp. 184-186; D. Fishwick,
The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the
Roman Empire Volume I, 1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), 3-55; S. Braund, De Clementia (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009), 24-30,64-66,68-70, 73-76.
39 Although Homer (fl. 700 BC) depicts Mycenaean ~acr[;\.w; ruling over independent citystates (e.g. II. 2.166-277; Od. 1.365-404), Homer's portrait more reflects the petty chieftain society of the Dark Ages as opposed to the sophisticated centralised palace bureaucracies ofKnossos
and Pylos revealed in the Linear B tablets. Notwithstanding, the ideal 'Homeric' king became
an important paradigm in Hellenistic discussions of kingship (e.g. Diotogenes, Ilepl ~aO"LAELa<;,
Stob. 4.7.62 p. 270 11.12-13; Dio. Chrys. Or. l.ll-15; 2 passim; 3.9; 4.20-25, 39-45; Plutarch,
Mar. 776E, 780F). According to Homer, kingship was a gift from the gods (II. 2.204-206; cf.
Sophocles, Phil. 139-140; Pliny, Panegy. 1.3-5; 79.6-80.5; id., Ep. 10.1, 52, 102). Hesiod (fl. 700
BC), writing roughly at the same time, depicts the king as born of Zeus (Iheog. 96).
40 Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, 46-47.
41 For discussion, see C. D. C. Reeve, Philosopher-Kings: Ihe Argument of Plato's Republic
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).
42 Adam (Clementia Principis, 12) argues that !socrates and Xenephon, in contrast to the
'theoretische' thought of Plato and Aristotle on kingship, adopt an organised and 'untheoretische' argument, with an emphasis on the concrete situation and the royal personality addressed. As Adam (ibid.) elaborates, 'Sie enthalten eben gerade nicht ,Staatsphilosophie" bzw.
ein allgemeines Herrscherideal, sondern beziehen sich - auch wenn sie natiirlich stark idealisieren- ausdriicklich aufbestimmte politische Gegebenheiten und Persiinlichkeiten'.
43 By the fourth century BC, Greek orators (e.g. !socrates) and historians (e.g. Xenephon)
paved the way for a more concrete interest in the ideal king. Somewhat misleadingly, !socrates
claims to be the first writer 'to eulogise in prose a man's virtues' (Evagoras 8). He wrote a rhetori-
281
With the establishment of the 'successor' kingdoms after the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC), a new genre ofliterature emerged, popularly designated
Ilepl pamh[a:; ('On Kingship'). These Pythagorean tracts on the nature of kingship arose in reaction to the encomiums (rhetorical eulogies) oflsocrates and
Xenephon, among others. As B. Blumenfeld observes, it was 'an attempt to ward
off sycophancy or (was) intended as an antidote to its corrupting effects'. 45 Three
Pythagorean tracts - Diotogenes' Concerning a Kingdom (II-I cent. BC: provenance, southern Italy), Sthenidas' On a Kingdom (Hellenistic to imperial times:
provenance, Locri), and Ps.-Ecphantus' On Kings (II-I cent. BC: provenance,
Croton) - are invaluable because they resist the temptation to lapse into rhetorical eulogy regarding their subject. 46 Moreover, these southern Italian tracts
elucidate the status and responsibilities of the ideal king towards his subjects and
the gods, and throw light on how the imperial cult grew out of the Hellenistic
precedents of the ruler cultY Last, it was a small step, as we shall see, for these
cal eulogy ofEvagoras {ruler of Cyprian Salamis: 435-374/374 BC) and a compendium of advice
to Nicoles (Evagoras' son and successor). Xenephon idealises the Spartan Agesilaus {444-360
BC) as the 'good king', eulogises his exploits (Ages. 1-2) and virtues {3-9), and portrays the
monarch as a hero in the Panhellenic cause. In his historical novel, Cyropaedia ('The Education
of Cyrus'), Xenephon presents the reign of Cyrus the Elder {559-529 BC) as the ideal monarchy,
guided by a wise ruler who is intimately familiar with Socratic ideals. The work represents a
'counterblast' to Plato's Statesman (e.g. 291-297, 300-301), a work that emphasises the difficulty
oflocating and training appropriate statesmen for the Greek city-states (D. J. Mosley, 'Xenephon',
in N.G.L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard [eds.], Oxford Classical Dictionary [2"d ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1972], 1142). Thus the Cyropaedia speaks of the virtue of the monarch
(Cyr. 8.1.12, 22; 8.1.37, 40), displayed in his role as 'father' (7.1.1, 44) and as 'shepherd' (1.1.2)
of his subjects. According to Delatte (Les traites, 131), although Xenephon's conception of royal
power is essentially 'human' in its ideals, nevertheless he claims that leaders possess 'a touch of
the kingly nature' as a 'divine' gift {Oec. 21.10, 12).
44 Delatte, Les traites, 130-131. However, in Isocates, Nicocles 42, King Nicocles claims that
his progeny would trace their lineage back to his father, Evagoras, and to 'Zeus among the gods'.
45 Blumenfeld, The Political Paul, 190.
46 I have adopted Blumenfeld's dating (ibid.) of the Pythagorean texts. The dating of the Pythagorean IIepl ~aaLAda<; literature is disputed. Delatte (Les traites, passim) dates the works of
Diotogenes, Sthenidas, and Ps.-Ecphantus to the first and second centuries AD on the basis of
a close chronological analysis of the language (its alleged artificiality and usages post-dating the
first century) and thought (its purported affinities with the Middle Stoa). However, H. Thesleff
(An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period [Abo: Abo Akedemi, 1961],
65-71) incisively critiques Delatte's case and methodology, positing instead a third century BC
date. The earlier work of Goodenough ('Political Philosophy') dates the three works to the Hellenistic period. After reviewing the arguments above, Adam (Clementia Principis, 13-14) also
agues for the Hellenistic direction of the three texts.
47 Ehrenberg ('Monarchy', in Hammond and Scullard [eds.], Oxford Classical Dictionary, 698)
charts the movement from Hellenistic monarchy to imperial rule thus: 'Hellenistic monarchy
combined the people's kingship of Macedon, the individual ambitions of Greek "royal men'; and
oriental traditions of theocratic despotism. Its characteristic features were: rule over a large territory, dynastic government and succession, and ruler-worship. This monarchy was supported
by the philosophical idea of the rule of the truly wise man. It exercised a marked influence on
Roman monarchy and imperial administration'.
282
Pythagorean writers, building on Socratic precedent, to suggest that the king

was so in harmony with universal law that he became VOflO<; Efl\jtUXO<; ('animate
law') and was, consequently, the incarnation of justice and virtue more generally.
We turn now to a brief discussion of the Pythagorean writers on the kingship. 48
Diotogenes, in contrast to the abstract theorising of Plato and Aristotle, argues
that justice is a practical virtue that is eminently achievable for the king while he
rules (Stob. 4.7.61 p. 263 He.ll.18-21). 49 The king demonstrates that he is either
'animated by law (VOflO<; Efl\j!UXO<;)' or is the 'legal ruler (VOfllflO<; apxwv )' of the
state by being 'just and observant of the law (&Kat6m-ro<; Kal VOflLflWTUTo<;)'
(Stob. 4.7.61 p. 263 He. ll. 22-23). In using the VOflO<; Efl\jtUXO<; motif, Diotogenes
assigns to the king a 'unique ontological status straddling the human and the
divine'. 5 Diotogenes differs from his Pythagorean predecessor, Ps.-Archytas of
Tarentum (IV cent. BC), who had also employed the expression in a work (Ilepl
VOflOU Kal 8tKULOa\JVT)<; ['On Law and Justice']) exploring how good Law guided
the community. Ps-Archytas distinguishes between the king as 'the animate law'
(v6f1WV <')f. 6 flEV Efl\j!UXO<; paOlAEu<;) and 'the inanimate law', that is, the written
letter (6 <')f. a\jluxo<; yp<lflf1U: Stob. 4.1.135 p. 82 He.l. 8). 51 However, Ps.-Archytas
regarded the mixed constitution of the Spartans as the political ideal for states
and thus rejects absolute kingship as tyrannical, 52 whereas Diotogenes sees the
king as the vice-regent of God and resembling God in his rule of the world. 53 In
48 All references to the Pythagorean IIepi ~aatA.da<; literature conform to H. Thesleff, The
Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (Abo: Abo Akademi, 1965). Translations are drawn
from K.S. Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1987),
except where indicated otherwise.
49 J. F. Gardner, Leadership and the Cult of Personality (London: Dent, 1974), 65. For an English translation of Diotogenes' IIepi ~aatA.Eia, see Guthrie, Pythagorean Sourcebook, 222-224.
For a commentary on Diotogenes, see Delatte, Les traites, 245-273; Blumenfeld, The Political
Paul, 234-253.
50 Blumenfeld, The Political Paul, 236. For discussion of the motif, see A. Delatte, Essai sur
Ia politique Pythagoricienne (rpt. Geneve: Slatkine, Reprints, 1999; Fr. orig 1922), 85; Delatte,
Les traites, 245-249; G. J.D. Aalders, 'N6f!O<; Efl'iJUXo<;', Politeia und Respublica (Palingenesia
4, Wiesbaden 1969), 315-329; Adam, Clementia Principis, 45-47. The motif was well known
in Republican Rome, as the writings of Cicero demonstrate (L. K. Born, 'Animate Law in the
Republic and the Laws of Cicero', TAPA 64 [1933]: 128-137).
51 Delatte (Essai, 84-85) summarises Ps.-Archytus' thought thus: 'Done le roi est envisage
dans les mots loi animee est une Roi ideal, absolurnent parfait, dont les idees et Ia volonte
tiendraient lieu de loi'. Delatte finds parallels in Aristotle (Pol. 1284a-1284b) and in Plato
(Pol. 294a-b, 301 d) that help to explain the two types of royalty mentioned by Archytas.
52 Ps.-Archytas, IIepi VOf!OU Kai c5LKaLO<JUVf1<;: 'When (the law) is violated, the king is no more
than a tyrant, the magistrate is illegitimate, the commanded becomes a slave, and the whole
community becomes unhappy' (Stob. 4.1.135 p. 83 He.ll.ll-12).
53 Diotogenes, IIepi ~a<nA.e[a<;: 'While judicial affairs are in general everybody's interest, this
is the special work of a king who, like God, is a world-leader and protector' (Stob. 4.7.61 p. 264
He. II. 9-11). Blumenfeld (The Political Paul, 236) overstates the evidence when he says that
Diotegenes regarded the king's prerogatives as 'not just God-sanctioned' but was 'a god' himself.
Diotoneges continually asserts that the King is analogous to God/the gods in his rule but does
not ascribe divinity to him. Conversely, Delatte (Les traites, 248) underestimates the status that
283
sum, over against Aristotle who did not describe the king as VOflO<; Efl'IJUX6<; but
only as Law (Politics 1288a),54 the Pythagorean writers see the king as incarnating the law in a way that far surpasses the written code, though Ps.-Archytus and
Diotogenes disagree regarding the precise ontological status of the king.
Diotogenes also defines clearly the functions of a king. As general of the state
the king leads the army; as judge he administers justice; and, finally, as priest
he worships the gods (Stob. 4.7.61 pp. 263-263 He. ll. 23-24). Diotogenes employs other metaphors to illustrate the role of the king: he is the pilot of a ship,
the charioteer of the chariot, and the physician of the sick (Stob. 4.7.61 p. 264
He. ll. 6-8). As such, the king fits the widespread Hellenistic paradigm of the
Saviour-Benefactor who delivers his dependents from danger (a<!J(ev f.v rroAEflq>
Ktv<'luveuovTa<;: Stob. 4.7.61 p. 264 He.ll. 6-8). 55
In regards to ethics, the king excels the multitude in virtue by developing a
temperate character (Stob. 4.7.62 p. 265 He. ll. 25-29). Like the gods, therefore,
the king separates himself from the human passions and from the unrestrained
pursuit of pleasure (Stob. 4.7.62 p. 265 He. ll. 25-29 - p. 266 He. ll. 1-15). Consequently, the king enjoys his wealth in a manner that does not compromise his
virtue: he is liberal to his friends and to those in want; he is prudent and sagacious in his government; and he is just in his punishment of enemies (Stob. 4. 7.62
p. 265 He.ll. 25-31- p. 266 He.ll.1-9). By demonstrating gravity and benignity,
the king ensures the Pythagorean harmony of society and reflects in his rule the
proper order of the world (Stob. 4.7.61 p. 265 He.ll. 21-23; Stob. 4.7.62 p. 268 He.
ll. 15-21 - p. 269 He.ll. 22-26).
Most revealing for our purposes are Diotogenes' comments regarding the
priestly relationship of the king to the gods, seen in the extracts below:
The third characteristic of a king's dignity is the worship of the gods. The most excellent
should be worshipped by the most excellent, and the leader and ruler by that which leads
and rules. Of naturally most honourable things God is the best, but of things on earth and
human, a king is the supreme. As God is to the world, so is a king to his kingdom; and as
a city is to the world, so is a king to God. For a city, indeed, being organised from things
Diotogenes gives the king when he says Diotogenes did not attribute absolute power to the king.
However, it could be argued that intimations of the king's divinity are seen in Ps.-Ecphantus,
discussed below. McEwan (Oriental Origin, 25), for example, claims that 'a ruler after the Stoic
model was in fact a living god as well as a godlike mechanism'. He cites as proof the statement
of Ps.-Ecphantus (Stob. 4.7.64 p. 274 He. II. 3-5) that the Supreme Artificer moulds the king's
body and that he uses himself as the archetype in this process. However, this does not necessarily point to the king's divinity. As Goodenough ('Political Philosophy', 76) correctly comments,
this was probably 'a current Pythagorean way of expressing the superiority of the king over his
subjects'. Delatte (Les traites, 183) argues that the special creation of the king only demonstrates
that there is need of 'un intermediaire' between humanity and the divinity. In other words, we
need not assume the divinity of the king from this text.
54 Goodenough, 'Political Philosophy', 63.
55 For discussion of'dangers' in regard to Saviour-Benefactors, see Danker, Benefactor, 363366,417-427.
284
many and various, imitates the organisation of the world and its harmony (<lpf!OV(av
flef!Lf!QTQL); but a king whose rule is beneficent, and who himself is animated by the law (we;
v6f!oc; Ef11ITUXoc;), exhibits the form of God among men {Seoc; tv av8pw7totc; 7tapecrxaf!<iTLcrmt: Stob. 4.7.61 p. 264 He.l. 15- p. 265 He.ll.15-23).
The king should therefore organise the well-legislated city like a lyre, first in himself
establishing the just boundary and order of law, knowing that the people's proper arrangement should be organised according to this interior boundary, the divinity having
given him dominion over them (ib M<'lwKev 6 eeoc; au-r<f> TCtV 1jiUXCtV: Stob. 4.7.62 p. 266
He.l1.15-19).
Good kings, indeed, have dispositions similar to the Gods, especially resembling Zeus,
the universal ruler, who is venerable and honourable through the magnanimous preeminence of virtue. He is benign because he is beneficent, and the giver of good; hence
by the Ionic poet [Homer], he is said to be father of men and Gods (Stob. 4.7.62 p. 270
He.l1. 9-13)
The king, therefore, acts as the vice-regent of God and demonstrates to the world
the divine form and disposition by incarnating justice and beneficence in his
rule. The king functions as a priestly intermediary between God and his subjects
(Stob. 4.7.61 p. 264 He. ll. 4-5: 'a good general, judge and priest') by supervising
the state cult in a 'pious and holy manner' (Stob. 4.7.61 p. 264 He.ll. 2-3).
We turn now to the fragments of Sthenidas the Locrian regarding kingship. 56
According to Sthenidas, the king is from birth the supreme wise man and an
imitator of the supreme divinity (yevecrEL Kal f.llflUOEL: Stob. 4.7.63 p. 270 He.
ll. 10-14), the eternally wise First king and the never-failing Potentate of the
universe. The king imitates the First God most effectively
if he acquires magnanimity, gravity, the restriction of his wants to but a few things, and to
his subjects exhibits a paternal disposition (7ta-rptKav <5ta8emv tv8etKVUf!evoc;: Stob. 4.7.63
p. 270 He. 11. 2-3 - p. 271 He. l. 4).
Precisely because the First God, the father of Gods and of men, rules his subjects
mildly, equally as far as the law, and with providential regard, so too must the
earthly king. Sthenidas sums up his treatise in terms reminiscent of Paul's portrait of the ruler as the servant of God (Rom 13:4, 6):
Nothing is beautiful that lacks a director or ruler. Again, no king or ruler can exist without
wisdom and science. He therefore who is both a sage and a king will be an imitator and
legitimate minister of God (f!Lf!QTac; apa Kal tmfjptmc; tcrcreiTat TW Sew: Stob. 4.7.63 p. 271
He. 11. 10-13). 57
56 For an English translation of Sthenidas' Ilepl ~aatXdac;, see Guthrie, Pythagorean Sourcebook, 255. For a commentary on Sthenidas, see Delatte, Les traites, 274-281; Blumenfeld, The
Political Paul, 254-264.
57 Parrott (Paul's Political Thought, 45) cites Plutarch (Mor. 780D) as a parallel for the idea of
the 'servant' king: 'one might more truly say that rulers serve God (int'lpe-rdv 8e4J) for the care
and preservation of men, in order that of the glorious gifts which the gods give to men they may
well distribute some and safeguard others'. Parrott mentions parallels in Pliny, Pan. 79.6-80.5
and Plato, Pol. 296-297A. For discussion of the concept from a Jewish point of view, see in-
285
B. Blumenfeld encapsulates the significance of Sthenidas for Pythagorean politi-
cal thought thus:

Sthenidas and Paul represent a new approach, an increasingly prevalent view, which places
the king in servitude to God. This reflects the pronounced propensity towards the notions
of nomos empsuchos and imitation in the political reflection oflate Hellenism. 58
Finally, Ps.-Ecphantus the Crotonian, the third Pythagorean political theorist to

be examined, blends Platonic, Pythagoean and Stoic perspectives and possibly
alludes to Persian and Egyptian sun-symbolism in his depiction of the king. 59
The king surpasses other men as the most divine human being. The king's body
is moulded by the Supreme Artificer, who created the monarch by using himself
as the divine archetype. The king is a unique creature who alone is capable of representing the higher King as his intermediary with humanity. 60 God foreknows
the king (n!J flEV TIETrOLf]KOTl yvwplflOV ad: 'with whom he is always familiar') and
his subjects behold him 'as in a splendid light' (Stob. 4.7.64 p. 271 He.l. 9- p. 273
He. 1. 6). The King models God in his self-sufficiency and in his refusal to resort
either to violence or to compulsion (Stob. 4.7.65 p. 276 He.l. 26- p. 278 He.l. 20).
In his benevolence the king acts as a parent towards his children, as a shepherd
towards his flock, and as the law towards the law-abiding (Stob. 4.7.64 p. 276 He.
ll. 1-5). The king's eloquence has a restorative effect on human beings, healing
'their diseased minds' and expelling 'their depravity's dazedness' (Stob. 4.7.65
p. 278 He. ll. 9-17). The following extracts illustrate how Ps.-Ecphantus understands the king's imitation of God:
But a king, who associates with men should be undefiled, realising how much more divine
than other things are both himself and his prerogatives; and from the divine exemplar of
which he is an image, he should treat both himself and his subjects worthily. When other
men are delinquents, their most holy purification causes them to imitate their rulers,
whether laws or kings. But kings who cannot on earth find anything better than their own
nature to imitate should not waste time in seeking any model other or lower than God
himself (Stob. 4.7.64 p. 273 He. I. 18- Stob. 4.7.64 p. 274 He. I. 26).
fra 7.3; also Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, 60-61. Keck (Romans, 314) also mentions Dio
Chrysostom, Or. 45: 'kings ... derive their powers and stewardship (<~v Em<pon~v) from Zeus'.
58 Blumenfeld, The Political Paul, 263. Delatte (Les traites, 281) also considers the idea of
the 'servant' king as a 'notion nouvelle' among Pythagorean authors. Sthenidas' conception of
the 'servant' king approaches the widespread idea of the earthly vicar of God governing on his
behalf, an ideology finding precedents, so Delatte argues, in Mesopotamian thought and having
parallels with Paul's political philosophy.
59 Gardner, Leadership, 65; cf. Goodenough, 'Political Philosophy', 75-86. For an English
translation of Ps-Ecphantus' Ilepl ~amAda~, see Guthrie, Pythagorean Sourcebook, 257-259.
For a commentary on Ps.-Ecphantus, see Delatte, Les traites, 164-244; Blumenfeld, The Political
Paul, 191-234.
60 I have departed here from the translation of Guthrie (Pythagorean Sourcebook, 257) who
has not correctly captured the bodily replication of the divine form in the creation of the king.
The translations of Delatte (Les traites, 48; see his discussion, ibid., 181-184) and Goodenough
('Political Philosophy', 76) render the Greek more accurately.
286
A king's manners should also be the inspiration of his government. Thus its beauty
will immediately shine forth, since he who imitates (6 JlLJlacr6J.1t:Vo~) God through virtue
surely be dear to him who he imitates (ov JlEJlLJlaTat), and much more dear he will be to
his subjects. No one who is beloved by the divinity will be hated by men, since neither
do the stars nor the whole world hate God. For if they hated their ruler and leader they
would never obey him. But it is because he governs properly that human affairs are properly governed. The earthly king, therefore, should not be deficient in any of the virtues
distinctive of the heavenly ruler. Now as an earthly king is something foreign and external,
inasmuch as he descends to men from the heavens, so likewise his virtues may be considered as works of God and descending upon him from the divinity (Stob. 4.7.64 p. 274 He.
ll.2-10- Stob. 4.7.64p. 275 He.ll.1-3).
According to Ps.-Ecphantus, the king, who is dear to God and to his subjects, is
charged with 'une mission divine'. 61 God performs his works through the king
as the royal virtues find their expression in his earthly government. In this process of divine transformation of human society, the king's imitation of God is the
crucial factor and it reciprocally elicits the obedient imitation of the king in the
lives of his subjects. 62
In conclusion, the texts of Diotogenes, Sthenidas, Ps.-Ecphantus more focus
on the responsibility of the king towards his subjects, as opposed to the responsibility of the subjects to the king, though, as noted, Ps.-Ecphantus does briefly
focus on the reciprocal response of the subjects to the king. Occasionally writers
such as Charonidas the Catanean (The Preface to the Laws) touch on the issue, 63
but Paul's heavy focus on the responsibility of the subjects (Rom 13:2-3, 4b-5} is
a rarity in the Pythagorean corpus. As Charonidas exhorts his readers,
Men should preserve kindness towards their rulers, obeying and venerating them as if
they were parents; for whoever cannot see the propriety of this will suffer the punishment
of bad counsels from the divinities who are the inspective guardians of the seat of the
empire. Rulers are the guardians of the city, and of the safety of the citizens (Stob. 4.2.24
p. 152ll. 16-19).
Significantly, the Pythagorean texts do not ascribe any soteriological role to

the king, though in Ps.-Ecphantus the king's eloquence is said to have a quasisoteriological effect on his auditors. To be sure, both the supreme divinity and
the king acquire a 'transcendental character', but each only within his respective
sphere. In terms of the king, God is the model for the king and the wise King is
Delatte, Les traites, 220.
For references to the imitation of the ruler by the ruled, see Plutarch, Mor. 780E; Pliny,
Pan. 45.5-6, 46.7. For additional references to the ruler imitating God, see Plato, Ale. 1.133A-D;
Musonius (Frag. VIII.1.14: C. E. Lutz, 'Musonius Rufus "The Roman Socrates'", YCS 10 [1947]:
64); Ep. Arist. 188, 192,207-211,254, 281; Cicero, Rep. 1.35, 54; Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.187; Seneca,
Clem. 1.5-7, 9; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.37; Pliny, Pan. 1.3-5. I am indebted to Parrott, Paul's
Political Thought, 44 n. 5 and 55 n. 1 for these sources.
63 For an English translation of Charondas' Ilpoo(JlLa VOJlWV, see Guthrie, Pythagorean Sourcebook, 231-233.
61
62
287
the intermediary for God and the model for humanity. 64 E. R. Goodenough is
correct in suggesting, however, that these texts provide the ideological impetus
for the official titles that were given to the Hellenistic kings and imperial rulers:
OWT~P ('Saviour'), emcpav~~ ('Manifest One') and UPYETT]~ ('Benefactor'). 65
7.2.1.2 Dio Chrysostom on Kingship and Tyranny
The five kingship orations ofDio Chrysostom (AD 40-after AD 112) were written during the reign ofTrajan (AD 98-117). Notwithstanding Dio's protestations
to the contrary (Or. 3.12-25), the kingship orations are occasionally marked by
flattery of the ruler (3.3-5). The reason for Dio's effusive praise is that Trajan
restored the philosopher from his extended exile under Domitian (Or. 3.13). Because of his frank criticism ofDomitian and his involvement with a high-placed
Roman who had been executed by the ruler, Dio had been banished from Rome
and from his native province. Many years (AD 82-96) were spent by Dio wandering throughout Greece, the Balkans and Asia Minor as a Cynic-Stoic philosopher
and as an epideictic orator. As a response to his personal experience of tyranny
under Domitian, Dio contrasts the mission of the Zeus-appointed king with
the degenerate rule of the tyrant: 'I shall speak of the ideal king, of what sort he
should be, and how he differs from the man who pretends to be a ruler but is in
reality far from true dominion and kingship' (3.25; cf. 3.45-52).
In regard to the dating ofDio's five kingship orations, Oration 1 was probably
delivered before Trajan upon his accession. Oration 2 was delivered before Trajan
on the eve of the Second Dacian War in AD 104, whereas Orations 3 and 4 were
probably delivered before Trajan on his birthday in September 10 AD 104. Oration 62 is more primitive than the other four kingship orations. H. L. Crosby has
argued that it is probably a 'variant version of one of the four speeches', delivered
on another occasion in front of a general audience (Or. 57.10-12). 66 Therefore,
we will bypass its evidence regarding kingship.
Orations 1-4 draw heavily on the traditional 'ideal king' of Plato, the Stoics,
and the Homeric epics (Or. l.ll-15; 2 passim; 3.9; 4.20-25, 39-45). The good
king derives his rule from Zeus and functions as a guide and shepherd of his
people (Or. 1.12-13; 2.6; cf. 3:40-41). In agreement with Ps.-Ecphantus, Dio
argues that the king has been appointed to a divine mission that he must obey
(Or. 3.55; cf. 3:62, ll5):
... it is only when he helps men that he thinks that he is doing his duty, having been appointed to this work by the greatest god (uno TOU flEYLOTOU 8eou mx8Elc; tnl TOUTO TO
fpyov), whom it is not right for him to disobey in anything nor yet to feel aggrieved,
believing, as he does, that these tasks are his duty.
Thesleff, Introduction, 70.

Goodenough, 'Political Philosophy', 98.
66 H. L. Crosby (tr. ), Dio Chrysostom V: Discourses LXI-LXXX (London: Heinmann, 1951 ), 23.
64
65
288
Consequently, 'not only (do) men admire and obey him (a-lrrov Kal imaKm)wow), (but also) the birds of the air and the wild beasts on the mountains no
less than men submit to him (auyxwpn) and db his bidding'. In the flattering
address to Trajan commencing Oration 3, Dio Chrysostom identifies the ruler
as a law-observant judge, a courageous general, a man not covetous of luxury,
and kindlier to his subjects than a loving father to his children (Or. 3.3-5; contra:
3.38-41, 134 [referring here to Nero, among other rulers]). This address reaffirms the Pythagorean royal ideology of the past. Consequently, Dio invokes
all humanity to recognise the ideal Homeric king that they now have in Trajan
(Or. 3.9-13):
let untold cities yield obedience to a man (urraKm!wat), let countless nations be governed
by his judgement, let tribes unnumbered and hostile to one another look to his prudence
alone, and that man becomes the saviours (crwT~p) and protector (cpu;\a~) of men everywhere.67
The king is also pious towards the gods (esp. Or. 3.51-54, 115; cf. 1.15), propitiating them through the state cult as far as possible (Or. 3.52). As '"Father" of the
people' (Or. 1.22; cf. 3.5), the king displays a personal regard for his fellow men
(1.15-17) and voluntarily acts as a benefactor towards them (Or. 1.23-24; 1.34
[m1vTa<; f.LEV eu 1tOLELV trn9Uf.LOUVto<;]). Consequently, all the honorific epithets
applied to Zeus are legitimately transferred to the king because the true Homeric
king is 'Zeus-nurtured' and 'Zeus in counsel' (Or. 1.37-41). Since Zeus is the
Father not only of gods but of men as well, the king 'is the best one among men,
since he is the most brave and righteous and humane, and cannot be overcome by
any toil or appetite' (Or. 4.22-24). The pre-eminent virtues of the king, therefore,
are courage and justice (Or. 2.54: avSpe[av Kal StKmoauvfJv) and friendship is the
'fairest and most sacred ofhis possessions' (3.86; cf. 3.111-118).
However, should the king act in a way contrary to Zeus, he will be deposed
by the deity (Or. 2.75-76). Dio contrasts effectively the fates of kings are either
obedient or disobedient to Zeus in their rule. The obedient king keeps his eye
upon Zeus, honouring Zeus by his Zeus-like legislation in his rule, whereas the
disobedient king dishonours Zeus by his undisciplined and wicked lifestyle
(Or. 1.45-46):
... since (kings) ... derive their powers and their stewardship from Zeus, the one who,
keeping his eyes upon Zeus, orders and governs his people with justice (OtKalw..;) and
equity (KaAw..;) in accordance with the laws and ordinances of Zeus, enjoys a happy lot
and fortunate end, while he who goes astray and dishonours him who entrusted him with
his stewardship (<'tnfl<'tcrn Tov tmTp\yavm) or gave him this gift (u MvTa T~v 6wpeav
TUUTI]V ), receives no other reward from his great power than merely this: that he has shown
himself to all men of his own time to be a wicked and undisciplined man ...
67 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.6.
289
In conclusion, the traditional nature of the portrait of the ideal king in Dio
Chrysostom is well captured in the following extract from Oration 2.70-72. We
learn here that
a king must rule over men, his own kind, because he is manifestly their superior, who justly
(6tKa(w~) and by nature's design (KaTa c:pumv) exercises dominion over them; and while
he must save the multitude of his subjects, planning for them and, if need be, fighting for
them and protecting them from savage and lawless tyrants, and as regards other kings, if
any such there should be, must strive with them in rivalry of goodness, seeking if possible
to prevail over them for the benefit of mankind at large; yet the gods, who are his superiors,
he must follow, as being, verily I believe, good herdsmen, and must give full honour to their
superior and more blessed natures, recognising in them his own masters and rulers ...
7.2.1.3 Musonius Rufus on Kingship and Philosophy
The Roman Stoic philosopher, Musonius Rufus (c. AD 30-c.late 90's AD), suffered exile under Nero and Vespasian, as Dio Chrysostom had under Domitian. 68
The fragments of Musonius' That Kings Also Should Study Philosophy reveal
a humane philosopher who treated Stoic doctrine 'according to the Socratic
method'. 69 Lucius, the student of Musonius who epitomised his teacher's lectures, has abridged Musonius' answer to the question of the Syrian king about
the importance of the study of philosophy for monarchs.7 Notwithstanding the
truncated nature of the fragments of Musonius, we observe Musonius proceeding in a Socratic manner to demonstrate by means of the syllogistic method that
monarchs should definitely study philosophy, a reply that totally satisfied the
Syrian king. Although Musonius' rigorous austerity 'seems closer to the Cynic
than to the Stoic ideal',71 he does not evince the hostility ofEpictetus toward the
imperial rulers or elevate the moral purpose of the philosopher king over against
the legitimate claims of the ruling authorities and the wider welfare of the city.
Musonius endorses the Pythagorean understanding of the good king in saying
that the king is to be 'faultless and perfect in word and action'. He is the 'living
law' (v611ov E!l\jfuxov dvat) for his subjects and effects 'good government and
harmony' (Euvo!l(av !lEV Kal 6116votav). As such, he is 'a true imitator of Zeus
C<TJAWT~V 8 TOU ~t6<;), and, like him, the father of his people' (Frag. 8 Lutz p. 64,
ll.l0-15). However, these royal virtues can only be inculcated in one who studies philosophy. As Musonius pithily puts it, 'the good king is straightway and of
68 See the discussion of Lutz, 'Musonius Rufus', 14-18. For the Greek text and English translation of 'On rptA.oaopf]TEov Kal Tol~ pamAEli<Jtv ('That Kings Also Should Study Philosophy'),
see ibid., 60-67.
69 Ibid., 27.
70 Note the comment of Lutz ('Musonius Rufus', 25-26): 'Lucius, in preparing literary accounts of these conversations, has generally recast the dialogue into an essay (that) has muffled
the original tone of his teacher and has caused his humor to vanish'. In Frag. 14 II. 6-7 Lucius
states that he has only given the general direction of the argument (ibid., 96): 'Such, then, were
the words he spoke at that time'.
71 Ibid., 28.
290
necessity a philosopher, and the philosopher a kingly person' (Frag. 8 Lutz p. 64

ll. 32-34).
Consequently, the king has the ability to rule cities and people worthily. He
displays courage, fearlessness and resoluteness in the face of dire threats; conversely, he is beneficent, helpful and humane. In a striking departure from the
image of the king in the Pythagorean literature, Musonius says that a monarch
is no less kingly if his subjects choose to disobey him: his rule over his friends,
household and himself sufficiently qualifies him as royalty (Frag. 8 Lutz p. 66
ll. 2-16). Notwithstanding, the king must 'exercise self-control over himself and
demand self-control of his subjects' so that there will be 'sober rule and seemly
submission' and not wantonness in the state (Frag. 8 Lutz p. 6-2ll. 10-12). These
are the godlike qualities that make a king worthy of reverence (8wrrpT~<; T Kal
ai8oii<; a~LO<;: Frag. 8 Lutz p. 62ll. 21-23).
Last, in agreement with Ps.-Ecphantus, Musonius underscores the critical
role that oratory, informed by philosophy, plays in the king prevailing over his
opponents (Frag. 8 Lutz p. 62ll. 31-37). Philosophy helps the king to distinguish
between good and evil, with the result that he is able to fulfil his first duty of protecting and displaying beneficence towards his people (Frag. 8 Lutz p. 60 ll. 7-24),
as well as honouring and punishing subjects appropriately. It is precisely this
heavy emphasis upon the ameliorating effects of philosophy that enables Musonius, along with Plutarch (Mor. 776B-779C), to make a penetrating contribution
to the Ilpl ~amA[a<; literature.
7.2.1.4 Plutarch on Rulers and the Nature of Statecraft
The political philosophy of Plutarch (c. AD 50-post AD 120) is primarily found

in five treatises: That a Philosopher Ought to Converse Especially with Men in
Power (Mor. 776B-779C); To an Uneducated Ruler (779D-782E); Whether an
Old Man Should Engage in Public Affairs (783A-797F); Precepts of Statecraft
(798A-825F); and, last, On Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy (826A-827C). 72
Plutarch shares many of the same political themes articulated by the Pythagorean
theorists and by the other popular philosophers we are discussing (Dio Chrysostom, Musonius Rufus, Seneca).73
First, along with Musonius Rufus, Plutarch spotlights the importance of philosophy in shaping the ruler for the rule of the State. Philosophy 'inspires men
with impulses which urge to action, with judgements that lead them towards
72 We will not investigate Plutarch's scorn for the ruler cult, including his implicit criticism of
the imitation of the divinity by rulers such as Caligula and Nero (Mor. 470B; 780F-781A). See
K. Scott ('Plutarch and the Ruler Cult', TAPA 60 [1929): 117-135) who investigates the evidence
of the Moralia and the Vitae. For an excellent discussion of Plutarch's political philosophy, including texts other than the five treatises mentioned above, see Parrott, Paul's Political Thought,
143-162.
73 Parrott (ibid., 144-145 n. 3) cites a range of political TOTIOL common to the popular philosophers.
291
what is useful, with preferences for things which are honourable, with wisdom
and greatness of mind joined to gentleness and conservatism' (Mor. 776C-D).
Such a ruler will be 'solicitous for many (imp noHwv cppovT[~oucrav)' and
'under obligation to be wise and self-restrained and just in behalf of many'
(Mor. 776D). The ideal king fears for his subjects (imp TWV apXOflEVWV), whereas
the tyrant lives in fear of their subjects (Mor. 781E). When philosophy takes possession of a ruler, he is filled with a love of honour (KaAOKaya9[a<;) enabling him
to benefit many (Mor. 777 A). Above all, the king must rule himself, regulating
his own soul and establishing his own character by means of his endowment of
reason (A.oy6<;: Mor. 780B-C; cf. 797E-F). Then his subjects will accommodate
themselves to his pattern of rule (780B).
Second, Plutarch strongly emphasises the role of the ruler as a mediator with
the gods. In an interesting echo of Paul's thought, Plutarch says that rulers 'serve
God (U7tf]pEn:iv 9e4J) for the care (i:mflEAELav) and preservation (crWTf]p[av) of
men' by distributing and safeguarding the gods' gifts (Mor. 780D). Since justice
is the aim and end of the law, the ruler, as the image of God (ELKWV ewu ), brings
order to society through his implementation of the law (Mor. 780E). The king,
who is the likeness of God (Mor. 780F-781A), is to emulate the divine character:
Now just as in the heavens God has established as a most beautiful image of himself the
sun and the moon, so in states a ruler who in God's likeness (Swuo~c;) righteous decisions
upholds (i.e. Homer, Od. 19.109 and 11), that is to say, one who, possessing God's wisdom (Swii A6yov exwv), establishes, as his likeness and luminary, intelligence in place of
sceptre or thunderbolt or trident, with which attributes some rulers represent themselves
in sculpture and painting, thus causing their folly to arouse hostile feelings, because they
claim what they cannot attain. For God visits his wrath upon those who imitate (Tote; O.nol.lll.lOUt.tEVOl<;) his thunders, lightnings, and sunbeams, but with those who emulate (Touc;
(T]AOiivmc;) his virtue and make themselves like unto his goodness and mercy (TO KaAov
Kal <plAavSpwnov) he is well pleased and therefore causes them to prosper and gives them
a share of his own equity (euvot.tlac;), justice (OLKTJ<;), and truth (6.AT]8E[ac;), and gentleness
(npa6TT]TO<;), than which nothing is more divine- nor fire, nor light, nor the course of the
sun, nor the risings and settings of the stars, nor eternity and immortality.
Contemporary readers of this text would surely have drawn the conclusion that
Plutarch is alluding to Nero as a recent example of a ruler who had overstepped
the boundaries of propriety by impersonating the gods with 'sceptre', thunderbolt', 'trident', and 'sunbeams' (Dio 59.26.5-8; 62.20.5; 63.6.2; 63.20.5; Suetonius,
Ner. 22.2; 53). Consequently, Nero experienced divine punishment for his hubris.74 By contrast, ideal rulers, as 'pupils of the gods' (9ewv flU9T]TU<;), demonstrate sound counsel, justice, goodness and high-mindedness (Mor. 776 E-F).
Third, Plutarch slightly adapts the motif of VOflO<; Efl'JIUXO<; to his own ends,
though he is well aware of its implications for the ruler. In Moralia 780C Plutarch
says that for the ideal ruler the law is not 'written outside him on books or on
74
For a discussion of Plutarch's critique of Nero, see Scott, 'Plutarch', 121-125, 129.
292
wooden tablets'. Rather 'reason' endows the ruler with life within him (Efl\ftUXO<;
wv tv atrr<ji ;\6yo<;). As R. L. Parrott correctly notes/ 5 while the term VOflO<;
Efl'f!UX6<; is absent, the concept of 'animate law' is nonetheless clearly implied. In
this instance, this is observed in the way that Plutarch has prefaced his discussion
of 'animate reason' (Efl'f!UXO<; A6yo<;) with a quote from Pindar: 'Law, the king of
all, both mortals and immortals' (Mor. 780C). Finally, it is likely that the concept
of VOflO<; Efl'f!UX6<; also underlies Plutarch's comment that when the teaching of
philosophers is firmly engraved in the souls of rulers and statesmen, it 'acquires
the force oflaws' (v6flWV OUVUflLV AUfl~avoumv: Mor. 779B).
While Plutarch does not make an original contribution to the literature on the
ideal ruler, what he says coheres with the general pattern that we have observed
so far. Perhaps his special contribution is his advice on how provincial rulers
ought to negotiate the complex interactions with the imperial rulers and their
representatives, a theme discussed below( 2.1).
7.2.2 Roman Political Literature on the Ideal Ruler: Seneca's De Clementia

In concluding our discussion of the philosophers, we touch briefly upon Seneca's
two-volumed (but incomplete) De Clementia?6 The work is datable to the year
AD 55-56, given the clear allusion to the eighteenth year of Nero in Clem. 1.9.1. 77
Seneca's work is addressed to the young ruler when the 'quinquennium Neronis',
the first five golden years of Nero's rule, were in full swing. Seneca, as Nero's tutor,
intends to guide his young student in statecraft towards the ideal of a merciful
ruler. 78 The work may well have been occasioned by the death of Britannicus,
the son of Claudius and Messalina, who was poisoned, Tacitus alleges, by Nero's
order in the early months of his reign. 79 In Seneca's view, what is essential for
Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, 150.
In discussing De Clementia, we are bypassing Seneca's comments elsewhere on the ruler
cult. SeeM. Altman, 'Ruler Cult in Seneca', CPh 33 (1938): 198-204.
77 For detailed discussion of the dating of De Clementia, see B. Mortureux, 'Les ideaux
stolciens et les premieres responsibilities politiques: le "De Clementia'", ANRW II 36/3 (1989):
1641-1645; Braund, De Clementia, 16-17.
78 For a full discussion of Seneca's presentation, see Adam, Clementia Principis, 88-101; Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, 111-129; Mortureux, 'Les ideaux sto!ciens', 1639-1685; J. R. Fears,
'Nero as the Vicegerent of the Gods in Seneca's ''De Clementia'", Hermes 103 (1975): 486-496;
M. T. Griffin, Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 154-162.
More generally, see I. E. Rock, The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology for an Exegesis of
Paul's Letter to the Romans: An Ideological Literary Analysis of the Exordium, Rom 1:1-17 (unpub. PhD thesis University of Wales, Lampeter, 2005), 101-105; M. B. Dowling, Clemency and
Cruelty in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2006), 195-203; Braund, De
Clementia, passim. For discussion of Seneca's presentation and its relation to the famous fable
of Menenius Agrippa regarding the 'body' of the Roman political commonwealth (Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 6.86.1-5), seeM. V. Lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ
79 Tacitus, Ann. 13.15-17; 14.63; 15.62 (cf. Suetonius, Ner. 33.2-3; id., Tit. 2; Dio 60.33.10;
61.7.4). See Griffin, Seneca, 133-135. However, A. Barrett (Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics
75
76
293
effective rule is 'not the form of the constitution, but the moral character of the
emperor'. 80
Seneca (c. 4 BC/ AD l-AD 65) affirms the Pythagorean and Stoic emphasis
that the ruler has been divinely 'chosen (electusque sum) to serve on earth as
vicar of the gods (vice deorum)'. In a flattering aside, 81 Seneca observes that Nero
now surpasses Augustus and Tiberius as a model to be imitated (Clem 1.1.6).
Consequently, Seneca advises the young Nero to commune with himself in this
manner so that clemency might continue to be the characteristic virtue of his
rule (Clem. 1.1.2-4):
I am the arbiter of life and death for the nations ... all those many thousands of swords
which my peace restrains will be drawn at my nod; what nations shall be utterly destroyed,
which banished, which shall receive the gift ofliberty, which have it taken from them, what
kings shall become slaves and whose heads shall be crowned with royal honour, which cities shall fall and which shall rise - this it is mine to decree ... With me the sword is hidden,
nay, is sheathed: I am sparing to the utmost of even the meanest blood; no man fails to find
favour at my hands though he lack all else but the name of man. Sternness I have kept hidden, but mercy (clementiam) ever ready at hand ... I have been moved to pity by the fresh
youth of one, by the extreme old age of another; one I have pardoned for his high position,
another for his humble estate; whenever I found no excuse for pity (misericordiae), for my
own sake I have spared. Today, if the immortal gods should require a reckoning from me,
I am ready to give full tale to the human race. 82
in the Early Empire [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999], 171-172) argues that Britannicus was killed by an epileptic seizure. David $hotter (Nero Caesar Augustus: Emperor of Rome
[Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd., 2008], 61) counters that this was merely the 'official version' of
Britannicus' demise, calculated to hide Nero's complicity in his elimination. J. M. Rist {'Seneca
and Stoic Orthodoxy', ANRW II 36/3 [1989]: 2006) points to the recent 'judicial abuses of Claudius' reign' as another factor why Seneca urged Nero to be merciful in his new reign. Note how
Seneca underscores Nero's innocentia (Clem 1.1.5; 1.9.1; 1.11.1-3)- his freedom from the guilt
of civil war - over against the civil conflict that spoiled the beginning of Claudius' reign. On the
latter, see T. P. Wiseman, 'Calpurnius Siculus and the Claudian Civil War', JRS 72 {1982): 57-67.
80 Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, 112, original emphasis.
81 Note the helpful comment of Parrott (Paul's Political Thought, 259): 'The Neo-Pythagorean
political treatises come close to official propaganda. The Epistle to Aristeas and Seneca's De
Clementia combined flattery with instruction to rulers. Plutarch's treatises ... issued similar
instruction, but with less flattery'. On the genre of Seneca's De Clementia, see Braund, De
Clementia, 17-23.
82 B. Witherington III (Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 305-306) and Jewett (Romans, 790 n. 82 and 795), as far as I have
discovered, are the only Romans commentators who draw attention to this important passage
for our understanding of Romans 13. In our discussion of Seneca's De Clementia, we are unable to pursue the use of dementia of the house of the Caesars in other sources. For Caesar,
see Julius Caesar, BGall. 3, 21; Cicero, Deiot. 8, 33, 37; id., Lig. 5, 10, 13, 14, 16; id., Marc. 9, 12;
id., Phil. 116; id., Vat., 21; id., Fam. 6.6.8. For Augustus, see RG 34; Suetonius, Aug. 51; Tacitus,
Ann. 1.57, 58; 2.10; ILS 8393 (tr. M.R. Lefkowitz and M.E. Fant [eds.], 3'd ed. Women's Life in
Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation [Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press,
2005], 168); Cassius Dio 43.10.3. For Tiberius, see Tacitus, Ann. 2.42; 4.74. For Caligula, see
Suetonius Calig. 16.4; Cassius Dio 59.16.10. For Claudius, see Tacitus, Ann. 12.37. For Nero, see
Suetonius, Nero 10; Tacitus, Ann. 13.11; 15.73. For republican examples of dementia with Greek
294
According to Seneca, mercy elevates a prince or king above the rest of humanity
(Clem. 1.3.3) and the demonstration of mercy to his subjects represents a 'godlike use of power' (Clem. 1.26.5; cf. 1.5.7). 83 However, as a ruler the king must
not breach the divide between the gods and the humanity (Clem. 1.19.9), though
Seneca admits that the king's subjects reverence his god-like status (Clem. 1.19.8):
But tell me: he who bears himself in a godlike manner (ex deorum natura), who is beneficent and generous and uses his power for the better end - does he not hold a place second
to the gods? It is well that this should be your aim, this your ideal: to be considered the
greatest man, only if at the same time you are considered the best.
In an interesting echo of Paul's body imagery in Romans 12:4-8, Seneca employs

a 'body-soul' metaphor to explain the vital role that the ruler plays in producing
a healthy state (Clem. 1.4.1-1.5.1-2).84 Seneca's varied metaphors ('bond', 'breath
oflife', 'head', and the 'soul of the state') illustrate graphically how the ruler preserves the 'body' of state from social disintegration through his clemency:
counterparts, see Velleius Paterculus 5.1. For general histories of dementia, see M. T. Griffin,
'Clementia after Caesar: From Politics to Philosophy', in F. Cairns and E. Frantham (eds.), Caesar
against Liberty? Perspectives on His Autocracy, Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 11 (2003):
157-182; Dowling, Clemency and Cruelty, passim; Braund, De Clementia, 33-38. For a discussion of dementia in Cicero, see S. Rochlitz, Das Bild Caesars in Ciceros Orationes Caesarianae
Untersuchungen zur dementia und sapienta Caesaris (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1993), passim.
For examples of dementia on the late republican coinage, see the two issues of Julius Caesar:
legend, CLEMENTIAE CAESARIS: R. A. G. Carson, Principal Coins of the Romans (London:
British Museum, 1980), Vol. 1 no. 250; legend, CLEMENTIAE: S. W Stevenson (rev. F. W Fairholt), A Dictionary of Roman Coins (London: Seaby, 1964), 215. For examples of dementia on
early imperial coinage, see the two issues of Tiberius: legend, CLEMENTIAE: BMC I 'Tiberius'
85 (Plate 24 No.4); legend, CLEMENTIAE: Stevenson, Dictionary, 215. For Vitellius, see the
three issues: legend, CLEMENTIA IMP. GERMAN.: RIC J2 'Vitellius' 1,17, 39. For discussion,
see Stevenson, Dictionary, 215; H. Mattingly, 'Some Historical Roman Coins of the First Century
AD', /RS 10 (1920): 37-41; B.M. Levick, 'Mercy and Moderation on the Coinage of Tiberius',
in id. (ed.), The Ancient Historian and His Materials: Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on His
Seventieth Birthday (Farnborough: Gregg, 1975), 123-137. Finally, on clemency being in reality
power veiled as mercy, see the discussion of P. Plass, The Game ofDeath in Ancient Rome: Arena
Sport and Political Suicide (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), 119-121, 163-167.
83 Note Seneca's emphasis on the prince being the author of mercy: 'the more indulgent the
ruler, the better he is obeyed' (Clem. 1.24.2). Additionally, 'of all men none is better graced by
mercy than a king or a prince. For great power confers grace and glory only when it is potent
for benefit' (Clem. 1.3.2). For discussion, see Mortureux, 'Les ideaux stolciens', 1666-1670.
Braund (De Clementia, 32) observes: 'To put it bluntly, the self-restraint denoted by dementia
was a concomitant of the monarchical power concentrated in the hands of the Roman princeps.
Clementia implies hierarchy. Only someone in a position of superiority can grant dementia; the
corollary is that he also has the power to act severely and punitively'. See Seneca, Clem. 2.3.1.
84 Elsewhere Seneca (Clem. 1.3.5) resorts to a 'body-mind' metaphor (corpus/ animus) in
order to elucidate the effect of the ruler's mercy upon the state. He concludes regarding the response of the ruled to the ruler: 'In the same way this vast throng, encircling the life of one man,
is ruled by his spirit (animae), guided by his reason, and would crush and cripple itself with its
own power if it were not upheld by wisdom'.
295
For (Caesar) is the bond (vinculum) by which the res publica is united, the breath of life
(spiritus vitalis) which these many thousands draw, who in their own strength would be
only a burden to themselves and the prey of others if the great mind of the empire should
be withdrawn ... For while a Caesar needs a power, the state also needs a head (caput) ...
For if ... you are the soul of the state (animus rei publicae) and the state your body (ilia
corpus tuum), you see, I think, how requisite is mercy (dementia); for you are merciful
(parcis) to yourself when you are seemingly merciful to another (parcere). And so even
reprobate citizens (improbandis civibus) should have mercy as being the weak members of
the body (membris languentibus), and if there should ever be need to let blood, the hand
must be held under control to keep it from cutting deeper than may be necessary. The
quality of mercy (dementia), then, as I was saying, is indeed for all men in accordance with
nature, but in rulers it has a special comeliness inasmuch with them it finds more to save,
and exhibits itself amid ampler opportunities.85
Moreover, this text is intriguing because Seneca employs 'weakness' terminology

as a social metaphor in regards to the body - a feature of Paul's thought in the
Corinthian (1 Cor 8:9, 11, 12; 9:22; 12:22; 2 Cor 11:29) and Roman epistles (14:1,
2; 15:1)86 - and highlights the ruler's right to use the sword (cf. Clem. 1.1, 3), a
85 Parrott (Paul's Political Thought, 116) correctly highlights that according to Seneca the
ruler's extension of mercy is not altruistic: 'such mercy would in actuality be self-serving: the
head or soul would be taking care of its own body (1.5.1)'. In Clem. 2.2.1, another 'head-body'
metaphor is employed to illustrate Nero's relation to the state. There Seneca speaks of Nero's
kindness being diffused 'throughout the whole body of the empire' (per omne imperii corpus),
with the result that all things are moulded into his likeness. As Seneca concludes, 'It is from
the head (a capite) that comes the health of the body'. For discussion, see E. A. Judge, 'Demythologising the Church: What is the Meaning of "the Body of Christ"?', 'Contemporary Political
Models for the Interrelations of New Testament Churches', in id., The First Christians, 580-581,
595-596 respectively. For Cicero on the 'broken and incapacitated' limbs of the state, see id.,
Pam. 5.13.3. Braund (De Clementia, 219) cites Cicero, Mur. 51, as a further example of the 'head'
and 'body of state' metaphor.
86 The precise nature of Paul's 'weakness' terminology in Romans 14 has been vigorously
debated in recent years. The consensus view (e.g. ]. C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the
Romans: Changing Self-Definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity [Valley Gorge: Trinity International, 1993], 84-92; Witherington, Romans, 330-333) is that the division between 'the strong'
(oi <'luvaTo[) and 'the weak' (6 acr9evwv) in the Roman house churches (Rom 14:1-2; 15:1) arose
from ethnic tensions - focused on disagreements over dietary and calendar issues (14:2-3,5-6,
14-17, 20-21, 23) -between Gentile and Jewish believers. These tensions, it is alleged, were
exacerbated by the return of the Jewish believers from exile from AD 54 onwards to a (now)
largely Gentile church in Rome. By contrast, C. E. Glad (Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in
Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy [Leiden/New York/Kiiln: Brill, 1995], 213-235) has
argued that Paul's language of 'strength' and 'weakness' does not refer to specific factions in the
Roman house churches. Instead, interpreting Paul's 'weakness' terminology against the backdrop
of Epicurean psychagogy, Glad suggests that the 'weak' and 'strong' references in Romans 14
are general in nature and merely denote the differing 'psychological' dispositions of believers.
While it is true that the language of weakness would resonate at several levels for contemporary auditors, the use ofKOLVO<; ('common', 'unclean': Rom 14:14; cf. 14:20) more points to the
realm of Jewish food regulations than Pythagorean pyschagogy or vegetarianism (Tellbe, Paul
between Synagogue and State, 167-169). Alternatively, M. Reasoner (The Strong and the Weak:
Romans 14:1-15:3 in Context [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 55-63, 218-220)
argues that the 'strong' and the 'weak' represent distinct status groups. In the social hierarchy
296
theme also emphasised by Paul in Romans (8:35; 12:4). 87 Indeed, Seneca flatters
Nero for never having used the sword (Clem. 1.11.3). Nero's restrained actions
of Rome, the 'strong' possessed Roman citizenship as freedmen (Rom 16: 10, 11; cf. Phil 4:22)
or had resident status, whereas the 'weak' were those of foreign extraction or peregrini without
Roman citizenship, scrupulous in their religious observance and holding to the asceticism of
the early Principate. Seneca's social use of the language of weakness in De Clementia, a work
contemporary with Romans, lends some support to Reasoner's suggestion that Paul's language
of weakness must have had its origins in the hierarchy of Roman social relations. As evidence
for his position, Reasoner ('The Theology of Romans 12: 1-15:13', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson
[eds.], Pauline Theology Volume III: Romans [Minneapolis, 1995], 287-289, esp. 288-290)- in
disagreement with W S. Campbell ('The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1-15:13: The Obligation of
Humble Obedience to Christ as the Only Adequate Reason to the Mercies of God', in D. M. Hay
and E. E. Johnson [eds.], ibid., 259-286, esp. 270-278)- cites Horace (Sat. 1.9.68-72) as a case
of unbelieving Romans applying 'weakness' terminology to Jewish scruples. Paul, through his
Roman informants (e.g. Rom 16:3-5a, 7), would have been aware of the contemporary use of
'weakness' terminology at Rome and its appropriation by 'the strong' (oi ouvaTO[) in the house
churches as a label for Jewish believers (P. F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social
Setting ofPaul's Letter [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 341). Thus the weak 'in faith (Tfi n[aTEL: Rom
14:1 )' must refer to Jewish believers (M. Reasoner, 'The Theology of Romans', 290; Witherington,
Romans, 332-333) who adhered to the food and calendric concerns of the Mosaic law. See also
Witherington's critique (ibid., 330-332) of M.D. Nanos' suggestion (The Mystery of Romans,
84-165) that the 'weak' in Romans 14-15 are in fact Jews and not Jewish believers. We need not
assume that the divisions were entirely ethnic. As Tellbe points out ( id., Paul between Synagogue
and State, 167), there were 'most likely proselytes among the "weak'' (e.g., 'Noahide' Christian
Gentiles: R. A. Cagnon, 'Why the "Weak'' at Rome Cannot Be Non-Christian Jews' CBQ, 62/1
[2000]: 63-82) and Christian Jews among the "strong" (e.g., Paul himself)'. One wonders, however, whether this division over law was compounded by the social status of some of the Gentile
believers at Rome who belonged to the households of powerful pagan masters, including the
ruler himself (P. Lampe, 'Paths of Early Christian Mission into Rome: Judaeo-Christians in the
Households of Pagan Masters', in S. E. McGinn [ed.], Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline
Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 143-148). It is possible that the Gentile believers were,
in some cases (Rom 16:10, 11; Phil4:22), imperial civil servants of freedman status (E. A. Judge,
'The Roman Base of Paul's Mission', in id., The First Christians, 443). These upwardly mobile
believers (cf. G.H.R. Horsley, 'Joining the Household of Caesar', New Docs 3 [1983]: 7-9) may
well have shared before their conversion the deep-seated prejudices of the Roman intelligentsia
towards the Jews in the city (Rom 11:17-21; cf. 11:24-30; 15:8-12). They were now tempted to
feel ethnically and socially superior to the Jewish believers who met in the more Torah-centred
Christian households. Anti-Semitism had been a widespread feature of Rome up to and including
the time of Nero (W Wiefel, 'The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman
Christianity', in K.P. Donfried [ed.], The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition [2"d
ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991], 85-101), though Nero's wife Poppaea was certainly friendly
towards the Jews (Josephus, A] 20.189-196; Vita 3). One of Paul's fears was probably that the
powerful owners of the Gentile households- as well as their networks of amici ('friends'), clients,
and freedmen- might declare the Jewish believers to be inimici ('hostile') and not welcome them
into their households (npoaAall~avea6at: Rom 14:1, 13; 15:7). The social stance of the powerful
(oi ouvaTO[) was conditioned as much by their political perception that Jewish believers were
unnecessarily and unhelpfully attached to the Mosaic law in an environment increasingly hostile
towards Judaism as by the implications of the theological debate about the Torah's status. See
especially the insightful discussion of Esler, Conflict and Identity, 346-348.
87 On the use of the sword in Romans 13, see Friedrich, Pohlmann, and Stuhlmacher, 'Zur
historischen Situation', 140-145. On whether the ius gladii or the 'death penalty' is being referred
to in Romans 13:4, see the convincing arguments of C. D. Marshall to the contrary (Beyond
297
so far stand in contrast to Augustus, who having used the sword ruthlessly in the
triumviral years and at Actium (Clem. 1.9.1-2; 1.11.1-2), only learned to show
mercy in his mature years as a ruler, as his pardon of Lucius Cinna demonstrated
(Clem. 1.9.2-12). 88 According to Seneca, this merciful restraint on behalf of the
ruler is illustrated in nature. Just as the 'king of the bees' (i.e. the queen bee)
does not employ its sting in the hive because nature has 'removed his weapon',
so neither should the ruler intimidate by force or fear (Clem. 1.19.1-6). 89 Dio
Chrysostom uses the same metaphor of the ruler but without Seneca's emphasis
on mercy {Or. 4.62-63), focusing instead on the ruler not needing to possess
badges of royalty (i.e. tiaras and purple raiment). 90
Perhaps the most interesting observations concerning dementia as a royal
virtue occur in De Clementia II, a manuscript that has not come down to us fully
intact. There the king is to demonstrate a particular type of 'mercy': dementia
('mercy') over against misericordia {'pity'). 91 According to Seneca, dementia
{'mercy') restrains the mind from taking vengeance in cases where retribution
is deserved, or where one is tempted to be too lenient in fixing a punishment
(Clem. 2.3.1-2). By contrast, misericordia is a mental defect because, in non -Stoic
fashion, it succumbs with sorrow at the sight of other peoples' ills (Clem. 2.4.45.1; 2.6.4). As Seneca pithily observes, 'Pity (misericordia) regards the plight, not
the cause of it; mercy (dementia) is combined with reason' (Clem. 2.5.1). 92 By contrast, the wise man, guided by dementia, has a serene mind that is not clouded by
the plight of others or by strong emotions such as sorrow (Clem. 2.5.4-5). Seneca
Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 234-239). Marshall (ibid., 239) argues' in favour of seeing the sword as a general
symbol of Rome's coercive power rather than a specific reference to the capital jurisdiction of
Roman courts'.
88 For discussion of Seneca's portrait of Augustus, seeP. Jal, 'Images d'Auguste chez Seneque',
REL 35 (1951): 242-262; Braund, De Clementia, 61-64. On the clemency ofJulius Caesar and
Augustus, seeM. Treu, 'Zur dementia Caesars', MH 5/4 (1948): 197-217; Adam, Clementia
Principis, 84-88.
89 For references to 'king bees' in ancient literature, see Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, 116
n. 2.
90 Plutarch (Mar. 823F) contrasts the beehive's loud noise with the 'quietness' and 'gendeness'
of people who are ruled well by their rulers in the 'political swarm'.
91 For discussion of the definitions of venia ('pardon'), dementia, and misericordia, see J. Dingel, 'Misericordia Neronis: Zur Einheit von Senecas "De Clementia'", RhMZ 132 (1989): 166-175;
Dowling, Clemency and Cruelty, 6-8; Braund, De Clementia, 38-40.
92 Note Diogenes Laertius' comment (7.123) that the Stoic wise men 'are not pitiful and make
no allowance for anyone; they never relax the penalties fixed by the laws, since indulgence and
pity (6 EA.eoc:;) and even equitable consideration are marks of a weak mind, which affects kindness in place of chastising. Nor do they deem punishments too severe'. Similarly, note Cicero,
Tusc. 3.20-21: 'The wise man, however, does not come to feel envy; therefore he does not come
to feel compassion either (ergo ne misereri quidem). But if the wise man were accustomed to
feel distress he would also be accustomed to feel compassion (miseri etiam soleret). Therefore
distress keeps way from the wise man'. On the differing stances of Stoicism to dementia - one
favourable, the other unfavourable - see Braund, De Clementia, 66-68.
298
argues regarding that dementia serves the cause of justice by not succumbing to
misericordia in pardoning crimes worthy of punishment (Clem. 2.7.1, 3):
Pardon is given to a man who ought to be punished; but a wise man does nothing which
he ought not to do, omits to do nothing which he ought to do; therefore he does not remit
a punishment which he ought to exact ... Mercy (dementia) has freedom in decision; it
sentences not only by the letter of the law, but in accordance with what is fair and good
(aequo et bono); it may acquit and it may assess the damages at any value it pleases. It does
none of these things as if it were doing less than is just, but as if the justest thing were that
which it has resolved upon. But to pardon is to fail to punish one whom you judge worthy
of punishment; pardon is the remission of punishment that is due. Mercy (dementia) is
superior primarily in this, that it declares that those who are let off did not deserve any
treatment; it is more complete than pardon, more creditable.
It is difficult to appreciate properly the ideological impact of Seneca's argument
in De Clementia II regarding the ideal ruler, given that the treatise has not come
down to us complete. Adams argues that in Seneca's second treatise on clemency,
the Roman philosopher falls back to the old Greek conception of emdKELa ('fairness', 'clemency', 'equity'). 93 We see this emphasis appearing in Seneca's statement, cited above, that dementia 'sentences not only by the letter of the law, but
in accordance with what is fair and good (aequo et bono)'. In Aristotle, emdKELa
referred to the rectification of the law where the law is defective because of its
generality (Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1137a-1137b). In contrast to Aristotle, however,
Seneca reserves dementia for the ideal ruler. 94 But because Seneca wants to connect dementia with justitia ('justice'), he makes dementia the servant ofjustitia in
the second treatise, 95 opening up new territory in the first -century understanding
of imperial dementia. 96 From the time of Augustus onwards, dementia had been
readily incorporated into the Stoic teaching on the emotions as a prized feature
of the Princeps, as the 'romisch Tradition' of Seneca's first treatise shows. 97 But,
in his second treatise, Seneca desires to form the character of Princeps more
thoroughly through a new approach to dementia: namely, that the Princeps will
always uphold the strict demands of justice when he exercises mercy in his rule.
In other words, for Seneca, the inculcation of dementia had become a pastoral
strategy that would enable a properly counselled ruler to develop a just and
merciful regime. 98
93
Adam, Clementia Principis, 90. In what follows I am indebted to Adam's excellent discus-
sion.
94
For an insightful discussion of the differences between Aristotle's understanding of
t\mEIKELa and Seneca's presentation of dementia, see Rist, 'Seneca and Stoic Orthodoxy', 2007.
On the relationship between dementia and justitia, see Braund, De Clementia, 40-42.
Griffin (Seneca, 169-170) and Braund (De Clementia, 70) also point to the originality of
Seneca's position on dementia.
97 Adam, Clementia Principis, 98.
98 Seneca's understanding stands in contrast to the late republican concept of dementia. D. C.
Earl (The Moral and Political Tradition ofRome [London and Sothamptom; Thames and Hudson,
1967], 60) agues that dementia in the republic was 'arbitrary mercy, bound by no law, shown by
95
96
299
Finally, Adam enquires where the more 'griechisch-hellenistischen' thought of

the Seneca's second treatise originated?99 Since the Hellenistic monarchies and
the Principate were not constitutionally and legally underpinned in the modern
sense, it is likely, Adams concludes, that the subordination of dementia to justitia
arose from the eastern Mediterranean idea of the king being VOf.lO~ Ef.1'1'UX0~. 100
7.2.3 Conclusion
The picture of the ideal ruler that emerges from the literature of the Pythagorean
political theorists and from the popular philosophers, Greek and Roman, is rich
and variegated. The ruler, who is created in the image of God in contrast to the
rest of mankind, imitates and obeys God, with the result that his subjects reciprocally imitate him by aligning themselves harmoniously with his rule. As the
vice-regent and servant of God, the ruler is foreknown by God. He has been given
a divine mission and is to act as an intermediary between God and the State,
with the aim of bringing about Pythagorean harmony in social relations and
distributing justice for his subjects. In this regard, the role of the king as 'animate
law' (v6f.1oc; Ef.l'I'UXO~) is paramount. In other respects, the ruler acts more traditionally within the eastern Mediterranean paradigm of the Saviour-Benefactor.
But, significantly, the ruler is never divinised in the writings we have examined,
though Ps.-Ecphantus comes the closest of our writers to attributing deity to the
ruler. Some of our writers (Seneca, Plutarch) are highly critical ofNero's blurring
of the boundaries between the divinity and humanity during his rule. Thus it is
not surprising that Plutarch sharply distinguishes the government of the ideal
ruler from the distortions of monarchic rule seen in the reign of tyrants. But,
where the ruler is informed by philosophy and guided by reason, he will rule over
himself in such a disciplined way that his rule over others will be highly beneficial to them. Finally, the virtue of mercy, as opposed to pity, enables the ruler
to pardon without compromising the exacting demands of justice in the State.
A series of questions emerge from our discussion above. What were the Jewish perspectives regarding submission to Gentile rulers in the Old Testament
and in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings? To what extent did the
paradigm( s) of the Pythagorean political theorists and the popular philosophers
impact the thinking of Second Temple Judaism? What limits did the Jews draw
regarding submission to the ruler and what strategies did they negotiate in dealing with the 'super-power' of the first-century, Rome?
a superior to an inferior who is entirely in his power'. It was for this reason that some Romans
(e.g. the son of Ahenobarus) rejected Caesar's dementia.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid. Note, however, the caveat ofRist ('Seneca and Stoic Orthodoxy', 2007): 'Seneca does
not equate Roman law with that justice which, in the ideal state, would be the incarnation of
right reason'.
300
7.3 Jewish Perspectives on Submission to Gentile Rulers

In a perceptive aside, B. Rosner has commented on the surprising 'lack of Old
Testament references in most commentaries on Romans 13'. 101 Indeed, the same
comment could be made regarding the lack of attention among commentators
to the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature of Second Temple Judaism, as
well as the later rabbinic literature, in discussing Romans 13. Among Romans
commentators, J.D. G. Dunn is typically thorough in his coverage of the Jewish
background. 102 Disappointingly, the major monograph of J. Botha on Romans
13 barely touches on the issue. 103 Once again, the excellent unpublished thesis
of R. L. Parrott provides the most extensive discussion of political authority in
Second Temple Judaism, though admittedly his focus is almost exhaustively on
Philo. 104 This lack of attention to the Jewish background of Romans 13, with a
few exceptions, is a curious oversight in modern Romans scholarship and needs
to be remedied.
At the other end of the debate is D. Flusser who proposes that the whole
section of Romans 12:9-13:7 is based on a Qumran homily.l 05 In particular,
the variant reading for 'serving the Lord' (T{il Kup[w <SouA.euovn:<;) in Romans
12:11 - namely, the lectio difficilior which says 'serving the time' (T{il Katp{il <SouAEUOVTE<;) - recalls the Qumran principle of serving the 'Rule [or 'Decree'] of
the Time' (IQS 2:19; 8.4, 12; 9:3, 12-14; IQpHab 7:13-14; cf. Josephus, B/2.140).
This phrase reveals how the Qumran community envisaged they were to live
as servants in a hostile world governed by unsympathetic rulers. They were to
demonstrate temporary submission to those who were their opponents or who
had power over them until the arrival of the eschatological 'Day of Vengeance'.
Flusser's observation regarding Romans 12:7 poses the question whether Paul
is operating similarly in his exhortations that the Roman believers in Romans
13:1-7.
101 B.S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of I Corinthians 5-7 (rpt. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1999; orig. 1994), 113.
102 J.D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 761; id., 'Romans 13:1-7', 64-65;
R.H. Stein, 'The Argument of Romans 13:1-7', NovT31/4 (1989): 329. Among some of the Romans commentators who touch briefly on the Old Testament are W Sanday and A. C. Headlam
(Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1902), 366-367; A. Viard (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 175), 274-275;
J.A. Fitzmyer (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992), 667; T.R. Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1998), 682; B. Witherington III (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 309; L.E. Keck (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2005), 314.
103 Botha, Subject to Whose Authority?, 171. The older work of C. Morrison (The Powers
That Be: Earthly Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7 [London: SCM, 1960], 93-99)
discusses the concept of the state in the cosmos in Second Temple Judaism.
104 Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, 59-106. See also J. Shulam with H. Lecornu, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans (Baltimore: Lederer, 1997), 433-453.
105 D. Flusser, 'A Jewish Source for the Attitude of the Early Church to the State', in id., Jewish
Sources in Early Christianity (New York: Adama, 1987), 397-401.
301
Undeniably, Jewish perspectives on the status of the Gentile rulers have informed Paul's approach to the imperial authorities in Romans 13:1-7. In the
Hebrew Scriptures, the motif of God's dominion over the nations on behalf of
His people is underscored in the traditions of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:3;
18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14), the blessings of the patriarchs (Isaac: Gen 27:29; Jacob:
49:18; Moses: Deut 33:17; cf. Exod 19:5-6; Deut 15:6), the royal theology of the
psalms and prophets (Ps 72:8; Dan 2:34-35; 4:25; 7:14; Zech 9:10), and the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to Zion (Ps 68:29-35; 86:9; Isa 25:6-8; 56:7;
60:3-11; Mic 7:12; Zech 2:11; 8:21-23; 14:16). 106 More generally, in the Hebrew
Scriptures (e.g. 2 Sam 12:8; 2 Chr 20:6; Prov 8:15-16; Isa 45:1; Dan 2:21, 37-38;
4:17, 25, 31; 5:21) and in the Old Testament apocryphal and pseudepigraphic
works (Sir 10:40; Wis 6:1-5; Sir 4:17; 10:4; 17:17; Let. Aris. 219, 224; 1 En. 46:5;
2 Bar. 82:9; 4 Mace 12:11), it is emphasised that God gives governments their
mandate. Kings in the Old Testament are often referred to by the epithet 'servant'
in order to highlight their total servitude to God. 107 Consequently, submission
to the rulers is appropriate (Prov 24:21; Eccl 8:2-6; cf. Jer 29:7; Bar 1:11; Let.
Aris. 45), even to those who like Saul ultimately acted treacherously towards David.108 Conversely, if the Jewish king did not obey the Mosaic law, or was a Gentile
king who persecuted God's people, he would face judgement (1 Sam 12:13-15;
Wis 6:3-5; 4 Mace 12:11-14; 1 En. 46:5-6; 48:8-9; 53:8; 62:12; 2 Bar. 40:1-3;
82:4-9; 4 Ezra 15:20-21).
However, in the exilic traditions of the Hebrew Scriptures God is also por-
trayed as rousing the rulers of the nations for His own providential purposes
with Israel. Assyria is wielded as the rod of God's anger against the idolatry of
Samaria and Jerusalem (Isa 10:5-11). God raised up the Chaldeans to punish
Israel for her sin (Hab 1:6-2:20). Jeremiah urges the corrupt officials oflsrael to
submit to the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, God's servant, in recognition of God's
just judgement against the nation (Jer 25:9; 27:6-15; 50:25; cf. Isa 13:5). Finally,
Cyrus, the Persian king, is the Lord's anointed servant who would deliver Israel
from her prolonged exile in Babylon (Isa 45:1-4, 13). However, as U. Wilckens
notes, 109 in contrast to Romans 13:1-7, the heathen nations are not mentioned
106 See the helpful discussion ofE.J. Hamlin, 'Nations', in G.A. Buttrick (et al., ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 3: K-Q (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 515-523.
107 Parrott, Paul's Political Thought, 61: ' ... "servant" is one of the most frequent epithets for
the king in Jewish literature'. As examples, Parrott (ibid., 61 n. 6) cites 1 Kgs 3:9-13; Ps 89:1-4;
Prov 21:1; Jer 23:1-4; Hos 10:3; Sir 17:17; Wis 6:3-5; Philo, Leg. 152-161. Parrott also mentions
that the concept of the king being the 'son of God' (2 Sam 7:11-16; Ps 2:7; 45:6; Philo, Plant.
66-68) excluded for the Jews any possibility of the deification of the king, a phenomenon prominent in the ancient near east.
108 See Rosner (Paul, 113) for the biblical references.
109 Wilckens, Rechtfertigung, 224. Rabbinic texts also discussed the Old Testament motif that
the Gentile kings had become instruments of divine wrath in the political catastrophes of Israel
because of the her sin. For examples, see ibid., 226.
302
as instruments of wrath against Israel in a positive way. Notwithstanding, N. T.

Wright is correct in pointing out that Jeremiah urged exiled Israel to intercede
for the welfare of Babylon (Isa 10:5-11; 44:28-45:5; 46: 11; Jer 29:4-9; 27:6-11).ll 0
The implications of this exilic theology of divine providence in the Hebrew
Scriptures continued to reverberate in Jewish discussions of Roman rule over
Judaea from the late first-century BC onwards. The Psalms of Solomon (late I.
cent. BC), for example, depict Pompey the Great, the Roman general, as being divinely called from a distant land in 6 BC to execute judgement against the corrupt
Hasmonean royal priesthood (Pss Sol2:1-3; 8:8-17; 17:4-7).lll The Testament of
Moses (I. cent. AD) speaks of God stirring up against the Jews 'a king of the kings
of the earth who, having supreme authority, will crucify those who confess their
circumcision' (T. Mos. 8:1). Josephus, too, reiterates the idea that God appoints
the rulers of the nations to be the servants of His providential designs (Josephus,
BJ2.140; cf. 2.390-391): 'No ruler attains his office save by the will ofGod'. 112 He
asserts that since the providence of God had established Rome as the unrivalled
world power, revolutionary resistance against imperial rule by the representatives
of the Fourth Philosophy was futile (Josephus, BJ2.345-401; 5:362-419; cf. Vita
17, 19). 113 Undoubtedly, these exilic and intertestamental traditions impacted
theologically upon Paul in his own deliberations about Roman rule under Nero
and his forebears. As N. Elliott observes, Romans 13:1-7 provides no 'theology
of state', apart from 'the conventional prophetic-apocalyptic affirmation that God
disposes the rise and fall of empires and gives the power of the sword into the
hands of the ruler (13:1, 4)'.ll 4
The wider literature of Second Temple Judaism unveils a variegated understanding of the role of Gentile rulers in the nation's life. First, in the Letter of
Aristeas (c. 150-100 BC), the writer imagines an extended discourse regarding the nature of royal rule between Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 BC)
Wright, 'The Letter to the Romans', 718.
Notwithstanding the strong emphasis on God's punishment of Israel in the Psalms of
Solomon, the arrogance, sin and divine judgement of Pompey himself is also underlined (Pss
Sol2:1-2, 29-33; 17:13, 15). Moreover, the writer points to the hope ofisrael's eschatological
restoration though the Davidic king (ibid., 17:23-26).
112 Josephus occasionally speaks of the Israelite kings in the ways similar to the political
theorists (e.g. A]. 7.390-391; 9.236-237).
113 Plutarch, too, argues that Virtue and Fortune had divinely united to establish Roman dominion and power (Mor. 316B, 323E-F). Cited in Elliott, 'Paul and the Politics of Empire', 31;
cf. Parrott Paul's Political Thought, 157-158. See also b. Abod Zar. 18a (cited N. R. M. de Lange
'Jewish Attitudes to the Roman Empire', in P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker [eds.], Imperialism in the Ancient World [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978], 268).
114 N. Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1995), 224. Note also Rosner's comment (Paul, 114):' ... we need look no
further than the Scriptures for the origin of Paul's view that in Romans 13 that government is
God's servant'. M. Thompson (Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:3 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1991], 116-117) cites two rabbinic texts (b. Zeb. 102a; b. Abod
Zar. 4a) that also teach that one should revere the authority of the king.
110
111
303
and the seventy-two Jewish translators of the Septuagint (Let. Aris. 187-300).
The discussion represents a fusion of Hellenistic kingship theory with the ideal
king of the Hebrew Scriptures. The king, fearing and reverencing God (Let.
Aris. 190, 215, 234), is to pray to Him for guidance (193, 243-247, 276), blessing
(226-227, 248), and victory (193, 196-197). The king is to imitate God in clemency (Let. Aris. 191-192,207,211, 254), truth (206),justice (209-210, 292), and
beneficence (226-227, 281). Since God has granted the king his authority (Let.
Aris. 219), the king must realise that his glory, wealth and moderate character are
God-given (224, 290). Such a ruler would be granted the eschatological crown of
righteousness (Let. Aris. 280).
Second, a fragmentary text of Philo, preserved by Antony (Melissa, Ser. CIV),
speaks of the king in traditional Pythagorean and Stoic parlance, but with the
deft addition of a caveat from the Genesis creation story that pinpricks any hint
of deification of the monarch on Philo's part (Gen 2:7):
In his material substance the king is just the same as any man, but in the authority of his
rank he is like God of all. For there is nothing upon earth more exalted than he. Since he
is mortal, he must not vaunt himself; since he is a god, he must not give way to anger. For
if he is honoured as being an image of God, yet he is at the same time fashioned from the
dust of the earth, from which he should learn simplicity to all. 115
Both the Letter of Aristeas and the 'kingship' fragment of Philo, therefore, represent traditions within Second Temple Judaism that were open to the late Hellenistic philosophy of kingship. 116 Even if Paul did not use a Stoic manual of
fragments of various philosophers or compile a im61J.VTUJ.a (an aide-memoire)
after listening to the popular philosophers in the agora, as B. Blumenfeld has
recently suggested, 117 he would have been exposed to the same philosophical
currents through the traditions ofJudaism that had been impacted by Hellenism
ever since Jason's reform in the first half of the second century BC.
Of particular interest, however, are Jewish texts critical of imperial rule because of the problems that it posed for Jewish compliance to the Torah and the
maintenance of community life. Philo (Leg. 143-161) contrasts the Golden Age
of Augustus, the world benefactor, with the frenzied promotion of the imperial cult by Caligula, culminating in his attempt to place his own statue in the
Jerusalem temple in AD 40. Significantly for our purposes, Philo spotlights the
115 Text and translation are found in E. R. Goodenough, Ihe Politics of Philo ]udaeus: Practice
and Theory (New Haven: Yale University, 1938), 99.
116 In regards to the king as VOf!O<; Ef!'I'UXO<;, Parrott (Paul's Political Thought, 80) notes that
while Philo alludes to the motif as a theory (Det. 141; Mos. 2.4), he transfers the VOf!O<; Ef!'I'UXO<;
terminology to Moses and the patriarchs (Mos. 1.162; Abr. 3-5; Decal. 1). As Parrott pithily
comments (ibid.), this was 'a novum in the history of religion'. More generally, Parrott (ibid.,
61) comments: 'Since the law was constitutive of Israel, the notion of a ruler who was equal to
or above the law, in the sense of VOf!O<; Ef!'I'UXO<; was carefully subdued; even the king must obey
the law, under the threat of God's judgement'.
117 Blumenfeld, Ihe Political Paul, 20.
304
restraint of Augustus regarding divine honours (Leg. 154) over against Caligula's
inflated claims (Leg. 162 ).
The Dead Sea Scrolls highlight in 'hidden transcript' the eschatological demise
of the kingdom of the 'Kittim' (the Romans) when the 'sons of light' triumphed
over the 'sons of darkness':
[The king] of the Kittim [shall enter] into Egypt, and in his time he shall set out in great
wrath to wage war against the kings of the north, that his fury may destroy and cut the horn
of [Israel]. This shall be a time of salvation for the people of God, an age of dominion for all
the members of his company, and of everlasting destruction for all the company of Belial.
The confusion of the sons of Japheth shall be [great] and Assyria shall fall unsuccoured.
The dominion of the Kittim shall come to an end and iniquity shall be vanquished, leaving
no remnant; [for the sons of] darkness there shall be no escape. [The sons of righteous]
ness shall shine over all the ends of the earth; they shall go on shining until all the seasons
of darkness are consumed, and at the season appointed by God, His exalted greatness shall
shine eternally to the peace, blessing, glory, joy, and long life of the sons oflight.ll 8
Further, we have already noted how the Qumran community understood serving the 'Rule [or 'Decree'] of the Time' in the face of the wicked who had power
over them. They were not to retaliate before the Day of Vengeance but were to
conceal the knowledge of the truth from their opponents as a modus vivendi (IQS
9.16-17, 21-23):
He shall not rebuke the men of the Pit nor dispute with them. He shall conceal the teaching of the law from the men of injustice, but shall impart true knowledge and righteous
judgement to those who have chosen the Way ... These are the rules of conduct for the
Master in those times with respect to His loving and hating. Everlasting hatred in a spirit
of secrecy for the men of perdition! He shall leave them wealth and earnings like a slave to
his lord and like a poor man to his master. He shall be a man zealous for the Precept whose
time is for the Day of Vengeance.
A later rabbinic tradition (Tan.B., Noah 19b-20a) also sets out unmistakably
what are the boundary markers for the limits of Jewish obedience to the imperial rulers:
'Keep the king's command' (Eccles viii, 2). The Holy Spirit says, 'I adjure you that if the
early kingdom decrees persecutions, you shall not rebel in all that it decrees against you,
but you shall keep the king's command. But if it decrees that you should annul the Torah,
the Commandments and the Sabbath, then hearken not to the king's command. Thus did
118 IQM 1.1-9. On the identification of the 'Kittim' with the Romans, see G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1997), 59-60. The anti-Roman
Commentary on Habbakuk (IQpHab) emphasises the world dominion of the Kittim (II.11-13),
their rejection of the laws of God (II.12-13), their sacrifices to their standards (VI.5-7), their
cunning and guile in dealing with the nations (III. 5-6), their derision and savagery in conquest
(III.l0-14; IV. 5-9, 10-14), their exaction of tribute (VI.7-9), and, finally, their judgement by
God (IV.2-5). On the 'Kittim', see G. J. Brooke, 'The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim', in L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 135-159.
305
Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah. But when deliverance came, they would not come forth
till the king bade them' (from the furnace). 119
After the Second Jewish Revolt, another rabbinic tradition (b. Shabbat 33b) cynically exposes the self-centred motives that undergirded the gift-giving rituals of
imperial and local Roman benefactors throughout the empire:
'How splendid are the works of this people', declared Rabbi Judah; 'they have built marketplaces, baths, and bridges: ... But Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai answered, 'Everything they have
made they have made only for themselves - marketplaces, for whores; baths, to wallow in;
bridges, to levy tolls'. 120
To some extent, this later rabbinic critique of the imperial benefaction sy<>tem
was presaged by Jesus' searing critique of the imperial benefactors, as rendered in
Luke 22:25, and his hint of their ultimate replacement by an alternate community
of servant benefactors (22:26-27}.
Most revealing for our purposes is Philo's 'hidden transcript' regarding imperial power in De Somniis 2.83-92. 121 There he warns the community of Alexandrian Jews of the danger of provoking the imperial power through 'untimely
frankness' (2.83-88}. He cites Abraham's restraint towards the sons of Cheth
as a paradigm for maintaining social cohesion within the empire (2.89-90; cf.
Keturah: Gen 25:1-6}. Philo employs the imagery of destructive animals for the
rulers (2.89, 91-92} and brings his discussion to a stunning climax in proposing
two strategies for dealing with the imperial authorities (2.91-92}. Overall, the authorities should be honoured as the master of the beasts of burden in the market
place. Alternatively, the beasts of burden themselves, like the authorities, should
be regarded with 'fear' because of their destructive potential. Given the political
vulnerability of the Jews under Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius, Philo's advice
is particularly pointed as he explains the symbolism behind his imagery (2.92}:
... it is good thing to attack our enemies and put down their power; but when we have no
such opportunity, it is better to be quiet; but if we wish to find perfect safety as far as they
are concerned, it is advantageous to caress them.
119 Cited in C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe (eds.), A Rabbinic Anthology (New York: Shocken
Books, 1974), 254. See also m. Abot 3:5 (cited N.R.M. de Lange, 'Jewish Attitudes', in P.D.A.
Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker [eds.], Imperialism, 262 ): 'Rabbi Nehunya b. Haqqanah says, "From
whoever accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah do they remove the yoke of the state and the
yoke of hard labour. And upon whoever removes from himself the yoke of Torah do they lay the
yoke of state and the yoke of hard labour'. Also de Lange (ibid., 262) draws attention to the logion
of Jesus (Mark 12:17): 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's'.
12Cited in Elliott, 'Politics of Empire', 32.
121 SeeN. Elliott, 'Romans 13:1-7 in the Context oflmperial Propaganda', in R.H. Horsley
(ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg: Trinity
International, 1997), 184-204; id., 'Politics of Empire', 32-33; id., 'Disciplining the Hope of the
Poor in Ancient Rome', in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Christian Origins: A People's History of Christianity Volume 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 187-190. See also the pioneering discussion of
Goodenough (Politics, 21; cf. 1.5.2).
306
These Jewish texts critique imperial rule in ways similar to the Roman anti-Augustan propaganda. Two examples will suffice. First, the first-century AD Culex
of pseudo-Virgil parodies the rule of Augustus in 'hidden transcript' by means
of the engaging tale of the kindly gnat and the sleeping shepherd. 122 Second,
whereas the Augustan propaganda depicted the ruler as a new Aeneas (e.g. in the
Ara Pacis, the Augustan forum, and Virgil, Aen. 8.720-728), the anti-Augustan
propaganda parodied this claim through its subversion of Augustan iconography. A wall painting from a house in Pompeii depicts Aeneas fleeing from Troy,
carrying his father Anchises and guiding his son Ascanius (the ancestor of the
Julian family). A. Barchiesi notes that this image of the founding Father of Rome
acquired 'iconic status' in antiquity, widely reproduced in sculpture, painting,
coins, and household utensils such as lamps.U 3 But this famous image is caricatured in the anti-Augustan iconography of a wall painting from a villa near Stabiae: there each of the three figures, identical in pose to its Pompeii counterpart,
is rendered as a dog-headed ape. 124 K. Scott also points to another humorous
variation on the theme from Herculaneum, presently in the Museo Nazionale di
Napoli, in which three dogs replace the apes just described. 125
Finally, as a further analogy to the Jewish texts, Plutarch (Mor. 813D-F) counsels that a provincial ruler should adopt the political stratagem of 'acting out' a
See our discussion in 5.3.

A. Barchiesi, 'Learned Eyes: Poets, Viewers, Image Makers', inK. Galinsky (ed.), The Age
ofAugustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 286. For a statue group of Aeneas
with Anchises and Ascanius, see ibid., 297 Fig. 52. See the altar from Carthage showing Aeneas
with Anchises and Ascanius in L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown:
American Philological Association, 1931), 170 Fig. 170. On the reverse side of a Caligulan sestertius a minted at Rome BMC I 'Caligula', 41 (Plate 28 No.6), we see the veiled Caligula sacrificing in front of a temple. On the fastigium of the temple, to the right is the group of Aeneas,
Anchises, and Ascanius. See also the coin of Julius Caesar showing Aeneas carrying Anchises
in J.D. Crossan and J. L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire
with God's Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul's Words and World (San Francisco: Harper, 2004), 82
Fig. 28. For a relief of Anchises and Ascanius at Aphrodisias, seeK. T. Erim, Aphrodisias: City of
Venus Aphrodite (London: Muller, Blond & White, 1986), 118.
124 P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1990), Figs. 156 (p. 202) and 162 (p. 209). The official description of the painting at Stabiae
at the museum of Naples (K. Scott, 'Humour at the Expense of the Ruler Cult', CPh 27/4 [1932]:
327-328) states: 'The monkey with the breastplate has an exaggerated membrum virile, as is also
true of the monkey with the pedum' (ibid., 328). For the portrait of Aeneas on the Ara Pacis, see
id., ibid., Figs. 157 (p. 204) and 204 (p. 259). In a Neronian context, Suetonius (Nero 39) cites a
puzzle based on the aggregate of the letters in Greek (1005), current in Nero's own lifetime, that
unveils in hidden code the atrocities of Nero's rule:
122
123
Count the numerical values

Of the letters in Nero's name,
And in 'murdered his own mother'
You will find that their sum is the same.
125
Scott, 'Humour', 328.
307
restrained response in handling sensitively the oppressive rule of the Romans as

the world 'super-power':
... you must not only call to mind those considerations of which Pericles reminded himself
when he assumed the cloak of a general: "Take care Pericles; you are ruling free men, you
are ruling Greeks, Athenian citizens;' but you must also so to yourself: "You who rule are
a subject, ruling a state controlled by proconsuls, the agents of Caesar; 'these are not the
spearmen of the plain; nor is this ancient Sardis, nor the famed Lydian power:' You should
arrange your cloak more carefully and from the office of the generals keep your eyes upon
the orator's platform, and not have great pride or confidence in your crown, since you
see the boots of Roman soldiers just above your head. No, you should imitate the actors,
who, while putting into the performance their own passion, character, and reputation, yet
listen to the prompter and do not go beyond the degree of liberty in rhythms and metres
permitted by those in authority over them. For to fail in one's part in public life brings not
mere hissing or catcalls or stamping feet, but many have experienced
The dread chastiser, axe that cleaves the neck
as did your countryman Pardalas and his followers when they forgot their proper limitations.126
Against this backdrop we are now better placed to assess Paul's rhetorical strategy in Romans 13: 1-7. Whereas certain Jewish texts imbibe Hellenistic kingship
theory with relative ease (e.g. Let. Aris; Philo's 'kingship' fragment preserved by
Antony [Melissa, Ser. CIV]), other texts (e.g. Pss. Sol.; Josephus, BJ) retained the
emphasis of the Hebrew Scriptures on God employing the Gentile rulers to accomplish their providential purposes. Other Jewish texts criticise the imperial
rulers (e.g. Philo, Leg.; b. Shabbat 33b) or enunciate the limits ofJewish obedience to the rulers (Tan.B., Noah 19b-20a). Notwithstanding the invective behind
some of these texts, 1 Baruch 1:11-12 encourages the Babylonian Jews to pray for
Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar and to give the (Roman) ruler and his son long
service so that the Jews might gain favour. 127
However, a small group of Jewish authors expose the underside of imperial
rule in hidden transcript (Philo, De Somniis; IQM), either by prophesying its
eschatological overthrow through the use of code words (e.g. 'Kittim', 'sons of
126 Parrott (Paul's Political Thought, 154-156) provides a very insightful discussion of this passage within its wider context (Mor. 813D-817B). Parrot points out that, according to Plutarch,
the provincial ruler should not inflame nationalism but act blamelessly towards the Romans
(Plutarch, Mar. 814A-C). The provincial ruler should hide any hint of sedition from Roman eyes
(Mar. 815B-C), not belittle the dignity and authority of the State (817A-B), seek out powerful
Roman cp[AoL ('friends': 814C-D), and render honour to all office-holders (816A). Parrott (ibid.,
126 n. 5) also refers to the philosopher Canus 'playing games' as a diplomatic strategy with the
Caesars (Seneca, Tranq. 14.7-10); cf. Epictetus, Arr., Epict. Diss., 1.25.8-14; 4.7.28-30.
127 Cited by de Lange, 'Jewish Attitudes', in P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (eds.), Imperialism, 266. De Lange (ibid., 355 n. 119) identifies Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar with Vespasian and Titus: 'The writers of this period commonly applied the names of the Babylonian to
their recent conquerors'. Note the dictum of Rabbi Hanina (cited in Bruce, 'Paul and "The Powers That Be"', 79 n. 5: 'Pray for the welfare of the government. For if it were not for fear of it, one
man would swallow his fellow alive' (m. Abot 3:2). See also b. Zeb. 102a; b. Abod Zar. 4a, supra.
308
darkness' of the Dead Sea Scrolls), or by articulating a modus vivendi with the
oppressive foreign power and the wicked more generally {IQS).
I will argue that Paul adopts the latter strategy, infusing his portrait of the political authorities with the rich resources of exilic theology, while interacting with
popular expressions of Hellenistic kingship theory and the imperial ideology of
rule. The apostle alerts his readers to the dangers posed by the imperial authorities, and spells out the ruler's limitations of power so that Roman believers might
learn how to placate the authorities by astute civic behaviour. We need to determine why the apostle felt it was necessary to adopt such an approach. Paul pioneered priestly benefactor communities - households of faith with new founding Fathers, human (Rom 4:11-12, 16, 18; 9:10) and divine (8:15)- that would
ultimately dethrone the ruler as Pontifex Maximus and world benefactor. 128 We
turn to a discussion of Roman 13:1-7 within the wider context of Romans.
7.4 Setting Romans 13:1-7 in Its Imperial Context

At the outset, several brief comments regarding the context of our passage are
apposite. D. G. Horrell has correctly observed that Romans 13:1-7 is a 'crucial
test-case of the Christian's external relations' that the apostle has been unfolding
for the Roman believers from 12:1 onwards. 129 Having outlined God's extraordinary demonstration of mercy to Jew and Gentile in Christ (Rom 1:16-11:31: cf.
9:14-16, 23; 11:30, 11:31), Paul proceeds to highlight the transformative effects of
divine mercy within the Body of Christ (12: 1a). Believers offer corporately their
bodies in spiritual worship of God and through the common renewal of their
minds discern their God-given vocation within the world (Rom 12:1 b-2). As a
further demonstration of mercy, divine grace empowers its members for ministry
(Rom 12:3-7), with the result that believers are united in love and service of the
'saints' and 'strangers' (12:13a: Tal<; XPELU<; TWV ay(wv KOLVWVOUVn:<;; 12:13b: T~V
cpt.Ao~ev(av <'itwKOVTE<;). 130 This inter-dependent and service-oriented conception
128 Note the comment of Wright regarding Romans 9-11 ('Paul and Caesar', 189): '... the
story of Abraham's two sons, and of tracing the true lineage through the right ones in each case,
could not but strike a Roman hearer as remarkably similar to the great founding stories of Rome
itself, going back to Romulus and Remus. Paul is telling a much older story; like Josephus, he
is suggesting that Rome's stories are upstaged by the far more antique Jewish story of origins'.
Wright makes a similar point about the meta-narratives of the Romans and the Jews in id., Paul,
6-7, 9-10.
129 Horrell, 'The Peaceable, Tolerant Community', 87. On the literary context, see also the
helpful discussions of Bruce, '"The Powers That Be"', 80-82; Dunn, 'Romans 13:1-7', 60-63;
Towner, 'Romans 13:1-7', 153-155.
130 There is debate among Romans commentators as to the scope of the hospitality envisaged by the phrase T~v <ptAo~ev[av /)l(i>KoVTE~ (literally, 'pursuing love of strangers') in Romans
12:13b. Some commentators argue that it is restricted to local fellow-believers and travelling
missionaries (e.g. W Sanday and A. C. Headlam [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902]; P. Stuhlmacher
309
of the believer's 'body-life' (Rom 12:5-8) undermines Seneca's presentation of

Nero's self-serving care for his body, the state (supra, 7.2.2).
The twin focus on 'saints' and 'strangers' in Romans 12:13a and 13b is then
reversed, with Paul focusing first on relations with outsiders (Rom 12:14-13: 14)
and only later returning to relations within the Body of Christ (14: 1-15:13 ). In regards to the relation ofbelievers to outsiders, Paul connects Romans 12:9-21 and
13:8-14 through his use of recurring theological motifs. The love of neighbour
(Rom 13:8-10) finds its counterpart in love towards fellow believers (12:9-10)
and the blessing of the enemy (12:14-21), with similar eschatological perspectives rounding off each section (13:11-14; 12:19-20). Further, Romans 12:9-21
begins and ends with references to doing 'good' (v. 9: KOAAWflEVOL TqJ aya8qi;
v. 21: VLKU f.v TqJ ayaeq, TO KUKOV; cf. v. 17: 7tpOVOOUflEVOL KUAa), an emphasis
which 13:3 again picks up (TO aya8ov 7tOLEL) .13L In other words, Romans 13:1-7
sits in a wider section of teaching that deals with the believer's social relations
outside the Body of Christ and discusses in that context the highly sensitive issue
of cooperation with the Roman authorities. 132 The pericope itself 'is a coherent
piece of political rhetoric with an indusia of imperatives introducing and concluding the passage', 133 specifically, imoTaaatew ('let be subject') and an68oTE
('give'). As J.D. G. Dunn concludes, 'In short, one of Paul's principal concerns
[Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989]; D. Moo [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996]; T.R. Schreiner
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998]). However, other commentators (C.E.B. Cranfield [Vol. 2 Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979]; L. Morris [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988]; B. Witherington III
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004]) claim that it includes the total stranger as well, while J.D. G.
Dunn (Vol. 2. Dallas: Word, 1988) and J.A. Fitzmyer (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992) do
not adjudicate decisively either way. While cptAO~Ev[a is restricted to hospitality towards fellow
believers in 1 Pet 4:9, the Pauline context of the word is decisive. In this regard, the mention
of love towards the persecutor and the enemy (Rom 12:14-21) surely extends the scope of
cptAO~Evla to its literal meaning ('love of stranger'). Moreover, the use of the present participle
cSuoKOVTEc; conveys the idea that 'one is not just to wait and take the stranger in, if he actually
presents himself at the door, but to go out and look for those to whom one can show hospitality' (C. E. B. Cranfield [Vol. 2 Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979], 640). A. Viard (Saint Paul: Bpitre
aux Romains [Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1975], 268) sums up the debate effectively: 'L'hospitalite
demandee ici peut n'etre pas seulement celle qui s'exerce en faveur d'autres croyants, comme
dans 1 P 4, 9. L'absence de precision ne suppose-t-elle pas qu'elle doit s'adresser a tous, et meme
a des ennemis? Cette interpretation semble assez plausible, car il y a peut-etre un lien etroit entre
cette recommandation et Ia suivante, Ia benediction a I' egard des persecuteurs. C'est du moins ce
que parait souligner l'emploi du meme participe dans les deux cas. Alors que ces gens cherchent
ou poursuivent autrui pour lui nuire, le chretien doit chercher, si !'occasion s'en presente, ales
bien accuellir'.
131 Horrell, 'The Peaceable, Tolerant Community', 87. On the many verbal and adjectival
correspondences between Rom 13:1-14 and 12:1-21, see Monera, 'The Christian's Relationship
to the State', 129 n. 9.
132 Esler (Conflict and Identity, 329-333) argues that there are significant signs that Rom
12:9-21 extends well beyond the boundaries of the Christ-movement, with the result that Paul
relates the 'over-arching perspective of aycin!]' to the civic and political authorities in Romans
13:1-7 (ibid., 332).
133 Monera, 'The Christian's Relationship to the State', 108.
310
was clearly to draw out the ethical and social consequences of his exposition of
the gospel in its corporate character'. 134 Within this context of the Body of Christ
being an agent of transformation in social relations, how does Paul view the ruler
in Romans 13:1-7?
First, Paul clearly demotes the imperial ruler in importance when we consider
the Greek and Roman background evidence. The ruler is merely God's servant
(Rom 13:4a, 4b [8uiKovo<;], 6 [A.t:rroupyo(]). The theocentric emphasis of the
entire passage underscores that Paul had strongly imbibed the exilic traditions
of the Hebrew scripture regarding God's sovereign control of the Gentile nations
and their rulers for his purposes (supra, 7.3). 135 1he pseudepigraphic and apocryphalliterature of Second Temple Judaism underscores the same point (supra,
7.3). Further, in a pericope remarkably underplayed in secondary discussions
of Romans 13:1-7, the Jesus tradition pivots the priority of obedience to God
over against the claims of the ruling authorities, though affirming the legitimacy
of their authority in civic administration (Mk 12:13-17). 136 Undoubtedly, Paul's
strong emphasis on the importance of the believer's submission (Rom 13:1, 5) to
the authorities has to be understood against the teaching of the Old Testament,
the literature of Second Temple Judaism, and the dominical traditions about the
establishment of the authorities by God (13:1b, 1c, 2a). Notwithstanding, Paul's
approach contrasts markedly with the Greek and Roman sources that present the
ruler in luminous hues. The Graeco-Roman writers exalt the ruler as the image
-of God, the vice-regent of God who is foreknown and commissioned by him, the
embodiment of animate law (v6j.to<; Ell\ltUXO), the priestly intermediary between
his people and the gods, the summation of divine virtue and wisdom, head of
the body politic, the soul of the res publica, and, finally, the world benefactor and
the dispenser of mercy.
Strikingly, Paul is deliberately silent about these accolades. In fact, the real emphasis of the passage is upon the obedience of believers to the ruler rather than
the transcendent status of the ruler. 137 Admittedly, Sthenidas calls the king the
13 4 Dunn, 'Romans 13:1-7', 63.
135 Wright, 'The Letter to the Romans', 719. Horrell ('The Peaceable, Tolerant Community',
88) states: '... the (Jewish) strategy Paul adopts both legitimates and limits the state's authority
at the one and the same time'. Towner ('Romans 13:1-7', 163), referring to the Old Testament
prophetic writings and Jewish Wisdom literature, states that the 'message of God's uninterrupted sovereignty in spite of pagan domination over Israel brought hope but also included
the obligation to exhibit loyalty to the pagan state ... (Jer 29:7; cf. Ezra 6:9-10; 1 Mace 7:33)'.
136 See Bruce, 'Render to Caesar', 249-261. Note Towner ('Romans 13: 1-7', 164): 'the thought
in Mark 12:17 (pars.) is close enough to suggest that Paul has contextualized the dominical
material here, as he did in 12:14'.
137 Note the language of subjection (\m01:6mrw: Rom 13:1, 5) and, correspondingly, in a negative light, the language of opposition (avTmicrcrofla1: 13:2). In conjunction with this language is
the heavy emphasis on the ruling authorities being appointed by God: ou yap ecrnv E~oucria Ei
uno 8eou (Rom 13:1 b); al8e oucra1 UTIO UTIO 8EOU TETa'i'flEVQ1 EL0"1V (13: 1c); 6 UVTlTaO"O"OflEVO<:; Tfi
TOU 8EOU &aTayfi av8EO"TI]KEV (13:2a). As Adams (Constructing the World, 206) concludes, 'The
311
'servant of God' and Plutarch speaks of the ruler 'serving' God (supra, 1.2.1.1;
1.2.1.4). However, Sthenidas depicts the king as imitator of God and Plutarch
portrays him as the image of God. Notably, both elements are missing from Paul's
portrait of the authorities. Apart from 'servant' function of the ruler (Rom 13:4,
6) and his being appointed by God (Rom 13:1b, 2b), little else remains in Paul
consonant with the royal portrait found in the late Hellenistic and early imperial
political theorists. The apostle has effectively 'demythologised' the status of the
ruler in antiquity. Indeed, even believers as a group are corporately conformed to
the image of Son (Rom 8:29: OUf1f16pcpou<; T~<; ElK6vo<; TO\) uioii mhoii), whereas
in the thought of the ancient political theorists the 'image of God' is the preserve
of the ruler alone. While this is a more subtle technique than the frontal attacks
of the rabbis and Epictetus against imperial rulers, it is no less effective.
Moreover, Paul reallocates the several of functions of the ruler to the Body of
Christ. Three examples will suffice.
(a) Whereas in the Graeco-Roman political theorists the authorities act as
world benefactors in imitation of God, Paul reassigns this role to the entire
Christian community. 138 Wealthy believers are to engage in the civic complexities of the Graeco-Roman benefaction and honour system, performing public
and private benefactions as required (TO aya9ov 1tOLEL ['to do what is good']:
Rom 13:3) and gaining thereby the Roman public laudatio of the rulers in return
(e~EL<; rratvov: 13:3). To be sure, the imperial benefactors still have a crucial role
in public beneficence, maintaining social cohesion through their benefits (the
mention of El<; Tov aya96v in 13:4), 139 and rightly reaping the appropriate return
of honour as a consequence (13:7b ). However, the Christian community came to
rival the imperial rulers in their traditional benefaction role, not in its capacity
to deliver on the same scale as the Caesars, but more in its ability to unite ethnically and geographically diverse communities in the service (8taKov[a: Rom
15:31; c 2 Cor 8:4; 9:12, 13; 8taKOVE'iv: Rom 15:25; cf. 2 Cor 8:19, 20) of the weak
and needy (Rom 12:13; 15:25-33). The demonstration of Kotvwv[a (Rom 15:26;
cf. 2 Cor 8:4; 9:13; KotvwvE'iv: Rom 15:27 [cf. 12:13]) involved in the Jerusalem
collection also challenged the Pythagorean harmony of society promoted by the
ruler.
basic notion is that of a well-ordered world ... The call to submit (imoTacrcrcr8w) is essentially a
call to recognize one's place in this order. It is not a call for unqualified obedience to rulers. Paul's
appeal in 13:1-7 is more for "good citizenship'; on the assumption that the structure of society,
especially the authority structures of society, reflect the will of God'. For an excellent discussion
on how this relates to the imperial context, see Jewett, Romans, 789-790.
138 Towner ('Romans 13: 1-7', 166) correctly notes that Paul's parenesis strikes a 'radical note'
in its emphasis on corporate benefaction by believers as opposed to benefaction performed
solely by wealthy believers.
139 Adams (Constructing the World, 206) states: '... the rulers are portrayed as upholders of the
civic good (To aya86v), conducting themselves properly and appropriately ... The authorities
reflect and preserve the good order of society'.
312
(b) The believer's extension of mercy within the Body of Christ stood opposed
to Seneca's portrait of the ruler dispensing dementia to the weaker members
in his own body, that is, the state. Because of the mercy of God (Rom 12:1: &a
ni>v oiKTLPJ.LWV TOU 8eou), believers were to exercise mercy in cheerfulness {12:8:
6 EAEWV ev iA.ap6Tl]TL). There is no discussion in Paul, as there is in Seneca, as
to whether the demands of justice have been met in the exercise of dementia
('mercy') over against misericordia ('pity'). The issue of 'justice' (OLKaLOO'UVl]) for
believers had been decisively settled in the cross of Christ through faith in Christ
as the iA.aaT~ptov (Rom 1:17; 3:24-26; 5:18-19; 8:33). The larger issue of the righting of injustice will be resolved at the Judgement Day (Rom 2:2, 5-16; 14:10). In
the meantime, believers were to live as slaves to righteousness (Rom 6:19: OouA.a
Tft OLKatoauvn). To be sure, the ruler legitimately exercises God's judgement in the
present (Rom 13:2b, 3a, 4-5a), but he does so as God's servant and not as VOJ.LO<;
EJ.L'JtUXO<;. Extraordinarily, therefore, believers could exercise mercy to anyone in
the present, no matter that person's worth. Paul's counter-imperial Body of Christ
had trumped the body of Caesar in democratising mercy and grace to the weak
without thereby compromising the demands of divine justice. 140
(c) The priestly role of the ruler is usurped and democratised as believers
offer their own bodies as living sacrifices to God (Rom 12:1), with Paul, as a
AELToupy6<; XptO'TOU 'l'laou, performing his priestly service of the gospel of God
(Rom 15:15: iepouvTa TO euayyeALOV TOU 8eou ). 141 The role of the ruler as Pontifex Maximus has been totally sidelined by the priesthood of all believers. 142 This
would have been inconceivable to Ovid who praises Augustus in conventional
terms (Fast. 3.419-428):
To Caesar's numberless titles (which does he rank highest?)
has been added High Priest.
Over the undying fires the undying divinity of Caesar presides;
you see the joint symbols of empire.
140 Note the comment of R. Jewett ('Response: Exegetical Support from Romans and Other
Letters', in Horsley [ed.], Paul and Politics, 66-67): 'Nothing remains of the claim in Roman
propaganda that its law enforcement system was redemptive, producing a kind of messianic
peace under the rule of the gods "Justitia" and "Clementia''. Christ alone is the fulfilment of
the law (Rom 10:4), not the emperor or the Roman gods'. For a general discussion of Roman
'clemency' and 'justice', seeP. A. Brunt, 'Laus Imperii', in Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics, 25-35;
Braund, De Clementia, 40-42.
141 Note the perceptive comment of Elliott ('Paul and the Politics of Empire', 39): 'Paul's language demobilizes Christians from the worship of Roman gods (the much vaunted eusebeia of
imperial rhetoric, asebeia to Paul) and enlists them in the spiritual worship of God who raised
Jesus from the dead'. While the heavenly intercession of Christ at God's right hand evokes a
priestly theology (Rom 8:34), as Hebrews shows (Heb 7:25; 9:24; cf. Ps 110:1, 4), Paul never explicitly draws this conclusion ('a notion not found in Paul's writings': J, A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992], 533).
142 On the priestly role of the ruler, see R. Gordon, 'The Veil of Power: Emperors, Sacrificers
and Benefactors', in Horsley (ed.), Paul and Empire, 126-137.
7.4 Setting Romans 13:I-7 in Its Imperial Context
313
0 gods of ancient Troy, prize worthy of its rescuer,

you who saved Aeneas,
One of Aeneas' line is the priest to touch your power.
Vesta, guard your kinsman
Fed by his hand, the flames are alive.
Live on, fire; live on, leaderP 43
Second, Paul's repeated emphasis on believer having a healthy fear of the authorities (Rom 13:3b, 4b, 7b) probably functions as a 'hidden transcript' about
not provoking the Romans by unwise behaviour. In my opinion, here Paul warns
the Roman believers about the danger posed by the ruler through the use of a
hidden code, as Elliott observes, rather than by the means of irony as Carter
proposes (supra, 1.1). This caution on Paul's part was apposite even though
Paul, as Adams correctly observes, does not depict the governing authorities as
'morally corrupt or unjust'. 144 The recent collisions of the Jewish population at
Rome (AD 19, 49) with the governing authorities would be reason enough for
a measured approach towards the ruler. As we have seen (supra, 7.3), coded
communication and covert behaviour was a tactic used in Second Temple Judaism when speaking of and acting towards the ruling authorities in a careful and
considered manner. Philo in De Somniis warned his readers in a similar way
about the destructiveness of the 'Roman' beasts of burden. The authors of the
Dead Sea Scrolls concealed their criticism of the Romans by means of the code
word 'Kittim' (IQS) and devised a covert modus vivendi with the ruler (IQM).
The tactic was replicated in the Graeco-Roman world (e.g. Pseudo-Virgil's Culex;
Plutarch, Mor. 813D-F; the wall painting from the villa at Stabiae). Alert Jewish
and Graeco-Roman auditors of Romans would have recognised the rhetorical
method that Paul was employing in warning his auditors regarding the ruler in
Romans 13:1-7. Certainly, Paul does not lambast the imperial authorities in a
manner similar to the authors of the Dead Scrolls or the later rabbinic writers.
But although his criticism is muted, it is no less powerful in context.
Further, Paul's heavy emphasis on judiciously 'fearing' the authorities is not
only an astute use of 'hidden transcript' but also a far-sighted acknowledgement
of first-century political realities. While Seneca commends Nero for his sword
being 'sheathed' (Clem. 1.1.3), the philosopher advises the ruler with grim realism that 'if there should ever be need to let blood, the hand must be held under
143 Cited in K. Chisolm and J. Ferguson (eds.), Rome: The Augustan Age (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1981), B52b. See Augustus' priestly positions and membership of the great
priestly colleges in id., RG 7.3.
144 Adams, Constructing the World, 206. Scholars sometimes appeal to the evidence of Acts as
proof of Paul's unqualified confidence in the just outcomes of the Roman legal system. However,
contra, see the insightful discussion of S. Walton, 'The State They Were in: Luke's View of the
Roman Empire', in Oakes, Rome, 1-41. Further, Paul's use of the language of'lawlessness' of
Caligula's reign in 2 Thessalonians (2:3, 7, 8) should give pause to the idea that Paul, with qualification, naively endorses the justice dispensed by the Roman ruler (supra 3.4.2).
314
control to keep it from cutting deeper than may be necessary' (1.5.1). 145 Indeed,
the danger of imperial 'blood-letting' did not escape the notice of the critics of
Augustus, notwithstanding his relentless propaganda regarding the Pax Romana.
Juvenal refers to the sword of Octavian being 'wet from non-stop slaughter' on
the fields ofThessaly (Sat. 8.240-243), while Propertius the highlights the cost
of the human carnage at Actium that so grieved the Roman gods (2.15.41-48;
cf. 2.7.5-6).
Even the gem evidence supports a more 'warlike' image of Augustus. An
oval agate gem (32 BC) depicts Augustus as Neptune, holding a trident, on a
chariot drawn by hippocampi (sea horses). The nude, god-like Octavian rides
authoritatively behind the hippocampi. Beneath their feet tumbles the head of a
defeated enemy (probably Sextus Pompey) in the waves of Actium. 146 The owner
of the gem has inscribed his name in Greek, IIOIIIA AABAN (Popilius Albanus), prominently above the scene. 147 This Hellenistic monarchic portrayal of
Augustus as a god is replaced in later imperial art by a more traditional portrait
of Augustus as a toga-dad triumphator riding behind tritons and surrounded by
conventional symbols of victory (laurel wreaths etc.). 148 Therefore the 'HellenisSee the balanced discussion of Braund, De Clementia, 61-64.
For a picture of the gem, see D. Plantzos, Hellenistic Engraved Gems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 633; Zanker, The Power of Augustus, 82. For discussion, see respectively
Plantzos, Hellenistic Engraved Gems, 96 and Zanker, The Power of Augustus, 97-98. While the
severed head could be Antony's (a possibility aired by Zanker, ibid., 97 fig. 82), it is more likely
that this gem represents the culmination of an intense propaganda war between Octavian
(the later Augustus) and the Pompeians from 38 BC down to the late 30's. The progress of
the propaganda is well known. One side of a denarius of Sextus Pompey (Sicily, 38 BC) shows
Neptune with the features of Sextus, while the other side of the coin depicts a naval trophy
celebrating Sextus' victory over Octavian's fleets. Another denarius of Sextus Pompey (38 BC)
shows a statue of Sextus Pompey (or his father) with his foot resting on a rostrum, a token
of his victory over Octavian's fleet in 38: but, in counter-claim to Sextus, Octavian's denarius
of 34 BC displays his foot standing on the globe, underscoring thereby his claim to absolute
power (Zanker, ibid., 41 figs. 3la, 31b). Thus our agate gem (32 BC), over against the recent
Pompeian propaganda of the early 30's, celebrates the triumph of Octavian as Neptune over
Sextus (36 BC) and anticipates his coming naval victory over Antony at Actium (31 BC). For
the images, see E. J. Kondratieff, 'From Octavian to Augustus: Images', http:/ /www.sas.upenn.
edu/-ekondrat/Octavian3.html.
147 1he precise identity of Popilius Albanus is unknown, except for the fact that he did not
belong to the governing class. He is not mentioned in PW (A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W Kroll,
Real-Encyclopiidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft [Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894-1963]).
Neither does his name appear in MMR (T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic [Atlanta: Scholars, 1984-1986]) or PIR (Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saec. I. II. III [ed.
Academiae Litterarum Borussicae, Berolini: Georgium Reimerum, 1897-1898]).
148 For the later triumphator image on Augustan gems, see Zanker's perceptive discussion of
a sardonyx gem (ibid., 97-98, 81). Of the earlier 'Hellenistic' style agate gem, Plantzos (Hellenistic Engraved Gems, 96) states: 'Octavian's victory is represented in the Greek-Hellenistic
way, and in the manner a Hellenistic king would commission. In later Augustan art, including
glyptic, a much more tedious symbolic vocabulary was employed. Explicit references to political
developments are used as a substitute to the vague allusions exercised earlier'. There is another
145
146
315
tic' agate gem could be a privately commissioned piece of Popilius, celebrating

Augustus' victory at Actium, in political support of the house of Caeasar. Alternatively, it could be a private gift of Augustus (or possibly a family member) to
Popilius, an amicus ('friend'), promoting an early 'non-official' view of his victory. Either way, the initial flush of the savagery of Augustus' victory is paraded
for all to see before the more sanitised versions of the later imperial propaganda
become the ideological norm. It would seem, then, that Paul has substantial reason to remind his readers that the ruler bore the sword (Rom 13:4b). Moreover,
the tantalising reference to 'persecution' (8twyf16<;) and the 'sword' (flaxmpa) in
Romans 8:35 may well be not just a rhetorical flourish on Paul's part but rather
his prophetic hint regarding the future for believers at Rome.
Of considerable interest, too, is the valuable evidence of pseudo-Seneca's historical drama, Octavia, written by an unknown author during the reigns of Galba
and Vespasian after the death of Nero. 149 Pseudo-Seneca through the mouth of
Nero speaks disparagingly of the Augustan peace as having been maintained by
the fear of the sword: ~t last the victor now weary, sheathed his sword, blunted
with savage blows, and maintained his sway by fear (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 524-526)'.
Nero, our writer concludes, would resort to the sword like his apotheosised forebear in order to maintain his rule: 'Me, too, shall the stars await, if with relentless
sword I first destroy whatever is hostile to me, and on a worthy offspring found
my house' (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 530-532). Another chilling conversation between
Seneca and Nero also illustrates Nero's relentless determination to rule his subjects by fear of the sword rather than by inspiring 'loyalty' through his 'righteous
orders' (ps.-Seneca, Oct. 450-471). 150 Although Paul's letter to the Romans was
written during the Neronian quinquennium and not during the sharp deterioration of Nero's rule that was to come later, the evidence of the pseudo-Seneca's
Augustan gem- a convex oval intaglio (c. 31-27 BC) set in a modern Greek ring- that has the
abbreviated name of Popilius Albanus inscribed in Greek (IIOIIL\ Ai\.BAN) above the scene.
This portrait also shows the naked Augustus as Neptune. Holding a trident, Augustus is drawn
along by four hippocampi over a turbulent sea, escorted by young dolphins. To access the image,
see J. Geranio, 'The Portraiture of Caligula', http://www.portraitsofcaligula.com (follow the link
'Augustus' for the picture of the gem).
149 See P. Kragelund, Prophecy, Populism, and Propaganda in the 'Octavia' (Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum Press, 1982), 41-46. Kragelund (ibid., 29) comments: '... things had
changed since Seneca wrote De Clementia. In the Octavia, Nero no longer shows the clemency
that Seneca advocates, but feels that he must kill or be killed (462ft} Thus he insists on using
his sword ruthlessly to protect himself, to make the people obey, and to rid himself of enemies
and rivals ... Fear is the inescapable shadow of Nero's exalted station: others must fear, that he
may be safe'.
150 Kragelund (ibid., 85) demonstrates how Nero mocks the political ideals of his tutor
Seneca in the Octavia. Nero dismisses Seneca's counsel of'mercy' (dementia: Oct. 442) as 'folly'
(dementia: 496), asserting that the ruler's responsibility to save the citizens (servare cives: 444;
serves: 490) is 'oppressive' (graves: 495) and that Rome and the Senate should serve him instead
(servit mihi: 492).
316
Octavia demonstrates how real the threat of the ruler's sword would soon become for Paul's Roman auditors. 151
Third, in submission to the rulers, the Christian are to pay taxes (Rom 13:7:
Tov cp6pov, TO T>1.0~), direct and indirect, at which other groups in the empire
were currently baulking. Indeed, Paul may well be echoing the dominicallogion
'Render unto Caesar' in order to accentuate his point in this instance (Mark
12:17; Matt 22:21; Luke 20:25). 152 Furthermore, they are to engage in the honour
system, rendering the emperor appropriate honour on special occasions (is Paul
thereby allowing believers in the imperial household to participate in some of the
public Italian festivals in honour of the emperor?). 153 Notwithstanding, we know
from 1 Corinthians that Paul also subverts the honour system at its core by insisting that in the house-churches the least honoured and least presentable members
of the Body of Christ be the ones who are honoured above all (1 Cor 12:22-24).
Fourth, Paul insists that while the demands of the Graeco-Roman reciprocity
system have to be met (Rom 13:8), love now was the transforming dynamic that
upended a dominant cultural convention (13:9-10). 154 Undoubtedly, Paul is here
acknowledging the importance of officium ('obligation') at Rome, with its rituals
of gratitude and indebtedness to the gods, one's family, the state and patrons,
imperial and local. Indeed, patronal indebtedness to Augustus resulting from his
generous payment of senatorial debts had become part of the anecdotal folklore
of table conversation, as a humorous extract from Macrobius demonstrates. 155
151 Note that Calpurnius Siculus (Eel. 1.60-62.) implicitly criticises the arbitrary executions
of Claudius over against the peace and clemency of the young Nero. See, too, Seneca's criticism
of the murders perpetrated by Claudius (Apocol. 10-11).
152 See the arguments of Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 111-120. As Thompson (ibid., 120)
concludes, 'Whether he intended it or not, Paul's hearers would have been reminded of Jesus'
words and would recognise that this brother from Tarsus stood in continuity with their tradition'. Interestingly, Seneca quotes a popular proverb, 'Pay what you owe (Redde, quod debes)',
that has affinities with Romans 13:7 (Ben. 3.14.3). However, Seneca proceeds to discuss benefactors giving benefits with the expectation of return. In his view, the danger is that their 'benefits'
will turn into a tawdry commercial transaction rather than being a true imitation of the gods
(Ben. 3.14.3-3.15.4). By contrast, Paul underscores that debts must be paid (Rom 13:7), but the
issue of motivation for the Christian is the transforming power oflove ( 13:8-10). In other words,
the apostle simultaneously endorses the positive dynamics of the ancient reciprocity system,
while undermining its core ethos. See J. R. Harrison, Paul's Language of Grace in Its GraecoRoman Context (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 324-332.
153 On the issue of'honour' in Romans 13:7, see Jewett, Romans, 803.
154 Once again we have here another possible echo of the Jesus tradition: for discussion, see
Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 121-140.
155 See Macrobius, Sat. 2.4 (cited in Chisholm and Ferguson, Rome, B41 Anecdote 23).
T. N. Habinek (The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Religion
[Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998], 143) points out that Seneca's language of social
obligation is 'reassessed in financial terms': e.g. 'I owe you another daily instalment' (Ep. 6.7),
'This letter must be paid for' (Ep. 8.7), and 'Here's a little something for the plus side' (Ep. 8.7).
Paul commodifies his language like Seneca (Rom 13:8a: fl'lOEvl fl'l0EV 6cpdAETE), but transforms
the social interaction by his emphasis on love (Rom 13:8b: Ei fl~ TO aAA~AOU<; ayanav). The dif-
317
The believers in the two households situated within the imperial bureaucracy
(Rom 16:10-11), as well as within the imperial house itself (Phil 4:22), would
have understood well the conflicting tensions of 'indebtedness' for them as
members of the Body of Christ and the household of Caesar (including his wider
bureaucracy). 156
However, Romans 13:8-10 in its first century context may also have had
specific imperial reference for contemporary auditors. Ovid in his exile bitterly
laments the 'debt oflove' (amor debitus) that he still owed Augustus (supra, 5.4).
Paul does not allow believers outside of the imperial household and its bureaucracy to demonise the Roman political system with its rituals of reciprocity and,
conversely, if the rituals went astray, enmity. Rather believers owe everyone love,
including the imperial representatives and their clients. 157
Fifth, the eschatological shift that has occurred because of the death and resurrection of Jesus has exposed the hollowness of the boast about the eternity of
the Roman Empire and its self-centred culture. In reality, the night was nearly
over and the day almost here (Rom 13:11-12). Paul is clear that believers know
the significance of the eschatological hour (Rom 13:11a: eiMw; Tov Katp6v),
both in terms of its presence (13:llb: (ht wpa MT] Uf!U<;) and its movement
towards the arrival of the eschatological day (13:11c: vuv yap tyy\m:pov ~f!WV
~ O"WTf]p(a; 13:12a: ~ c5 ~f!Epa ~yytKev). 158 From this eschatological base, Paul
draws out ethical implications for believers, who were struggling to cope with the
immorality and life-style excesses of Neronian Rome (Rom 13:13b: 11~ KWf!otc;
KUlf18atc;, 11~ Ko(mtc; Kal aaeA.yeiatc;), as well as with the impact of its divisive
and competitive culture upon the house churches in the capital (13:13c: ll~ ept&
Kal <~A.<p; cf. 11:13, 18; 12:3, 9-10, 16; 13:7b). 159 While Paul's eschatology, in
the context of verses 11-14, focuses on the ethical and social implications for
believers living in imperial Rome, one should not conclude that the apostle has
ficulties that the unremitting demands of patronal obligation, without love, placed on human
relationships is plain in Cicero, Att. 10.7: 'Therefore in a contest like this you must not openly
express your sentiments for either side, but must await the event. My case however is different. I
am under the bond of an obligation and cannot show ingratitude (quod beneficia vinctus ingratus
esse non possum)'.

156 Here I am indebted to the insights of Jewett, 'Exegetical Support', 65. For a brief introduction to patronal obligation in the Roman imperial order, see E. Agosto, 'Patronage and
Commendation, Imperial and Anti-imperial', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2004), 103-123, esp. 104-107. See also R. Saller,
Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
157 Adams (Constructing the World, 208) points out that 'neighbour' (Rom 13:9: TIATJO"LOV) is a
broad term incorporating 'all the people that the believers would come into contact with in the
course of their everyday lives ... the language of these verses is not the language of sectarianism
or separatism'.
158 On the eschatology of these verses, see Jewett, Romans, 818-824.
159 For excellent discussions of the imperial context of these moral terms, see Winter, 'Roman
Law and Society', 85-89; Jewett, Romans, 824-827.
318
thereby abandoned his focus on the imperial authorities. 160 The darkness engulfing Rome was, to some extent, the legacy of the idolatry and moral dissolution
associated with Graeco-Roman cults, including the worship of the ruler (Rom
1:22-27). Paul's relentless call of Roman believers to moral action in light of
the dawning of the eschatological day- U!la<; e~ ihrvou yep8~vat (Rom 13:11),
cmo8w!l8a (13:12a), v<'luaw!l8a {13:12b), 1tpL1ta1'~0'W!lV (13:13a), vMaaa8 (13:14a) -only makes sense if he has firmly in mind the temporariness of
Neronian Rome.
Any notion of the temporariness of the imperial household and its rule, however, would have sat uneasily with Romans and their clients. An imperial decree
(AD 15) from Gytheion stipulates that 'the ephors shall sacrifice a bull on behalf
of the safety of our rulers and gods and the eternal continuance of their rule
(cii<'l(ou -r~<; ~Y1-Lov(a<; a\nwv &a11ov~<;)' (DocsAug 102a). 161 In the Cypriot
loyalty oath to Tiberius Caesar, the oath-takers swear by 'the God Augustus
Caesar, and by Rome who lives for ever (-r~v aevaov 'PW!lf]V) and all the other
gods and goddesses' (DocsAug 105). At Umbria, after the execution of Seianus
(AD 31 ), we read this dedicatory inscription celebrating the providential triumph
of Tiberius over his treasonous Prefect of the Praetorian Guard (DocsAug 51):
To the providence of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, born for the eternal endurance of the Roman name (ad aeternitatem Romani nominis), upon the removal of the most pernicious
enemy of the Roman people; Faustus Titius Liberalis sevir Augustalis for a second time,
had made this at his own expense.
16 Keck (Romans, 321-322) agues that Romans 13:11-14 does not have the sharp eschatological focus of other texts in the Pauline corpus (e.g. 1 Thess 5:2-3; 1 Cor 2:6-8; 7:11-14),
some of which, as Keck admits, had an anti-imperial thrust. He concludes that '13:11-14 does
not show that the present status of the powers "is not permanent'; as Elliott ... claims' (ibid.,
321). Rather the text is 'renouncing the desires of the flesh, not a positive attitude towards the
authorities' (ibid.). But Keck forgets that the 'desires of the flesh' also have an imperial context at
Rome, given the moral excesses of Nero's reign. Paul's savage critique ofGraeco-Roman morality would have underscored the darkness of the 'Neronian night' and sets in sharp contrast the
imminent arrival of the eschatological day.
161 On Rome's everlasting power, see the republican 'Ode to Rome' of Melinno (Stobaeus,
Anthol. [Wachsmuth-Hense]3.7.2). In an inscription (37 AD) from Cyzicus (DocsGaius, 401),
the priests and priestesses, 'having opened the precincts and adorned the images of the gods,
should pray for the eternal endurance of Gaius Caesar (imi:p -rf)c; fatou Ka[crapoc; aiwv[ou &aflOVijc;)'. Ovid, after touching on the Ara Pads (Altar of Peace) erected in hour of Augustus
(Fast. 1.709-722), concludes in II. 21-22: 'May the house which guarantees peace, in peace last
for ever - be that your prayer to the gods who love piety'. The Centennial Hymn, sung twice at
the Ludi Saeculares, the Festival of the Century, in 17 BC, appeals to Apollo - Augustus' protecting divinity at Actium (Propertius, 2.1; 3.9)- in this manner (cited in Chisholm and Ferguson,
Rome, D2c):
By thy affection for the Palatine Altars,

Prolong we pray, the Roman State and Latium's
Prosperity into future cycles, nobler
Eras, for evermore.
319
In an inscription from Cyzicus (DocsAug 352), Antonia Tryphaena is commended for her piety 'towards the eternal house (n'>v aiwvtov oiKov) of the
greatest of gods, Tiberius Augustus Caesar, and his immortal principate (T~v
aeav[aTOV ~]YEflOVLUV airrou)'. The imperial priest of Claudius at Cys, Caria,
'offered sacrifices to the gods and to the Augusti for the endurance and health
of their house in eternity'. 162 Last, in the famous inscription celebrating Nero's
liberation of Greece (AD 67), the city of Akraiphia dedicates an altar to Nero
with the inscription 'To Zeus the Deliverer, Nero forever (Ei<; aiwva)' (DocsGaius
149).163
What is intriguing in these texts is the continuous use of the language of 'eternity' and 'immortality' to describe the imperial rulers and the city. 164 Clearly,
the cities and individuals erecting these inscriptions did not envisage an end to
the Roman hegemony, even if we make generous allowance for the stereotyped
conventions of flattery and gratitude. For Paul, by contrast, the full light of
Christ's coming kingdom has almost dawned and was extinguishing the darkness of imperial rule (Rom 13:12a: cf. 16:20: 4.4.5), both in terms of believers
putting on the weapons of light (13:12b: ev<SucrwflE8a [<Si:] n1 onA.a -rou cpwT6<;)
and their knowing the imminent arrival of the eschatological day of salvation
(13: 11-12 a) .165 E. Adams has speculated regarding the political effects of Paul's
anti-imperial apocalyptic theology upon Roman perceptions of the first believers:
To publicly proclaim the end of the present world would have been a highly risky thing
to do in the capital of the Empire. The Roman order was legitimated by the belief that
Augustus had inaugurated a golden age of peace. Virgil declared that the Empire was eternal (Aen. 1.125ff); the city of Rome was the urbs aeterna. To challenge these claims, even
inadvertently, would have been politically highly dangerous. 166
162 Cited in D. C. Braund, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC-AD 68

(London/Sydney: Croom and Helm, 1985), 230.
163 Even popular jokes railed at the millennium of Rome: 'Whilst attending the games held
in honour of the millennium of the city of Rome, an egghead came across a defeated athlete in
tears. "Cheer up': he consoled him, "I bet you'll win at the next millennia! games"' (B. Baldwin,
The Philogelus or Laughter-Lover [Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1983), 62). Suetonius (Ner. 11.2)
tells us that Nero gave games for the 'Eternity of the Empire'. An inscription of the Arval Brethren in Nero's reign (AD 66) speaks of a sacrifice 'to the eternity [of the empire a cow - - - )'
(J. Scheid, Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium Qui Supersunt: Les copies epigraphiques des protocols
annuels de /a ConfrerieArvale [21 AV.-31 AP. f.-C) [Rome: Ecole Fran'raise de Rome, 1998), 30
Col. I cd. //.5-6).
164 See also Rock's discussion (The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology, 62-63) of the
eternity of Rome in Virgil, Aen. 12.791-842.
165 An imperial interpretation of Romans 16:20 was suggested by M. Reasoner in a paper
entitled 'Paul's God of Peace in Canonical and Political Perspective', delivered at the AAR/
SBL 2004 Annual Meetings, San Antonio, Texas, USA (Nov 20-23). For discussion, see 4.4.5.
166 Adams, Constructing the World, 215.
320
I suspect that Adams' suggestion moves in the right direction. We know from
Tacitus' account ofNero's persecution of the Christians (Ann. 15.44) that the Roman believers had acquired a distinct social profile that marked them off from the
Roman Jews by the fateful year of AD 64. 167 According to Tacitus, the so-called
'Christians' were characterised by odium generis humani ('hatred of the human
race'). He styles their movement as exitiabilis superstitio ('a pernicious superstition') and considers it to be notorious for its jlagitia ('vices'). What we have to
account for is how this perception of the early Christians emerged so clearly and
quickly from the mid to late SO's onwards (cf. 1.4.1. n. 153). Until then, if we can
trust the evidence of Acts- given its apologetic tendencies- the Roman authorities saw the first believers, with one exception (Acts 17:6-9), as being involved in
a heated intra-mural debate with other Jews (16:20-21; 18:14-15; 22:30; 23:29;
25:19-20, 24-26). Paul would have been aware that this tension had the potential
to become a matter of concern for the Roman authorities, especially when the
believers began to differentiate their community life theologically and socially
from their fellow Jews. Perhaps the apostle anticipated an eventual outbreak of
persecution against the believers at Rome. 168 For this reason, Paul prefaced his
discussion of submission to the authorities (Rom 13: 1-7) with a statement on
how believers should behave responsibly towards hostile outsiders ( 12:14-21 ). 169
E. A. Judge has postulated that the preaching of Paul's gospel brought about
the emergence of a distinctive Roman church, with the result that it moved out
from the protecting umbrella of the synagogue. 170 We should also remember
that Paul's trusted Jewish co-workers, Prisca and Aquila, had already returned
to Rome before the Roman believers received Paul's letter (Rom 16:5a). Undoubtedly they would have emphasised in their house church Paul's teaching on
the fulfilment of the Old Testament covenantal traditions in Christ (cf. 6.4.3),
while maintaining their contacts with the Jewish synagogues at Rome because of
the evangelistic opportunities they provided. In other words, it is likely that the
eschatological emphasis of Paul's gospel had already started to impact upon the
Roman house churches by the time of the first public reading of Romans. But
167 G. Jossa Uews or Christian? The Followers of Jesus in Search of Their Own Identity [Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 134) states: 'Tacitus knew well that the Christians at that time
already had a particular physiognomy of their own that everyone recognised. They were not
simply Jews'.
168 Wright ('The Letter to the Romans', 713) comments: 'We do not know of specific persecution in the Roman church during the 50s, but Paul assumes, here as elsewhere, that persecution
will come to those who remain loyal to Jesus (11hess 2:14; 3:3-4; cf. 2 Tim 3:12)'. G. R. Osborne
(Romans [Downers Grove: IVP, 2004], 341) adds that while there had been no official persecution in Rome, ' ... there were signs of unrest, and Acts tells us of ongoing local problems in most
of the cities Paul evangelised'.
169 Note Wright's observation ('The Letter to the Romans', 712): 'In particular, 12:19-20 forbids vengeance in terms that link closely to the description of the ruler's obligations in 13:4, and
it seems clear that Paul intends these two passages to be mutually interpretative'.
170 E. A. Judge, 'The Origin of the Church at Rome', in id., The First Christians, 454-455.
321
what aspect of Paul's gospel made the Roman authorities think that believers
were a dangerous presence in the city?
When the Roman believers heard Paul's proclamation of the gospel- initially
through his letter and later when he was under house arrest - they responded
positively to the apostle's bold eschatological presentation of the risen Christ's
reign of grace and the surety of his imminent return. Subsequently, in their presentation of the gospel to unbelievers, the Roman believers followed Paul's lead in
transferring the honorific terminology of the Caesar cult to Jesus, the risen 'Son
of God' and 'Lord', thereby diminishing the ruler's status.
Additionally, they began to implement a distinctive set of social relations in
the households of faith and separated themselves as a unified 'church' for the first
time from the synagogues, 171 exposing themselves thereby to the full glare of the
Roman authorities' attention. Paul's trusted co-workers Prisca and Aquila could
be depended on to explain the social, political and theological consequences of
the apostle's gospel in relation to its imperial parody at Rome. They would have
appreciated the local differences between the operation of the imperial cult in
the Greek East and in the Latin West. With Paul, they had struggled with the
issues of Christian identity in the Roman colony of Corinth and would have
been familiar with the challenges of imperial idolatry facing Roman believers at
the capital. In other words, it was the eschatological focus of Paul's gospel (Rom
1:2-5; 5:6, 21; 7:6b; 8:15-25; 12:1-2; 13:11-13; 15:12; 16:20), with its different
conception of rule, which initially aroused the suspicions of the Roman authorities. Upon closer inspection, Roman authorities' disquiet would have been further compounded by the 'un-Roman' set of social relations that accompanied the
eschatological gospel of the Roman believers. 172
Sixth, Paul establishes a 'counter-imperial' household where the 'ruler' is no
longer our 'Father'. Rather God was experienced as 'Father' through the Spirit
of Jesus when believers addressed him as abba (Rom 8:15). Believers, whether
they were Jew or Gentile, had been ushered into the household of God through
the fatherhood of Abraham and Isaac (Rom 4:11-13, 16-18; 9:10). In so arguing, Paul had dismantled the myth of the founding fathers of Rome (Aeneas and
Romulus) celebrated in the Augustan forum with Augustus as their fulfilment
171 E. A. Judge (ibid., 442) argues that because the phrase~ EKKAEJ]<rla ev"Pwfln ('the church
in Rome') was not used in any of the New Testament writings, there was not any regular organization, or any meetings in which the house churches met as a whole (as at Corinth, Rom
16:23 ), or any public preaching at Rome. The Roman church grew as the result of the migration
of converts from the Greek East (though I would add, perhaps also from an initial Pentecost
influx, Acts 2:10: contra, Judge, ibid., 444). As Judge (ibid.) sums up, the Christian community
at Rome 'avoided any conflict with the synagogues, providing such extra religious facilities as it
needed on a domestic basis ... it was only launched as a "church'' in opposition to the synagogues
after Paul's arrival'.
172 See E. A. Judge, '"On This Rock I Will Build My ekk/esia": Counter-cultic Springs of Multiculturalism', in id., The First Christians, 647-650.
322
as 'Pater Patriae'. 173 This new community was established on the basis of the
extravagant mercy of God over against the measured Stoic mercy of the ruler
(Rom 11:30-32; 12:1). The expression of mercy was democratised into the body
life of the Christian community (12:8), with the result that the virtue of dementia
was no longer the preserve of the imperial house. As the number of believers increased in the capital, 174 Roman residents and officials may well have considered
the early Christians a threat because they belonged to an alternate family with
significant patronal networks in the Greek East and the Latin West. Furthermore,
they supported their members inside and outside of Rome and distributed beneficence within their house church networks (Rom 13:8-10; 15:1-8, 22-33). 175
Moreover, they demonstrated an obstinate commitment to a benefactor who had
been crucified by the Romans and whose reign of grace was articulated in ways
inimical to the imperial conception of rule. 176 Nero did not have to look far for
suitable scapegoats for the fire at Rome in AD 64.
In conclusion, while Paul did not intend to establish a new constitution for
the Roman state, he heralded the headship of Jesus as 'Son of God' and 'Lord'
over a counter-imperial household. As Christ's priestly representative, Paul announced the inauguration of the reign of grace and demanded the obedience of
the nations (Rom 1:6-7, 13-17; 5:12-21; 15:8-12, 15-19; 16:25-26). Christ, the
firstborn of God's household (Rom 8:29b ), not only fulfilled the Old Testament
apocalyptic hope, 177 but he also eclipsed the Roman ruler as the world benefactor by means of his cosmic soteriological benefits that undid the reign of sin and
death (5:12-21; 8:18-39). He bonded together his household members through
the cross and the Spirit in a loyalty-commitment that transcended culture (Rom
1:14), race (3:28-30), and geography (15:18-29). This new household offaith
at Rome, which elevated its Jewish founding fathers (Abraham: Rom 4:11-12,
16-18; Isaac: 9:10) over the Julian founding fathers, usurped roles traditionally allocated to the ruler and established a radical set of social relations that
173 One of the most surprising acclamations of Augustus as 'Pater Patriae' occurs in Ovid,
Fast. 2.127-144 (cited in Chisolm and Ferguson, Rome, B52a). At the outset of that text, Ovid
hails Augustus as 'Pater Patriae' and then, in an extended comparison, debunks Romulus in the
most unflattering way as vastly inferior to Augustus. The text is even more daring when rememhers that in the forum Augustum Romulus headed the line of Republican principes ('leaders')
who culminated in Augustus as 'Pater Patriae'. See our discussion, supra 5.2.
174 Tacitus (Ann. 15.44) says that 'vast numbers were convicted' upon the disclosures of the
believers initially arrested in AD 64.
175 See the excellent discussion of G. Clark, Christianity and Roman Society (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004), 20-21.
176 Pliny (Ep. 10.96) observes regarding his interviews of believers from Bithynia and Pontus
in the early second century AD: 'I could at least feel no doubt that whatever the nature of their
creed might be, pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement'.
177 Rom 1:4: OTIEpf!UTO<; L'.au[l); 1:5: uiou ewu EV lluvUf!E1; 3:25: i\acrT~p!OV; 9:5a: t~ wv 6
Xp10T6<;; 9:5b: 8E6<;; 10:4: TEAO<; VOf!OU; 10:9, 13: KUp1o<;; 11:26b: EK LLWV 6 pu6f!EVO<;; 15:12: ~
pi(a TOU 'lEOOUL.
323
transformed the patronal dynamics of the Roman world (Rom 12:1-15:33). This
would soon cause the Romans to identify this competitor as a dangerous superstitio because of the believers' stubborn refusal to acknowledge the priority of the
ruler as the universal pater.
Conversely, Paul's eschatology always trod a careful path between the 'already'
and the 'not yet' in terms of its pastoral application in the present age. 178 The ruler
exercised his God-assigned role in the running of civic communities. Consequently, believers had to render him the appropriate obedience, taxes and honour
(Rom 13:1 a, Sa, 6-7), even though the 'day' was drawing increasingly 'near' (Rom
13: 12). Even if the ruler were to wield the sword unjustly, a hypothetical situation
that Paul does not discuss, his strategy in handling such a situation would be very
clear: believers should not retaliate with vengeance but overcome evil with good
(Rom 12:14-21). 179 Thus Paul refused to endorse the violent and bloody path that
the 'Fourth Philosophy' took against Rome, a route that would result in a terrible
loss of life because of its tragic miscalculation regarding Rome's determination
to suppress all rebellion. 180
See the helpful discussion of Wright, 'The Letter to the Romans', 720.
I am not implying that Paul advocated unconditional submission to the authorities. As
G. R. Osborne (Romans, 341, 348) observes, the church should speak prophetically against the
practice of evil in government and exercise non-compliance when the government requires
something contrary to God's will (cf. Acts 14:19; 5:29).
180 Ibid., 718-719.
178
179
CHAPTER
Conclusion
8.1 The Issue of Appropriate Methodology for Studies of
Imperial Ideology and Its Relation to Paul's Epistles
This book sought to explore the ideological collision between Paul's eschatological gospel and the Julio-Claudian conception of rule. The selection of Paul's epistles to the Thessalonians and the Romans allowed us to compare the reactions of
early Christians living under the pressure of imperial rule in a highly Romanised
city of the Greek East and in the capital of the Roman empire in the Latin West.
Since the ruler was officially honoured in a different way in Rome as opposed to
the provincial cities, we focused on local evidence that revealed the understanding of imperial rule in each locality.
Issues of methodology were discussed at the outset. An often-ignored question
in modern discussions is whether first -century believers were literate enough to
have understood the imperial propaganda (e.g. could they have read the honorific inscriptions, or, alternatively, would they have been able to pick out the inscription's overall intent from its visual clues?). In discussing the spread ofliteracy in
antiquity, it was argued that the presence of various types of graffiti at Pompeii
showed that basic forms of literacy, in specific locales, extended further down
the social pyramid than has been previously appreciated. The documentation
required by the burgeoning imperial bureaucracy of the first century ensured increased literacy in the empire. Further, in the case of the Roman house churches,
literate bureaucrats from the familia Caesaris would have been able to inform
their fellow believers about the ruler's ideology. Finally, the ubiquity of the ruler's
iconographic and numismatic propaganda, as well as the quasi-mythical status
popularly accorded key providential events in his rule, ensured that non-literate
believers were also exposed to the symbolic universe of the Julio-Claudian house.
We asked to what degree Paul, a member of the educated literate elite, was
exposed to the imperial propaganda and how his response to its ideology might
be detected in his epistles. The presence of Virgil's Aeneid in the popular imagination, as well as the profusion of the inscriptional and numismatic propaganda,
ensured Paul's knowledge of the Julio-Claudian conception of rule. 1 I also argued
that Paul probably saw a Greek version of the Res Gestae at Pisidian Antioch, even
1
However, see our discussion in 1.4.1 supra on Paul's exposure to Virgil's Aeneid.
326
Chapter 8: Conclusion
though only the Latin version is extant at the site today. But, at a more basic level,
Paul's Gentile converts may have asked the apostle how the 'reign of grace' could
be inaugurated through the death of a crucified benefactor and how that related
to the cyclical renewal of the 'age of grace' under Nero. Paul's searing critique
of the mores of Roman society in Romans 12:1-15:33 shows how seriously Paul
took the issue of instructing believers in the capital about how they should live
as redeemed citizens.
The issue of how anti-imperial allusions might be detected in Paul's epistles is
a more complicated issue. Scholars have often asserted the presence of 'hidden
transcripts' or 'codes' in Paul's epistles, but the question has yet not been resolved
by a serious investigation of the ancient evidence. Modern scholarly criticism of
the idea of 'coding' has also been overlooked in the process. We have proposed
that the rhetorical strategy would have been recognised by Paul's auditors, given
its presence in ancient literature and iconography spanning a variety of cultures
( 1.4.2). However, its function and presence in Paul's epistles is more restricted
than New Testament scholars normally propose. In my opinion, the use of
'hidden transcripts' in Romans 13:1-7 is more a case of 'coded' diplomacy for
the consumption of politically divided groups within the house churches. The
rhetorical strategy allowed Paul to call believers of different political persuasions
to an unswerving commitment to Christ, while they continued to submit to the
ruler as God's servant and, in the case of the wealthy believers, win his praise for
their civic benefactions. Additionally, we suggested several criteria, arising out of
our engagement with the ancient evidence, which should help researchers to discern how Paul engages ideologically the symbolic universe of the Julio-Claudian
house( 1.4.3.2). In this process, however, it is important to pay attention to what
Paul omits from the imperial propaganda as much as what he says explicitly about
the ruler. Then we should be able to discern in a more balanced way whether Paul
is actually demoting the ruler in status or not.
What conclusions emerged from our study regarding Paul's response to the
imperial ideology of rule as it found expression in the eastern provinces and in
the capital of the empire itself?
8.2 Paul's Gospel and Imperial Thessalonica: Issues

of Ideological Conflict in the Greek East
Among the cities of the Greek East, Roman Thessalonica presents an interesting test case for assessing how Paul's apocalyptic gospel interacted with the
Julio-Claudian conception of rule. It is clear from 1 Thessalonians that anxiety
over the fate of the dead in Christ had seized the Thessalonian house churches
(1 Thess 4:13), while, in 2 Thessalonians, eschatological enthusiasm over the
'immanence' or the 'presence' of the 'Day of the Lord' - depending on how one
8.2 Paul's Gospel and Imperial1hessalonica
327
translates EVEO"TT]KEV- had gripped believers (2 Thess 2:2). Moreover, if the book
of Acts is historically accurate on this point, the Jewish residents ofThessalonica
claimed that Paul had proclaimed 'another king named Jesus' in violation of the
'decrees of Caesar' (Acts 17:7). While certainty is not attainable regarding the
'decrees' being referred to here, the loyalty oaths of the Julio-Claudian clients are
probably meant( 2.2.1).
The archaeological record confirms a strong Thessalonian attachment to the
Roman ruler and his officials depicted in the narrative of Acts. Inscriptions indicate the presence of Roman benefactors in the city, as well as a temple to Augustus with its own priesthood. Archaeological finds of statuary and coins further
demonstrate the commitment of the Thessalonians to the imperial propaganda
( 2.2.1). More generally, clients of the Julio-Claudian house in the eastern Mediterranean cities promoted the Augustan 'age of grace' and celebrated its cyclical
renewal under Nero, with a view to securing the benefits that the imperial cult
spawned for their cities, including the acquisition of prestigious provincial priesthoods by local aristocrats. Thus the imperial cult became a powerful player among
the other idolatrous cults at Thessalonica. Although the Thessalonians believers
had abandoned the imperial cult, among other forms of idolatry, for the 'living
and true God' and his 'Son from heaven' (1 Thess 1:9-10), nevertheless certain
believers were still tempted to rely upon the benefits that imperial patronage
continued to bring. How did Paul counter the parasitic dependence of the Thessalonians upon the Roman 'benefactors of the world' in 1 and 2 Thessalonians?
We have argued that Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:11 interacted with Jewish
and early Christian apocalyptic traditions ( 2.2.1). However, the apostle also
engaged the imperial ideology of rule through his careful choice of overlapping
terminology that captured resonances of Jewish apocalyptic and Julio-Claudian
propaganda( 2.2.2). The implication of Paul's 'hidden transcript' was clear: the
return of the risen Christ to vindicate the Thessalonian believers eclipsed anything that the imperial benefactors had to offer ( 1 Thess 4: 16-17). In a bold move,
Paul's reference to Eip~VT] Kal aucpaA.na in 1 Thessalonians 5:3- a familiar slogan
of the imperial propaganda - functioned as a prophetic oracle announcing the
demise of the self-satisfied Julio-Claudian clients in the eastern Mediterranean
provinces.
This dismissive attitude towards the clients of the ruler was extended to securing the benefaction of the local elites who were clients of the imperial house. In
2 Thessalonians, Paul warned the Thessalonians against becoming increasingly
dependent on the patronage of the wealthy, even though there would be serious
corn shortages in the empire in AD 51 due to famine (Tacitus, Ann. 12.43; cf.
Acts 11:28). 2 In this regard, Paul insisted that certain believers at Thessalonica
2 B. W Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians and Benefactors and Citizens (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1994), 53-55.
328
were to abandon their parasitic dependence upon Roman networks of patronage

for (presumably) the corn dole, as well as their dependence upon the support
of wealthy Christian patrons in the city. 3 Rather, in imitation of their apostle's
personal financial policy (2 Thess 3:7-8 [v. 7a: fllflEtO"Sat ~fla<;]; cf. 1 Thess 2:9;
4:11-12; 1 Cor 9:13-18), these believers were no longer to insist upon their
perceived 'rights' (2 Thess 3:9a) or burden the 'great men' of Thessalonica with
further demands for financial support (3:8b). Consequently, Paul's mimetic
ethos began to challenge the traditional structures of the imperial benefaction
system and the social dominance of the benefactor in antiquity. In a radical reversal of social custom, the Thessalonian believers themselves were to assume the
role of benefactor vacated by the 'great man', performing acts of beneficence for
the needy through their house church networks and from their own resources
(2 Thess 3:12-13: fl~ yKaK~O"TJTE KaA.orcowiivTE<;; c Gal6:9: TO KaA.ov TCOLOUVTE<;
fl~ yKaKWflEV), notwithstanding the personal cost (cf. 2 Cor 8:1-5). 4
Additionally, we have argued that in 1 Thessalonians Paul's strong emphasis
on the return of Christ from heaven ( 1 Thess 1: 10 a; 4: 14-18) attacked the ideology undergirding the apotheosis of Caesar and Augustus ( 2.3). In particular,
as Manilius' Astronomica demonstrates, Augustus' apotheosis ensured that the
social, legal and political status quo of Julian rule remained intact because of
the princeps' heavenly presidency. Although Seneca, Nero's tutor, would later
ridicule Claudius' apotheosis in his Apocolocyntosis, Paul's critique of imperial apotheosis traditions (cf. Rom 1:2-4: 4.4.1) in the Thessalonian epistles
stemmed from the dynamics of his apocalyptic theology rather than from a
position of political privilege, as was the case with Seneca. God the Father had
inaugurated the present heavenly reign of the crucified and risen Son of God
(1 Thess 1:10). The return of the glorious Lord of all would usher in salvation
for his dependents (1 Thess 5:9-18, 23) and eschatological wrath for his enemies
(5:9a; 2 Thess 1:5-10; 2:3b, 8). There was no place, therefore, for the worship of
any ruler in heaven or earth other than the Father and his Son (cf. 1 Cor 8:5-6).
Turning to 2 Thessalonians, we suggested that if EVEO"TTJKEV in 2 Thessalonians
2:2c meant that the 'Day of the Lord' was imminent, it was likely that some eschatological enthusiasts at Thessalonica were expecting the ultimate overthrow
of the Roman authorities soon. Conversely, if EVEO"TTJKEV meant that the 'Day of
the Lord' had actually arrived, some of the Thessalonian believers would have
been disconsolate and confused because the Roman authorities remained very
3 On the Roman benefaction culture of Thessalonica, see especially H. L. Hendrix, Thessalonians Honor Romans (unpub. PhD diss. Harvard University, 1984).
4 Note the observation of B. W. Winter (After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics
and Social Change [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 185): '... Paul revolutionised the benefac-
tion tradition by demanding that Christian clients no longer remain "in the old ranking system"
as the full-time paid retainers of patrons but rather become benefactors ... For Christians it was
not the transformation of the role of clients but its demise'.
8.2 Paul's Gospel and Imperial Thessalonica
329
much in control. Hence we argued that the eschatological enthusiasm at Thessalonica probably unravelled into several strands. Our uncertainty about the
issue is compounded because the apostle himself is not sure of the source of the
eschatological information or how it was communicated.
Either way, Paul would have had to address the political implications of his
eschatology in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10. Once again, as was the case in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:11, Paul employs multivalent language drawn from different cultural traditions in describing the eschatological rise of the antichrist. Paul draws
from Jewish apocalyptic traditions in using the language of'epiphany' to describe
Christ's eschatological intervention (2 Thess 2:8; 3.4.1) and by alluding to the
variegated traditions of the LXX and Second Temple Judaism in depicting the antichrist ( 3.2). However, Paul's language also had direct reference to the Roman
political context. We see this in the profanation of the temple by Pompey and in
its recent attempted profanation by Caligula (2 Thess 2:4: 3.3). We have argued
that the Caligulan context was primary in Paul's mind because the 'mystery
of lawlessness' (2 Thess 2:7), presently engulfing the Roman Empire, had been
chillingly demonstrated in the recent Jerusalem Temple crisis (AD 40). In Paul's
view, this penultimate crisis prefigured the ultimate arrival of 'the lawless one'
who would deceive the world by his Satan-inspired wonders and evil (2 Thess
2:6b, 8-12). Paul employed contemporary Jewish political polemic concerning
the 'lawlessness' of Caligula to underscore the point, along with the language of
'deity' that alluded to Caligula's pretensions of divinity( 3.4.2- 3.4.3).
Further, because the language of 'epiphany' was used in the imperial cult
( 3.4.1), it became a convenient point of 'polemical parallelism' for Paul in
depicting the triumphant eschatological epiphany of Christ over the antichrist
(2 Thess 2:8). In sum, the negative portrait of Roman rule in 2 Thessalonians
2:1-10, if Caligula is the primary referent, aligns Paul's anti-imperial critique
with a later generation of early Christian responses to the Roman Empire (cf. Rev
13:1-18; 1 Peter 5:13). It calls in question the proposition that Paul was politically
nai:ve in endorsing the rightful rule of the Roman ruler (Rom 13: 1-7), while failing to realise that the same authorities would turn against believers in the capital
a few years later. It also disqualifies the Roman Empire or its ruler from being the
'restraining principle' or 'restraining person' keeping the ultimate arrival of the
antichrist at bay (2 Thess 2:6a, 7b). Nor could the Thessalonian believers mistakenly infer the that the 'Day of the Lord' was either imminent or realised: while the
'lawlessness' of the penultimate 'lawless one' was still engulfing the empire, the
eschatological time of the ultimate 'lawless one' had not yet come.
Finally, what is distinctive about Paul's critique of the Julio-Claudian conception of rule in the Greek East? How were the provincial believers to negotiate the
demands of the imperial cult? In a context of persecution (1 Thess 1:6; 2:2, 14; 3:4;
2 Thess 1:4, 6-7) and misinformed eschatological speculation (2 Thess 2:2), Paul
highlights the eschatological triumph of the risen and reigning Christ over the
330
Julio-Claudian house, its rulers and apotheosised members (Caesar, Augustus,

Livia). As a soteriological benefactor, Christ had beaten the Caesars at their own
game by means of the cross (1 Thess 4:14; 5:10; 2 Thess 2:16). Christ's extraordinary act of magnanimity would create profound social implications for Paul's
Spirit-filled communities of grace. Believers were to abandon reliance upon the
provincial networks of imperial beneficence and assume the role of benefactors
by working themselves and caring for the weak (1 Thess 2:5b, 9; 4:11-12; 5:14;
2 Thess 3:6-13). This meant that the members of the house churches would no
longer have to rely on and be obligated to the wealthy pro-imperial aristocratic
elites of the provinces because of their benefits. The believers at Thessalonica
had turned from cultic idolatry - imperial and indigenous - to worship the true
and living God (1 Thess 1:9). Consequently, they were to progress in the love of
God and the steadfastness of Christ (2 Thess 3:3-5; cf. 2 Thess 1:11-12; 2:17),
continuing to forsake the immorality of the Gentile cults (1 Thess 4:3-5b; cf.
1 Cor 6:12-20; 10:7-8) until Christ returned (1 Thess 2:12, 19-20; 3:13; 4:16-17;
5:23-24; 2 Thess 2:14b). This fragile benefaction community would increasingly
challenge the Julio-Claudian rulers as 'benefactors of the world'.
8.3 Paul's Gospel and Imperial Rome: Issues of

Ideological Conflict in the Latin West
It is important to realise that the state cult at Rome, as opposed to the imperial
cult in the Greek East, did not worship the ruler as 'god-like'. Nor did the Roman
Senate apotheosise the ruler, in the cases nominated for apotheosis, until after
his death. The honours rendered to the ruler at Rome demonstrate subtle differences to the accolades associated with the Hellenistic ruler cult of the Greek East
( 1.4.3.1; 1.4.1.3). New Testament scholars have not been sufficiently alert to
this important distinction and have therefore not considered whether the imperial conception of rule at Rome, with its distinct emphasises, throws indirect light
on the eschatological concerns of the epistle to the Romans.
We have agued that there were specific imperial perspectives, peculiar to the
capital, that interacted with Paul's eschatology in Romans: for example, the Roman cyclical view of time, the ideology of the forum Augustum, the republican
quest for glory and its culmination in the Julian house, the ruler as the divinely
elected dispenser of grace and victory, the celebration of providential events in
the ruler's reign, and the ruler as the embodiment of republican virtus. It is uncertain whether Paul appreciated the subtle differences in honouring the ruler
in the state cult of Rome as opposed to the imperial cults of the Greek East. Undoubtedly, Paul would have been familiar with the imperial cult in the provinces
by reading the honorific inscriptions and by observing its operation in the cities
he visited. But the operation of the state cult at Rome was another case entirely.
8.3 Paul's Gospel and Imperial Rome
331
Paul, of course, could have acquired information about the ruler's conception of
rule at Rome through his trusted friends and co-workers, Aquila and Prisca, who
were both residents of the city: but there is no way of confirming this possibility.
A more likely scenario is that Paul was sensitive to 'grand narrative', Jewish
and imperial. Each city in antiquity had a narrative of its foundation and this
was celebrated in statuary and reliefs of its founder figures. Paul may well have
been aware of the narrative of the founders of Rome even though he ministered
in the Greek East. In this regard, both Aeneas and Romulus - represented on
the ara Pacis and in the forum Augustum at Rome - were also depicted on the
reliefs in the south portico of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias in the Greek East. 5
5 For the relief showing Aeneas carrying his father Anchises, while looking down at his son
with Creusa (South Portico of the Sabasteion, lower storey), see K. T. Erim, Aphrodisias: City of
Venus Aphrodite (London: Muller, Blond & White, 1986), 118. For a reconstruction of the fragmentary relief of Romulus and Remus with the she-wolf (South Portico of the Sebasteion, Room
3), see Erim, ibid., 180; R. R. R. Smith, 'The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias',
JRS 77 (1987): 92 Fig. 2. The she-wolf's head, torso and teats are visible on the damaged relief, as
well as the leg and torso of one of the twins underneath. The portrait, though fragmentary, reflects the conventional representation of the lupa ('she-wolf'). Note the comment of D. D. Shoup
(Monuments, Materiality, and Meaning in the Classical Archaeology of Anatolia [unpub. PhD.
diss., University of Michigan, 2008], 50) regarding the relief evidence of Aphrodisias: 'Though
not explicitly historicizing, the Sebasteion reliefs suggest how contemporary politics and local
identity could be integrated with the larger stream of Greek culture and religion. Some of the
claims are implicitly historical: by calling attention to the connections between Aphrodite and
the Julian emperors, the city connects itself to the history of Rome as well as to the larger history
and visual culture of the Greek world'. For further discussion of the Aphrodisian context, see A.
Chaniotis, 'Myths and Contexts in Aphrodisias', in U. Dill and C. Walder (eds.), Antike Mythen:
Medien, Transformationen, und Konstruktionen (Berlin/New York: W de Gruyter, 2009), 313338. For terracotta simas (gutters) showing the she-wolf suckling the twins at the Augustan
tropaeum of Actium at Nikopolis, see K. L. Zachos, 'The tropaeum of the Sea-Battle of Actium
at Nikopolis: Interim Report', JRA 16 (2003): 80 Figs. 20 a and 20b. It is likely, too, that there
were other visual representations of the 'Romulus and Remus' story available to Paul during his
travels throughout Asia Minor and Greece, even though the 'Aeneas' founding narrative was
obviously the dominant visual and literary paradigm for the Greek East. For example, see the
terracotta lamp from Ephesus showing the she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus (C. Duliere,
Lupa Romana: Recherches d'iconographie et essai d'interpretation: II. Catalogue des monuments
figures et illustrations [2 vols. Brussels/Rome: Institut historique Beige de Rome, 1976], 'Terres
Cuites' 189, citing J. Keil, in Oesterr. Jahreshefte 23 [1926], 125 Fig. 69). For numismatic evidence from the republican Latin West showing Romulus and Remus, see Duliere, Lupa Romana,
'Monnaies' Ml3a, M34a. For numismatic evidence from the imperial Latin West showing
Romulus and Remus in the time of Paul, see Duliere, Lupa Romana, 'Monnaies' MIS Fig. 172
(a sestertius of Nero). For Romulus by himself on the imperial coinage of the Latin West, see RIC
F 'Trajan', 799; 'Hadrian', 266, 370, 653, 776. I have been unable to find any numismatic
samples of Romulus and Remus minted in the Greek East during the first century to the early
second century AD. From the late second century AD onwards, however, there are examples of
coins from the Greek East displaying the she-wolf suckling the twins (K. W Harl, Civic Coins
and Civic Politics in the Roman East AD 180-275 [Berkeley I Los Angeles I London: University of
California, 1987]: 72 [Hierapolis]; 74 Plate 30.12 [Iconium]; K. Butcher, Roman Provincial Coins:
An Introduction to the 'Greek Imperials' [London: Seaby, 1988]47 Fig. 5.21 [Laodicea Ad Mare
in Syria]; 78 [Alexandria Troas]). In sum, the 'Romulus and Remus' founding narrative featured
in the interplay between Roman and Greek mythology occurring in the Greek East during the
332
However, Paul challenged the Roman construction of social identity, based on its
founder narrative, with the Jewish 'founder' narratives of Adam (Rom 5:12-21)
and Abraham (4:1-25).
Further, Paul would have understood the importance of the quest for 'glory'
for the Roman nobility from the victories of their generals over the nations of
the Greek East. Such conquests would have acquired their own momentum in
oral culture. The famous houses of the Scipios and the Metelli reinforced this
popular adulation when their generals received or assumed a second cognomen
as a commemoration of their victory (e.g. Africanus, Asiaticus, Macedonicus,
Numidicus, Delmaticus, Creticus etc.). Monuments to the achievements of the
generals, republican and imperial, were also present in the Greek East. These
included, for example, the Greek and Latin copies of Augustus' Res Gestae in the
province of Galatia( 1.4.1), as well as the honorific monument to the Roman
general Gaius Memmius at Ephesus( 6.1 n. 14), the Sebasteion of Claudius and
Nero at Aphrodisias, and, finally, the imperial sanctuary at Pisidian Antioch. 6
Last, various providentially defining events in the reigns of the Julio-Claudian
rulers had acquired folkloric status by the time of Paul( 4.3.4). The ideology of
the imperial conception of rule at Rome was therefore widely available through
the oral and monumental culture of the day, even if Paul had not seen the iconic
Julian monuments and sacred space in the capital. Paul would have been able
to depict the eschatological reign of Christ's grace in ways that would have intersected meaningfully with the imperial understanding of rule at Rome. What
we are witnessing is a highly versatile thinker who was aware that a change in
the geographic focus of his mission required a change in its political and evangelistic apologetic as he moved from the eastern provinces towards Rome and
Spain (Rom 15:19a-24). What features of Paul's apocalyptic gospel would have
resonated with Roman auditors living in the capital?
First, the court poets at Rome spoke of the Augustan principate and the Neronian quinquennium in terms of the cyclical renewal of the Golden Age of Saturn.
Roman hegemony from the first century AD onwards. Significantly, the evidence for this is
found in a wide variety of media and locations (e.g. Duliere, Lupa Romana, passim). Finally, an
inscription honouring an official from Chios in 189 BC demonstrates that there was knowledge
of the 'Romulus and Remus' founding narrative in the Greek East well before the first -century
AD. An official of Chios had successfully organised a festival in honour of Roma that included
specific reference, as the inscription informs us (P. S. Derow and W G. Forrest, 'An Inscription
from Chios', ABSA 77 [1982]: 79-92 11.25-28), to the 'historical narrative of the birth of the
founder of Rome, Romulus and his brother Remus'. For discussion of the founding narratives
of Rome in the literary evidence - Aeneas, Romulus and Remus - see Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily
and Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969); D. C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered:
Reimagining Paul's Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 56-66; T. P. Wiseman, Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
6 On the imperial sanctuary at Pisidian Antioch, see the excellent discussion of B. B. Rubin
(Re )presenting Empire: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, 31 BC-AD 63 (unpub. PhD thesis
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2008), 45-89.
333
The ruler's status and his extension of benefits were described in transcendent
terms: that is, in prophetic, providential, messianic and cosmological categories.
The ruler was the embodiment of military virtus, the triumphator over Rome's
enemies, the bringer of newness and the restorer of the cosmos, and the providentially chosen instrument of the Roman gods. It is hardly surprising that Paul's
eschatological texts in Romans interact theologically with the imperial motifs
(Rom 1:2-6; 6:4; 7:6; 8:18-25; 8:37-39; 10:4; 11:25-26; 12:2; 13:11-12a; 15:12;
16:20; 16:25-27). Of particular importance is Romans 5:12-21 which speaks of
the eschatological reign of grace in the context of the ruling powers of sin and
death. The Jewish apocalyptic framework of the passage captures well resonances
of the Augustan age of grace in its terminology, while uncompromisingly consigning the ruler and his house to the reign of sin and death along with the rest
of humanity For Paul, then, the soteriological grace of Christ had totally outstripped Augustus as the icon of beneficence in the imperial age.
Second, the forum Augusti and its statue program at Rome articulated the Julian conception of rule in ways that were fundamentally different to the rhetoric
of the imperial propaganda in the Greek East. Augustus, the Father of his country, was depicted as the culmination of two lines of famous men from the Roman
past: a line of Julian leaders descended from Aeneas and a line of republican
leaders descended from Romulus. By contrast, Paul reconfigures humanity in
Romans 5:6-10 into two new lines of virtue that culminate in disappointment.
One might conceivably die for the 'benefactor' (imtp yap TOU ayaeou) from the
Greek world or the 'righteous' man (urrf:p OtKa(ou) from the Jewish world, but no
one would die for dishonourable human beings. Seemingly, in terms of the 'crisis
management' of humanity, there was no hope of any soteriological solution to the
desperate plight of the world.
But, at the 'right' time (Rom 5:6: en KaTa Katp6v) -both in terms of God's
timing and the desperate situation of his dependents- a dishonoured benefactor
chose to die in an act of grace for his impious enemies (5:6b, 8b, lOa). By means
of this undiscriminating and foolish act of beneficence on behalf of ungrateful
dependents (Rom 1:21; 1 Cor 1:18-25), Christ managed the universal crisis
that Augustus and the other heroes of the forum Augustum could not solve: the
Adamic reign of sin and death (Rom 5:12-21). Christ, the TEAO<; of salvation history (Rom 10:4), fulfilled the law by absorbing its curse on the cross (Gal3:10-14;
Col2:13-14), so that the blessing of Abraham might come by faith to humanity
through the promised Spirit (Gal 3:14b)? As a result, instead of the accolade
Pater Patriae being the preserve of Augustus, believers had the extraordinary
privilege of addressing God as abba, 'Father', through the indwelling Spirit (Rom
8:15; Gal4:6; cf. Mark 14:36). Paul's counter-imperial family, which crossed the
social and ethnic divide of antiquity, had supplanted the Julio-Claudian networks
7
For discussion, see Harrison, supra, 5.5.3- 5.5.4.
334
of privilege and obligation with a new set of social relations that would ultimately
transform the ancient world.
Third, the heated competition for glory among the late republican Roman nobiles led to a destructive individualism and careerism on the part of Rome's generals. Increasingly, they put victory over their rivals ahead of the mos mairorum
(the traditions of the ancestors) and the political stability of the state. This resulted
in the unparalleled triumph of Caesar and Augustus over their competitors and
the concentration of all glory in the Julian house. Paul's gospel of eschatological
grace to fallen humanity, dispensed through a crucified and dishonoured benefactor, pricked the boasting culture of the 'great man' in antiquity and exposed his
relentless drive for ancestral and personal glory as hopelessly myopic. All glory
now resided in the divinely vindicated Lord of all (1 Cor 2:8). Paradoxically, those
whom the Father had already glorified (Rom 8:30) still had to wait for the full
revelation of the glory-to-come in the new creation (8:18-25). All the Gentile
nations would glorify God together for the mercy displayed to them under their
messianic ruler, the Root of]esse (Rom 15:8-9, 12). The old hierarchical divisions
of the Roman Empire- 'Greeks' and 'barbarians', the 'wise' and the 'foolish' (Rom
1: 14-17) - would collapse before the onslaught of divine grace.
Fourth, Romans 13:1-7 was examined against the backdrop of the Pythagorean 'kingship' literature, the popular philosophers, the LXX and the literature of
Second Temple Judaism( 7.1- 7.3). Rather than being a conservative and unreflecting endorsement of imperial rule, the pericope radically demotes the ruler
to servile status when viewed against the accolades of contemporary propaganda
(Rom 13:4a, 4b, 6b). To be sure, Paul's strategy is theologically conservative, reflecting the LXX teaching regarding the 'servant' role of the earthly rulers before
God( 7.3). But, significantly, many of the ruler's titles and functions are also
transferred to Christ and his Body in what is implicitly a critique of the Neronian
'body of state' ( 7.2.2; 7.4). The emphasis on 'fearing' and 'obeying' the ruler
functions as a 'hidden transcript' about the potential abuses of imperial power
(Rom 13:2-3a, 4b), a perspective more fully articulated in the anti-imperial
propaganda( 7.4). Paul underscores how quickly the political situation could
deteriorate for believers if they did not live astutely and compliantly, in obedience to God, before the authorities (Rom 13:4b-5; cf. 8:35b). Nonetheless, the
eschatological perspective of Romans 13:11-12a reminds Roman believers that
the ruler's time was short.
More positively, Paul highlights the God-given role that the authorities play
in maintaining cohesion and implementing justice in society (Rom 13:1, 4a, 4b ).
Paul also endorses the responsibility of believers to render taxes and honour to
the ruler (Rom 13:7), with the wealthy members of the house churches winning
the ruler's praise through their civic benefactions (13:3-4a). But even in this case
Paul upends the operation of the Graeco-Roman reciprocity system: the believer's indebtedness to others is animated by love rather than by the return of favour
335
(Rom 13:8-10). In sum, the pericope is a masterful rhetorical example of'coded'

diplomacy. It oscillates pastorally between the strengths and deficits of imperial
rule, placing the earthly authorities firmly under God's sovereign rule and appointment. In so doing, it encourages the politically divided house churches to
live responsibly as obedient subjects and civic benefactors before the authorities,
while calling believers to undivided loyalty to Christ no matter what the cost.
Finally, what is distinctive about Paul's critique of the Julio-Claudian conception of rule as it was articulated in Rome? The Julian propaganda- as found in
the forum Augustum and the Res Gestae - unfolds a grand narrative of 'power'
and 'grace' that assigned to its loyal clients or defeated subjects either a position
of privilege or humiliation in the empire. The Roman gods had providentially assigned eternal rule to the Julian house. It was the role of the ruler, as the embodiment of military manliness (virtus ), to subjugate the enemy as quickly as possible
and to dispense dementia ('mercy') to those who deserved it, without thereby
violating the demands of justice. In this regard, Augustus, the culmination of
Roman history, managed the state crises in a way that outshone the exemplars
of civic and military excellence of previous generations. He became thereby the
paradigm ofleadership for the Roman governing elite of the future.
The anti-imperial propaganda sought to counter this ideological construct
by depicting Augustus as maintaining peace by fear of his sword. But Paul's
counter-imperial benefaction communities, established through the soteriological obedience of a dishonoured and vindicated benefactor, embraced a radically
different narrative of power and grace that would empower and transform the
weak and marginalised of all nations. Paul depicts Christ as simultaneously the
fulfilment of universal world history and Jewish covenantal history in a rhetorical strategy designed to dismantle the ideology of rule articulated through the
Roman 'founder' narratives. Christ is the obedient anti-type of Adam- the disobedient founder of humanity- who had triumphed over the calamitous effects of
the fall by his death and resurrection. Equally, Christ is the atoning L\aaT~ptov
(Rom 3:23), the grounds of justification for those with Abraham's faith (4:23-25),
the TEAO<; of the Law (10:4), and the risen messianic ruler of the nations (Rom
1:2-5; 15:12). This intersection of two Jewish 'grand narratives'- one the story of
humanity, the other the story of Israel - must have challenged Roman auditors
to reconsider whether the narrative of Roman origins and its fulfilment in the
imperial ruler really addressed the Neronian reign of death at Rome( 4.2). Last,
it is significant that Paul in his epistle to the believers at Rome, where rulers were
not divinised in the state cult until their death, attributes to Christ his boldest
accolade in his epistles: 8<'><; ElJAoyr]T<'><; E'i<; Toil<; alwva<; (Rom 9:5: 'God blessed
forever'; cf. 1 Tim 2:5). 8
8 For a defence of 8e6~ as referring to Christ in Romans 9:5, see M. J. Harris, Jesus as God:
The New Testament Use ofTheos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 143-172.
336
8.4 Further Research

Research always opens new vistas that invite the exploration of a new generation
of scholars. First, a major study should be written comparing Augustus' conception of rule in the Res Gestae with Paul's eschatological gospel of grace in the
epistle to the Romans. Even though each document was foundational in the
history of Western civilisation, a comparative study has yet to be undertaken. 9
Undoubtedly, the considerable differences in the genre and aims of each document makes such a comparison daunting for New Testament scholars, without
having also to master the controversy that each document continues to generate
in its own discipline. It is likely that Paul saw the Greek text of the Res Gestae at
Pisidian Antioch, along with the Latin text that still survives today, during his
first missionary journey ( 1.4.1; cf. Acts 13:14-50). Presumably Paul would
have been aware that the original Latin copy of the Res Gestae was inscribed in
bronze at Augustus' mausoleum at Rome. In writing his letter to the Romans, the
apostle decided to highlight the eschatological triumph of Christ's grace over sin
and death in a manner that intersected with traditional Roman boasting culture
and the iconic Augustan age of grace, while unfolding for his Gentile auditors
the extraordinary privilege of their incorporation as a 'wild olive shoot' into the
'olive root' of covenantal Israel (Rom 11:24).
The evangelistic opportunity that such a strategy provided Paul was significant
for its apologetic and missionary impact. The apostle could work on two theological fronts in addressing Jews and Gentiles living in the capital. Paul's gospel
of grace not only disqualified the 'great man' of Graeco-Roman antiquity from
boasting in his glorious achievements but also highlighted Israel's tragic mistake
of pursuing nomistic righteousness as if it were by 'works' (Rom 2:17-24; 3:23,
27-31; 9:31-32). Roman and Jewish converts in the house churches, including
the believing bureaucrats of the familia Caesaris in the capital, were familiar with
the Augustan propaganda and would have been sensitive to any 'polemical parallels' that Paul intended to draw.
Second, further research is needed on how Roman social and political motifs
interact with their terminological equivalents in Paul's gospel. One of the great
strengths ofN. Elliott's study on Romans is the way that it is structured around
important motifs of the imperial propaganda. 10 Two of my recent publications
on the Roman background to 'election' and 'glory' have demonstrated the wealth
of the comparative material yet to be plumbed by New Testament social histori9 Note the helpful discussion of D. C. Lopez (Apostle to the Conquered, 88-100) relating the
evidence of the Res Gestae on the conquered 'nations' in relation to Paul's epistle to the Galatians.
See also the older study of A. Fridrichsen, 'Peristasenkatalog und Res Gestae: Nachtrag zu 2 Cor
11:23ff', Symbolae Osloenses 8 (1929): 78-82.
10 N. Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).
8.4 Further Research
337
ans.u In this regard, the numismatic evidence of the imperial cult of the Virtues
remains a rich resource, as well as the writings of Roman moralists such as Sallust, Cicero, Seneca, and Valerius Maximus. The value of this type of evidence
is that it allows us to 'listen in' on how Romans living in the capital and in the
provinces might have reacted to the preaching of Paul's gospel and to appreciate
better the symbolic universe that shaped their thinking.
Third, this work has demonstrated that detailed attention to the operations
of the imperial cult in specific locales where Paul ministered provides exegetical dividends for modern interpreters of Paul. A full-scale investigation of the
imperial context of Ephesians still awaits research, to cite just one example. To
be sure, the imperial cult was, as we have noted, only one of the many cults that
made up the syncretistic and idolatrous culture in which Paul operated. But while
New Testament scholars have investigated idolatry as a phenomenon, 12 there has
been insufficient study of the spiritual threat to believers posed by the idolatry
associated with the imperial cult. 13 Such studies would not only sharpen our appreciation of Paul as a pastor but also enable us to see more clearly how his gospel
interacted ideologically with the Roman world of his day. This would throw light
on the social transformation that the gospel generated in the competitive and
status-conscious culture of antiquity.
11 J. R. Harrison, 'Paul, Theologian of Electing Grace', inS. E. Porter (ed.), Paul the Theologian:
Pauline Studies Volume III (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 77-108, esp. 101-107; id., 'Paul and the Roman
Ideal of Glory in the Epistle to the Romans', in U. Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgenerij Peeters, 2009), 323-363.
12 See P. J. Achtemeier, 'Gods Made with Hands: The New Testament and the Problem of
Idolatry', ExAud 15 (1999): 43-61; J. Marcus, 'Idolatry in the New Testament', Int 60/2 (2006):
152-164; S. C. Barton (ed. ), Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2007); G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology
of Idolatry (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008). For the extensive secondary literature on 'food offered
to idols' (1 Cor 8:1-11:1), see D. G. Horrell, 'Idol-Food, Idolatry and Ethics in Paul', in Barton,
Idolatry, 120-140.
13 A new book of B. W Winter (Seizing the Throne: The Imperial Cult and Pagan, Jewish and
Early Christian Responses [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming)) will address the issue. For
contemporary Jewish responses to imperial idolatry, see Philo, Leg. passim; id., Place. 48-49;
Josephus AJ 18.257-309; id., BJ 2.184-203 (supra 3.3); id., C. Ap. 73-78. For discussion of
Josephus, C. Ap. 73-78, see J. M.G. Barclay, 'Snarling Sweetly: Josephus on Images and Idolatry', in Barton, Idolatry, 73-87, esp. 77-81. For discussion of the imperial background to Paul's
discussion of idolatry in 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1, see D. Newton (Deity and Diet: The Dilemma
of Sacrificial Food in Corinth [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998], passim); Winter, After Paul
Left Corinth, 269-286.
APPENDIX
Neronian Numismatic Evidence
Neronian silver denarius (see page 113 for discussion)
Bibliography
AALDERS, G. J, D., 'N6f.l0<:; efl\j!UXO<:;', Politeia und Respublica (Palingenesia 4, Wiesbaden
1969).
AcHTEMEIER, P., Romans (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985).
-, 'Gods Made with Hands: The New Testament and the Problem of Idolatry', ExAud 15
(1999): 43-61.
ADAM, T., Clementia Principis: Der Einflufi hellenistischer Furstenspiegel auf den Versuch
einer rechtlichen Fundierung des Principats durch Seneca (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag,
1970).
ADAMS, E., Constructing the World: A Study in Paul's Cosmological Language (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 2000).
ADCOCK, F. E., and M.P. CHARLESWORTH, (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 10:
The Augustan Empire, 44 BC-AD 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935).
AGOSTO, E., 'Patronage and Commendation, Imperial and Anti-imperial', in R. A. Horsley
(ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2004),
103-123.
AITKEN, J. K., 'The Semantics of Glory in Ben Sira - Traces of a Development in PostBiblical Hebrew', in T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (eds.), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages
(Leiden-Boston-Koln: Brill, 1999), 1-24.
ALDHOUSE-GREEN, M., 'Chaining and Shaming: Images of Defeat, from Llyn Cerrig Bach
to Sarmitzegetusa', Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23/2 (2004): 319-340.
ALEXANDER, L., (ed.), Images of Empire (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991).
ALFOLDI, A., Aion in Merida und Aphrodisias (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern,
1979).
ALGRA, K., (et al., ed.), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
ALTMAN, M., 'Ruler Cult in Seneca', CPh 33 (1938): 198-204.
ANDERSON, J. C., The Historical Topography of the Impeira Fora (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1984).
ANDERSON, J. G. C., 'Trajan on the Quinquennium Neronis', JRS 1 (1911): 173-197.
ANDERSON, R. D., P. J. PARSONS and R. G. M. NISBET, 'Elegiacs by Gallus from QASR
IBRIM', /RS 69 (1979): 125-155.
ANDO, C., Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).
AscouGH, R. S., 'The Thessalonian Christian Community as a Professional Voluntary Association', JBL 119/2 (2000): 311-328.
ATKINSON, R. K., 'On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran:
New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17', JBL 118/3 (1999): 435-460.
-,'On the Use of Scripture in the Development of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumram: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17', in C. A. Evans (ed.), The Interpretation of
342
Bibliography
Scripture in Early judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 2000), 106-123.
AUGET, R., Caligula ou le pouvoir vingt ans (Paris: Payot, 1975).
Aus, R. D., 'God's Plan and God's Power: Isaiah 66 and the Restraining Factors of2 Thess
2:6-7', ]BL 96/4 (1977): 537-553.
-, Imagery of Triumph and Rebellion in 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 and Elsewhere in the Epistle:
An Example of the Combination of Greco-Roman and Judaic Traditions in the Apostle
Paul (Lanham/New York/ Oxford: University Press of America, 2005).
AxTELL, H., The Deification of Abstract Ideas in Roman Literature and Inscriptions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907).
BADENAS, R., Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective (Sheffield:
JSOT, 1985).
BAKIRTZES, C., (ed.), Philippi at the Time of Paul and after His Death (Harrisburg: Trinity
International, 1998).
BALDWIN, B., The Philogelus or Laughter-Lover (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1983).
BALSDON, J.P. V. D., The Emperor Gaius (Caligula) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934).
BAMMEL, E., 'Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Staatsanschauung', TLZ 85 (1960): 837-840.
-, 'Romans 13', in id., and C. F. D. Moule (eds.), jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 365-383.
BARCHIESI, A., The Poet and the Prince: Ovid and Augustan Discourse (Berkeley-Los
Angeles-London: University of California, 1997).
-, 'Learned Eyes: Poets, Viewers, Image Makers', inK. Galinsky (ed.), The Age ofAugustus
BARCLAY, J. M.G., 'Snarling Sweetly: Josephus on Images and Idolatry', in S.C. Barton
(ed.), Idolatry; False Worship in the Bible, Early judaism and Christianity (London: T &T
Clark, 2007), 73-87.
-, 'Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul' (paper presented at SBL 2007 Annual Meeting, San Diego, California, USA, November 19-22).
BARRACLOUGH, R., 'Philo's Politics, Roman Rule, and Hellenistic Judaism', ANRWII 21/1
(1984): 417-553.
BARRETT, A. A., Caligula: The Corruption of Power (London: B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1989).
-, Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1999).
BARRETT, C. K., 'The New Testament Doctrine of Church and State', in id., New Testament
Essays (London: SPCK, 1972), 1-19.
-, The Epistle to the Romans (London: A & C Black, 1971).
BARTHOLEMEW, C., (ed.), A Royal Priesthood: The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically
(Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002).
BARTON, S.C., (ed.), Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and
the Contemporary World (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999).
-, (ed.), Idolatry; False Worship in the Bible, Early judaism and Christianity (London: T & T
Clark, 2007).
BARTON, T., Ancient Astrology (London/New York: Routledge, 1994).
-, 'Augustus and Capricorn: Astrological Polyvalency and Imperial Rhetoric', ]RS 85
(1995): 33-51.
BAUMGARTEN, J., Paulus und die Apokalyptik. Die Auslegung apokalyptischer Uberlieferungen in den echten Paulusbriefen (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1975).
BEALE , G. K., 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP: Downers Grove, 2003).
343
Bibliography
-, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove: IVP,

2008).
BEARD, M., The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, Mass./ London: Harvard University Press,
2007).
-, 'The Triumph of the Absurd: Roman Street Theatre', in C. Edwards and G. Woolf(eds.),
Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 ), 21-43.
-, (et al., ed.), Literacy in the Roman World (Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, No. 3, 1991).
-, (et al., ed.), Religions of Rome. Volume 1: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).
-, (et al., ed.), Religions ofRome. Volume 2: A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
BEITZEL, B. J., (ed.), Biblica: The Bible Atlas (Global Book Publishing: Sydney 2006).
BEKER, J. C., Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1980).
BELLEVILLE, L. L., Reflections of Glory: Paul's Polemical Use of the Moses- Doxa Tradition in
2 Corinthians 3:1-18 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991).
BENKO, S., 'The Edict of Claudius of AD 49 and the Instigator Chrestus', TZ 25/6 (1969):
406-418.
-, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (London: Batsford, 1984).
BENOIST, s., La fete a Rome au premier siecle de /'Empire: Recherches sur l'univers festif sous
les regnes d'A.uguste et des Julio-Claudiens (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1999), 130-192.
BERANGER, J., Recherches sur /'aspect ideologique du Principat (Basel: Reinhardt, 1953).
BERRY, G.R., 'The Glory of Yahweh and the Temple', JBL 56 (1937): 115-117.
BEST, E., A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A
& C Black, 1972).
BETZ, 0., 'Der Katechon', NTS 9 (1962/1963): 276-291.
BEURLIER, E., Le culte imperial: son histoire et son organization depuis Auguste jusqu'a
Justinien (Paris: E. Thorin, 1891).
BICKERMAN, E., 'Die Romische Kaiserapotheose', ARW 27 ( 1929): 1-34.
-, 'Consecratio', in W. den Boer (ed.), Le culte des souverains dans /'empire Romain (Fondation Hardt; Geneve: Vandoeuvres, 1973), 3-37.
BILDE, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and Their
Importance (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988).
-, 'The Roman Emperor Gaius' (Caligula's) Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple of
Jerusalem', Studia Theologica 32 (1988): 67-93.
BIRD, H. W., Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus (Liverpool: Liverpool University, 1994).
BLACKWELL, B. C., 'Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3:23', JSNT 32
(2010): 285-308.
BLUMENFELD, B., The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001).
BoND, H. K., 'Standards, Shields and Coins: Jewish Reactions to Aspects of the Roman
Cult', inS. C. Barton (ed.), Idolatry; False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 88-106.
BONSIRVEN, J., Textes rabbiniques des deux premieres siecles Chretiens pour servir I' intelligence du Nouveaux Testament (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1955).
BooBYER, G. H., "Thanksgiving" and the "Glory of God" in Paul (Borna-Leipzig: Universitatsverlag von Robert Noske, 1929).
344
Bibliography
BoRG, M., 'A New Context for Romans XIII', NTS 19 (1972-1973): 205-218.
BoRMANN, M., Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus (Leiden: Brill,
1995).
BoRN, L.K., 'Animate Law in the Republic and the Laws of Cicero', TAPA 64 (1933):
128-137.
BoTHA, J., Subject to Whose Authority? Multiple Readings ofRomans 13 (Atlanta: Scholars,
1994).
BoTHA, P.J.J., 'Greco-Roman Literacy as Setting for New Testament Writings', Neat 26
(1992): 195-215.
-, 'Assessing Representations of the Imperial Cult in New Testament Studies', VerbEccl25
(2004): 14-25.
BoussET, W, The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (orig. 1896:
rpt. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999).
BowERSOCK, G. W, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965).
-, 'The Imperial Cult: Perceptions and Persistence', in B. F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders (eds.),
Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Volume III: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman
World (London: SCM, 1982), 171-182.
BowMAN, A.K. and G. WoOLF, Literary Power in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
BRADLEY, M., 'Fool's Gold: Colour, Culture, Innovation, and Madness in Nero's Golden
House', Apollo: The International Magazine of the Arts (July 2002): 35-44.
BRAUMANN, G., napoucr(a, in C. Brown (ed.), NIDNTT II (Exeter: Paternoster, 1976):
898-901.
BRAUND, D. C., Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC-AD 68 (London/
Sydney: Croom Helm, 1985).
BRAUND, S., De Clementia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
BREED, B. W, 'Tua, Caesar, aetas: Horace 4:15 and the Augustan Age', AJP 125/2 (2004):
245-253.
BRENK, F. E., 'The Twofold Gleam - Vergil's Golden Age and the Beginning of Empire',
Thought 55/216 (1980): 81-97.
BREYTENBACH, C., 'CHARIS and ELEOS in Paul's Letter to the Romans', in U. Schnelle
(ed.), The Letter to the Romans (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgenerij Peeters,
2009), 323-363.
BROCKINGTON, L. H., 'The Septuagintal Background to the New Testament Use of ~OSA',
in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory ofR.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 1-8.
BROOKE, G.J., 'The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim', in L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 135-159.
BROWN, A. R., The Cross and Human Transformation: Paul's Apocalyptic World in I Corinthians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).
BROWN, J.P., Israel and Hellas. Volume II: Sacred Institutions with Roman Counterparts
(Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000).
BROWN, M. J., 'Paul's Use of ~OYAOL SPILTOY IHLOY in Romans 1:l',JBL 120/4 (2001):
730-736.
BROWN, S. G., 'The Intertextuality oflsaiah 66:17 and 2 Thessalonians 2:7: A Solution to
the "Restrainer Problem"', in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures
of Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 254-277.
Bibliography
345
BRUCE, F. F., The Epistle ofPaul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester:
IVP, 1963).
-, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word, 1982).
-, 'Paul and "The Powers That Be': BJRL 66/2 (1984): 78-83.
BRUEGGEMANN, W., Ichabod Toward Home: The Journey of God's Glory (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002).
BRUNT, P. A., 'Divine Elements in the Imperial Office', JRS 69 (1979): 168-175.
-, 'Laus Imperii', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor ofKrister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000),
25-35.
-, and J. M. MooRE, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967).
BucHNER, E., Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1982).
BuLTMANN, R., and D. LoHRMANN, tmcpa(vw, tmcpav~.:;, tmcpaveLa, in G. Kittel and G.
Friedrich (eds.), TDNT IX (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974): 7-10.
BuRRELL, B., 'Reading, Hearing, and Looking at Ephesos', in W.A. Johnston and H.N.
Parker (eds.), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford/
New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 69-96.
BuTCHER, K., Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the 'Greek Imperials' (London:
Seaby, 1988).
BuTTRICK, G. A., (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Volume 1: A-D (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1962).
BYRNE, B., Romans (Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1996).
BYRSKOG, S., 'Christology and Identity in an Intertextual Perspective: The Glory of Adam
in the Narrative Substructure of Paul's Letter to the Romans', in B. Holmberg and M.
Winninge (eds.), Identity Formation in the New Testament (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008), 1-18.
CAGNON, R.A., 'Why the "Weak" at Rome Cannot Be Non-Christian Jews', CBQ 62/1
(2000): 63-82.
CAIRO, G.B, (ed. L. D. Hurst), New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).
CAMPBELL, D. A., The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading ofJustification in Paul
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
CAMPBELL, W.S., 'The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1-15:13: The Obligation of Humble
Obedience to Christ as the Only Adequate Reason to the Mercies of God', in D. M. Hay
and E. E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline Theology Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis, 1995),
259-286.
CANNADINE, D., and S. PRICE, (eds.), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
CARR, W., Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the
Pauline Phrase HAl ARCHAI KAI EXOUSIAI (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1981).
CARREZ, M., De Ia souffrance Ia gloire (Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1964).
CARSON, D. A., (et al., ed.), Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume 2: The Paradoxes
of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004).
CARSON, R. A. G., Principal Coins of the Romans (London: British Museum, 1980).
CARTER, T. L., 'The Irony of Romans 13', NovT 48/3 (2004): 209-228.
CARTER, W., The Roman Empire and the New Testament; An Essential Guide (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2006).
346
Bibliography
CASTRIOTA, D., The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and
Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton: Princeton University, 1995).
CASTRO, A. D., Tacitus and the 'Virtues' of the Roman Emperor: Imperial Propaganda in the
Historiography of Tacitus (unpub. PhD diss. Indiana University, 1972).
CERFAUX, L. et J. ToNDRIAN, Le culte des souverains dans Ia civilisation Greco-Romaine
(Paris: Tournai Desclt!e & C 0 , 1957).
CHAE, D.J-S., Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and Its Influence
on the Soteriological Argument in Romans (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997).
CHAMPLIN, E., 'God and Man in the Golden House', in E. La Rocca (ed.), Horti romani:
Atti del convegno internazionale Roma, 4-6 maggio 1995 (Roma: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1998), 333-344.
-,Nero (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003).
CHANIOTIS, A., 'Myths and Contexts in Aphrodisias', in U. Dill and C. Walder (eds.),
Antike Mythen: Medien, Transformationem, und Konstruktionem (Berlin/New York:
W. de Gruyter, 2009), 313-338.
CHARBONNEAUX, J., L'Art au siecle d'Auguste (Lausanne: La Guilde du Livre, 1948).
CHARLESWORTH, M.P., "'Deus Noster Caeasar'", CR 39 (1925): 113-115.
-, 'Some Observations on Ruler-Cult Especially in Rome', HTR 28 (1935): 5-44.
-,'The Virtues of the Roman Emperor', PBA 23 (1937): 105-133.
-, 'Nero: Some Aspects', ]RS 40 (1950): 69-76.
CHEVALLIER, R., (ed.), AION: Le temps chez les Romains (Paris: A & J Picard, 1976).
CHISHOLM, K, and J. FERGUSON, (eds.), Rome: The Augustan Age. A Source Book (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1981).
CHRISTOFFERSSON, 0., The Earnest Expectation of the Creature: The Flood-Tradition as
Matrix of Romans 8:18-27 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990).
CLARK, A., Divine Qualities: Cult and Community at Rome (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007).
CLARK, G., Christianity and Roman Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
CLARK, M. E., 'Images and Concepts of Hope in the Early Imperial Cult', in H. K. Richards
(ed.), Society ofBiblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars, 1982), 39-43.
CLARKE, A. D., 'The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7', TynBu/4111 (1990): 128-142.
CLAUSEN, W. V., Appendix Vergiliana (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966).
CLAUSS, M., Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult im romischen Reich (Miinchen/Leipzig: K. G.
Saur, 2001).
CoARELLI, F., 11 Foro Romano (Rome: Quasar, 1992).
CoLEMAN, K. M., 'Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Stage as Mythological Enactments',
JRS 80 (1990): 44-73.
CoLEMAN, R., (ed.), Eclogues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
CoLEMAN, T. M., 'Binding Obligations in Romans 13:7: A Semantic Field and Social Context', TynBu/48/2 (1997): 307-327.
CoLEMAN-NORTON, P.R., 'The Fragmentary Philosophical Treatises of Cicero', CR 34/4
(1939): 213-228.
CoLLINS, J. J., Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2"d
ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
-, and G. W.E. NrCKELSBURG, (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient judaism (Chico: Scholars,
1980).
CoLLINS, R. F., (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press,
1990).
Bibliography
347
-, The Birth of the New Testament: The Origin and Development of the First Christian Generation (New York: Crossroad, 1993).
CooLEY, A. E., 'Inscribing History at Rome', in id. (ed.), The Afterlife of Inscriptions: Reusing, Rediscovering, Reinventing & Revitalizing Ancient Inscriptions (London: Institute of
Classical Studies, 2000), 7-20,
-,Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009.
CoPPENS, J., 'La gloire des croyants d'apres les letters pauliniennes', BTL 46 (1970): 389392.
CouSAR, C. B., 'Continuity and Discontinuity: Reflections on Romans 5-8', in D. M. Hay
and E. E. Johnston (eds.), Pauline Theology. Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995), 196-210.
CRANFIELD, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
Volume 1: I- VIII(Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1975); Volume 2: IX-XVI(Edinburgh: T &T
Clark, 1979).
CRAWFORD, M. H., The Roman Republic (London: Fontana, 1978).
CROOK, Z. A., 'Paul's Riposte and Praise of the Thessalonians', BTB 27/4 (1997): 153-163.
CROSSAN, J. D., 'Roman Imperial Theology', in R. E. Horsley (ed. ), In the Shadow ofEmpire:
Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance (Louisville: Westminster I John
Knox, 2008), 59-73.
-, and J. L. REED, In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's
Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul's Words and World (New York: Harper SanFrancisco,
2004).
CuLLMANN, 0., The State in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1957).
Cuss, D., Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New Testament (Fribourg: Fribourg
D'ANGELO, M. R., 'Abba and "Father": Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions', JBL
111/4 (1992): 611-630.
DANKER, F. W, 'On Stones and Benefactors', CurTM 8/6 (1981): 351-356.
-, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St.
Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1982).
-, and R. JEWETT, 'Jesus as the Apocalyptic Benefactor in Second Thessalonians', in R. F.
Collins (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press,
1990), 486-498.
DAs, A. A., Paul and the Jews (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003 ).
-, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007).
DAVENPORT, G.L., 'The "Anointed of the Lord" in Psalms of Solomon 17', in J.J. Collins
and G. W E. Nickels burg (eds. ), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism (Chico: Scholars, 1980 ),
67-92.
DAVIES, J.P., Rome's Religious History: Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus on Their Gods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
DAVIES, P. J. E., Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004).
DAVIS, C. A., The Structure of Paul's Theology: "The Truth Which is the Gospel" (Lewiston:
Edwin Mellen, 1995).
DEISSMANN, A., Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently
Discovered Texts from the Graeco-Roman World (2nd ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1927: rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978).
348
Bibliography
DE LANGE, N. R. M., 'Jewish Attitudes to the Roman Empire', in P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R.

Whittaker (eds.), Imperialism in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1978), 255-281.
DELATTE, A., Essais sur Ia politque pythagoricienne (Liege: Bibliotheque de Ia Faculte de
Philosophie et Lettres de l'Universite de Liege, 1922).
DELATTE, L., Les traites de Ia royaute d'Ecphante, Diotogene et Sthenidas (Liege: Bibliotheque de Ia Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Universite de Liege, 1942).
DE MARIS, R., 'Cults and the Imperial Cult in Early Roman Corinth: Literary Versus
Material Record', in M. Labhan and J. Zangenberg (eds.), Zwischen den Reichen: Neues
Testament und romische Herrschaft. Vortriige auf der ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies (Tiibingen: Francke, 2002), 73-91.
DESILVA, D. A., 'The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Honour, Shame, and the Maintenance of the
Values of a Minority Culture', CBQ 58 (1996): 433-455.
-, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Content, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2002).
DEONNA, W., 'La legende d'Octave-Auguste: dieu, sauveur et maitre du monde', RHR 83
(1921): 32-58, 163-195; RHR 84 (1921): 77-107.
DE Vos, C. S., Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian,
Corinthian, and the Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities (Atlanta:
Scholars, 1997).
DEWEY, J., 'Textuality in Oral Culture: a Survey of Pauline Traditions', Semeia 39 (1994):
47-54.
DIBELIUS, M., Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus und die Thessalonicher I II und die Philipper
(Tiibingen: Mohr, 1911).
Dr LELLA, A.A., 'Wisdom of Ben Sira', in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 6: Si-Z (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 931-945.
DILL, U., and C. WALDER, (eds.), Antike Mythen: Medien, Transformationen, und Konstruktionen (Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 2009).
DINGEL, J., 'Misericordia Neronis: Zur Einheit von Senecas "De Clementia'", RhMZ 132
(1989): 166-175.
DoDSON, J. R., The 'Powers' of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom
and the Letter to the Romans (Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 2008).
DoNFRIED, K. P., 'The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence', NTS
31/3 (1985): 336-357.
-, and I. H. MARSHALL, The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
-, and P. RICHARDSON, (eds.), Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
-, Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2002).
-, '2 Thessalonians and the Church of Thessalonica', in id., Paul Thessalonica, and Early
Christianity (London/New York: T & T Clark, 2002), 49-67.
DowLING, M. B., 'A Time to Regender: The Transformation of Roman Time', in P. A. Harris
and M. Crawford (eds.), Time and Uncertainty (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004), 175-187.
-, Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2006).
DowNING, F. G., 'A Bas Les Aristos: The Relevance of Higher Literature for the Understanding of the Earliest Christian Writings', NovT 30/3 (1988): 212-230.
DRIVERS, H. J. W., 'AION, aiwv ',inK. van der Toom (et al., ed.), The Dictionary of Deities
and Demons in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 13-14.
Bibliography
349
DuDLEY, D. R., Urbs Romana: A Source Book of Classical Texts on the City and Its Monuments (London: Phaidon, 1967).
DUFF, P., 'Glory in the Ministry of Death: Gentile Condemnation and Letters of Recommendation in 2 Cor 3:6-18', NovT 46/4 (2004): 313-337.
-, 'Transformed "from Glory to Glory": Paul's Appeal to the Experience of His Readers in
2 Corinthians 3:18',JBL 127/4 (2008): 759-780.
DULIERE, C., Lupa Romana: Recherches d'iconographie et essai d'interpretation: II. Catalogue des monuments figures et illustrations (2 vols. Brussels I Rome: Institut historique
Beige de Rome, 1976).
DUNN, J.D. G., 'Romans 13:1-7 - A Charter for Political Quietism?', ExAud 2 (1986):
307-327.
-,Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word, 1988).
-,Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word, 1988).
DuPONT, J., :EYN XPI:ETfH: L'union avec le Christ suivant saint Paul (Bruges: Nauwelaerts,
1952).
DwYER, E., 'Augustus and the Capricorn', MDAI 80 (1973): 59-67.
DYCK, A. R., A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press, 1996).
EARL, D. C., 'Political Terminology in Plautus', Historia 9/2 (1960): 235-243.
-, The Political Thought ofSallust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961).
-, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (London: Thames and Hudson, 1967).
EDSON, C., 'Cults ofThessalonica', HTR 41/3 (1948): 188-204.
EDWARDS, C., Death in Imperial Rome (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2007).
-, and G. WOOLF, (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003).
EDWARDS, D. R., Religion and Power: Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greek East (New
York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
EHRENBERG, V., The Greek State (2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1960).
-, 'Monarchy', inN. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard (eds.), Oxford Classical Dictionary
(2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 698.
ELLIOTT, N., Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1995).
-, 'Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda', in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Paul
and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1997), 184-204.
-, 'Paul and the Politics of Empire', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity
International, 2000), 17-39.
-,'Disciplining the Hope of the Poor in Ancient Rome', in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Christian
Origins: A People's History of Christianity. Volume 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005),
177-197.
-, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).
ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, T., 'Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on
the Logic of God's Xapt<; and Its Human Response', HTR 101 (2008): 15-44.
ENGELS, D. W., Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago I London: University of Chicago, 1990).
ERIM, K. T., Aphrodisias: City of Venus Aphrodite (London: Muller, Blond & White, 1986).
350
Bibliography
ERLER, M, and M. ScHOFIELD, 'Epicurean Ethics', inK. Algra (et al., ed.), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
ELSNER, J., 'Constructing Decadence: The Representation of Nero as Imperial Builder', in
id. and J. Masters (eds.), Reflections ofNero: Culture, History, and Representation (Chapel
Hill/London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994), 112-127.
ERDEMGIL, S., Ephesus (Instanbul: Net Turistik Yayinlar A.S, 1989).
EsLER, P.F.,'God's Honour and Rome's Triumph: Responses to the Fall ofJerusalem in 70
CE in Three Jewish Apocalypses', in id., Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientific
Studies of the New Testament in Its Context (London: Routledge, 1995), 239-258.
-, Conflict and Identity in Romans: 7he Social Setting of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
ETIENNE, R., Le culte imperial dans Ia peninsule iberique d'Auguste a Diocletien (Paris:
Bibliotheque des Ecoles franc;aises d'Athenes et de Rome, 1958).
EvANS, C. A., 'Mark's Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to
Greco-Roman Gospel', ]GRCh] 1 (2000): 67-81.
-, and J. A. SANDERS, (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures ofIsrael (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1993).
-, The Interpretation of Scripture in Early judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language
and Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000).
-, 'Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity', ]GRCh] 3 (2006): 9-40
FANTIN, J.D., The Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, A Challenge to Lord Caesar? (unpub.
PhD thesis: University of Sheffield, 2006, forthcoming Sheffield Phoenix).
FAVRO, D., The Urban Image of Augustan Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996).
-, 'Making Rome a World City', inK. Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age
of Augustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 234-263.
FEARS, J. R., 'Nero as the Vicegerent of the Gods in Seneca's "De Clementia'", Hermes 103
(1975): 486-496.
-, Princeps A Diis Electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at
Rome (Rome: American Academy at Rome, 1977).
-, 'The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology', ANRWII 17/2 (1981): 827-948.
-, 'Rome: The Ideology oflmperial Power', Thought 55/216 (1980): 99-109.
-, 'The Cult ofJupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology', ANRW II 17/1 (1981): 3-141.
-, 'The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems', ANRW II 17/2 (1981):
736-826.
FEE, G. D., Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-7heological Study (Peabody: Hendrickson,
2007).
-, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
FERRILL, A., Caligula: Emperor of Rome (London: Thames and Hudson, 1991).
FINNEY, M. T., 'Christ Crucified and the Inversion of Roman Imperial Ideology in 1 Corinthians', BTB 35/1 (2005): 20-33.
FISHWICK D., 'Genius and Numen', HTR 62 (1969): 356-367.
-, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of
the Roman Empire. Volume I, I (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987).
-, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Volume I, 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987).
-, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Volume II, I (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991 ).
-, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Volume II, 2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992).
-, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Volume III, 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
Bibliography
-,
-,
-,
-,
351
The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Volume III, 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
'The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western Roman Empire', ANRW
II 16/2 (1979): 1201-1253.
FISK, B. N., 'Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge among the Christians at
Rome', in S.E. Porter and C. D. Stanley (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul's Use of
Scripture (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 157-185.
FITZMYER, J.D. G., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992).
FLETCHER-LOUIS, C. H. T., All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
FLOWER, H. I., Aristocratic Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1996).
FLUSSER, D., 'A Jewish Source for the Attitude of the Early Church to the State', in id., Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (New York: Adama, 1987), 397-401.
FOERSTER, W., and G. FoHRER, a~w, aWTTJpla, awT~p, awT~pto<;, in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNTVII (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971): 965-1024.
FoRBES, C., 'Epictetus', in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament
Background (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 321-324.
FORTUNA, R. T., and B. R. GAVENTA, (eds.), The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and
John in Honour ofl. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990).
FRAME, J. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912).
FRANKLIN Jr., J. L., 'Literacy and the Parietal Inscriptions of Pompeii', in M. Beard (et al.,
ed.), Literacy in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, No.3, 1991), 77-98.
FRIDRICHSEN, A., 'Peristasenkatalog und Res Gestae: Nachtrag zu 2 Cor 11:23ff', Symbolae
Osloenses 8 (1929): 78-82.
FRIEDRICH, J., W. POHLMANN, and P. STUHLMACHER, 'Zur historischen Situation und
Intention von Rom 13, 1-7', ZTK73/2 (1986): 131-166.
FRIESEN, S. J., Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family
(Leiden/New York: E. J. Brill, 1993).
FRILINGOS, C. A., Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004).
GAIN, D. B., The Aratus Ascribed to Germanicus Caesar (London: Athlone, 1976).
GALINSKY, G. K.. Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).
-, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age ofAugustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 175-193.
-, 'The Cult of the Roman Empire: Uniter or Divider', SBL Rome and Religion: A CrossDisciplinary Dialogue Session, Boston, November 23, 2008.
GAMBLE, H. Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).
GARDNER, J. F., Leadership and the Cult of Personality (London: Dent, 1974).
GARNSEY, P.D.A., and C.R. Whittaker, (eds.), Imperialism in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
GARTNER, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965).
352
Bibliography
GATES, C., Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt,
Greece and Rome (London/New York: Routledge, 2003).
GAVENTA, B. R., First and Second Thessalonians (Louisville: John Knox, 1989).
-, '"To Preach the Gospel": Romans 1, 15 and the Purposes of Romans', in U. Schnelle,
(ed.), The Letter to the Romans (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgenerij Peeters,
2009), 179-195.
GELZER, M., The Roman Nobility (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969).
GEORGI, D., 'Who is the True Prophet?', HTR 79/1-3 (1986): 100-126.
-, Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991, Gmn. org. 1987).
GERANIO, J., 'The Portraiture of Caligula', http:/ /www.portraitsofcaligula.com (accessed
June 2008).
GIBBS, J. G., Creation and Redemption: A Study in Pauline Theology (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1971).
GIBLIN, C. H., The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-examination of2 Thessalonians 2 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967).
GILBERT, M., (ed.), La sagesse de l'ancien testament: nouvelle edition mise ajour (Leuven:
Leuven University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1990).
GILL, M., Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in I Timothy 2:I-7 (New York: Peter
Lang, 2008).
GILLMAN, J., 'Signals of Transformation in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18', CBQ 47/2 (1985):
262-281.
-, 'Jason ofThessalonica (Acts 17:5-9)', in R. F. Collins (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 39-49.
GINSBURG, J., Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman
Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
GLAD, C. E., Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (Leiden/New York/Koln: Brill, 1995).
GooDENOUGH, E. R., 'The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship', YCS 1 (1928):
55-102.
-, The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory (New Haven: Yale University, 1938).
GoRDON, R., 'The Veil of Power: Emperors, Sacrificers and Benefactors', in R. A. Horsley
(ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of
Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000), 126-137.
GouLD, H. E., Virgil: Eclogues (orig. 1967: rpt. Bristol: Bristol Classical, 1983).
GowAN, D. E., Eschatology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
GRADEL, I., Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002).
GRANT, F. C., (ed.), The Ancient Roman Religion (New York: Liberal Arts, 1957).
GRANT, M., The Roman Forum (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970).
GRAY, G. B., 'The Psalms of Solomon', in R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Volume II: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1913), 625-652.
GREEN, G. L., The Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
GRIFFIN, J., 'Augustan Poetry and Augustanism', inK. Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to the Age of Augustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005),
306-320.
GRIFFIN, M. T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976).
-, Nero: The End of a Dynasty (London/New York: Routledge, 1984).
Bibliography
353
-, 'Clementia after Caesar: From Politics to Philosophy', in F. Cairns and E. Frantham

(eds. ), Caesar against Liberty? Perspectives on His Autocracy, Papers of the Langford Latin
Seminar 11 (2003): 157-182.
GRIMAL, P., 'Le <<bon roi>> selon de Philodeme et la royaute de Cesar', REL 44 (1966):
254-285.
GUNDRY, R. H., 'The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish
Tradition in the Eschatology of 1-2 Thessalonians', NTS 33/2 (1987): 161-178.
GuRD, S., 'Cicero and Editorial Revision', CA 26/1 (2007): 49-80.
GUTHRIE, K.S, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1987).
HABICHT, C., 'Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt', in W.
den Boer (ed.), Le culte des souverains dans ['empire Romain (Fondation Hardt; Geneve:
Vandoeuvres, 1973), 41-99.
HABINEK, T. N., The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient
Religion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).
HAFEMANN, S. J., Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996).
HAHNE, H. A., The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8:19-22 and
Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (London: T & T Clark, 2006).
HALL, J. F., 'The Saeculum novum of Augustus and Its Etruscan Antecedents', ANRW II
16/3 (1986): 2564-2589.
HAMLIN, E.J., 'Nations', in G. A. Buttrick (et al., ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible. Volume 3: K-Q (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 515-523.
HAMMOND, N.G.L., and H.H. ScuLLARD, (eds.), Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972).
HA.NLEIN-SCHAFER, H., Veneratio Augusti: Ein Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten romischen
Kaisers (Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1985).
HANNESTAD, N., Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988).
HARDIN, J., Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social
Context of Paul's Letter (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
HARL, K. W., Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East AD 180-275 (Berkeley/Los
Angeles I London: University of California, 1987).
HARLAND, P. A., 'Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults and Associations at
Ephesus (First to Third Centuries C. E.)', SR 25/3 (1996): 319-334.
-, 'Imperial Cults within Local Cultural Life: Associations in Roman Asia', AHB 17 (2003):
88-107.
HARNISCH, W., Eschatologische Existenz: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von
I. Thessalonicher 4, 13-5, 11 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1973).
HARRINGTON, D. J., Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
HARRIS, M. J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use ofTheos in Reference to Jesus (Grand
HARRIS, P.A., and M. CRAWFORD, (eds.), Time and Uncertainty (Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2004).
HARRIS, W. V., 'Literacy and Epigraphy, 1', ZPE 52 (1983): 87-111.
-,Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).
HARRISON, J. R., 'Paul, Eschatology and the Augustan Age of Grace', TynBul 50/1 (1999):
79-91.
-, 'Paul's House Churches and the Cultic Associations', RTR 58/1 (1999): 31-47.
-, 'Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki', JSNT 25/1 (2002): 71-96.
-, 'Saviour of the People', New Docs 9 (2002): 4-5.
354
Bibliography
-, 'Excels Ancestral Honours', New Docs 9 (2002): 20-21.

-, Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003 ).
-, 'The Fading Crown: Divine Honour and the Early Christians', ]TS 54/2 (2003):
493-529.
-,'Why Did Josephus and Paul Refuse to Circumcise?', Pacifica 17/2 (2004): 137-158.
-, 'In Quest of the Third Heaven: Paul and His Apocalyptic Imitators', VC 58/1 (2004):
24-55.
-,'Paul, Theologian of Electing Grace', in S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul the Theologian: Pauline
Studies Volume III (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 77-108.
-, 'Paul Goes to Rome', in B. J. Beitzel (ed.), Biblica: 1he Bible Atlas (Sydney: Global Book
Publishing, 2006), 484-489.
-, (ed.), 'Introduction', in E. A. Judge, The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan
and New Testament Essays (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
-, 'Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory in the Epistle to the Romans', in U. Schnelle (ed.),
The Letter to the Romans (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgenerij Peeters, 2009),
323-363.
-, 'The Brothers as "The Glory of Christ" (2 Cor 8:23): Paul's Doxa Terminology in Its
Ancient Benefaction Context', NovT 52 (2010): 1-33.
-, 'The Imitation of the Great Man in Antiquity: Paul's Inversion of a Cultural Icon', inS. E.
Porter and A. W Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Classical Culture: Social and Literary
Contexts for the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
HAY, D. M., and E. E. JoHNSTON, (eds.), Pauline Theology. Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).
HAYS, R. B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989).
HAYWARD, C. T. R., 'Sirach and Wisdom's Resting Place', inS. C. Barton (ed.), Where Shall
Wisdom Be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 31-46.
HEINEN, H., 'Zur Begriindung des romischen Kaiserkultes', Klio 11 (1911): 129-177.
HELLHOLM, D., (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983).
HENDERSON, J., Figuring Out Roman Nobility: ]uvenal's Eighth Satire (Exeter: University
of Exeter Press, 1997).
HENDRIX, H., 1hessalonicans Honor Romans (unpub. PhD thesis Harvard University,
Cambridge Mass., 1984).
-, 'Beyond "Imperial Cult" and "Cults of Magistrates"', in H. K. Richards (ed.), Society of
Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986): 301-308.
-,'On the Form and Ethos of Ephesians', USQR 42/4 (1988): 3-15.
-, 'Archaeology and Eschatology at Thessalonica', in B. A. Pearson (et al., ed.), The Future
of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991),
107-118.
-, 'Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment', Semeia 56 (1992): 39-58.
HENGEL, M., Christ and Power (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1977).
-, 'The Atonement: 1he Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament(London: SCM, 1981).
HERRMANN, P., Der romische Kaisereid (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1968).
HESLIN, P., 'Augustus, Domitian, and the So-Called horologium Augusti', ]RS 97/1 (2007):
1-20.
HEZSER, C., Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).
Bibliography
355
HILLS, J. V. (et al., ed.), Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F.
Snyder (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1998).
HoDoT, R., 'Decret de Kyme en l'honneur du Prytane Kleanax; The f. Paul Getty Museum
fournal10 (1982): 165-180.
HOFFMANN, F., (et al., ed.), The Trilingual Stela of C. Cornelius Gallus from Philae. Translation, Commentary and Analysis in Its Historical Context (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter,
2009).
HOGETERP, A. L.A., Paul and God's Temple (Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2006).
HoLLAND, G. S., The Tradition that You Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline
Tradition (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988).
HOLLINGSHEAD, J. R., The Household of Caesar and the Body of Christ (Lanham: University
Press of America, 1998).
HoLMBERG, B., and M. WINNINGE, (eds.), Identity Formation in the New Testament (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
HoLTZ, T., Der Erste Briefe an die Ihessalonicher (Zurich: Benziger, 1986).
HooKER, M.D., and S.G. WILSON, (eds.), Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour ofC.K.
Barrett (London: SPCK, 1982).
HoPE, V., Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook (London/New York: Routledge, 2007).
HOPKINS, K., Death and Renewal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
HoRNBLOWER, S., and A. SPAWFORTH, (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary: Third Revised Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
HORRELL, D. G., 'The Peaceable, Tolerant Community and the Legitimate Role of the State:
Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Romans 12:1-15:13', RevExp 100/1 (2003): 81-99.
-, 'Idol-Food, Idolatry and Ethics in Paul', inS. C. Barton (ed.), Idolatry: False Worship in
the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 120-140.
HORSFALL, N., 'Statistics or States of Mind?', in M. Beard (et al., ed.), Literacy in the Roman
World (Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, No. 3,
1991), 59-76.
HoRSLEY, G. H.R., 'Joining the Household of Caesar', New Docs 3 (1983): 7-9.
-, (ed.), 'The Greek Documentary Evidence and NT Lexical Study: Some Soundings', New
Docs 5 (1989): 67-93.
HoRSLEY, R.A., (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society
(Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1997).
-, (ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israe~ Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of
Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000).
-, (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2003).
-, (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts ofResistance: Applying the Work of fames C. Scott
to Jesus and Paul (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004).
-, (ed.), In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2008).
HosKINS-WALBANK, M.E., 'Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth',
in A. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler: Ihe Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series No. 17, 1996),
201-213.
HousMAN, A. E., 'Manilius, Augustus, Tiberius, Capricornus, and Libra', CQ 7/2 (1913):
109-114.
HUBBARD, M. V., New Creation in Paul's Letters and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge
356
Bibliography
HuRLEY, D. W., An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Suetonius' Life of C.

Caligula (Atlanta: Scholars, 1993).
HuzAR, E. G., 'Emperor Worship in Julio-Claudian Egypt', ANRW II 18/5 (1995): 30923142.
JACKSON, R., New Creation in Paul's Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of
a Pauline Concept (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).
JACOB, E., Theology of the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1958: Fr. orig.
1955).
JAL, P., 'Images d'Auguste chez Seneque', REL 35 (1951): 242-262.
JANTZEN, G. M., The Foundations of Violence (New York/London: Routledge, 2004).
JENKS, G. C., The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1990).
JEWETT, R., The 1hessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
-, 'Response: Exegetical Support from Romans and Other Letters', in R. A. Horsley (ed.),
Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister
Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000), 58-71.
-, 'The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Reading Rom 8:18-23 within the Imperial Context', in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg:
Trinity International, 2003), 25-46.
-, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007).
JoHNSTON, W. A., and H. N. PARKER, (eds.), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in
Greece and Rome (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
JoNES, A. H. M., 'The Politics of Philo fudaeus, Practice and Theory, by Erwin R. Goodenough', JTS 40 (1939): 182-185.
JoNES, B. W., and R. D. MrLNS, The Use of Documentary Evidence in the Study of Roman
Imperial History (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1984).
JosHEL, S. R., Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992).
JossA, G., Jews or Christians? The Followers ofJesus in Search of1heir Own Identity (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006 [Italian orig. Brescia 2004]).
JoYNES, C., (ed.), The Quest for Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Philip Budd (Cambridge:
Orchard Academic, 2002).
JuDGE, E. A., 'Thanksgiving to the Benefactor of the World, Tiberius Caesar', New Docs 9
(2002): 22.
-, The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (ed. J.R.
Harrison; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
-, 'The Appeal to Convention in Paul', in id., The First Christians, 684-692.
-, 'Augustus in the Res Gestae', in id., The First Christians, 182-223.
-, 'Contemporary Political Models for the Interrelations of New Testament Churches', in
id., The First Christians, 586-596.
-, 'The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica', in id., The First Christians, 456-462.
-, 'Demythologising the Church: What is the Meaning of"the Body of Christ"?', in id., The
First Christians, 568-585.
-, 'The Eulogistic Inscriptions of the Augustan Forum: Augustus on Roman History', in
id., The First Christians, 165-181.
-, "'On This Rock I Will Build My ekklesia": Counter-cultic Springs of Multiculturalism',
in id., The First Christians, 619-668.
Bibliography
357
-, 'The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution?', in id., The First Christians,
442-455.
-, 'The Roman Base of Paul's Mission', in id., The First Christians, 553-567.
-, 'Roman Literary Memorials', in id., The First Christians, 69-71.
-, 'The Roman Theory of Historical Degeneration', in id., The First Christians, 52-58.
-, 'Veni. Vidi. Vici, and the Inscription of Cornelius Gallus', in id., The First Christians,
72-75.
KAHL, B., Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2009).
KAHN, J. G., 'La valuer et Ia legitimite des activites politques d'apres Philon d'Alexandrie',
Mediterranee 16 (1998): 117-127.
KALLAS, J., 'Romans XIII.l-7: An Interpolation', NTS 11 (1964-1965): 365-374.
KANTOROWICZ, E. H., 'Oriens Augusti- Lever du Roi', DOP 17 (1963): 117-177.
KARRIS, R. J., A Symphony of New Testament Hymns (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1996).
KASEMANN, E., Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).
KEcK, L. E., 'Paul as Thinker', Int 47/1 (1993): 27-38.
-,Romans (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005).
KENNEDY, H.A.A., St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1904).
-, 'Apostolic Preaching and Emperor Worship', Exp 7 (1909): 289-307.
KENT, J. H., Corinth Vol. VIII Part III: The Inscriptions 1926-1950 (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966).
KIERDORF, W., Laudatio Funebris. Interpretationen und Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung
der romischen Leichenrede (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1980).
KHIOK-KHNG, Y., 'A Political Reading of Paul's Eschatology in I and II Thessalonians', AfT
12/1 (1998): 77-88.
KIM, S., Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and
Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).
KIM, T. H., 'The Anarthrous uioc:; Seou in Mark 15:39 and the Roman Imperial Cult', Bib
79/2 (1998): 221-241.
KITTEL, G., 'M~a', in id. (ed.), TDNTII (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964): 233-237.
-, 'M~a in the LXX and Hellenistic Apocrypha', in id. (ed.), TDNT II (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1964): 242-245.
KLAUCK, H-J., The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000).
KLIJN, A. F. J., '1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 and Its Background in Apocalyptic Literature', in
M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson (eds.), Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour ofC.K.
Barrett (London: SPCK, 1982), 67-73.
K6BERLEIN, E., Caligula und die iigyptischen Kulte (Meisenheim an Glan: Hein, 1962).
KoESTER, H., 'From Paul's Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Schemata of2 Thessalonians', in
R.F. Collins (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press,
1990), 441-458.
-, 'MemoryofJesus' Death and the Worship of the Risen Lord', HTR 91/4 (1998): 335-50.
-, (ed.), Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004).
KoNDRATIEFF, E.J., 'From Octavian to Augustus: Images', http://www.sas.upenn.
edu/-ekondrat/Octavian3.html (accessed July 2008).
KoNSTAN, D., Pity Transformed (London: Duckworth, 2001).
358
Bibliography
KouKOULI-CHRYSANTAKI, C., 'Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis', in C. Bakirtzes (ed.),

Philippi at the Time of Paul and after His Death (Harrisburg: Trinity International,
1998), 5-35
KRAGELUND, P., Prophecy, Populism, and Propaganda in the 'Octavia' (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1982).
KRAUTER, S., Studien zu Rom 13, 1-7: Paulus und der politische Diskurs der neronischen Zeit
(Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).
KREITZER, L. J., Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996).
KRENKEL, WA., Caesarund der Mimus des Laberius (Hamburg: Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Jg. 12, 1994).
KRENTZ, E., 'Roman Hellenism and Paul's Gospel', BiTod 26/6 (1988): 328-337.
KONZL, E., Der romische Triumph: Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom (Miinchen: Beck, 1988).
KuTTNER, A. L., Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: Ihe Case of the Boscoreale
Cups (Berkeley I Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995).
KYLE, D. G., Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (New York: Routledge, 1998).
LABHAN, M., and J. ZANZENBERG, (eds.), Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und
romische Herrschaft. Vortriige auf der ersten Konferenz der European Association for
Biblical Studies (Tiibingen: Francke, 2002).
LAKS, A., (ed.), Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy.
Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995).
LAMPE, P., From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2003).
-, 'Paths of Early Christian Mission into Rome: Judaeo-Christians in the Households of
Pagan Masters', in S.E. McGinn (ed.), Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 143-148.
LANCIANI, R., Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (Boston/New York:
Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1898).
LANE, W L., 'Paul's Legacy from Pharisaism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon', CJ 8
(1982): 130-138.
LASH, N., Holiness, Speech and Silence: Reflections on the Question of God (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2004).
LASSEN, E.M., 'The Use of the Father Image in Imperial Propaganda and 1 Corinthians
4:14-21', Tyn Bul421l (1991): 127-136.

LEE, M. V., Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006), 31-39.
LEE, R., Studies in the Form ofSirach (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986).
LEEMAN, A. D., Gloria: Cicero's Waardering van de Roem en haar Achtergrond in de Hellenistische en de Romeinse Samenleving (Rotterdam: N. V. Drukkerij M. Wty & Zonen, 1949).
LEFKOWITZ, M. R., and M. E. FANT (eds.), Women's Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book
in Translation (3rd ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005).
LEGASSE, S., Les Epftres de Paul aux Ihessaloniciens (Paris: Cerf, 1999).
LE M. Du QuESAY, I.M., 'Virgil's Fourth Eclogue', in P. Hardie (ed.), Virgil: Critical Assessments of Classical Authors. Volume 1: General Articles and the Eclogues (London/New
York: Routledge, 1999).
LENDON, J. E., Empire of Honour: Ihe Art of Government in the Roman World (rpt. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2002).
Bibliography
359
LENSKI, R. C. H., The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House,
1937).
LEON, H. J., The Jews ofAncient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America,
1961).
LEVICK, B.M, 'Mercy and Moderation on the Coinage ofTiberius', in id. (ed.), The Ancient
Historian and His Materials: Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on His Seventieth Birthday
(Farnborough: Gregg, 1975), 123-137.
-, Tiberius the Politician (London: Routledge, 1999).
LEVISON, J. R., Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1988).
LEWIS, N., and M. REINHOLD, (eds.), Roman Civilization. Volume II: Selected Readings (3'd
ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).
LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, L. J., The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Tradition-Historical Study of
the Earliest Christians (Leiden : E. J. Brill, 1996).
LINDSAY, H., Suetonius, Caligula. Edited With Introduction and Commentary (Bristol:
Bristol Classical Press, 1995).
LINTOTT, A. W., Violence in Republican Rome (2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999).
LONG, A. A., 'Cicero's Politics in De Officiis', in A. Laks (ed.), Justice and Generosity: Studies
in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 213-240.
LOPEZ, D. C., Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul's Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2008).
L'ORANGE, H. P., Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (New Rochelle: Caratzis Brothers,
1982).
LoRD, L.E., In Catilinam IV- Pro Murena- Pro Sulla- Pro Fiacco (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1967).
LOREIN, G. W., The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period (London/New York:
T & T Clark, 2003).
Li.JTGERT, W., 'Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief und die Enthusiasten in Thessalonich', BFCT 13/6 (1909): 547-654.
LUTZ, C. E., 'Musonius Rufus "The Roman Socrates'", YCS 10 (1947): 3-147.
MACDOUGALL, E. B., (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens (Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1987).
MALHERBE, A. J., Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).
-, Paul and the Thessalonians: 7he Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1987).
-, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989).
-, 'Did the Thessalonians Write to Paul?', in R. T. Fortuna and B. R. Gaventa (eds.), The
Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honour of J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 246-257.
-, The Letters to the Thessalonians (New York: Doubleday, 2000).
MALITZ, J., Nero (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005: Gmn. orig. 1999).
MANUS, C. U., 'Luke's Account of Paul in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-9)', in R. F. Collins (ed.),
The 7hessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 27-38.
MARCUS, J., 'Idolatry in the New Testament' Int 60/2 (2006): 152-164.
360
Bibliography
MARSHALL, B., (ed.), Res Romanae: Essays on Roman History (Macquarie University:
Macquarie Ancient History Association, 2009).
MARSHALL, C. D., Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and
Punishment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 234-239.
MARSHALL, J., Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).
MARSHALL, P., Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987).
MARTIN, R. P., New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students. Volume 1: The
Four Gospels (rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).
MARTYN, J. L., Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997).
MARXSEN, W, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief(Ziirich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982).
MASSON, c., Les deux epitres de Saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens (Neuchatel: Delachaux &
Niestle, 1957).
MATTINGLY, H., 'Some Historical Roman Coins of tiie First Century AD', JRS 10 (1920):
37-41.
MATYSZAK, P., Chronicle of the Roman Republic: The Rulers ofAncient Rome from Romulus
to Augustus (London: Thames and Hudson, 2003).
MAY, H. G., 'The Departure of tiie Glory of Yahweh', JBL 56 (1937): 309-321.
MccoRMACK, M., Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity and the Early
Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
McDONALD, J. I. H., 'Romans 13:1-7: A Test Case for New Testament Interpretation', NTS
35/4 (1989): 545-546.
MCDONNELL, M., Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
McEWAN, C. W, The Oriental Origin of Hellenistic Kingship (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1934).
MCGINN, S.E., (ed.), Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2004).
McKAY, A. G., Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World (Baltimore/London: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1998).
MEARNS, C. L., 'Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians', NTS 27 (1980-1981): 137-151.
MEEKS, WA., 'Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity', in D.
Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1983), 687-705.
MEGGITT, J., 'Taking the Emperor's Clotiies Seriously: The New Testament and the Roman
Emperor', in C. Joynes (ed.), The Quest for Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Philip Budd
(Cambridge: Orchard Academic, 2002 ), 143-169.
MENKEN, M. J. J., 2 Thessalonians (London and New York: Routledge, 1994).
METZGER, B. M., An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press,
1957).
METZGER, P., Katechon: II Thess 2, 1-12 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens (Berlin/
New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005).
MEYER, B. F., and E.P. SANDERS, (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Volume III:
Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World (London: SCM, 1982).
MILNOR, K., 'Literary Literacy in Roman Pompeii: The Case ofVergil's Aeneid', in WA.
Johnston and H. N. Parker (eds.), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece
and Rome (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 288-319.
Bibliography
361
MITCHELL, S., Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Volume 1 (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1993).
MITFORD, T. B., 'A Cypriot Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius', JRS 50 (1960): 75-79.
MOLLER, K., Gotterattribute in ihrer Anwendung auf Augustus: Eine Studies iiber die indirekte Erhohung des ersten Princeps in der Dichtung seiner Zeit (Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner
Verlag, 1985).
MOMIGLIANO, A., 'E.R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus', JRS 34 (1944):
163-165.
-, 'Time in Ancient Historiography', History and Theory 6/6 (1966): 1-23.
-, 'How Roman Emperors Became Gods', American Scholar 55/2 (1986): 181-193.
MoNERA, A. T., 'The Christian's Relationship to the State according to the New Testament:
Conformity or Non-conformity?', AJT 19/1 (2005): 106-142.
MONTEFIORE, C. G., and H.l. LoEWE, A Rabbinic Anthology (New York: Shocken, 1974).
Moo, D., The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
MooRE, A. L., The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966).
MoRETTI, G.M., The Ara Pacis Augustae (Roma: La Libreria Delio Stato, 1939).
MORRIS, L., 'The Theme of Romans', in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.), Apostolic
History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His 60th
Birthday (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 249-263.
-, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).
-, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1991).
MoRRISON, C. D., The Powers That Be: Earthly Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans
13:1-7 (London: SCM, 1960).
MoRTUREUX, B., 'Les ideaux stolciens et les premieres responsibilities politiques: le "De
Clementia'", ANRWII 36/3 (1989): 1639-1685.
MosLEY, D. J., 'Xenephon', inN. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard (eds.), Oxford Classical
Dictionary (2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 1141-1144.
MosT, G., 'The "Virgilian'' Culex', in M. Whitby (et al., ed.), Homo Viator: Classical Essays
for John Bramble (Bristol: Bristol Classical, 1987), 199-209.
MoTT, S.C., The Greek Benefactor and Deliverance from Moral Distress (unpub. PhD thesis:
Harvard University, 1971).
MouLE, C. F. D., Man and Nature in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964).
MoxNES, H., 'Honour and Righteousness in Romans', JSNT9 (1988): 61-77.
-, Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul's Understanding of God in Romans (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1980).
MUNRO, W., Authority in Paul and Peter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
-, 'Romans 13:1-7: Apartheid's Last Biblical Refuge', BTB 20 (1990): 161-16.
MuRAOKA, T., and J. F. ELWOLDE, (eds.), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages (Leiden-Boston-Koln:
Brill, 1999).
MuRPHY O'CoNNOR, J., Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).
MuRRAY, J., The Epistle to the Romans (London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1970).
MURRAY, M.O., 'Philodemus on the Good King according to Homer', JRS 55 (1965):
161-182.
NANOS, M.D., The Mystery of Romans: 1he Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1994).
NEIL, W., The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1950).
362
Bibliography
NEWLANDS, C. E., Playing with Time: Ovid and the Fasti (Ithica/ London: Cornell University Press, 1995).
NEWMAN, C. C., Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992).
NEWMAN, R. L., 'In Umbra Virtutis: Gloria in the Thought of Seneca the Philosopher',
Eranos 86 (1988): 145-159.
NEWTON, D., Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food in Corinth (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998).
NEWTON, M., The Concept of Purity at Qumran in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
NEYREY, J., Paul, In Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990).
NICHOL, C., 'Michael, the Restrainer Removed (2 Thess 2:6-7)', JTS 51/1 (2000): 27-53.
-,From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004).
NICKELSBURG, G. WE., Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (London:
SCM, 1981).
NIEHOFF, M., Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tiibingen; Mohr Siebeck, 2001).
NocK, A., 'Notes on Ruler-Cult, I-IV', JHS 48 (1928): 21-43.
-, 'Religious Development From the Close of the Republic to the Death of Nero', in F. E.
Adcock and M.P. Charlesworth (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 10: The Augustan Empire, 44 BC-AD 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), 481-489.
-, 'Soter and Euergetes', in id. (Z. Stewart [ed.]), Essays on Religion and the Ancient World
by Arthur Darby Nock Volume 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 720-735.
-, 'The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year', in id., Essays on Religion Volume 2,
778-781.
NoVAK, R.M., Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts (Harrisburg: Trinity
International, 2001).
NovENSON, M. V., 'The Jewish Messiahs, the Pauline Christ, and the Gentile Question',
JBL 21128 (2009): 357-373.
OAKES, P., 'Epictetus (and the New Testament)', VoxEv 23 (1993): 39-56.
-, Philippi: From People to Letter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
-, (ed.), Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002).
-, 'Christian Attitudes to Rome at the Time of Paul's Letter', RevExp 100/1 (2003): 103111.
-, 'Re-Mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians',
JSNT27/3 (2005): 301-322.
ODELL, M.S., and J. T. STRONG, (eds.), The Book ofEzekiel: Theological and Anthropological
Perspectives (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).
ODELL-SCOTT, D., Paul's Critique of Theocracy: A/Theocracy in Corinthians and Galatians
(London/New York: T & T Clark International/Continuum, 2003).
OEPKE, A., napoucr[a, mipELflL, in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNTV (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1967): 858-871.
OsBORNE, G. R., Romans (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004).
OsTER, R. E., 'The Ephesian Artemis as an Opponent of Early Christianity', JAC 19 (1976):
24-44.
-, 'Numismatic Windows into the Social World of Early Christianity', JBL 101/2 (1982):
195-223.
Bibliography
363
-, "'Show me a denarius": Symbolism of Roman Coinage and Christian Beliefs', ResQ 28/2
(1985-1986): 107-115.
-, 'Holy Days in Honour of Artemis', New Docs 4 (1987): 74-82.
-, 'Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate, I. Paganism before Constantine',
ANRWII 18/3 (1990): 1661-1728.
OwEN, E.C.E., '~6~a and Cognates Words', JTS 33/130 (1932): 132-150; JTS 33/131
(1932): 265-279.
PAGE, D. L., Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
PARKE, D. W, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (ed. B. C. McGing, London/New York: Routledge, 1988).
PARROTT, R. L., Paul's Political Thought: Rom 13:1-7 in the Light of Hellenistic Political
Thought (unpub. PhD diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1980).
PATON, WR. and E.L. HICKS, 7heinscriptions of Cos (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891).
PAYNE, R., The Roman Triumph (London: Robert Hale Ltd., 1962).
PEARSON, B.A., (et al., ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut
Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).
PETERMAN, G. W, Paul's Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian
Giving (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997).
PETERSON, E., 'Die Einholung des Kyrios', ZSTh 7 (1929-30): 682-702.
-, arcaVTI]aL<;, in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNT I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964): 380-381.
PICKETT, R. W, 'The Death of Christ as Divine Patronage in Romans 5: 1-11', in E. H.
Lovering (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: SBL, 1993),
726-739.
PILGRIM, WE., Uneasy Neighbours: Church and State in the New Testament (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1999).
PILHOFER P., Philippi: Bd. 1. Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas (Tiibingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1995).
-, Philippi: Bd. 2. Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
PLANTZOS, D., Hellenistic Engraved Gems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999).
PLASS, P., The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Success (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1995).
PLEKET, H. W, 'An Aspect of the Emperor Cult: Imperial Mysteries', HTR 58 (1965):
331-347.
PLEVNIK, J., 'The Parousia as Implication of Christ's Resurrection: An Exegesis of 1 Thess
4:13-18', in id. (ed.), Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor of David Michael Stanley, S.f. on
His 60th Birthday (Willowdale: Regis College Press, 1975), 199-277.
-, 'The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians
4.13-18', CBQ 46 (1984): 274-283.
-, Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997).
PoRTER, S.E., Verbal Aspect of the Greek of the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang,
1989).
-, (ed.), Paul and His Opponents: Pauline Studies Volume I (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005).
-, (ed.), Paul the Theologian: Pauline Studies Volume III (Leiden: Brill, 2006).
-, 'Did Paul Speak Latin?', in id. (ed.), Paul: few, Greek, and Roman. Pauline Studies Volume V (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 289-308.
364
Bibliography
-, and C. D. STANLEY, (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul's Use of Scripture (Atlanta:

Society of Biblical Literature, 2008).
PoTTER, D., Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius (Cambridge, Mass./ London: Harvard University Press, 1994).
PowELL, J. G. F., (ed.), Cicero On Friendship and The Dream of Scipio (Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 1990).
PREAUX, C., 'L'Image du roi de I' epoque hellenistique', in F. Bossier (et al., ed.), Images of
Man in Ancient and Medieval Thought: studia Gerardo Verbeke ab ami cis et co/legis dicata
(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1976), 53-75.
PRICE, S. R. F., 'Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult',
JHS 104 (1984): 79-95.
-,Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1985).
-, 'From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors', in D.
Cannadine and S. Price (eds.), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional
Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 56-105.
-,'Rituals and Power', in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Power (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1977), 47-71.
PRUMM, K., 'Herrscherkult und Neues Testament', Biblica 9 (1928): 19-31.
PuRCELL, N., 'Town in Country and Country in Town', in E. B. MacDougall (ed.), Ancient
Roman Villa Gardens (Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1987), 185-203.
RAMSAY, W, 'Varia Gens', in W Smith (ed.), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
Mythology Vol. III (London: Walton and Maberly, 1861), 1215-1216.
-, 'Augustus', inS. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary:
Third Edition Revised (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 216-218.
RAMSEY, J. T. and A. L. LICHT, The Comet of 44 BC and Caesar's Funeral (Atlanta: Scholars,
1997).
RAURELL, F., 'The Religious Meaning of "Doxa" in the Book of Wisdom', in M. Gilbert
(ed.), La sagesse de /'ancien testament: nouvelle edition mise ajour (Leuven: Leuven
University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1990): 370-383.
REASONER, M., The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1-15:3 in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
-, 'The Theology of Romans 12:1-15:13', in D.M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline
Theology Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 287-299.
-, 'Paul's God of Peace in Canonical and Political Perspective' (paper presented at SBL
2004 Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA, Nov 20-23).
REEVE, C. D. C., Philosopher-Kings: The Argument ofPlato's Republic (Princeton: Princeton
REISNER, R., Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998).
REHAK, P., 'Aeneas or Numa: Rethinking the Meaning of the Ara Pacis Augustae', The Arts
Bulletin 83/2 (2001): 190-208.
REINHOLD, M., 'Augustus' Conception of Himself', Thought 55/216 (1980): 36-50.
REYNOLDS, J., Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of the Theatre at
Aphrodisias Conducted by Kenan T. Brim: Together with Some Related Texts Compiled
and Annotated by Joyce Reynolds (London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1982).
Bibliography
365
RICHARD, E. J., First and Second Thessalonians (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1995).

RICHARDSON, P., ~ugustan-Era Synagogues in Rome', inK. P. Donfried and P. Richardson
(eds.), Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Grand Rapids/Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 1998), 17-29.
RICHMOND, J., 'Recent Work on the '~ppendix Vergiliana'' (1950-1975)', ANRW II 31/2
(1981): 1112-1154.
RIDLEY, R., The Emperor's Retrospect; Augustus' RES GESTAE in Epigraphy, Historiography
and Commentary (Leuven: Peeters, 2003).
RIGAUX, B., L'Antechrist et /'opposition aux royaume messianique dans /'ancien et le nouveaux testament (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1932).
-, Saint Paul: Les eptitres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956).
RisT, J.M., 'Seneca and Stoic Orthodoxy', ANRWII 36/3 (1989): 1993-2012.
RIVES, J. B., Religion in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007).
ROBERT, L., 'Le culte de Caligula aMilet et la province d'Asie', Hellenica 7 (1949): 206-238.
RoBINSON, D.M., 'Roman Sculpture from Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch)', The Art
Bulletin 9/1 (1926): 4-69.
RoccA, E. LA, (ed.), Horti romani: Atti del convegno internazionale Roma, 4-6 maggio 1995
(Roma: "L'Erma'' di Bretschneider, 1998).
RocHLITZ, S., Das Bild Caesars in Ciceros Orationes Caesarianae Untersuchungen zur
dementia und sapienta Caesaris (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1993).
RocK, I. E., The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology for an Exegesis of Paul's Letter to
the Romans: An Ideological Literary Analysis of the Exordium, Rom 1:1-17 (unpub. PhD
thesis University of Wales, Lampeter, 2005).
ROCKER, F. W., Belial und Katechon: Eine Untersuchung zu 2 Thess 2,1-12 und 1 Thess 4,
13-5, 11 (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).
RoETZEL, C. R., 'Paul as Organic Intellectual: The Shaper of Apocalyptic Myths', in J. V.
Hills (et al., ed.), Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder
(Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1998), 221-243.
ROLLER, M. B., Constructing Autocracy: Aristocrats and Emperors in Julio-Claudian Rome
(Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001).
RoMANELLI, P., The Roman Forum (2nd ed. Rome: Instituto poligrafico dello stato, 1955).
RosBOROUGH, R.R., An Epigraphic Commentary on Suetonius'Life ofGaius Caligula (unpub. thesis University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1920).
RosNER, B.S., Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7 (rpt. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1999: orig. 1994).
Ross, D.O., 'The CULEX and MORETUM as Post-Augustan Literary Parodies', HSCPh
79 (1975): 235-263.
RowELL, H. T., 'The Forum and the Funeral Images of Augustus', MAAR 17 (1940):
131-143.
RowLAND, C., The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity
(London: SPCK, 1982).
RuBIN, B. B., (Re)presenting Empire: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, 31BC-AD63
(unpub. PhD thesis University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2008).
RuDICH, V., Political Dissidence under Nero: The Price of Dissimulation (London/New
York: Routledge, 1993).
RuPKE, J., Religion of the Romans (Cambridge: Polity, 2007 [Gmn. orig. Miinchen, 2001]).
SALLER, R., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1982).
366
Bibliography
SANDAY, W., and A. C. HEADLAM, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902).
SANDERS, E.P., 'Testament of Abraham', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. I. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday, 1983),
871-902.
SANDMEL, S., 'Parallelomania', JBL 81 (1962): 1-13.
SAUNDERS, R., 'Paul and the Imperial Cult', in S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul and His Opponents:
Pauline Studies (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005), 226-238.
SAURON, G., QVIS DEVM? L'expression plastique des ideologies politiques et religieuses
Rome (Rome: Ecole Franc;:aise de Rome, 1994).
ScHAFER, P., judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997).
ScHEID, J., Romulus et ses freres: le college des Freres Arvales, modele du culte public dans Ia
Rome des empereurs (Rome: Ecole Franc;:aise de Rome, 1990).
-, Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium Qui Supersunt: Les copies epigraphiques des protocols
annuels de Ia Confrerie Arvale (21 AV.-31 AP. /.-C.) (Rome: Ecole Franc;:aise de Rome,
1998).
-, An Introduction to Roman Religion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003, [Fr.

orig. Paris 1999]).
-, 'Augustus and Roman Religion: Continuity, Conservatism, and Innovation', in K. Galinsky (ed.), Age ofAugustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 175-193.
-, RES GESTAE DIVI AUGUST!: Hauts Faits du DIVIN AUGUSTE (Paris: Les Belles
Letters, 2007).
ScoTT, K., 'Plutarch and the Ruler Cult', TAPA 60 (1929): 117-135.
-, 'Humour at the Expense of the Ruler Cult', CP 27/4 (1932): 317-328.
SHEKEN, P. W., and A.A. Dr LELLA, The Wisdom ofBen Sirah (New York: Doubleday, 1987).
SCHERRER, P., (ed.), Ephesus: The New Guide (Turkey: Ege Yayinlari, 2000).
ScHMIDT, P. L., 'Culex', Der Neue Pauly 3 (1997): 228.
ScHMIDT, W. H., The Faith of the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983).
ScHMITHALS, W., Paul and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972).
SCHMITZ, L., 'Flaccus, Valerius', in W. Smith (ed.), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology Vol. II (London: Walton and Maberly, 1861), 157-159.
ScHNEIDER, J., and C. BROWN, 'Redemption', in C. Brown (ed.), NIDNTT III (Exeter:
Paternoster, 1978): 177-223.
ScHNELLE, U., (ed. ), The Letter to the Romans (Leuven: Leuven University Press I Uitgenerij
Peeters, 2009).
ScHOLER, D. N., "'The God of Peace Will Shortly Crush Satan Under Your Feet" (Romans
16:20a): The Function of Apocalyptic Eschatology in Paul', ExAud 9 (1990): 53-61.
ScHOWALTER, D.N., The Emperor and the Gods (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
ScHREINER, T. R., Romans (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1998).
ScHUBART, W., 'Das hellenistische Konigsideal nach inschriften und papyri', AFP 12
(1937): 1-26.
SCHUTZ, M., 'Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus auf dem Marsfeld', Gymnasium 97 (1990):
432-457.
ScoTT, J.C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven/
London: Yale University Press, 1990).
-, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms ofPeasant Resistance (New Haven I London: Yale
Bibliography
367
ScoTT, K., The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (New York: Arno, 1975).
-, 'Emperor Worship in Ovid', TAPA 61 (1930): 43-69.
ScROGGS, R., The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1966).
SEIFRID, M.A., 'Romans', in C.K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 607-694.
SHERK, R.K., (ed.), The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge
SHOTTER, D., Nero (London and New York: Routledge, 1997).
-, Augustus Caesar (2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge, 2005).
-, Nero Caesar Augustus: Emperor of Rome (Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd., 2008).
SHOUP, D. D., Monuments, Materiality, and Meaning in the Classical Archaeology of Anatolia (unpub. PhD. diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2008).
SHULAM, J., and H. LECORNU, A Commentary on the jewish Roots of Romans (Baltimore:
Lederer, 1997).
SIMON, E., Ara Pacis Augustae (Ti.ibingen: E. Wasmuth, 1967).
SIMPSON, C. J., 'The Cult of the Emperor Gaius', Latomus 40 (1981): 489-491.
SLINGERLAND, H. D., Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of judaism
at Rome (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
SMALL, A., (ed.), Subject and Ruler: 1he Cult ofthe Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity (Ann
Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series No. 17, 1996).
SMALLWOOD, E. M., 'The Chronology of Gaius' Attempt to Desecrate the Temple', La tom us
16 (1957): 3-17.
-,Documents Illustrating the Principates ofGaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967).
-, Philonis Alexandri Legatio ad Gaium: Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).
-, The jews Under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981).
SMITH, A., '"Unmasking the Powers": Towards a Postcolonial Analysis of 1 Thessalonians',
in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2003), 47-66.
SMITH, P., 'Publicola Valerius', in W. Smith (ed.), Dictionary ofGreek and Roman Biography
and Mythology Vol. III (London: Walton and Maberly, 1861), 691-692.
SMITH, R. E., The Aristocratic Epoch in Latin Literature (Sydney: Australasian Medical
Publishing Company, 1947).
SMITH, R. R. R., The Monument of C. julius Zoilos (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern,
1994).
-, 'The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias', ]RS 77 (1987): 88-138.
-, 'Simulacrum Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias', ]RS 78 (1988):
50-77.
SMITH, W., (ed.), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology Vol. III (London: Walton and Maberly, 1861).
SouTER, A, 'A Probable Fragment of Cicero's De Gloria', CR 46/4 (1932): 151-152.
SPENCE, S., The Parting of the Ways: 1he Roman Church as a Case Study (Leuven I Dudley:
Peeters, 2004).
SPICQ, rrapoucr[a, in id., Theological Lexicon of the New Testament III (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994): 53-55.
368
Bibliography
-, cr~w, crwT~p, <JWTJ]p[a, crwT~pto<;;, in id., Lexicon III (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1994): 344-357.
SPRINKLE, P., "The Afterlife in Romans: Understanding Paul's Glory Motif in Light of the
Apocalypse of Moses and 2 Baruch', in M. Labahn and M. Lang (Hrsg.), Lebendige Hoff-
nung - ewiger Tod?! Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum

(Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008), 201-233.
STANLEY, C. D., 'Literacy and Illiteracy in Early Christianity', www.lamp.ac.uk!trs/
research_institute/ conferences/ stanley_illiteracy_paper. doc- (accessed October 2009).
STANTON, G. N., Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
STAUFFER, E., Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches (London: SCM, 1955).
STEIMLE, C., Religion im romischen 7hessaloniki: Sakraltopographie, Kult und Gesellschaft
168 v.Chr.-324 n.Chr. (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).
STEIN, B., Der BegriffKebod Jahweh und seine Bedeutung fiir die alttestamentliche Gotteserkenntnis (Munster /Westfalia: Heinrich & J. Lechte, 1939).
STEIN, R. H., 'The Argument of Romans 13:1-7', NovT 31/4 (1989): 325-343.
STEVENSON, S. W., A Dictionary ofRoman Coins (rev. F. W. Fairholt, London: Seaby, 1964).
STEVENSON, T., 'Visual Images of Augustus', in B. Marshall (ed.), Res Romanae: Essays on
Roman History (Macquarie University: Macquarie Ancient History Association, 2009),
153-180.
STEVENSON, T. R., 'The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman
Thought', CQ 42/2 (1992): 421-436.
STILL, T. D., Conflict at 7hessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbours (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999).
-, 'Eschatology in the Thessalonian Letters', RevExp 96/2 (1999): 195-210.
STOWERS, S. K., A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994).
STRELAN, R., Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1996).
STRONG, T., 'God's kabod: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of Ezekiel', in M.S. Odell
and J. T. Strong (eds.), 7he Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 69-95.
STUBBS, M.A., 'Subjection, Reflection, Resistance: A Three-Dimensional Process of Empowerment in Romans 13 and the Free-Market Economy', in D. L. Tiede ( ed. ), SBL 1999
Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 375-403.
STUHLMACHER, P., Das paulinische Evangelium I: Vorgeschichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck,
1968).
-, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).

SYME, R., 7he Roman Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939).
-, 7he Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).
-, Tacitus. Volumes 1 & 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958).
-, History in Ovid (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978).
TAUBES, J., 7he Political Theology ofPaul (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004: Gmn.
orig. 1993).
TAYLOR, J. E., 'Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea', NTS 52/4 (2006):
555-582.
TAYLOR, L.R., 'The Worship of Augustus in Italy During His Lifetime', TAPA 60 (1920):
116-133.
-, 7he Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown: American Philological Association,

1931).
Bibliography
369
TELLBE, M., Paul between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews and Civic Authorities in 1
Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001).
TERRIEN, S., The Elusive Presence: Ihe Heart of Biblical Theology (San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1983).
THATE, M. J., 'Paul at the Ball: Ecclesia Victor and the Cosmic Defeat of Personified Evil in
Romans 16:20', in S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul's World (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007), 151-169.
THESLEFF, H., An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period (Abo:
Abo Akedemi, 1961).
-, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (Abo: Abo Akademi, 1965).
THIELMAN, F., 'The Story of Israel and the Theology of Romans 5-8', in D. M. Hay and
E.E. Johnston (eds.), Pauline Theology Volume III, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995), 169-195.
THOMPSON, M., Clothed with Christ: Ihe Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:115:3 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991).
TIEDE, D. L., Jesus and the Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
ToNER, J., Popular Culture in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Polity, 2009).
ToOMBS, L. E., 'Throne', in G. A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible.
Volume 4: R-Z (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 636-637.
TowNER, P. H., 'Romans 13:1-7 and Paul's Missiological Perspective: A Call to Political
Quietism or Transformation?', inS. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (eds.), Romans and
the People of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 149-169.
TowNSEND, T., 'II Thessalonians 2:3-12', in P. J. Achtemeier (ed.), Society ofBiblical Literature 1980 Seminar Papers (Chico: Scholars, 1980), 233-250.
TOYNBEE, J. M. C., Death and Burial in the Roman World (Baltimore and London: Johns
Hopkins, 1971).
TRACEY, R., 'The Forum of Augustus: Where were the Statues?', in B. Marshall (ed.), Res
Romanae: Essays on Roman History (Macquarie University: Macquarie Ancient History
Association, 2009), 131-152.
TREBILCO, P., The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Tiibingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2004).
TREu, M., 'Zur dementia Caesars', MH 5/4 (1948): 197-217.
TRILLING, W., Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Ihessalonicherbrief(Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag
GMBH, 1972).
ThoMPF, G. W., The Idea ofHistorical Recurrence in Western Thought: From Antiquity to the
Reformation (Berkeley I Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979 ).
TucKETT, C.M., 'Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians?', in R.F. Collins (ed.), The Ihessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 160-182.
TuRNER, N., 'Antiochus', in G.A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
Volume 1: A-D (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 150.
TYsoN, J.B., Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 1992).
VANDER HoRST, P. W., Philo ofAlexandria. Philo's Flaccus: The First Pogrom. Introduction,
Translation and Commentary (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003).
VANDERKAM, J. C., From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2004).
VANDER TooM, K., (et al., ed.), The Dictionary ofDeities and Demons in the Bible (Grand
370
Bibliography
VAN IMSCHOOT, P., Theologie de /'ancien testament. Tome 1: Dieu (Tournai [Belg.]: Desch!e
&Co, 1954).
VERSNEL, H. S., Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the
Roman Triumph (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).
VEYNE, P., Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (London: Penguin, 1990: Fr. Orig. 1976).
VIARD, A., Saint Paul: Epitre aux Romains (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1975).
VICKERS, M., 'Hellenistic Thessaloniki', JHS 92 (1972): 156-170.
VoM BROCKE, C., Thessaloniki: Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus (Tiibingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001).
VoN RAD, G., 'kabod in the OT', in G. Kittel (ed.), TDNT II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964): 238-242.
Vos, G., The Pauline Eschatology (rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).
WAGNER, J. R., Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul 'in Concert' in the Letter to the
Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
WALLACE-HADRILL, A., 'The Emperor and His Virtues', Historia 30 (1981): 298-323.
-, 'Image and Authority in the Coinage of Augustus', IRS 76 (1986): 66-87.
-, Time for Augustus: Ovid, Augustus and the Fasti', in M. Whitby (et al., ed.), Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol: Bristol Classical, 1987), 221-230.
-, 'The Golden Age and Sin in Augustan Ideology', P&P 95/1 (1982): 19-36.
WALTERS, J. C., Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-Definitions in
Earliest Roman Christianity (Valley Forge: Trinity International, 1993).
WALTON, S., 'The State They Were in: Luke's View of the Roman Empire', in P. Oakes (ed.),
Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 1-41.
WANAMAKER, C. A., 'Apocalypticism at Thessalonica', Neot 21/1 (1987): 1-10.
-, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990).
WARE, P., 'The Coming of the Lord: Eschatology and 1 Thessalonians', ResQ 22 1/2 (1979):
109-120.
WARMINGTON, B. H., Nero: Reality and Legend (London: Chatto & Windus, 1981).
WARMINGTON, E. H., Remains of Old Latin: Archaic Inscriptions (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1953).
WEATHERLY, J. A., 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Joplin: College Press, 1996).
WEAVER, P.R. C., Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).
WEINSTOCK, S., Divus Julius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971).
WEISS, K., nm)<;, G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNTVI (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1968): 624-631.
WENDLAND, P., Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und
Christentum (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1907).
WENGST, K., Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
WELBORN, L. L., Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition (London/New York: T & T Clark, 2005).
-, '"Extraction from the Mortal Site": Badiou on the Resurrection in Paul', NTS 55/3
(2009): 295-314.
WELLES, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (Chicago: Ares Publishers,
1934).
Bibliography
371
WHITBY, M., (et al., ed.), Homo Viator: Classical Essays for john Bramble (Bristol: Bristol
Classical, 1987).
WHITE, J. L., The Apostle ofGod: Paul and the Promise ofAbraham (Peabody: Hendrickson,
1999).
WHITE, P., 'Bookshops in the Literary Culture of Rome', in WA. Johnston and H. N. Parker
(eds.), Ancient Literacies: Ihe Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford/New
York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 268-285.
WHITELEY, D. E. H., Thessalonians in the Revised Standard Version (London: Oxford University Press, 1969).
WIEFEL, W, 'The Jewish Community in Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity',
in K. P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate; Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1991), 89-92.
WIG TIL, D. W, 'The Translator of the Greek Res Gestae of Augustus', AlP 103/2 (1982):
189-194.
-, 'The Ideology of the Greek "Res Gestae"', ANRW II 30/1 (1982): 624-638.
WILCKENS, U., Rechtfertigung als Freiheit: Paulusstudien (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974).
WILKINSON, S., Caligula (London and New York: Routledge, 2005).
WILSON, W T., The Hope of Glory: Education and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Colossians
(Leiden: Brill, 1997).
WINTER, B. W, 'The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13:3-4 and
1 Peter 2:14-15',/SNT34 (1988): 87-103.
-, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians and Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1994).
-, After Paul Left Corinth: Ihe Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001).
-, 'Roman Law and Society in Romans 12-15', in P. Oakes (ed.), Rome in the Bible and the
Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 67-102.
-, Seizing the Throne: Ihe Imperial Cult and Pagan, jewish and Early Christian Responses
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming).
WIRSZUBSKI, C., Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early
Principate (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1968).
WISEMAN, T. P., 'Calpurnius Siculus and the Claudian Civil War', IRS 72 (1982): 57-67.
-,Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
WITHERINGTON III, B., jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New
Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992).
-, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2004).
-, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2006).
-, Letters and Homilies for Hellenised Christians. Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 john (Downers Grove: IVP I Apollos, 2006).
WwsoK, A., (Hrsg.), Romischer Kaiserkult (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978).
WooD , S., 'Rus in Urbe: The domus aurea and Neronian horti in the City of Rome', The
School of Historical Studies Postgraduate Forum e-journal (University of Newcastle upon

Tyne) 3 (2004): 1-11.
372
Bibliography
WooLF, G., 'Literacy', in A. K. Bowman ( et al., ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History Volume
11/2: The High Empire AD 70-192 (2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000), 875-897.
-,'Literacy or Literacies in Rome?', in WA. Johnston and H.N. Parker (eds.), Ancient
Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 46-68.
WRIGHT, N. T., 'Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire', in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics:
Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000), 160-183.
-, 'A Fresh Perspective on Paul?', BJRL 83 (2001): 21-39.
-, 'Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans', in C. Bartholemew (ed.), A Royal Priesthood: The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 173-193.
-, 'The Letter to the Romans', in anon. (ed.), The New Interpreter's Bible Volume X (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 395-770.
-, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003).
-, Paul: Fresh Perspectives (London: SPCK, 2005).
WRIGHT, R. B., 'Psalms of Solomon (First Century BC): A New Translation and Introduction', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Volume 2 (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 639-670.
YAMAUCHI, E., Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (London:
Tyndale, 1973).
YARBROUGH, R. W, 'Paul and Salvation History', in D. A. Carson (et al., ed.), Justification
and Variegated Nomism. Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 297-342.
YEE, T-L. N., Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul's Jewish Identity and Ephesians
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
ZACHOS , K. L., 'The tropaeum of the Sea-Battle of Actium at Nikopolis: Interim Report',
JRA 16 (2003): 64-92.
ZANKER, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990).
ZIESLER, J., Paul's Letter to the Romans (London: SCM, 1989).
ZuNTZ, G., Aion, Gott des Romerreichs (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1991).
-, AION im Romerreich: Die archiiologischen Zeugnisse (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1991).
-, Aion in der Literatur der Kaiserzeit (Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1992).
Index of Passages
Old Testament
Genesis
1-3
1:1
1:26a
1:26b
1:28
1:31
2:7
3:15
3:17-18
3:17-19
3:20
12:3
18:18
22:18
25:1-6
26:4
27:29
28:14
31:1
32:22-32
35:1-15
35:18
45:13
49:18
257
235
257
257
257
114
303
161
156
114
161
301
301
301
305
301
301
301
233
239
239
244
233
301
Exodus
14:4
14:7
14:18
15:11
16:7
16:10
19:5-6
19:10-18
20:3-4
263
263
263
233
233
233
301
60
257
23:7
24:16-17
24:38-45
28:5-11
33:12-23
33:18
33:18-22
33:18-23
33:19
33:20-22
33:22
34:29-30
34:39-35
34:35
40:34
40:35
192
233
203
251
233,246
260
233
250
234,259
260
234
234
246
234
234
234
Leviticus
9:6
9:23
234
234
Numbers
14:10
14:21
14:22
16:19
16:42
20:6
234
235
234
234
234
234
Deuteronomy
4:15-18
4:16-18
5:4
8:5
15:6
32:2
257
264
233
242
301
60
374
32:43
33:2
33:17
Index of Passages
260
250
301
1 Samuel
2:8
4:21-22
5:1-7:1
12:13-15
15:30
252
234
234
301
235
2Samuel
2:25
7:11-16
7:11b-16
7:14
12:8
22:50
91
301
246
146, 147
301
260
1 Kings
3:9-13
8:10
21:13
301
234
91
1 Chronicles
16:24
16:29
29:11
235
235,263
233
2 Chronicles
5:14
7:1
7:2
7:3
20:6
234
234
234
234
301
Job
2:9
62
Psalms
2:7
2:8-9
3:3
4:2
8
8:5
9:4
11:4
146,147,301
149
235
235,257
235
235
238
94,238
18:4(17:5)
18:6
18:49(17:50)
19
19(18):1
19:1-4
21(20):5-6
24
24(23):7-10
29(28):2
29(28):3
29(28):9
31:15
45:6
57(56):5
57(56):11
57(56):11b
63(62):2
66(65):2
68:29-35
69:9a( 68:1 Oa)
72:8
72:8-9
72(71):19
73(72):24
79:9
85(84):9
86:9
87(88):23
89:1-4
89:3-4
89:29
89:35-37
91:13
96(95):3
96:8
97(96):6
102(101):16
104
104(103):31
105:20
106
106(105):20
108(107):5
110:1
113(112):4
117(116):1
91
94
260
235
235
115
235
235
235
235,263
235
234
91
301
235
235
235
234,235
235
301
260
301
149
235
235
263
234
301
91
301
246
246
246
161
235
263
235
235
235
235
264
257
109,235,257
235
116, 149
235
260
Index of Passages
Proverbs
1:7
8:15-16
9:10
15:33
21:1
25:2
25:6
248
301
248
248
301
263
242
Ecclesiastes
8:2
8:2-6
304
301
Isaiah
6:1
6:1-3
6:2
6:3
8:7
9:7
10:5-11
11:1-9
11:1-16
11:6-9
11:10
13:5
14:13-14
15:10
16:5
17:3-4
22:23
24:15
24:21
25:6-8
26:15
26:19
27:9
40:4
40:5
40:13
42:1
42:4b
42:6-7
42:8
43:7
44:23
44:28-45:5
45:1
252
238
238
234,235,238
233
246
301,302
149
101
103
10,149,261
301
73,87,94
101
246
234
252
235
301
301
235
235
102
236
235
149
223
260
260
235,263
235,263
235
302
301
45:1-4
45:13
48:11
49:3
49:5
49:6
49:7
50:10
50:20-21
52:13
52:15
53:11
56:7
58:8
59:16-18
59:19
59:20-21
60:1
60:1-14
60:2-3
60:3-11
60:7
60:13
62:2
64:11
65:17
66:1
66:18-19
66:18-21
66:19-21
66:22
375
301
301
235
223
223
223,260
223
223
149
223
260
223
301
235
62,68
235
102
235
241
235
301
234,252
235
235
234
156
94,238
235
235
156
Jeremiah
2:11
3:17
6:14
8:11
14:21
17:25
23:1-4
25:9
27:6-11
27:6-15
29:4-9
29:7
31:31-34
31:33-34
235,257,264
238
61
61
237,238,
252
246
301
301
301
301
302
301
154
102
376
33:17
50:25
Index of Passages
246
301
Ezekiel
1:1-28
1:4-28
1:22
1:26
1:26-27
1:28
3:23
8:2
9:3
10:4
10:18
11:19
13:10
28:1-2
28:2
28:5
28:6
28:11
28:17
28:22
36:26-27
37:14
39:21
40-48
43:1-3
43:2
43:5
43:7
44:4
250
238
238
238
234
238,252
234
234
234
234
234,252
154
61
85,94
73
85
85
85
85
235
154
154
235
234,250
251
235
234
238
234
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
74
238
238
301
74
246
59
92
59,92
74,85,94
72
77
59,92
Hosea
4:7
9:11
10:3
10:5
235,257
235,257
301
235,257
Micah
7:12
301
Nahum
3:6-7a
240
Habbakuk
1:6-2:20
2:4
2:14
2:20
301
154
233,235
94
Haggai
2:4
2:8
Daniel
2:21
2:34-35
2:37-38
4:17
4:25
4:31
5:21
7-12
7:9
7:9-10
7:14
7:24-25
7:27
10:13
10:13b
10:21
11:36
11:36-39
11:38-39
12:1
235
235
Zechariah
2:5
2:11
8:21-23
9:10
14:16
235
301
301
301
Index ofPassages
377
Apocrypha
2Maccabees
Baruch
1:11
1:11-12
5:1
5:1-9
5:2
5:4
5:5-9
5:6b
5:7
5:7b
5:9
5:9a
301
307
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
Additions to Daniel
Prayer ofAzariah
1:3
1:22
1:31
236
236
236
2:8
2:19-21
2:21
3
3:3
3:23
5:11-17
5:16
5:20
7:37-38
9:8
14:1-15:37
14:6
14:15
15:27
15:34
87
236
87
58
88
248
87
76
236
236
192
76
87
266
87
58,88
88
3Maccabees
1 Esdras
1:33
4:59
5:61
9:8
248
236
236
236
2:9
2:14
2:16
5:8
5:51
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
4Maccabees
87,88
88,236
236
236
58
58,88
2 Esdras
4:2
6:9
7:13
7:47
7:122-123
8:1
9:19
Judith
9:8
1:12
7:9
11:7
12:11
12:11-14
17:12
18:12
18:24
236
248
62
301
301
210
250
237
236
Sirach
1 Maccabees
1:40
1:51
2:8
2:26
2:54
14:35
15:9
236
248
236
250
250
248
236
1:11
1:19
4:13
4:17
6:29
6:31
10:4
10:19
248
249
249
301
249
249
301
248
378
10:22-24
10:40
12.1-2
14:27
17:17
19:20
24:1-12
24:1-29
24:16
24:17
27:8
36:1-3
40:27
43:33b
44-50
44:1
44:1-2
44:1-49:16
44:1-50:29
45:2
45:3
45:20
45:23
45:24
47:6
47:8
47:11
47:13
47:19-21
48:15-16
49:4-7
Index of Passages
248
301
194
249
301
248
249
248
249
249
249
247
248
248
248
248
248
249
247,248
250
250
250
250
250,251
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
49:5
49:8
49:11-13
49:12
49:16
50:1-21
50:1-24
50:1b-4
50:11
50:12-21
50:13
50:24
250,257,263
250
250,251
251
239,248
247
249,250
249
251
251
251
251
Tobit
13:14
13:16
14:5
17:11
17:15
236
236
237
237
237
Wisdom of Solomon
1:12-16
2:23
2:23-24
6:1-5
6:3-5
7:25
9:10
10:14
15:9
18:24
109
210
109
301
301
236
237
236
236
248
Pseudepigrapha
Ascension of Isaiah
4:11
73
11:2
13:4
16:4
238
238
238
2Baruch
40:1-3
82:4-9
82:9
301
301
301
3 Baruch
4:16
6:12
7:2
239,265
238
238
1 Enoch
10:4
10:11-12
13:1-2
14:19
38:2
45:1-3
46:5
161
161
161
266
56
238
301
379
Index of Passages
46:5-6
48:8-9
49:4
55:3-4
53:8
61:8
62:1-6
62:12
69:29
102:3
301
301
56
238
301
238
238
301
238
266
2Enoch
20:1
32:1
252
56
3 Enoch
1:6
1:10
1:12
238
238
238
4Ezra
4:26-32
4:29ff
7:45-51
7:87
7:98
8:21
8:31ff
15:20-21
109
108
109
238,240
238
238,263
108
301
Greek Apocalypse of Ezra

3:3
58
3:8
238
Jubilees
1:27-28
1:29-2:1
5:6
10:7-11
23:29
239
250
161
161
161
Ladder ofJacob
2:7
238
2:15
238
2:20
238
Letter of Aristeas
45
301
187-300
190
191-192
193
196-197
206
207
209-210
211
215
219
224
226-227
234
243-247
248
254
276
280
281
290
292
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
301
301
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
Life of Adam and Eve

264
20:2
21:6
264
33:5
264
35:2
264
43:4
238
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
9:33-36
238
9:37
238
10:2
238
Psalms of Solomon
1:7-8
76
251
2
252,302
2:1-2
302
2:1-3
2:2-3
76
2:3-5
252
2:5
252
252
2:6-10
252
2:11-14
2:15-21
252
2:18-21
252
2:19
252
380
2:26-27
2:29-33
2:31
8
8:8-13
8:8-17
8:14-17
8:18
8:18-22
11
17
17:4-7
17:5-6
17:5-7
17:7-8
17:11
17:11-15
17:11-17
17:13
17:15
17:18
17:21
17:21-28
17:21-44
17:21-46
17:30
17:30-32
17:32
17:37
17:40
18:1
18:5-10
18:5a
18:7
Index of Passages
251
302
253
251
252
302
252
61
252
236
251,252,253,262
302
252
253
252
85,91
76,86
252
302
302
91
253
253
253
149
149
254,260,261
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
QuesHons of Ezra
A21
238
Testament of Abraham
56
56
13:4
13:6
Testament of Asher
7:2-3
76
Testament of Dan
6
250
Testament ofJob
24:1
62
Testament ofJudah
22:2
56
Testament of Levi
2:6-3:5
3:4
3:5-7
3:8
5:1
14:15
18:12
238
238,266
237
252
238
56
161
Testament of Moses
8:1
302
Testament of Simeon
6:6
161
Rabbinic Literature
Mishnaic tractates and related literature
m.Abot
3:2
3:5
307
305
b. feb.
65b
242
b. Shabb.
33b
305,307
b. i\bod. Zar.
4a
18a
302,307
302
b.Zeb.
102a
302,307
381
Index of Passages
Other rabbinic works
Num.Rab.
Tan. B.
Noah
4.20
242
19b-20a
242,259
Anthology of rabbinic literature

Montefiore and Loewe, A Rabbinic
Anthology
SifreDeut.
32, 73b
SifreLev.
5.17[120a]
108
1358
1530
304,307
242
242
Qumran
lQH
IV, 15
IX, 10
XIV, 12
XV,24
XVI,20
XVII,23-25
XVIII, 11
XIX, 10
XIX,26-27
XX,22
XX,29
XX,30
2,XXIII,4
239
240
241
240
239
241
240
240
241
240
240
240
240
lQpHab
II, 11-13
II, 12-13
III, 5-6
III,8
III,10-14
III, 11-12
IV, 2-5
IV, 5-9
IV, 10-14
VI, 5-7
VI, 7-9
VII, 13-14
XII, 7-9
304
304
304
31
304
31
304
304
304
304
304
300
77,86
XII,2
XII,8
XVII, 5-6
240
240
161
lQS
II, 19
IV, 22-23
VIII, 4
VIII, 12
IX,3
IX,12-13
IX,16-17
IX,21-23
X,3
X, 12
X,20
300
239,263
300
300
300
300
304
304
240
240
240
lQSa
II, 11-12
IV, 7-8
146
240
4QS<i
2 IV, 8
240
4Q161
VIII-X
149
8-10 III, 17-21 241
4Q169
4-5
240
lQM
I, 1-9
IV, 6
X,12
304
240
240
4Q174
1-3 I, 5
5
241
239
382
Index of Passages
4Q377
9-10
240
4Q400
11,4
1 I, 7-9
239
239
4Q403
I, 3
41,44-47
4Q405
20-22 II, 8-9
4Q416
2 II, 18
4Q448
A,6-8
4Q491
11 I, 18
240
241
4Q504
III,4
IV, 1-12
8 VII, 7
240
241,260,261
239
4Q511
2 I, 8
2 I, 9-10
241
240
4Q521
146
240
llQPs
XXII,4-6
241
llQ'P
XXIX.7-10
239
CD
IV, 12-19
77
250
240
240
241
New Testament
Matthew
22:21
23:11-12
24:4
24:10
24:12
24:15
24:27
24:31
25:1
25:6
316
223
73
73
73
73
51
51
60
51,60
Mark
10:37
10:43-45
12:13-17
12:17
13:12a
13:14
13:21-22
13:35-37
256
223
310
305,316
32
73,90,91
90,91
51
13:36
14:36
15:39
51
333
53
Luke
1:58
2:44
4:16-22
10:18-19a
14:12
20:25
21:16
22:25
22:26-27
22:27-28
24:21
255
255
255
161
255
316
255
305
305
223
256
John
6:15
13:12-16
18:26
256
223
255
Index of Passages
19:12b
21:22-23
189
90
Acts
1:6
2:10
2:36
2:46
3:1
3:8
5:19-21
5:29
5:33
7:38
7:59-8:3
9:1
9:1-2
10:24
11:28
12:1-3
13:14-50
13:14-51
13:33
13:47
14:5
14:19
14:21-23
15:4
15:6-7
16:19-24
16:20-21
16:21
16:21-38
17:1-9
17:1-10
17:1-15
17:2
17:4
17:5
17:5-6
17:5-8
17:6-7
17:6-8
17:6-9
17:7
17:7a
17:9
17:13
256
321
147
93
93
93
93
323
49
250
49
49
88
255
327
49
24,336
152
147
223
49
49,323
152
48
48
49
320
2,54
203
53, 71
48,54
54
48
48
48,54
54
48, 144
89
86
54,90,320
13,35,52,54, 327
48
49
54
17:23
18:1-3
18:2
18:8
18:10
18:14-15
18:18
18:18-19
18:18-21
18:24-26
19:1
19:22-24
19:38
22:3
25:25
22:25-29
22:30
23:29
25:19-20
25:24-26
28:30-31
Romans
1:1-6
1:1-17
1:2
1:2-4
1:2-5
1:2-6
1:3
1:3-4
1:3a
1:3b
1:4
1:4-5
1:4-6
1:4a
1:5
1:5-6
1:6-7
1:7
1:13
1:13-14
1:13-17
383
25,204
164,256
43,54, 166,169,186,256
204
204
320
204
166
164,256
164,166,256
256
49
49
88
52
203
320
320
320
320
109
145,261
10, 11
152,262
95, 102, 147, 150, 167,
187,328
321,335
146,333
195
8, 110,147,194,274
146
146
36,42, 101,146,147,
149,176,194,196,267,
322
7
274
146
36, 148, 150, 152, 165,
195,267,322
149,254
322
165
153,254
36
322
384
1:13b
1:14
1:14-17
1:16
1:16-11:31
1:16b
1:17
1:17b
1:18ff
1:18-31
1:18-3:20
1:18-3:23
1:19-20
1:20
1:20-21
1:20-29
1:20b
1:21
1:21-23
1:21-25
1:21a
1:22-27
1:23
1:23a
1:25
1:25b
2:2
2:5-16
2:6b
2:7
2:10
2:11
2:16
2:17
2:17-24
2:23
2:25-29
3:1-4
3:1-8
3:2
3:3
3:3-6
3:5
3:7
3:21
Index of Passages
145
151,167,197,322
334
148,152,256,262,274
308
93,197
312
154
11
276
109,262
191
195
114, 159, 203
195
263
257,264
264,333
35, 189
257
257
318
7, 11, 95, 109, llO, 145,
203,257,263,264,265,
266
114
116
195
312
312
11
116,203,209,210,258,
263,264
203,210,258,264
196
llO, 264
151
336
151,264
154
256
264
197
264
264
264
203,264
117,157
3:23
3:23-26
3:24
3:24-26
3:25
3:25-26
3:26
3:27
3:27-31
3:27a
3:28-30
3:29-30
4:1
4:1-25
4:2
4:4-5
4:5
4:9-15
4:10-12
4:11-12
4:11-13
4:1l-18
4:1lb-12
4:15
4:16
4:16-18
4:16-19
4:16a
4:17b
4:18
4:18a
4:20
4:23-25
4:24-25
4:25
4:25a
5:1
5:1-5
5:1-11
5:2
5:2a
5:2b
5:3
5:3-5
5:4
109,189,203,258,264,
265,335,336
11
165
312
187,198,262,267,322
196,265
117,192
151,152,154,225,265
336
265
262,322
145, 197
266
332
151
187
192, 196
262
145
197,308,322
321
187
194
154
165,308
194,197,258,266,321,
322
145
188
195
308
188
188,203,258,266
187,258,335
101, 194, 196
167
176
95, 162, 163, 198
186
45,164,170,185,197
165,189,198,203,258,
263
187,258
188,189,258,263
188,225,265
198
225,265
Index ofPassages
5:5
5:5-10
5:5a
5:5b
5:6
5:6ff
5:6-7
5:6-8
5:6-9
5:6-10
5:6-11
5:6a
5:6b
5:7
5:7ff.
5:7a
5:7b
5:8
5:8a
5:8b
5:9
5:10a
5:10-11
5:11
5:12
5:12-14
5:12-14b
5:12-21
5:12a
5:14
5:14a
5:14b
5:15
5:15-21
5:15b
5:15b-16a
5:15c
5:16
5:16a
5:16b
5:17
5:17a
188, 189, 190, 193

193
189
189
108,117,146,160,190,
191,192,321,333
192
191, 192
39,165,167,168,170
190, 191
8, 11, 12, 333
8
190
190,192,333
191,193,267
11
191, 192
191, 192, 193
153, 160, 190, 191, 193,
196
189
189,190,333
160
160,190,333
195, 196
225,265
114
114
110
9, 95, 101, 108, 115, 146,
159, 161, 162, 166, 167,
168,187,191,239,263,
274,322,332,333
258
6, 108, 109, 114
191,258
115,258
108,165,187,198
8
187,258
115
258
198
258
258
6,108,109, 114,116,
165
191,258
5:17b
5:18
5:18-19
5:18a
5:18b
5:19a
5:19b
5:20
5:20a
5:20b
5:21
5:21a
5:21b
6:1
6:1-10
6:1-13
6:3-10
6:4
6:4a
6:4b
6:5
6:5b
6:8b-9
6:9
6:9ff.
6:11
6:11-14
6:12
6:12-23
6:13
6:14
6:14b
6:15
6:19
6:19ff
6:20
6:22
6:22-23
7:4
7:5
7:6
385
109, 115, 170, 187, 190,
198,258
114
115,312
258
194,258
258
258
108,115,161,165,274
258
115,198,258
6,108, 109,114,115,
116, 145, 165, 170, 190,
191,321
258
101,109,110,154,198,
258
165
11, 195
154
116
65, 101, 146, 186, 190,
194,203,259,263,267,
333
153, 154
115,116,153,154,267
145
101
101
115
11
154
116
154
9,53
154
108,115,146,165
154
165
312
11
162
117
116
11,194
154
65,117,146,154,157,
186,190,333
386
7:6b
7:7-25
7:24b-25a
7:24-25
8:1
8:1-13
8:2
8:2b-4
8:3
8:3b
8:4
8:4-6
8:4-11
8:5
8:6b
8:9
8:9b
8:9-11
8:10
8:11
8:11ff
8:12
8:12-25
8:13-16
8:14
8:14-16
8:15
8:15-25
8:15a
8:15b
8:16
8:17
8:17-22
8:17b
8:18
8:18-19
8:18-23
8:18-25
8:18-39
8:18b
8:18b-19
8:20
8:20-21
8:20b
Index ofPassages
101,115,116,154,321
154
116
101, 145
157
154
154
196
11,146
194
101
116
267
41
101
116
101
116
116
101, 116, 148, 153,
194
11
30
167
116
116
101, 148, 195
308,321,333
321
188,267
267
116
148,195,203,259,267,
268
259
189
117,157,189,192,198,
203,259,266
101
6, 10, 164,268
8, 100, 128, 146, 156,
157,333,334
322
157
198
114, 156, 158
109
158
8:21
8:21-23
8:21a
8:21b
8:22
8:22b
8:23
8:23a
8:23b
8:23b-24a
8:24a
8:25
8:25a
8:25b
8:26-28
8:26-30
8:27
8:28
8:29
8:29b
8:30
8:30b
8:31-35a
8:31-39
8:32
8:33
8:34
8:34-35
8:34-39
8:35
8:35a
8:35b
8:37
8:37-39
8:37b
8:37b-39
8:38-39
8:39
8:39b
9-11
9:1-5
9:3
9:3-4
9:3-5
116, 157, 158, 159, 198,

203,259
156
156
156,263
157,158,268
157
116, 145, 148
101, 157
156, 157
101
157, 198
198
157
157
101
195
116
149, 161
145,147,148,196,258,
264,311
322
156,157,160,189,203,
334
259
148
39,167,195,274
7,11
312
42, 101, 116, 194
7
195
7,32, 109,160,195,296,
314
160
145,159,169,334
138,160
7,145,146,333
160
160
109, 116, 158
7, 160
160
118,162
256
255
256
197
Index of Passages
9:4
9:5
9:5a
9:5b
9:10
9:10b
9:14-16
9:15
9:16-18
9:22
9:23
9:23a
9:23b
9:30-10:4
9:30a
9:31-32
9:31b
9:32a
9:32b
10:2
10:3b
10:4
10:4a
10:4b
10:8-13
10:9
10:11-12
10:12
10:13
10:14ff
11:1-2
11:1-5
11:5
11:5-6
11:6
11:13
11:13a
11:13b
11:15
11:17-21
11:17-22
11:17-24
11:18
11:18-24
11:23ff
11:24
11:24-30
93,203,259,266,274
116,145,195,266,335
258,267,322
256,267,322
195,266,308,321,322
197
308
259
259
93
203,260,266,308
259,266
266
145
150
336
150
150
150
150
150
146,150,197,267,322,
333,335
256
150,267
167
267,322
197
187,196
267,322
11
93,197,256
187
117, 149, 165
197
165
153,203,254,267,317
145
262
192
151,152,198,296
144,196
33,254
317
260
11
336
296
11:24b-32
11:25-26
11:25-32
11:25b
11:26
11:26-27
11:26-32
11:26b
11:28-29
11:30
11:30-32
11:31
11:33-36
11:35
11:36
12-15
12:1
12:1-2
12:1-21
12:1-15:32
12:1-15:33
12:1a
12:1b-2
12:2
12:3
12:3-7
12:3-8
12:3-10
12:3a
12:3b
12:4
12:4-8
12:5
12:5-8
12:6
12:7
12:8
12:8b-10a
12:9
12:9-10
12:9-21
12:9-13:7
12:10b
12:11
12:13
12:13ff
12:13a
12:13b
387
93
146,167,333
153
149
101,102,110,267
145,149,159,261
256
267,322
197
308
155,262,322
308
153, 195
187
116,203,257,263,268
10
30,155,308,312,322
33,276,321
309
36
7,155,323,326
196,308
308
116, 146, 154, 333
155,156,165,317
308
145,155
145
155
155
295
294
155, 197
309
155, 165
300
155,196,312,322
189
309
309,317
39,309
300
190
300
311
189
308,309
308,309
388
12:14
12:14-21
12:14-13:14
12:16
12:17
12:17-21
12:18
12:19-20
12:19-21
12:21
13
13:1
13:1a
13:1-7
13:1-13
13:1-14
13:1b
13:1c
13:2
13:2-3
13:2-3a
13:2a
13:2b
13:3
13:3-4
13:3-4a
13:3a
13:3b
13:4
13:4-5a
13:4a
13:4b
13:4b-5
13:5
13:5-7
13:5a
13:6
13:6-7
13:6b
13:7
13:7-8a
Index of Passages
196
155,309,320,323
309
317
309
196
163,196
309
309
309
296,300
145,271,302,310,334
28,32,323
8,9,28,36,59,69,73,
92,94,95, 155,169,186,
269,271,272,273,274,
275,276,277,300,301,
302,306,308,309,310,
313,320,326,329,334
8, 31,32
309
310,311
310
272,310
286
334
145,310
32,311,312
309,311
145,155,273,274
334
145,169,312
32,313
7,30,34, 109,145,195,
284,296,302,311
312
310,334
145,159,169,310,313,
315,334
286,334
28,310
145
323
30,145,284,310,311
110,202,271,272,323
334
94,190,316,334
189
13:7b
13:8
13:8-10
13:8-14
13:8a
13:8b
13:8c-10
13:9
13:9-10
13:11
13:11-12
13:11-12a
13:11-13
13:11-14
13:11-22
13:11a
13:11b
13:11c
13:12
13:12a
13:12h
13:13a
13:13b
13:13c
13:14a
14-15
14:1
14:1-2
14:1-8
14:1-23
14:1-15:13
14:2
14:2-3
14:4
14:5-6
14:5-6a
14:9
14:10
14:10a
14:10b
14:13
14:13-21
14:13a
14:14
14:14-17
35,155,311,313,317
189,316
30,309,316,317,322,
335
309
316
189,316
189
30,317
316
117,162,318
152,317
101,146,319,333,334
156,321
40,275,276,309,317,
318
95
317
317
317
323
317, 319
318,319
318
317
317
318
162
260,295,296
295
197
44
145,170,202,260,
309
295
295
260
261,295
144, 169
101, 167
312
260
101
296
261
260
295
295
Index of Passages
14:15
14:17b
14:20
14:20-21
14:23
15:1
15:1-8
15:3
15:3a
15:3b
15:5-7
15:6
15:7
15:7-8
15:7-9
15:7-13
15:7a
15:7b
15:8
15:8-9
15:8-9a
15:8-12
15:8-13
15:9
15:9-11
15:9-12
15:9a
15:9b-15
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12a
15:13
15:14-20
15:15
15:15-16
15:15-19
15:15-20
15:16b
15:16c
15:18
15:18-29
15:19
15:19a-24
15:20-21
11, 189
163
295
295
295
295
322
176,260
260
260
197,262
203,260,261
203,260,267,296
11
151, 196
10,274
261
261
102,256
176,196,334
194
36, 187, 296, 322
195
203,260,261
149,261
149,260,274
267
149
260,261
10,260,261
101, 110, 145, 146, 167,
176,195,254,261,267,
274,321,322,333,334,
335
149
101,148
36
165,312
153
322
256
262
262
149
322
101, 148, 168
332
196
15:22-33
15:23-24
15:24
15:25
15:25-33
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28b-29
15:31
15:33
16:1-2
16:2
16:3
16:3-4
16:3-5a
16:5a
16:5b
16:7
16:8
16:9
16:9a
16:10
16:10b
16:10-11
16:11
16:11b
16:12
16:15
16:17-18
16:17-20a
16:17a
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:23-24
16:25
16:25-26
16:25-27
16:25b
16:26
16:26a
16:26b
16:26c
389
322
196
24
311
311
311
311
36
196
311
162
164,186
189
166,256
164,186,256
186,296
256,320
186
255,295
189
169
186
169,296
144, 168
202,317
255,296
21, 144, 168
169
169
161
161
162
94,101,109,110,137,
146, 156, 163, 165, 167,
319,321,333
255
161
321
164
152
102,261,322
100, 116, 145, 146, 151,
152,153,176,187,333
100, 152
262,274
100, 152
100, 152, 195
100
390
16:27
16:27a
16:27b
Index of Passages
100,116,152,195,203,
257,263,268
152
152
1 Corinthians
1:11
1:18-25
1:18-29
1:18-31
1:20
1:23
1:24
1:28-29a
1:30
2:6
2:6-8
2:8
2:8b
5:7
5:9-10
6:12-20
7:1
7:1a
7:5
7:11-14
7:26
7:29-31
8-10
8:1
8:1a
8:1-11:1
8:4-6
8:5
8:5-6
8:6
8:9
8:10
8:11
8:12
9:13-18
9:22
10:1-4
10:6-8
10:7
10:7-8
10:11
186
333
115
39
278
176
249
225
249
7, 109
278,318
7,109,204,249,259,334
256
65
186
330
186
25
162
318
90
276
6
186
25
54,337
167,278
42,110,167
8, 25, 35, 81, 95, 144,
269,328
159
295
25,35,95,144,167
295
295
328
295
256
35
25,35
330
115,256
10:11b
10:14
10:14-22
10:19-20
10:21-22
10:28
11:1
11:25
12:1
12:12
12:21-26
12:22
12:22-24
13:4
15:12-24
15:21-22
15:24
15:24-27
15:24-28
15:25-27
15:45-49
15:55-56
16:19
242
167
25,35,95,144
167
167
35
186
65,153
186
155
35
295
316
39
90
258
109
278
162
176
258
114
164,166,256
2 Corinthians
1:20
1:22
2:11
3:4-18
3:6
3:6-7
3:7
3:7-18
3:8
3:9
3:9b
3:10
3:10b
3:11
3:18
3:18b
4:4
4:4b-6
4:5
4:6
4:15
4:16-5:10
4:17
203
157
109, 162
115
65, 153
154
203
203,234,246,256
203,259
203
259
203
259
203
157,203,249,256,259
256
203,204
157
223
203,204
203
7
203
Index of Passages
5:5
5:17
5:21a
6:8
8:1-5
8:4
8:9
8:19
8:20
8:23
8:23b
9:6-15
9:12
9:13
11:3
11:13-15
11:14
11:16-12:10
11:29
12:7
13:4a
157
65, 115, 153, 186
176
203
328
311
39
203,311
311
203
256
39
311
203,311
109
163
109, 162
225
295
109, 162
176
Galatians
1:4
1:14
3:10-14
3:13
3:14b
3:19
4:3-9
4:4
4:4-6
4:6
4:8
4:8-10
6:9
6:15
115
88
333
176
333
250
7
108, 192
115
333
41
35,145
328
65, 115, 153, 186
Ephesians
1:3-14
1:20
1:20-23
2:2
2:15
3:14-22
4:15
4:24
4:27
25
116
7
109
65
152
155
65
109
6:12
6:16
391
109
109
Philippians
1:23
2:5-8
2:9-11
2:10
2:17
3:5-6
3:5-11
3:6
3:20-21
4:22
7
176
95, 176
109
223
266
225
88
95, 167
21, 144, 169, 202,
296
Colossians
1:15-16
2:3
2:12
2:13-14
2:14-15
3:1
3:4
3:10
4:16
159
248
153
333
7
116, 153
7
65
20,48
1 Thessalonians
1:1
1:3
1:5
1:6
1:8
1:9
1:9b
1:9-10
1:10
1:10a
2:1
2:2
2:4
2:5
2:5b
2:8
2:9
2:11
2:12
2:13-16
66
48,52,66
48,66
49,50,52,66,329
52
35,41,51,330
54
60,327
47,48,67,68,69,328
328
48
48,49,50,66,329
59,66
48
330
60,66
49,66,328,330
48
47,48,53,330
13
392
2:14
2:14-15
2:14-16
2:14-17
2:15
2:18
2:19
2:19-20
2:20
3:2
3:2-3
3:3
3:3a
3:3b-4
3:4
3:4-5
3:5-6
3:5b
3:7
3:7-8
3:8
3:9
3:11
3:12
3:13
3:14
4:1
4:2
4:3-5b
4:3-8
4:3-18
4:4
4:4-5
4:6
4:8
4:9
4:11-12
4:13
4:13-17
4:13-5:1
4:13-18
4:13-5:10
4:13-5:11
4:13a
4:14
4:14-18
Index of Passages
329
49,51
50,69
48
52
49,50,162
47,48,52,66
330
66
50,66
48
48
49
49
48,329
50
48
49
49
50
52
66
52
52
47,48,52,67,330
52
52
48,52
330
50,51
47
59
91
52
59
47,49
328,330
6,47,48,66,326
48
51
47,50,51,53,58
60,95
13, 14, 19,45,47,50,51,
56, 62, 63, 69, 72, 89,
167,276
50
330
328
4:14-5:11
4:14-5:15
4:14a
4:14b
4:15
4:15-16
4:15-17
4:15b
4:16
4:16-17
4:16b
4:17
4:17b
4:18
5:1
5:1-3
5:1-5
5:1-11
5:2
5:2-3
5:2b
5:3
5:3-4
5:3-7
5:3a
5:3b
5:4
5:4a
5:4b
5:5-11
5:5a
5:5b
5:6-8
5:6-8a
5:6a
5:6b
5:8
5:8b
5:8c
5:9
5:9-10
5:9-18
5:9a
5:9b
5:10
5:10a
7,327,329
31
47
47
47,50,51,52,56,58,60,
66
58
48,57,58
47,58
51,52,56,67
51,327,330
47
47,51,52,56,59,60,62
68
47
47,48,49
61
51
47
48,51,52,56,61
45,90,318
47
36,51,56,57,58,60,66,
327
58,89
51
48,61,68
47,62
51, 58,61
48
47
58
48,51
51
58
62
48
48
62,66,68
48,60,62
48
48,52,58,66
47,58
328
62,68,328
60,62
48,58,62,330
62,68
Index of Passages
S:lOb
5:11
5:12
5:14
5:18-19
5:19-22
5:20-21
5:23
5:23-24
5:27
5:28
2 Thessalonians
1:3-4
1:4
1:4-6
1:4-7
1:5-10
1:6-7
1:7-8
1:8
1:11-12
2:1-8
2:1-10
2:1-12
2:2
2:2-3
2:2a
2:2b
2:2c
2:3
2:3-4
2:3-8
2:3-12
2:3a
2:3b
2:4
2:5
2:6
2:6-7
2:6-8
2:6a
2:6b
2:7
62,68
58
52
330
66
89
61
47,52,66,328
68,330
20,48,52,89
52
89
329
89
so
68,328
329
67
66
330
69
45, 72, 74, 75,79,95,329
14,19,31
48,89,90,327,329
19
44,89
44,89,90
89,328
74, 75, 90, 91, 313
71, 73, 74,75, 77,85,86,
91,92
50, 75, 162
59
92
91,328
19,68, 72, 74, 73, 75, 77,
84,85,86,93,94, 163,
329
48,89,90
59,92,94
59
59
91,92,329
92,329
59,89,90,91,92,94,
313,329
2:7b
2:8
393
2:8-10
2:8-12
2:9-10
2:13
2:14
2:14b
2:15
2:15-16
2:16
2:16-17
2:17
3:3-5
3:6-13
3:6b
3:7-8
3:7a
3:8b
3:9a
3:12-13
3:14-15
3:17
3:17b
59,92,329
58,66,68, 72, 75,85,
86,87,90,91,313,328,
329
92
92,329
162
66
66
330
90
92
66,330
92
330
330
330
90
328
328
328
328
328
90
89
89
1 Timothy
2:5
335
2 Timothy
2:17-18
2:18
3:1
4:19
89
90
90
166
Hebrews
1:3
2:2
8:1
11:1-12:3
116
250
116
248
1 Peter
4:9
5:13
309
329
2 Peter
3:3-13
90
394
Index of Passages
1 John
4:3
Revelation
92
2fohn
7
10
89
89
2:13b
12:7
13:1ff
13:1-18
20;10
60
59
95
60,329
161
Index of Ancient Non-Literary Sources

BCH25 (1901), 275
57
BMCI
Augustus
127
305-308
492
655
679
151
136
137
134
136
Caligula
41 (Plate 28 No.6) 306
Claudius
Pl. 38
116
Nero
27 (Pl. 38 No. 21)
29 (Pl. 38 No. 22)
30 (Pl. 38 No. 23)
35 (Pl. 38 No. 27)
45 (Pl. 39 No. 8)
113
113
113
113
113
BMI
894
63-64,120,166,190
Braund, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook

on Roman History 31 BC-AD68
2
3 (Palatine
Anthology 6.236)
4 (Palatine
Anthology 6.553)
13
16
32
43
60
92
107
117
129
129
129
139
139
149
149
149
151
121
148
190
212
212a
212b
213
230
233
235
281
282
360
370
424
425
426
446
467
479
673
721
142
149
131, 133
131
133
121,319
142
142
142
142
229
229
228
229
228
229
229
229
142
229
Butcher, Roman Provincial Coins

47 Fig. 5.21
331
78
331
Carson, Principal Coins of the Romans
1250
294
Charbonneaux, Lf\.rt au Siecle d'Auguste
Pl.99c
137
Chisholm and Ferguson, Rome:
The Augustan Age. A Source Book

B41
B52a
B52b
D2c
N13e
N15b
316
322
313
318
131
131
396
CIA
II 482
III 444
CIJ
173
284
291
301
317
338
343
365
368
416
417
425
496
503
510
523
535
Index of Ancient Non-Literary Sources
65
65
XIII 17
XIII 61
Duliere, Lupa Romana

Terres Cuites
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
189
Monnaies
331
~13a
331
331
331
~15
~34a
Edgar and Hunt, Select Papyri
211
VI(l) 32.323
VI(l) 702
VI(l) 709
VI(l) 920
VI(l) 284
VI(l) 301
VI(l) 338
VI(l) 365
VI(l) 368
VI(l) 416
VI(l) 425
496
503
54
98,99
107
107
131
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
CPJ
II 153
81, 123
51
64
72
95
98a
98b
102
102a
105
300
320
352
318
170
81
142, 148
64, 125, 166, 189
59,63,88, 107,120,121,
139, 151, 152, 166, 188,
190
123
34,318
34,318
57
56,83
319
Had, Civic Coins and Civic Politics

72
331
74 Pl. 30.12
331
Hermann, Der romische Kaisereid
6
53
Hodot, 'Decret de Kyme en l'honneur
du Prytane Kleanax; The f. Paul Getty
Museumfournal10 (1982): 165-180.
Danker, Benefactor
17
123
Ehrenberg and Jones (eds), Documents

fllustrating the Reigns of Augustus and
Tiberi us
CIL
II 172
180
180
34
208
I. Cret.
Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae
XIII 13
XIII 14
224
180
IV272
130
Index ofAncient Non-Literary Sources

ID
IV 1504
208
I. Ephesos
Ia 6
II 251
VII 2 3801
208
58,88
204,226,266
IG
VII (2) 2712
208
[X] II/I 31
55
[X] II/I 130-133 55
XI [4]1061
208,266
397
I. Mylasa
110
208
I. Olympia
53
165
I. Pergamon
365
374
65
204
I. Priene
108
114
118
208
208
208
IGRR
IV 114
IV249
IV 1094
65
65, 142
65, 142
Jones and Milns, The Use of

Documentary Evidence
40D
81
I. Hadrianoi
24
65
IKorKent
266
170
204
204
IKosPH
391
86,88
131
Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of

Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups
Pl. 4 BR I:2
Pl. 5 BR I:2
Pl. 6 BR I:2
Pl. 10 BR II:2
Pl. 11 BR II:2
Pl.16BRII:2
138
138
138
137
137
137
Lefkowitz and Pant, Women's Life
ILS
13
50
51
53
54
56
59
112
137
157
217
244
5050
8393
224
173
174
174
173
174
173
103
67,115,137
130
131
279
98,99
111,293
I. Magnesia
61
208
in Greece and Rome

168
293
Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization.
Volume II: Selected Readings

521-523
526-527
123
123
Michel
236
515
1007
208
208
208
Mitford, 'A Cypriot Oath of Allegiance

to Tiberius; ]RS 50 (1960): 75-79.
53
398
New Docs
1 (1976), 11
2 (1982), 4
2 (1982), 6
2 (1982), 52
3 (1983), 1
4 (1987), 52
4 (1987), 78
9 (2002), 2
9 (2002), 10
57
53
53
59
43,202
58,59
57
170,197
122,165
OGIS
339
456
532
613
666
208
226
53
61
125
Page, Further Greek Epigrams

29
131
P. Lond.
1178
131
P. Med.
inv. 70.01
145
P.Oxy.
2 (1899) 0240
7 (1910) 1021
25 (1959) 2435
36 (1970) 2754
65
58
57
58
Plantzos, Hellenistic Engraved Gems

633
314
Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome
10
105
32
134
33
105
35
105
36b
105
37
105
RICJ2
Augustus
6
53a
55
56
125
171a
203
218
230[ii]1
287
290
404
476
541
120
120
124
119
184
184
184
136
136
138
162
124
Tiberius
80
120
Claudius
9
27
99
115
131, 162
162
62
62
Nero
41
50
112-114
283-291
300-311
323-328
337-342
353-355
362
537-539
113
133, 187
186
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
The Civil Wars

56
74
162
162
Galba
29
40-43
57
58
87
162
194
197
200
229-230
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
Vitelli us
161
120
1
17
39
294
294
294

RIC II
Trajan
503
547
799
797
798
113
113, 162
331
Hadrian
266
370
653
776
1125
331
331
331
331
RIC IV
3
37
162
162
SB
I 3924
56
Scheid, Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium

34
1-30
30
319
SEG
IV598
XXVI 1021
XXVIII 143
XXXII 109
XXXII114
XXXII118
XXXII 1243
XXXVI1092
814
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
122
Sherk, The Roman Empire

7C
103
34A
57
83
34B
37A Frag. I
137
40B
130
40C
130
42b
245
43
82
44
272
62
123
70A
131, 187
82
279
729
153
54,65,81,133
81,121,142,143,153,
189,191,245
57-58, 120, 121, 123,
132, 143, 150, 153
106
Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the

Principates of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero
47
50
64
107
128
134
145
149
372
401
133, 145, 188

145
190, 191
145
191
59
168
319
204
318
Smith, The Monument of C. Julius Zoilos

Pl. 8
105
Pl. 32
105
TAM
ii 760c
58, 88
UPZ
15
33
81
81
81
Warmington, Remains of Old Latin
Epitaphs
1
1-10
5
6
7
8
10
223
220
220
221
221
221
220
Wendland, Die hellenistisch-romische
Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum

und Christentum
102 7
SIG 3
399
166
Index of Ancient Literary Sources

Ammianus Marcellinus
17.4.12
107
210
210
210
BCiv.
2.100.415
211
102
Aristotle
Eth. nic.
1137a-1137b
298
Pol.
1248a-1288a
1284a-1284b
1288a
1310b-1315b
280
282
283
280
307
185
278
278
278
278
307
Caesar
Bell. gall.
3
21
293
293
1.33-99
1.42-48
1.45-65
1.60-62
1.82-146
1.84-88
123
103, 110
186
316
186
147
Catullus
101
111
17
17.10-11
98
98
Charonidas
Ilpoolf!ta VOf!WV
4.2.24 p. 152
16-19
286
Cicero
Arch.
Aulus Gellius
Noct. Att.
7.8.5
168
Censorinus
De die nat.
Arrian
Epict. Diss.
1.25.8-14
3.13.9-11
3.13.9-13
4.1.11-14
4.1.41-50
4.1.95
4.7.28-30
5.3
Calpurnius Siculus
Eel.
Aratus
Phaen.
100-135
172
112, 140, 141
Aurelius Victor
De Caesaribus
Appian
BAfr.
8
34
97
10.11.10
15.7.3
221
6.16
6.18
6.23-34
217
214
214
Index ofAncient Literary Sources

6.28
10.26
11.28
Att.
2.43
2.45-51
8.16.2
10.7
12.14.3
14.17a
15.27.2
16.2.6
16.3.1
16.11.4
16.11.6
16.14.3
Brut.
16.61-62
Cael.
14.34
Cat.
1.4
3.11.26
3.13.28
4.10.21
4.9.22
4.11.23-24
Deiot.
8
12
33
37
de Orat.
1.38
Pam.
1.7.9
4.6
5.7
5.10b
5.12.6
5.13.3
6.6.8
10.3.3
10.5.2-3
10.7.2
10.10.2
10.19.2
214
206
217
218
218
60
317
111
213
204
204
204
218
60
218
222
212
218
213
212
215
215
215
293
212
293
293
12.7.2
13.64.2
Fin.
4.65
Pia c.
1.1
11.25
Har.
41
Leg. Agr.
2.91
Leg. Man.
7
10.27
47
Lig.
5
10
13
14
16
Marcell.
7
Marc.
9
12
Mil.
13.34
34
35
38
63
72
218
213
111
212
225
212
295
293
217
218
218
218
218
97
Mur.
10.22
51
Off.
1.7
1.9
1.15
1.26
1.109
1.112
1.152
1.161
2.2
2.16
401
220
202
219
213,215
216
218
217
217
207
213
293
226,293
293
293
293
213
293
206,293
212
218
218
218
218
218
207
212
295
208
208
219
218
218
218
208
208
218
208,218
402
2.23-28
2.31
2.31b-38
2.35
2.42b-3
2.43
2.44
2.51
2.60
2.72
2.76
2.80
2.86
2.88
3.101
218
208,218
218
208
218
208,218
207
208
208
218
208
218
208
208
219
Phil.
1.14.33
1.29
1.33
2.13.33
2.22.54
5.13.35
10.3.7
11.6.14
11.10.24
14.11.31
116
219
206,219
219
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
293
Pis.
9.20
218
213
214
217
Rab. Perd.
10.29
208,217
Rab. Post.
14.39
219
Rep.
1.35
1.54
5.7.9
6.9.9-6.26.29
6.19.20
6.23.25-6.23.26
1.4
213
114
Sest.
9.21
21.47
22.49
23.51
32.70
65.136
66.138
66.139
68.142-69.144
68.143
213
212
218
218
218
213
218
206
218
212
Sull.
67
211
Tusc.
1.46.109-110
3.20-21
207
297
Vat.
21
293
Crinagoras
Pl. Anth.
149
De Viris Illustribus
211
Quint. fratr.
1.1.43
1.1.44
3.6.3
212
Sen.
61
Prov.
18
3.5
Scaur:
212
Plane.
85
Red. Sen.
286
286
206
219
219
219
26
27
29
43
181
181
181
175
Dio Cassius
40.5
41.9
43.9.2
43.10.3
51.1.3
51.2
51.19.2
51.20.6-8
51.20.8
51.21.9
53.16.4
53.24.1
148
148
210
293
129
178
129
40
41
135
138
229
403

53.27.2-4
53.27.3
54.1
54.2
55.5
55.10.10
56.25.5-6
56.34.2
57.15.8
57.18
58.12
59.4.4
59.16.10
59.25.5
59.26.5
59.26.5-8
59.28.1
59.28.3
60.33.10
60.34
61.7.4
61.35
62.20.5
62.26
63.4-6
63.5.3
63.6.2
63.20.5
80.20
115
83
176
231
231
184
53
172
53
137
130
93
293
84
84
291
82
83
292
169
292
148
291
114
132
132
291
291
193
287,288
287,288
288
288
287
287
287
287
287
288
287
288
288
287
287
288
288
287,288
288
287
280,287
288
280,287
297
285
226
287
287
204
Diogenes Laertius
Dio Chrysostom
Or.
1
1.11-15
1.12-13
1.15
1.15-17
1.22
1.23-24
1.34
1.37
1.37-41
1.45-46
2
2.6
2.54
2.70-72
2.75-76
3
3.3-5
3.5
3.6
3.9
3.9-13
3.12-25
3.13
3.25
3.38-41
3.45-52
3.51-54
3.52
3.55
3.62
3.86
3.111-118
3.115
3.134
4
4.20-25
4.22-24
4.39-45
4.62-63
45
34.51
57.10-12
62
66-68
7.123
287
280,287
287
288
288
288
288
288
286
288
288
280,287
287
288
289
288
297
Diotogenes
IlEpl ~amA.Eia~
4.7.61 p. 263
He.18-21
282
4.7.61 p. 263
He.22-23
282
4.7.61 p. 264
He.2-3
284
4.7.61 p. 263-264
23-24
283
4.7.61 p. 264
He.4-5
284
4.7.61 p. 264
He. 6-8
283
404
4.7.61 p. 264
He. 9-11
282
4.7.61 p. 264
He. 15 - p. 265
He.15-23
284
4.7.61 p. 265
He. 21-23
283
4.7.62 p. 265
He. 25-31 - p. 266
He.l-9
283
4.7.62 p. 265
He. 25-29-p. 266
He.l-15
283
4.7.62 p. 268
He. 15-21 - p. 269
He. 22-26
283
4.7.62 p. 266
He. 15-19
284
4.7.62 p. 270
284
He. 9-13
4.7.62 p. 270
12-13
280
Einsiedeln Eclogues
2.15-38
2.23-24
124,186
103
Ennius
Ann.
362
206
Ep. Arist.
188
192
207-211
254
281
286
286
286
286
286
Eusebius
HE
2.5.1
79
Eutropius
Brev.
7.13.2-3
131
Germanicus
A rat.
558-560
135
Hesiod
Op.
109-201
124
Theog.
96
280
Homer
Il.
2.166-277
2.204-206
280
280
Od.
1.365-404
19.11
19.109
280
291
291
Horace
Carm. saec.
1.2.41-52
1.12.13-16
1.12.33-48
1.12.33-60
1.12.49-52
1.12.49-60
Iff
3.5
3.5.1-4
4.2.41-56
4.4.1-76
4.15.29-32
4.33-40
9ff
13ff
15.4-16
15.6-8
21
25ff
29ff
29-32
33ff
41-60
49-60
60
61ff
119
124
182
232
103
119
99
181
116,119
119
227
180
227,263
99
99
103
98
99
99
123
99
99
135
136
99

67-68
69ff
99
99
Ep.
1.12.25-29
2.1.126-129
129
99
Epod.
9.23-26
129
Sat.
1.9.68-72
296
Inv. in Sail.
8
19
210
210
!socrates
Nic.
42
281
Evag.
8
21
72
280
280
280
Josephus
AJ
1.158-159
1.165
1.275
1.280
2.78
2.175
2.205
2.268
3.51
4.15
4.48
4.158
4.209
5.115
5.267
5.351
6.18
6.80
6.144
6.200
6.343
6.368
7.95
7.304
246
245
245
245
245
245
245,246
245,246
245
246
246
246
90
245
245
245
245
245
245
246
246
245
246
245
7.390-391
8.24
8.106
8.129
8.166
8.394
9.16
9.236-237
10.59
10.204
10.272
11.158
12.3.3
12.118
12.160
12.191
12.49
12.295
12.350
12.425
13.63
13.168
13.198
14.72
14.211-216
14.214-215
14.398
15.13
15.136
15.316
15.376
16.158
16.166
18.129
18.257-309
18.261ff
18.261-272
18.261-301
18.261-309
18.297
18.304
19.8-10
19.178
19.211
19.285
20.12
20.189-196
20.205
405
302
246
246
245
245
245
245
302
245
245,246
245
245
249
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
252
54
168
245
245
250
245
245
245
54
245
72,78,337
94
272
73
78
246
79
83
245
246
54
169
296
245
406
BJ
1.152
1.426
2.140
2.184-203
2.221
2.345-401
2.390-391
4.366
4.372
5.362-419
5.498
6.267
6.284-287
7.100
252
245
300,302
72,78,337
169
302
302
246
246
302
246
246
90
60
C.Ap.
2.37
2.73-78
54
110,337
Vita
1-6
3
17
19
244
296
302
302
Juvenal
Sat.
8.185-210
8.211-230
8.240-243
8.243-253
231
231
231,314
231
209
181
209
181
181
207
181
181
209
210
181
181
181
209
207
207
175
175
Per.
19
181
Lucan
Phars.
1.33
1.34-66
1.44-45
168
121
121
Lucian
Timon
8
194
Lucretius
De rerum natura
1.102-135
2.44-46
3.35-47
3.59-82
3.866-945
3.1024-1094
5.373-379
6.1182-1183
6.1182-1251
6.1206-1212
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
112
111
Macrobius
Sat.
2.4
2.7.4-5
2.7.12-19
Livy
Ab Urbe Condita
1.10
1.24-25
2.7
2.9
2.12-13
5.30
5.35-36
5.44.1-3
6.22
6.37
7.6.3-5
8.9.4ff
8.10.11
9.31
10.13
10.38
22.27.3-4
22.29.10-11
316
179
179
Manilius
Astr.
1.7-10
1.777-804
1.800-803
1.915-916
1.925-926
2.507-509
4.551-552
4.932-935
67
182
67
67
67
135
67
67
Martial
Ep.
9.1.8-10
228

9.3.12
9.34.2
9.34.8
228
228
228
Spect.
2.4
2.91
127
228,263
Maximus ofTyre
Diss.
36
102
Melinno
3.7.2
318
Musonius Rufus
Kal TOll; ~QO"LAEUO"LV
290
290
286
290
290
289
290
290
289
'OTL cplAOO"Ocpi]TEOV
VIIIp.607-24
VIII p. 62 10-12
VIII p. 60 14
VIII p. 62 21-23
VIII p. 62 31-37
VIII p. 6410-15
VIII p. 64 32-34
VIII p. 66 2-16
XIVp. 966-7
211
Ovid
Ars
183
183
183
268
183
184
184
183
185
183
184,226
184
183
183
185
Petronius
Sat.
60
3-5
184
187
190
263-264
117
122-123
183
185,226,263,267,268
48
112
184
303
243
243
243
243
183
318
184,322
184
312-313
180
182
172
171
27
243
244
Conf.
243
243
Congr.
Fast.
1.709-722
2.127-144
2.635-638
3.419-428
4.19-124
5.545-598
5.563-566
5.569-578
102
109
102, 110
102, 110, 115
Trist.
2.8.240
2.27-32
2.35-46
2.147-148
2.155-160
2.181-186
2.208-214
3.1.47-58
3.6.32
3.35-46
4.3.11-16
4.4.49-54
4.5.30-44
5.2.49ff
227
227
Ex Pont.
2.8.20-26
1.89-150
4.430-436
15.807-851
15.888-890
Cher.
Cons. ad Liv.
122
365
Met.
Philo
Abr.
Orosius
6.15.8
407
243
Decal.
1
151
153
303
243
243
Det.
122
141
243
303
408
Deus
150-151
Ebr.
57
Place.
34
36-68
41-72
47-50
48-49
52
74
81
83
103ff
Fug.
15-16
17
25
47
Gig.
15
36-37
36
Her.
48
92
los.
254
Leg.
1.75
2.107
Legat.
3
13
76-77
114-118
119
120-136
143-147
143-161
144-145
152-161
154
162
243
243
78
179
179
272
189
337
189
189
189
189
189
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
72
78
80
30
84
81
91
272
30
303
125
301
304
304
184-348
203-346
315-316
326
328-329
346
373
Melissa
78
73
54
244
244
78,86,88
79
Ser. CIV
303,307
Migr.
172
Mos.
1.162
1.293
2.4
2.53
Mut.
93
96
Opif.
79
171
Plant.
66-68
Praem.
24
Sobr.
57
Somn.
1.248
2.12
2.81-92
2.83-88
2.83-92
2.89
2.89-90
2.91-92
2.92
2.93
Spec.
1.45
1.208
1.311
3.1
4.82
4.187
Virt.
161-162
243
303
243
303
243
244
244
243
243
301
243
243
243
243
31
305
28,305
31,305
305
31,305
305
243
243,250
243
243
243
243
286
243

Philodemus
11Epl TOU Ka8' 'Ot-UJpOv aya8oii ~UOlAEWc:;
Col XXIII 1.7

Col. XXIV
1.1-18
Plato
Ale.
1.133A-D
Pol.
291-297
294a-b
296E-297A
300-301
301d
Resp.
6.484a-502c
Plautus
Capt.
683-690
Cist.
201
Mil. Glor.
40ff
41-47
52-58
Trin.
641-654
Pliny
Ep.
10.1
10.1.2
10.52
10.96
10.97.2
10.102
Pan.
1.3-5
45.5-6
46.7
79.6-80.5
208
208
286
281
282
284
281
282
176, 177
224
222
126
99
127
181
171
107
132
131
127
223
222
127
127
280
212
207
224
225
225
212
280
100
280
32,322
100
280
280,286
286
286
280,284
Pliny the Elder
HN
2.23.93-94
7.43
7.45.147-150
7.97-98
7.139
9.170
10.5
18.7
22.6.13
22.7.13
30.6.71
30.16
33.54
34.45-46
34.5
35.6-7
35.51
36.111
409
68
222
Plutarch
Comparison of Demosthenes with Cicero
2.3
208
Mor.
316B
302
323E-F
302
326D-345B
139
290
470B
608-612
111
776B-779C
290
776C-D
291
776D
291
280
776E
776E-F
291
777A
291
779B
292
779D-782E
290
780B
291
291
780B-C
291,292
780C
284,291
780D
286,291
780E
280
780F
290,291
780F-781A
781E
291
290
783A-797F
291
797E-F
798A-825F
290
306,313
813D-F
813D-817B
307
814A-C
307
410
814C-D
815B-C
816A
817A-B
823F
826A-827C
307
307
307
307
297
290
Polybius
6.53.1-6.54.4
6.54
221
222
Propertius
Elegies
2.1
2.7.5-6
2.15.41-48
3.9
3.11.61-68
4.37-68
318
314
314
318
182
119
Pseudo-Archytas
flepi VOf.lOV Kul &Katou6vT)~
4.1.135 p. 82
He.8
282
4.1.135 p. 83
He. 11-12
282
Pseudo-Demetrius
T61[oi EmuToAtKo(
21
192
Pseudo-Ecphantus
flepi ~aCJLAda~
4.7.64 p. 271
He. 9- p. 273
He.6
285
4.7.64 p. 273
He. 18- p. 274
285
He.26
4.7.64 p. 274
He. 2-10- p. 275
286
He.1-3
4.7.64 p. 274
He. 3-5
283
4.7.64 p. 276
He.1-5
285
4.7.65 p. 276
He. 26 - p. 278
He.20
4.7.65 p. 278
He. 9-17
Pseudo-Seneca
Oct.
388-448
391-396
391-406
395
397-406
431-435
440-444
442
444
450-471
472-478
477-491
492
495
496
504-532
504-532
504-533
524-526
530-532
285
285
1{)2
104
104
104
104,110
104, llO
ll4, 141, 149
315
315
315
182
67
315
315
315
114
149
67, 182
182,314
314
Pseudo- Virgil
Culex
296-357
358-371
361
361-370b
362
363
363-364
364
365
367
368
370a
370b
391-398
413-14
179-180
180
180
181
181
180, 181
181
181
181
181
181
180-181
181
181
181
31, 180, 193
Quintilian
1.7.12
8.6.55
223
273
411

Res Gestae
1.1
1.1-3.2
2-3.1
3.1
4
4.1
4.3
5.1
6.1
7.3
8.5
10-11
10.1
9-12
11
12.2
13
15
15-24
16.1
19
19.2
20.1
20.4
21.1
21.1-2
21.3
22
22.3
24
24.2
24-35
25
26.1-27.3
26.5
27-33
29-33
29.1
29.2
30
30.2
31-33
32.3
34
34.1
34.2
140, 173
178
140
196,225
152
83,137
137
176
83
174, 313
227
183
176
174
120, 173
180, 183
132, 187
173
95, 121, 173, 187,
231
224
174
183
228
183
171
183
83
98
224
174
83
42
53
230
140
230
152
140
174, 183
147
174
166
141
138,293
172, 187
139,226
34.3
35
35.1
Appendix 1-4
Appendix2
Sallust
BJ
4.3-4
Cat.
1.3
2.2
2.9-3.5
3.1-2
3.2
4
5.4-6
7.3
7.3-7
9.2
10.3-6
11.1
11.1-2
12.1
20.14
58.8
lug.
1.3
1.5
4.5-6
4.6
41.10
55.4
85.23
85.40
<.!4.5
94.6
Seneca
Apocol.
1
8
10-11
12.3
Ben.
3.14.3
3.14.3-3.15.4
4.27.5
141, 172, 187

176
184
187,231
183
210
209
209
210
210
210
210
210
209
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
209
209
206
222
209
209
207
209
209
209
147
66
316
131
316
316
194
412
4.31.1-4.32.4
4.34.2

277
194
Clem.
1.1
1.1.2-4
1.1.3
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.2-4
1.3
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.5
1.4.1-1.5.1-2
1.5-7
1.5.1
1.5.7
1.9
1.9.1
1.9.1-2
1.9.1-1.11.1
1.9.2-12
1.10.3-1.11.4
1.11.1-2
1.11.1-3
1.11.3
1.17.3
1.19.1-6
1.19.8
1.19.9
1.21.1
1.24.2
1.26.5
2.1.2-3
2.1.4
2.2.1
2.2.1-2
2.3.1
2.3.1-2
2.4.4-5.1
2.5.1
2.5.4-5
2.6.4
2.7.1
2.7.3
227,295
293
313
293
168,293
186
295
294
294
294
294
286
295
294
286
292,293
297
225
297
67
297
293
296
226
297
147,294
294
114
294
294
155
149,155
257,295
155
294
297
297
297
297
297
298
298
Delra
1.8-9
84
Ep.
6.7
8.7
30.9
44.5
61.2
69.6
70
79.13
79.13-14
79.13-18
80.6
82.17-18
102.11-19
102.30
109.18
122
123.16
316
316
114
208,221
114
114
114
207
207
208
109
114
208
208
208
128
208
Phaed.
483-564
102
Polyb.
6.2
7.1
7.4
12.3-4
12.3-5
15.3
169
169
169
115
277
277
Tranq.
2.13
14.7-10
14.9
128
307
93
Seneca [the Elder]

Controv.
2.1.3
128
Silicus ltalicus
Pun.
6.663
223
Sophocles
Phil.
139-140
280
Statius
Silv.
5.5.
2.1
111
111

Sthenidas
IIt:pl ~amAt:iac;
4.7.62 p. 270
He. 2-3 - p. 271
He.4
4.7.63 p. 270
He.l0-14
4.7.63 p. 271
He. 10-13
Strabo
5.3.8
15.3.13
17.805
Suetonius
Divus Julius
84.5
88.1
Divus Augustus
13
21
28.3
29.2
31.5
45.4
51
52
58
58.2
65.4
68
70.1
71.3
89
90.2
94
10Q.4
Tiberi us
26.1
52
61.3
Gaius Caligula
16.4
22.2
22.3
52
57.1
284
284
284
181
132
107
168
148
178
42
182
171
173
179
293
40, 176
184
184
179
179
182
226-227
230
178
134,135
148
83
57
178
293
83
41, 81,83
83
83
413
Divus Claudius
10.1
168
11
148
17.1-3
131
21
100
21.6
131
24.3
131
54,256
25.4
45
148
Nero
7.3
179
10
293
11.2
319
13
187
13.2
132
22.2
291
31
126
292
33.2-3
306
39
39.2
127
291
53
Domitian
4
100
Titus
2
292
Tacitus
Agr.
5.3
41-42
42.2
Ann.
1.2
1.4
1.10
1.57
1.58
2.10
2.26
2.41
2.42
2.53
2.59
3.72
3.86
4.34
4.37-38
4.74
231
231
231
178
178
148,177,182
293
293
293
209
137
293
57
57
230
178
178
83
293
414
6.6
6.28
12.23
12.37
12.43
13.2
13.3
13.11
13.15-17
13.50-51
14.63
15.24
15.29
15.42
15.44
15.62
15.71-74
15.73
16.21
16.21ff
16.60-64
21.11
31.3
Hist.
3.34
5.5.1
5.8
5.9

100
100
131
293
327
168
66
168,293
292
271
292
132
132
128, 158
32,320,322
292
130
293
148
114
114
98
169
230
32
79
72
Tibullus
Elegies
1.3.35-52
2.3.35-74
214
214
130
Varro
Rust.
2.5-9
126
Velleius Paterculus
2.81.1-2
2.89
2.89.2
2.107
2.136.1-2
137, 162
230
120, 166
65
119
Virgil
A en.
1.275ff
1.286-291
2.680-689
6.756-846
6.789-797
6.789-799
6.808-886
8.663-69
8.678-681
8.698-713
8.720-728
12.791-842
276
115,116,
118
64
182
123
102
232
112
119
119
306
319
Eel.
102
102
Valerius Maximus
Facta et Dicta Memorabilia
l.praef
2.4.5
2.8.7
3.2.19
3.8.2
4.3.3
4.7.5
5.6.5
5.6.6
5.8.3
8.14praef
8.14
8.14.1-3
8.14.4
9.11.4 [Ext.]
120
98
138,226
226
175
227
193
181
181
221
205
205
4.1-63
4.11-14
102
123
Vitruvius
Nem.
4.65
118
Xenophon
Ages.
1-2
3-9
Cyr.
1.1.2
7.1.1
7.1.44
7.4.45
8.1.12
8.1.22
281
281
281
281
281
187
281
281

8.1.37
8.1.40
Oec.
21.10
21.12
281
281
281
281
415
Zosimus
2.6
98
Index of Modern Authors

Aalders, G. J.D. 282
Achtemeier, P. J. 59, 192, 337
Adam, T. 279-282,292,297-299
Adams, E. 276, 310-311, 313, 317, 319
Adcock, F. E. 15
Agosto, E. 317
Aitken, J.A. 247-248
Aldhouse-Green, M. 162
Alexander, P. H. 46
AlfOdi, A. 105
Altman, M. 292
Anderson, J. G. C. 43
Anderson, J.C. 171, 173
Anderson, R. D. 228
Ando, C. 37, 38
Ascough, R. S. 50
Atkinson,R.K. 251-252
Auget, R. 78, 80, 84
Aus, R. D. 59, 137
Axtel, H. 138
Badenas, R. 150
Bakirtzes, C. 27
Baldwin, B. 319
Balsdon, J.P. V. D. 78, 80-82, 84
Bammel, E. 61, 272, 276
Barchiesi, A. 184,306
Barclay, J.M.G. 5-6, 8, 31-32,39, 110,
185,337
Barraclough, R. 30
Barrett, A. A. 78, 80-82, 292
Barrett, C.K. 94, 148, 158,271
Bartholomew, C. 9
Barton, S.C. 110, 337
Barton, T. 134-135
Baumgarten, J. 52
Beale, G. K. 77, 85, 90, 92, 257, 337
Beard, M. 15, 18, 19, 23, 98, 112, 133, 137,
162,180
Beker, J. C. 52
Belleville, L. L. 203, 246
Benko, S. 17,33
Benoist, S. 98
Beranger, J. 38
Berry, G.R. 234
Best, E. 49-50, 59
Betz, 0. 74
Beurlier, E. 14
Bickerman, E. 15,66-67
Bilde, P. 72, 78, 246
Bird, H. W. 168
Blackwell, B. C. 201, 237
Blumenfeld, B. 4, 274-275,281-282,285,
303
Bond, H. K. 110
Bonsirven, J. 242
Boobyer, G. H. 201,206
Bormann, L. 168
Bormann, M. 26
Born, L. K. 282
Botha, P. J. 19, 34, 276
Bousset, W. 74
Bowersock, G. W. 15
Bowman, A. K. 19
Bradley, M. 171
Braumann, G. 56
Braund, D.C. 57, 121, 129, 131, 133, 142,
148,151,228-229,319
Braund,S. 280,292-295,297,298,314
Breed, B. W. 103
Brenk, F. E. 101
Breytenbach, C. 108
Brockington, L. H. 232-233
Brooke, G. J. 304
Broughton, T.R.S. 314
Brown, A. R. 52
Brown,C. 62
Brown, J. P. 98
Indexof Modern Authors
417
Brown, M. J. 169
Brown, S.G. 91
Bruce, F. F. 48-49,52,59,73, 75, 89, 91,
160,271,273,307-308,310
Bruegemann, VV. 232,234
Brunt, P.A. 40, 118, 137, 178, 184,312
Buchner, E. 107, 134
Bultrnann, R. 59
Burrell, B. 21
Butcher, K. 331
Byrne, B. 17,117,148,157,192
Byrskog, S. 264
Cooley, A. E. 24, 171, 173, 178

Coppens, J. 259
Cousar, C. B. 160, 192
Cranfield, C. E. B. 117,146,148,153,157,
161,192,309
Crawford, M. H. 111
Crawford, O.C. 221
Crook, Z. A. 49
Crosby, H. L. 287
Crossan, J.D. 4, 37, 72, 101, 107, 170,306
Cullmann, 0. 271
Cuss, D. 4, 152
Cagnon, R. A. 296
Caird, G. B. 73
Campbell, D. A. 52
Campbell, VV. S. 296
Cannadine, D. 18
Carr, VV. 271
Carrez, M. 259, 265
Carson, R. A. G. 294
Carter, T. L. 273
Carter, VV. 4
Castriota,D. 180
Castro, A. D. 138
Cerfaux, L. 15, 279
Chae, D.J.-S. 149
Champlin, E. 42-43, 125, 127, 132
Chaniotis, A. 331
Charbonneaux, J. 22, 23, 110, 137
Charlesworth, M.P. 15, 41, 93, 132, 138,
279
Chevallier, R. 105
Chisholm, K. 131, 313, 316,318, 322
Christoffersson, 0. 156
Clark, A. 141
Clark, G. 322
Clark, M. E. 62
Clarke,A.D. 191-192
Clausen, VV. V. 181
Clauss, M. 17
Coarelli, F. 170
Coleman, K. M. 112
Coleman, R. 102
Coleman, T.M. 144,202,271
Coleman-Norton, P.R. 204
Collins, J. J. 30
Collins, R. F. 50, 52-53
D'Angelo, M. R. 195
Danker, F. VV. 21, 62, 67, 208, 214, 279,
283
Das, A.A. 17,254-256
Davenport, G. L. 251, 253
Davies, J.P. 15
Davies, P.J.E. 22, 112, 115, 171
Davis, C. A. 153
de Lange, N. R. M. 302, 305, 307
DeVos, C. S. 13, 50-51, 53-55
Degrassi, A. 180, 224
Deissmann, A. 2-3, 7, 52, 56-57, 88
Delatte, A. 279
Delatte, L. 279,281-286
DeMaris, R. 27
Deonna, VV. 62
Derow, P. S. 332
DeSilva, D. A. 236-237,247-248
Dewey, J. 19
di Leila, A. A. 247-248
Dibelius, M. 59-60,90-91
Dingel, J. 297
Dodson, J. R. 109
Donfried, K. 13,49-50,52,56, 61,71-72,
Dowling,M.B. 105-106,137-138,141,
292,294,297
Downing, F. G. 19, 194
Drivers, H. J. VV. 105
Du Quesnay, I.M de M. 102-103
Dudley, D. R. 170
Duff, P. 203
Duliere, C. 331-332
Dunn, J.D. G. 17, 146-148, 151, 153, 155,
157,161,187,190,192,202,210,263,
271-272,300,308-310
418
Dupont, J. 60
Dwyer, E. 134
Dyck, A. R. 205, 218-219
Fridrichsen, A. 336
Friedrich, J. 202, 271, 296
Friesen, S. J. 16, 27
Frilingos, C. A. 111
Earl, D.C. 140-141,206,209,219-220,

224,226,231-232,298
Edgar, C. C. 123
Edson, C. 50
Edwards, C. 23, 111, 114
Edwards, D.R. 143
Ehrenberg,"- 279,281
Elliot, N. 4, 8-9, 11-12, 17, 23,28-30,
42,97,99, 139,147,272-273,302,305,
312,336
Elsner, J. 125-127
Engberg-Pedersen, T. 198
Engels, D. W 27
Erdemgil, S. 204
Erim, K. T. 124, 306, 331
Erler, M. 111
Esler, P. F. 98, 134, 296, 309
Etienne, R. 14, 15
Evans, C. A. 116,251,253
Pant, M. E. 293
Fantin, J.D. 3, 42, 56, 150
Favro, D. 22, 170
Fears, J.R. 15, 22, 37, 118, 133, 136,
138-139,279,292
Fee, G. D. 69, 71, 90

Ferguson, J. 131, 313, 316, 318, 322
Ferrill, A. 78, 80-81, 83
Finney, M. T. 27
Fishwick, D. 16, 81, 280
Fisk, B. N. 254-256
Fitzmyer, J.A. 17, 148, 157, 168, 190, 196,
300,309,312
Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 239
Flower, H. I. 221
Flusser, D. 300
Foerster, W 62
Fohrer, G. 62
Forbes, C. 278
Forrest, W G. 332
Fortuna, R. T. 47
Frame, J. E. 59, 69, 73
Friinkel 65
Franklin, J.L. 20-21,42
Gain, D. B. 67
Galinsky, G.K. 10, 17, 22, 26,34-35,40,
332
Gamble, H. Y. 19,20
Gardner, J. F. 282, 285
Gartner, B. 93
Gates, C. 22, 107, 113, 180
Gaventa,B.R. 47,90,92,94,109,240
Gelzer, M. 205
Georgi, D. 4, 8, 12, 62-63, 144, 147, 165,
277
Geranio, J. 315
Ghey,E. 113
Gibbs, J. G. 156, 158
Giblin, C. H. 59, 77
Gill, M. 4, 16
Gillman, J. 51, 53
Ginsburg, J. 23, 138
Glad, C. E. 295
Goodenough, E.R. 5, 9, 28,30-31,80,
279,281,283,285,287,303,305
Gordon, R. 312
Gould, H. E. 102
Gowen, D. E. 156
Gradel, I. 18, 40, 78, 80-84
Grant, F. C. 98
Grant, M. 170
Gray, G. B. 252
Green, G. L. 13, 73, 76, 88, 90-92, 94
Griffi.n,J. 42
Griffin, M. T. 43, 127, 132, 148, 168,292,
294,298
Grimal, P. 208, 278

Gundry, R. H. 51
Gurd, S. 204
Guthrie, K.S. 282,284-286
Habicht, C. 66
Habinek, T.N. 316
Hafemann, S. J. 203
Hahne, H. A. 115, 156, 158-159
Hall, J. F. 98
Hamlin, E. J. 300
Hiinlein-Schafer, H. 22
Hannestad, N. 22, 120, 180
Hardin, J.K. 2, 4, 24, 42, 98, 145
Harl, K. W. 331
Harland, P.A. 27,204
Harnisch, W. 48
Harrington, D.]. 247
Harris, M. ]. 145, 335
Harris, W. V. 19, 20,22
Harrison, }. R. 3, 9, 10, 12-13, 29, 42,
50,52,58,63,72,88,92-93,95,
108-110, 115, 118-120, 134, 145,
151,161,165-166,169,178,180,
185-187,189-191,193,195,197,
201-203,223,225,244,255-256,
267-268,272,316,333,337
Hays, R. 5, 37
Hayward, C. T. R. 249
Headlam, A. C. 148, 152, 300, 308
Heinen, H. 14
Henderson,}. 231
Hendrix, H.L. 13, 25,55-56,61,71-72,
328
Hengel, M. 181, 193, 275-276
Herrmann, P. 53
Heslin, P. 107
Hezser, C. 19, 20,22
Hicks, E. L. 86
Hodot,R. 34
Hoffmann, F. 229
Hogeterp, A. L.A. 239
Holland, G. S. 91, 93-94
Hollingshead, J. R. 4, 98, 182, 189, 195
Holt, W. 113
Holtz, T. 61
Hope, V. M. 109, 229
Hopkins, K. 112
Hornblower, S. 46, 181
Horrell, D. G. P2-273, 308-310,337
Horsfall, N. 20, 170
Horsley, G. H. R. 43, 46, 52, 202, 296
Horsley, R.A. 3, 5, 8, 10, 17, 29,37
Hoskins-Walbank, M. E. 17, 27
Housman, A. E. 134
Hubbard, M. V. 154, 156
Hunt, A. S. 123
Hurley, D. W. 80, 82-83
Huzar, E.G. 14
419
Jackson, R. 156
Jacob, E. 232
Jal, P. 297
Jantzen, G.M. 102, 111-112, 114
Jenks, G. C. 74
Jewett, R. 10, 17, 24, 32,48-49, 67, 108109, 117, 123-125, 148, 151, 153-154,
156-161,165,188,191,197,201,203,
257,265-268,271,273,293,311-312,
316-317
Johnston, W.A. 19, 21,26
Jones, A.H.M. 28,31
Jones,B.W. 130-131
Joshel, S. R. 21
}ossa, G. 33, 320
Joynes, C. 5
Judge, E. A. 3, 10, 13, 17,24-25,52,71,
83, 122, 124, 140, 165, 169, 171-172,
178,181,184,188,190,201,214,222,
224,229-230,266,273,279,295-296,
320-321
Kahl, B. 4
Kahn, }. G. 30
Kallas, J. 271
Kampen, N. 23
Kantorowicz, E. H. 162
Karris, R.J. 21
Kiisemann, E. 151, 161
Keck,L. 27,52, 108,154,157,191-192,
272,274,276,300,318
Keil, }. 331
Kennedy, H. A. A. 3, 59
Kent, J. H. 204
Khiok-Khng, Y. 52,62
Kierdorf, W. 221
Kim,S. 6-8,14,28,57-58,69
Kim, T. H. 52, 194
Kittel, G. 232, 242
Klauck, H.-J. 67
Klijn, A. F. J. 51
Koberlein E. 82
Koester, H. 27, 50, 61, 63
Kondratieff, E.J. 314
Konstan, D. 183
Koukouli-Chrysantaki, C. 27
Kragelund, P. 104, 315
Krauter, S. 277
420
Kreitzer, L.J. 22, 64, 67, 88, I3I, 134-135,

I37-I38,I48
Krenke!, W. A. I79
Krentz, E. 62
Kroll, W. 3I4
Kunzl, E. 137
Kuttner, A.L. 137-138
Kyle, D. G. I11-112
L'Orange, H. P. I47
Labhan, M. 27
Lampe.~ I69,I87,296
Lanciani, R. II2
Lane, W. L. 25I
Lash, N. 39
Lassen, E.M. I95
Lecornu, H. 300
Lee, J.A.L. 46
Lee, M. V. 292
Lee, T. R. 248
Leeman, A.D. 20I, 206,211
Lefkowitz, M. R. 293
Legasse, S. 60-6I, 73, 89
Lendon, J. E. 22, 40, 226, 229
Lenski, R. C. H. 72
Leon, H.}. I68, 254
Levick, B. 57, 294
Levison, J. R. 239, 248
Lewis, N. I23
Licht, A. L. 135
Lindsay, H. 80
Lintott, A. I96
Loewe, H. I. 242, 305
Long, A.A. 211, 2I7, 2I9
Lopez,D.C. 4,ISI-I52,I6I,332,336
Lord, L.E. 2I7
Lorein, G. W. 74
LUhrmann, D. 59
Lutgert, w. 49
Lutz, C. E. 286, 289
Malherbe, A.J. 47, 52, 6I, 71-72, 90-9I,
279
Malitz, J. 58, I20
Manus, C. U. 53
Marcus, }. 337
Marshall, B. 22
Marshall, C. D. 296-297
Marshall, I. H. 49
Marshall, J. 247
Marshall, ~ 267
Martin, R. P. 253
Martyn, J. L. 52
Marxsen, W. 73
Masson, C. 69, 72
Mattingly, H. 294
Matyszak, ~ 223
May, H. G. 234
McCormack, M. I62
McDonald, J, I. H. 272
McDonnell, M. I4I
McEwan, C. W. 279, 283
McKay, A. G. I26-I27
Mearns, C.L. 49,74
Meeks, W. A. 52
Meggitt, J. 5, 37
Menken,M.J.J, 72,75
Metzger, B.M. 247, 25I, 263
Metzger,~ 73-74
Meyer, B. F. IS
Milnor, K. 26
Milns, R.D. 130-13I
Mitchell, S. I6
Mitford, T. B. 53
Moller, K. IS
Momigliano, A. 28, 3I, 97,280
Monera, A. T. 275, 309
Montefiore, C. G. 242, 305
Moo, D. I48, ISO, I52, I54, ISS, I60, I90,
2I0,309
Moore, A. L. 59
Moore, J,M. I37, I78, I83
Moretti, G.M. ISO
Morris, L. 49, 90, 94, 117, I48, I57, I96,
266,268,309
Morrison, C. D. 271, 300
Mortureux, B. 292, 294
Mosley, D. J, 28I
Most, G. I79-I80
Mott, S.C. 62
Moule, C. F. D. I56, I59
Moxnes, H. I96, 201
Munro, W. 273
Murphy O'Connor, J, 92
Murray, J, I46
Murray, M. 0. 208, 278
Nanos, M.D. 17,271,296

Neil, W 47, 73
Newlands, C. E. 107-108
Newman, C. C. 201, 203, 232-233, 236,
238,240-241,262-263,265
Newman, R. L. 206
Newton, D. 337
Newton, M. 93
Neyrey, J. 93
Nicholl, C.R. 59, 71, 90, 92,94
Nickelsburg, G. WE. 251
Niehoff, M. 6, 28,30-31
Nisbet, R. G. M. 228
Nock, A.D. 15, 62, 87,279
Novak, R. M. 32
Novenson, M. V. 261
Oakes, P. 3, 13, 14, 27, 35-37, 41, 54,
57-58,60,72,95,167,272,274,278
Oates, J. F. 46
Odell-Scott, D. 197
Oepke,A. 56
Osborne,G.R. 151,187,257,320,323
Oster, R.E. 22, 27,64
Owen, E. C. E. 203
Page, D. L. 131
Parke, D. W 101, 103, 124
Parker, H.N. 19, 21,26
Parrott, R. L. 28,272, 275, 277-278,
280,284-286,290,292-293,295,297,
300-303,307
Parsons, P. J. 228
Paton, W R. 86
Pauly, A. 314
Payne, R. 13 7
Peerbolte, L.J.L. 71, 74,89
Peterman, G. W 192
Peterson, E. 60
Pickett, R. W 195
Pilgrim, WE. 275
Pilhofer, P. 26
Plantzos, D. 314
Plass, P. 111, 294
Pleket, H. W 15
Plevnik, J. 47, 50-51,60
Pohlmann, W 202, 271, 296
Porter, S. E. 5, 9, 24, 90
421
Potter, D. 102, 104

Powell, J. G. F. 219
Pn!aux, C. 278, 280
Price, S.R.F. 14-18,22,56,58-59,66-67,
84,121,143,226
Priimm,K. 3
Purcell, N. 125-126, 128
Ramsay, J. T. 135
Ramsay, W 215
Raurell, F. 237, 239
Reasone~M. 31,161-162,295-296,319
Reed,J.L. 4, 72,101,107,170,306
Reeve, C. D. C. 280
Rehak, P. 180
Reinhold, M. 123, 224
Reisner, R. 48
Reynolds, J. 105
Richard, E. J. 47, 69, 73, 88, 91, 94
Richards, H. K. 55
Richardson, P. 169, 255
Richmond, J. 179
Ridley, R. 24
Rigaux,B. 50,54,61, 73-74,85,87,90
Rist, J.M. 293,297, 299
Rives, J. B. 15
Robert, L. 82
Robinson, D.M. 152
Rochlitz, S. 294
Rock, I.E. 10-11, 25-26, 29, 38, 42, 110,
118,121,137,146-147,151,161,169,
195,202,257,292,319
Rocker, F. W 71, 73, 92
Roetzel, C. R. 52
Roller, M. B. 229
Romanelli, P. 170
Rosborough, R. R. 80
Rosner, B.S. 300-302
Ross, D. 0. 179
Rouffiac, J. 63
Rowell, H. T. 170
Rowland, C. 234
Rubin,B.B. 16,37,40,166,332
Rudich, V. 114
Riipke, J. 15
Saller, R. 317
Sanday, W 148, 152, 300, 308
422
Sanders, E. P. 15, 56
Sandmel, S. 7
Saunders, R. 5
Sauron,G. 99,120,171
Schafer, P. 32
Scheid, J. 15, 17-18,24, 319
Scherrer, P. 204
Schmidt, W H. 233
Schmidt, P. L. 179
Schmithals, W 48, 50
Schmitz, L. 216
Schneider, J. 62
Schofield, M. 110
Scholer, D. N. 161
Schowalter, D.N. 17
Schreiner, T.R. 17,146-147, 188-190,
266,300,309
Schubart, W 278
Schiitz, M. 107, 134
Scott, J. C. 29-30, 60, 85
Scott,K. 14,42,183,290,306
Scroggs, R. 156
Seifrid, M.A. 149,260-261
Sheedy, K. 113
Sheken, P. W 247
Sherk, R. K. 57, 82-83, 103, 123, 130-131,
187,245,272,279
Shotter, D. 119, 132, 293
Shoup, D. D. 331
Shulam, J. 300
Simon, E. 180
Simpson, C.J. 80-81
Slingerland, H. D. 17
Small, A. 16
Smallwood, E.M. 27,78-80,204
Smith, A. 13-14
Smith, P. 215
Smith, R.E. 214,219,221-222
Smith, R.R.R. 105-106, 151,331
Souter, A. 205
Spawforth,A. 46,181
Spence, S. 17, 33
Spicq, C. 56, 62-62
Sprinkle, P. 237, 257, 259
Stanley, C. D. 20
Stanton, G. N. 72
Stauffer, E. 4, 64
Steimle, C. 13
Stein, B. 232, 234-235

Stein, R. H. 271, 300
Stevenson, S. W 294
Stevenson, T. R. 22, 195
Stewart, Z. 15
Still, T.D. 47,54
Stowers, S.K. 10, 165,202
Strelan, R. 27
Strong, J. T. 234
Stubbs,M.A. 29-30
Stuhlmacher, P. 64, 193, 202, 271,296,
308
Syme,R. 100,130,183,205,231
Taubes, J. 8
Taylor, J. E. 110
Taylor, L.R. 15, 40, 62, 148, 150, 306
Tcherikover 81
Tellbe,M. 10,169,271,273,295-296
Terrien, S. 233
Thate,M.J. 161-162
Thesleff, H. 281-282,287
Thielman, F. 187
Thompson, M. 302, 316
Tiede, D. L. 29, 125
Tondrian, J. 15, 279
Toner, J. 111
Toombs, L. E. 238
Towner, P. H. 274, 308, 310-311
Townsend, J. T. 59
Toynbee, J. M. C. 129
Tracey, R. 172
Trebilco, P. 27
Treu,M. 297
Trilling, W 92
Tromp, G. W 97
Tuckett, C.M. 51
Turner, N. 76
Tyson, J. B. 54
van der Horst, P. W 27
van Imschoot, P. 232-233
Vanderkam, J. C. 249,251
Vermes, G. 304
Versnel, H. S. 137
Veyne, P. 231
Viard, A. 162, 300, 309
vom Brocke, C. 13, 61
von Rad, G. 232

Vos, G. 52
Wagner, J. R. 256
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 101, 169, 230
Walters, J. C. 260, 295
Walton, S. 313
Wanarnake~C.A. 49,53,59
Warmington, B. H. 121, 131
Warmington, E. H. 220-221, 223
Weatherly, J. A. 73, 90
Weaver, P. R. C. 22
Weinstock, S. 15
Weiss, K. 161
Welborn, L. L. 111-112, 179
Welles, C. B. 279
Wendland, P. 166
Wengst, K. 61, 272, 276
White, J.L. 3-4, 165, 195
White, P. 26
Whitely, D. E. H. 47,71
Wiefel, W. 255, 260, 296
Wilckens, U. 273,301
Wilkinson, S. 78-82
Wilson, W. T. 201
Winter, B. W. 10, 25, 27, 81, 95, 145, 155,
167,196,273-274,276,317,327,337
423
Wirszubski, C. 178, 183

Wiseman, T. P. 293, 332
Wissowa, G. 314
Witgil, D. W. 24
Witherington, B. 17, 51, 54, 56, 61, 69,
73-74,77,89-92,94-95,108,161,165,
195,293,300,309
Wlosok, A. 15
Wood,S. 125-126
Woolf, G. 19-21, 23
Wright, N. T. 3, 5-6, 8-10,37-38,69, 73,
109,147,160,187,257,271-272,274,
302,308,310,320,323
Wright, R.B. 251-252
Yarnachi, E. 48
Yarbrough,R.W. 203
Yee, T.-L.N. 105
Zachos, K. L. 129, 153, 331
Zanker, P. 22-23,61,64,66-67, 113-114,
120,124,171-172,306,314
Zanzenberg, J. 27
Ziesler, J. 146, 151
Zuntz, G. 105-106
Index of Subjects
~bomination of desolation' 73
Abraham, 'father' of nations 1, 66, 164,
187,188,192,195,153,245,258,
266-267,301,305,322,333,335
Antiochus Epiphanes IV 71, 72, 73,
75-76,85,94
Apotheosis 1, 8, 41, 43, 51, 63, 72, 115,
145,148,166-168,328
Augustus
- andAion 97, 105-106
- and cosmological motifs 64, 123-124
- and Ovid 177-185
- and prophecy 65
- anti-Augustan propaganda 177-183
- apotheosis of 102, 115
- ara Pacis Augustae 107, 112, 115, 124,
163, 182
- as new Aeneas 99, 110, 135, 172, 180,
331-332,333
- as new Romulus 99, 115, 172,331-332,
333
- battle of Actium 118-119, 129,
134-135, 163
- beneficence of 95,121,166,173-174,333
- conception of rule 25, 41
- diplomatic victory ofParthians 135-136
- forum Augustum 41, 45, 99, 112, 167,
170-177,180,182,194,197,199,268,
330,333,335
- glory of 102
- horologiumAugusti 97,106-108,115,
163
- ludi saeculares of 97-101
- new age of (or Golden Age of Saturn) 9,63-65,97,123,126,163,182,
303,332
- Pater Patriae 41,184, 176, 183-185,
194,198,199,333
- paxAugusta 113
- providential 'epiphany' of 63-64

- provincial cults of 41
- Res Gestae 24-25, 194, 268, 325-326,
332,335,336
- saeculum of 8, 97-101, 110, 163
- statue of Augustus at Villa of Livia
(Prima Porta) 124
Barbarians 65, 135-138, 196, 334
Body of Christ 1, 7, 9. 32, 33, 35, 36, 39,
58,93, 145,155,162,191,198,225,261,
267,269,308,309,310,311,312,316,
317
Cabirus 49-50
Caligula
- accession of 133
- and Jerusalem Temple 14, 71, 72, 73,
75,78-84,85,159,303-304,329
- beneficence of 122
- claim to deity 80-84
- cult on the Palatine 40-41, 83
- lawlessness of 91-92
- 'loyalty oaths' to 65, 133
- numen of 80-83, 84, 94
Claudius
- and conquest of Britain 131
- expulsion ofJews (AD 49) 43, 159, 202
- saeculum of 100
Cursus honorum 202
Cyclical world-view of Greeks and Romans 101-104,156,330,332
Dio Chrysostom on kingship 287-289
Early Christians
- and Roman authorities 6, 27, 32-33,
320-321
- literacy of 19-27, 325
Index of Subjects
- political tensions among 89-90,
168-169,186
425
Ideology 7,8-9,13,22-23,37-40,99,
154-156,330
- their 'sect' as a superstitio 190, 272

Eschatology
- and Paul's gospel 1-2, 8, 10, 13, 14,
Idolatry 2-3, 8, 25, 35, 95, 109-110, 145,
37,38,44,45,46,48-50, 72,74,97,
115-117,144-164,276
55,56-57,61,119-120,129,132,133,
173-174,255,219-221
Familia Caesaris 9, 21-22,23, 32, 33, 40,

43,44, 117,144-145,201-202,325,336
Flaccus, Prefect of Egypt 78
Galba
- Golden age and the regeneration of
Rome 104, 110
Glory, Jewish and Roman 1, 7, 12, 41, 45,
102,112,152,157-158,184,201-269,
332
- defining 'glory' 205-208
- glory according to Cicero and Sallust 209-219
- glory according to the Greek ethical
tradition 207- 208, 258
- glory according to the Scipionic epitaphs 219-221,268
- glory and Roman boasting culture 221-225
- glory and the Jewish literature 232-242
- glory and the Julio-Claudian
house 225-232,268
- Jewish case studies of glory 242-254
- Jewish authors critical of the quest for
glory 243-245,247
Grace 1, 5, 7, 9, 33, 39, 43, 44, 66, 108,
115,117,121,129,139,145,146,149,
154, 155, 164, 165, 168, 170, 175, 186,
187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 195, 197, 198,
258,260,264,265,269,274,294,308,
312,321,322,330,332,333,334,335
- 'reign of grace' 108-117
Grand narratives (narrative theology) 1,
39,183,331-332,335
Heliodorus 87
Iconographic evidence 38, 42, 105-106,
120,124,135,137-138,204,170-173,
314-315,331
257,263-264,330
Inscriptional evidence 21, 25, 34, 40, 42,
Judas Maccabeus 87
2-3,13,25,149,232-237,254-255,
257,260-261
1}0{
'Mirror-reading' of texts 50
Mos maiorum 6, 83,274,334
Musonius Rufus on kingship 289-290
Nero
- accession of 133
- and 'body of state' 1, 7, 32,145,155,
164,294-295
- and cosmological motifs 123-126
- and providential motifs 120-121
- and 'reign of death' 6, 112-114,
315-316
- and Tiridates 131-132
- anti-Neronian propaganda 104
- beneficence of 123
- dementia of 155
- lordship of 126-127, 150
- new age of 9, 57,58
- parousia of 57
- persecution of believers 159
- quinquennium of 95, 103, 123, 168, 332
Nicanor 76, 85, 87
Numismatic evidence 26, 42, 55-56, 57,
62,112-113,131,134,136,161-162,184
'Parallelomania' 6-7
Paterfamilias 18, 189
Paul
- and anti-Christ 69, 71, 74, 77, 329
- and apocalyptic thought 1, 2, 6, 7, 9,
51,52,66, 75,108-109,110,117,276,
326,327,332,333
- and boasting culture 264-265,269,334
- and Christ as benefactor 8, 39, 116,
108-117, 326, 334
426
Index of Subjects
- and Christ as hilasterion 196, 198, 262,

269,335
- and Christ as 'servant' 196
- and 'coded' diplomacy 33, 326, 335
- and 'counter-imperial' family of God
(orBodyofChrist) 1, 155,195,198,
321-323,333
- and 'counter-imperial' theology 10, 11,
36-37,164,261,274,319
- and crucified Christ 2, 7, 11-12,39,
153-154,190-195,330,334
- and crushing of Satan 161-163
- and 'debt' oflove 184, 189, 189-190,
198,334-335
- and democratisation of glory 198, 267,
269
- and democratisation of mercy and
grace to the weak 312
- and demotion of the ruler in status 310-311, 334
- and devotio tradition 191-193,
197-198
- and 'dishonoured' benefactor 176,
185-197,334
- and doxology 151-153,263
- and eschatological glory 267-268
- and eschatological 'meeting' of
Christ 59-60
- and eschatological rule of Christ
144-164
- and eschatological shift in Christ
317-317
- and ethos of Roman culture 203
- and founding myths or narratives of
Rome 265-266,335
- and Golden Age 146-153
- and Graeco-Roman reciprocity system 191,316-317
- and Greek ethical tradition regarding
glory 264
- and heavenly 'Lord' 52-53, 56, 60, 61
- and 'hidden transcripts' or 'codes' 5,
6,28-33,69,86,186,273,305-308,
313-316,326,327,334
- and house of David 69, 110, 195-196
- and imperial apotheosis 63, 66-68,
147-148,328
- and imperial beneficence 8
- and imperial cult 13, 35, 50-51, 145

- and language of'deity' 93-94, 329,
335
- and language of'epiphany', Jewish and
imperial 59-60, 85-90, 259, 329
- and language of'eternity' 317-319
- and language of'glory' 188-198
- and language of 'lordship' 150
- and language of'newness' 65,75-77,
142-144,153-156,163
- and language of 'power' 146-153
- and language of'teleology' 150-151,
333
- and language of'time' 108, 116-117
- and imperial 'hope' motif 62, 188-189
- and imperial 'peace' motif 161-162,
186-187,198
- and 'kyriarchical' theology 12-13
- and 'man oflawlessness' 59,72-73,
75-77,85-86,90-92,329
- and messianic 'age' or 'reign' of
Christ 7, 101-102, 145, 149, 164, 198,
260-261,261-262
- and modern scholarly interpretation of
Romans 13:1ff 271-277
- and nations 164,260-262
- and new creation 1, 5, 8, 101, 156-159,
163,267-268
- and parousia of Christ 43, 47-49,
56-59,72,101
- and Pax Romana 68
- and 'peace and safety' (pax et securitas)
motif 61-62,327
- and 'powers' of the old age 5, 6,
108-117,158-159,164
- and reallocation of the ruler's functions
to the Body of Christ 311-313
- and reconciliation 12, 195-197
- and reign of'sin' and 'death' 114-116,
145,333
- and reign of'grace' 9, 108-117, 165,
187-188,198,326,333
- and risen Christ 10, 114-116, 153
- and 'salvation' motifs 62
- and Son of God 69, 146-150, 161,
194-95,195-196
- and Spirit 1, 5, 30, 36, 65, 66, 101, 116,
145,146,147,148,154,187,189,190,
Index of Subjects
195,198,198,228,253,260,267,330,
333
- and Stoic idea of apokatestasis 164
- and submission to and honouring of
the ruler 146, 275, 308-323
- and taxation 33, 202, 271, 274, 304,
316,321,322
- and terminology of 'glory' 203
- and theocracy 4
- and transformation of mind 154-156
- and 'two ages' doctrine 101, 154,276
- and victory of Christ 8, 68, 88-89,
107-108,115-116,159-161,164
- as critic of Roman society 10, 326,
327-328,330,333-334
- as political conservative 3
- exposure to republican and imperial
traditions in the Greek East 204
- on Abraham and Isaac, the foundational Jewish patriarchs 266-267
- understanding of glory in Jewish context 254-262
- understanding of glory in Roman context 262-268
Petronius, Roman governor of Syria 79
Plutarch on kingship 290-292
'Polemical parallelism' 2-3, 329, 336
Pompey 71,76,85,302,329
Ptolemy IV Philopator 87
Pythagorean political theorists
- 'kingship' theory 4, 40, 45, 275,
279-287,302-303,334
Roman triumph 18, 23, 99, 131, 133-138,

171,333
Ruler (Julio-Claudian)
- and the 'age of grace' 121-123
- and cosmological motifs 64, 123-128
- and reign of'death' 23, 110-114,
313-316
- anti-imperial propaganda 32, 42, 43,
44,104,141,168-169,303-305,334,
335
- as 'lord' 4, 10, 126-127
- as 'ruler of the nations' 11
- as 'saviour' 34, 35
- as 'servant' 1-2, 30, 31, 44, 95, 145
- as 'Son of God' 4, 34, 35, 41
427
- dementia of 11, 292-299, 335

- clients of 1, 16, 41, 46, 97, 269, 327, 335
- conception of rule 1, 3, 10, 17, 23, 27,
37,39,41,46,54,118-144,146,327,
329-330,332
- cult of virtues 138-141
- 'decrees of Caesar' 13, 52-54
- divinity of 15,18-19,80-84
- 'epiphany' of 4, 63, 78
- 'Golden Age' of 9, 63-65, 97, 101-104,
123,126,163,182,303,332
- honorific titles of 4, 6, 7, 150
- 'household' of 4, 317
- imperial cult of 2, 10,15-16,16-17,
18,20,24,25,34-35,37-38,40-42,44,
50,51,55-56,72,78,84,330,337
- imperial poets 42
- imperium of 11
- in Greek East and Latin West 40-42,
165-168,330-331
- iustitia of 11
- Julio-Claudian propaganda 2, 22-23,
43
- 'loyalty oaths' to 53-54, 71, 93, 133
- military power of 39, 44, 112-114, 129,
131-132, 133-138
- patronal networks 3, 43, 44
- pietas of 11
- praise from 1
- princeps a diis electus 9, 44, 118-121,
145,267,330
- 'prophetic' and 'messianic' dimensions
ofrule 24,97,101-102,118,123-124,
333
- providentially defining events of
rule 23,119-121,128-133,330,332
- reciprocityof 1,40,175-176,184185,
189-190,193,194,197
- saeculum of 97-101, 126
- submission to, Graeco-Roman and Jewish perspectives 277-308
- sword of 7, 145, 195,295-297,
313-316,335
- titles and language of'newness' 142144
- virtus of 11, 23, 112-114, 140-141,
330,333,335
Ruler cult 4, 14-15, 18, 34, 40,281
428
Index of Subjects
Seleucus IV Philopator 87, 89

Symbolic universe 1, 24, 37, 41, 102, 110,
326
Thessalonica
- and imperial cult 52-56,71-72, 327
- eschatology at 89-90, 326-327,
328-329
Tiberius
- and Dalmatia 138
and Germanicus 137

and Sejanus 129-130
beneficence of 121-122
loyalty oath to 318
subjugation of Armenia 136
Virgil's Aeneid 25-26,42,325

Wicked Priest ofJerusalem 77, 85

James R. Harrison Paul and The Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica & Rome. A Study in The Conflict of Ideology 2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

James R. Harrison Paul and The Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica & Rome. A Study in The Conflict of Ideology 2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

James R. Harrison Paul and The Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica & Rome. A Study in The Conflict of Ideology 2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen

zum Neuen Testament

Paul and the Imperial Authorities

2011 by Mohr Siebeck, Tiibingen, Germany.

Chapter 2: Paul and the Imperial Gospel at 1hessalonica . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Chapter 3: 'The Ultimate Sinner': Paul and the Anti-Christ

Chapter 4: Imperial Conceptions of Rule and Paul's Reign of Grace . . 97

4.3.6 The virtus of the Ruler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 5: Paul's 'Dishonoured Benefactor' in Augustan

Chapter 6: Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory in the Epistle

6.3 The Concentration of Gloria in the House of the Caesars . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 7: Did Paul Found a New Concept of State? .............. 271

Chapter 8: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

8.3 Paul's Gospel and Imperial Rome: Issues ofldeological Conflict

Appendix: Neronian Numismatic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Annual of the British School at Athens

Bulletin de correspondance hellenique

Documents Illustrating the Reigns ofAugustus and Tiberius,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

ed. E.M. Smallwood

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

Inscriptiones Creticae, ed. M. Guarducci

Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum

Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome

Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger

Proceedings of the British Academy

Revue des etudes latines

Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten, et al., ed. F. Preisigke

Tituli Asiae Minoris, et al., ed. E. Kalinka

Urkunden der Ptolemi:ierzeit, ed. U. Wilcken

Yale Classical Studies

Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

1.1 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics'

1.1 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate

1.1 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate

A series of seminal essays have further contributed to our understanding of

1.1 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate

in claiming that the coalition of scholars represented by Wright work subjectively

1.2 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate

1.2 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate in Romans

the backdrop of Roman imperialism and anti-Semitism, 31 proposing that Paul's

ish critiques of 'pagan' empires and Paul's 'counter-imperial' theology. 39 Wright

1.2 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate in Romans

University of Wales, Lampeter, 2005).

In strictly historical terms, then, I consider it anachronistic to read Romans as an early

Furthermore, according to Elliott, 'kyriarchical' rhetoric dominates Romans

1.2 Modern Scholarship on the 'Paul and Politics' Debate in Romans

'anachronistic' theology. This study seeks to rectify these important lacunae in

implicit comparison with the pro-Roman aristocracy in Judea'. 5 9 In conclusion,

1.3 Modern Scholarship on the Imperial Cult and Its Relevance

59 A. Smith, "'Unmasking the Powers": Towards a Postcolonial Analysis of 1 Thessalonians',

1.3 Modern Scholarship on the Imperial Cult

man Empire followed the same 'chronological' paradigm. 65 Several significant

Price, Rituals and Power, 66-67,72-73,75-77, 128-131.

1.3 Modern Scholarship on the Imperial Cult

This recent focus on the particularity of locale as opposed to generalised

1.4 Methodological Issues

1.4 Methodological Issues