316 Joel White century would have readily attested (46). While Paul affirmed this narrative, it did not originate with him. My thesis, then, is that Paul’s theology does indeed contain anti-imperial elements, but that these are more a function of the fundamentally Jewish apocalyptic structure of his eschatology than of his own signature theology and that they are therefore less salient than they otherwise might be. I by no means wish to downplay the radical extent to which Paul’s Christology modified his apocalyptic expectations (47), nor do I deny that any number of anti- imperial implications follow from his Christology. I maintain, however, that what may be considered anti-imperial in Paul has its deepest roots, not in his Christology, which was novel per definitionem, but in certain Jewish apocalyptic and particularly Danielic conceptions of history that were pervasive in first century Judaism. We turn now to examine these. II. Danielic Antecedents to Paul’s Anti-Imperial Eschatology It is now generally accepted that early Jewish eschatology was concrete rather than abstract in its conception. It was not concerned with the coming of the kingdom of God in some transcendent sense, as the liberal theologians of 19th century understood it. Rather, early Jewish eschatology looked forward to the re-establishment of God’s reign in Israel. Though one must be wary of monolithic assessments of Judaism in the late Second Temple period, it is probably safe to say that most Jews shared a belief that a Davidic Messiah (48) would lead the tribes of Israel out of exile, defeat God’s enemies and vindicate God’s promises to his people (49) There is ample evidence that Jews of that (46) A.D. CALLAHAN, “The Arts of Resistance in an Age of Revolt”, Hidden Transcripts, 37: “Israelites revolted more than any other people under Roman domination did, and more in the first century of the Common Era than in all other periods of their history combined”. (47) I have argued this very point elsewhere. Cf. J. WHITE, Die Erstlingsgabe im Neuen Testament (TANZ 45; Tübingen 2007) 141-142. (48) I find W. Horbury’s argument that messianism in the Second Temple period was vigorous and widespread entirely convincing. Cf. ID., Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London 1998) 36-63. (49) Cf. esp. N.T. WRIGHT, Jesus and the Victory of God (COQG 2; Minneapolis, MN 1996) 202-209, and B. PITRE’S fine-tuning of Wright’s thesis in Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile. Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of Atonement (Tübingen 2005) 31-40.