Joel White, «Anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul: An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation», Vol. 90 (2009) 305-333
This article argues that, though it cannot be doubted that there is a subversive quality to Paul’s letters, attempts to identify subversive subtexts have failed due to their preoccupation with what is deemed inherently subversive vocabulary. A better approach to grounding Paul’s anti-imperial theology is to recognize that he affirmed the subversive late Second temple Jewish-apocalyptic, and particularly Danielic, narrative that viewed Rome as final earthly kingdom that will be destroyed by the coming of God’s kingdom.
Anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul 331
16,20a serves as one more indication that Paul viewed the present age
of Heilsgeschichte as having almost exhausted itself.
Other texts from the disputed Pauline epistles could be mustered,
but these suffice to show that Paul understood himself to be living near
the end of the present age. The imminent return of Christ would bring
to an end the current age and usher in the eschaton. As we saw, this
conviction is based, above all, on the early Jewish understanding of
Daniel’s prophecies.
4. Paul’s Allusion to Danielic Traditions in 2 Thess 2,3-4
The authorship of 2 Thessalonians continues to be a much-debated
topic, but it must now be acknowledged that no small number of
scholars on both sides of the Atlantic regard the letter as authentic (79).
One reason for the willingness to reconsider a question many regarded
as settled by the studies of Wrede (80) and Trilling (81) is, perhaps,
precisely the apocalyptic flavor of this section of the letter. This was
seen as a clear contra-indication of Pauline authorship by an earlier
generation of scholars, but the new appreciation for the thoroughly
Jewish apocalyptic nature of Paul’s theology has led many to move this
argument to the “pro†side of the tally board. I have argued elsewhere
that the other major arguments are not strong enough to preclude
(79) Cf. W.G. KÃœMMEL, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Heidelberg 201980)
228-232; F.F. BRUCE, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC; Waco, TX 1982) xxxii-xxxiii; R.
JEWETT, The Thessalonian Correspondence. Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety
(Philadelphia, PA 1986) 3-18: “probably Paulineâ€; C. A. Wanamaker, The Epistles
to the Thessalonians. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGNT; Grand Rapids,
MI 1990) 17-28; J.D.G. DUNN, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI
1998) 13, n. 39; J.C. HURD, “Concerning the Authenticity of 2 Thessaloniansâ€, The
Earlier Letters of Paul and Other Studies (Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte
des Urchristentums 8; Frankfurt 1998) 135-161; P. STUHLMACHER, Biblische
Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen 1999) II, 54-59; A. MALHERBE, The
Letters to the Thessalonians. A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 32B; New York 2000) 350-375; C.R. NICOLL, From Hope to
Despair in Thessalonica. Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians (MSSNTS 126;
Cambridge 2004) 198-221; K.-W. NIEBUHR, “Die Paulusbriefsammlungâ€,
Grundinformation Neues Testament. Eine bibelkundlich-theologische Einführung
(UTB 2108; Göttingen 2000) 275-276; B. REICKE, Re-examining Paul’s Letters.
The History of the Pauline Correspondence (Harrisburg, PA 2001) 39-41; U.
WILCKENS, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005) I.3, 66.
(80) Cf. W.WREDE, Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes (TU 24;
Leipzig 1903).
(81) W. TRILLING, Untersuchungen zum zweiten Thessalonicherbrief (EthSt;
Leipzig 1972).
FOLLOW US