Notes

1. NEIGHBOR (A)

1. See the discussion in Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 271–76.

2. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 3A (New York: Random House, 2000), 1319, 1346; Y. T. Radday, “Chiasmus in Hebrew Bible Narrative,” in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis, ed. J. Welch (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), 89; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995).

3. Robert Jewett, “Numerical Sequences in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, ed. D. F. Watson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 227–45, here 234–35.

4. b Šabb. 31a. See the discussion in Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922), 1:356–58; George Brockwell King, “The ‘Negative’ Golden Rule,” Journal of Religion 8 (1928): 274–75; Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965), 1:4; W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 401n2; Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Ktav, 1969), 230–31; Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 1:322–23; Kenneth Reinhard, “The Ethics of the Neighbor: Universalism, Particularism, Exceptionalism,” Journal of Textual Reasoning 4 (2005), http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume4/TR_04_01eol.html.

5. t.Sotah 9:11; y.Ned. 41c; Gen. Rab. 24:7; Sipre 200 on Lev. 19:18; see also ‘Abot. R. Nat. B 26. Cf. Andreas Nissen, Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974), 400–405; Reinhard Neudecker, “‘And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself, I Am the Lord’ (Lev. 19:18) in Jewish Interpretation,” Biblica 73 (1992): 496–517.

6. Mark 12:31; Matthew 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Luke 10:27; James 2:8; Did. 1:2; Barn. 19:5; Ps-Clem. Hom. 12.32; Justin Dial. 93.2–3; among others. See Davies, Sermon on the Mount, 370, 373, 402, 405n1; Victor P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), passim; Klaus Berger, Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 80–83; Betz, Galatians, 276; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 1–7, ICC (London: T and T Clark, 1988), 548–64; Dale C. Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2010), 359–60. See also Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2012), 192–93.

7. Betz, Galatians, 276; Oda Wischmeyer, “Das Gebot der Nächstenliebe bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung,” Biblische Zeitung 30 (1986): 164, 168; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988), 779; Dunn, “Paul’s Knowledge of the Jesus Tradition: The Evidence of Romans,” in Christus Bezeugen: Für Wolfgang Trilling, ed. K. Kertledge (Freiburg: Herder, 1990), 202; Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12,1–15,13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 132–40; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 813.

8. Jacob Taubes, The Political Theology of Paul, ed. Aleida Assmann with Jan Assmann, in conjunction with Horst Folkers, Wolf-Daniel Hartwich, and Christoph Schulte, trans. Dana Hollander (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 52–53. Taubes evidently regarded his discovery of Paul’s reduction of the dual commandment as his most important exegetical insight, since it is discussed in both parts of the seminar (52–52, 55–56), and resurfaces at the conclusion (92). Taubes’s estimation of the importance of his contribution on this point has been validated by Kenneth Reinhard, “Paul and the Political Theology of the Neighbor,” soundandsignifier.com, UCLA Center for Jewish Studies (May 2007), 1–32, esp. 17–19.

9. Taubes, Political Theology of Paul, 52–53.

10. See the discussion in W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 19–28, ICC (London: T and T Clark, 1997), 235–49, esp. 240–45.

11. Taubes, Political Theology of Paul, 52–53.

12. In speaking of kenōsis, I am conflating Romans 5 with Philipians 2. Cf. Karl Kertledge, “Das Verständnis des Todes Jesu bei Paulus,” in Der Tod Jesu: Deutungen im Neuen Testament, ed. J. Beutler (Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 114–36, esp. 123–24. Cf. Philippians 2:6–11, and the discussion in Günther Bornkamm, “Zum Verständnis des Christus-Hymnus, Phil. 2:6–11,” in Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum, Gesammlte Aufsätze (Munich: Beck, 1951), 171–82; Ulrich B. Müller, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1993), 105; Samuel Vollenweider, “Der ‘Raub’ der Gottgleichheit: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Vorschlag zu Phil. 2.6–11,” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 413–33; Vollenweider, “Die Metamorphose des Gottessohns: Zum epiphanialen Motivfeld in Phil. 2,6–8,” in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festgabe für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. U. Mell and U. B. Müller (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 107–31; Christian Strecker, Die liminale Theologie des Paulus: Zugänge zur paulinischen Theologie aus kultur-anthropologischer Perspektive (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1999), 163–69.

13. See the discussion of this foundational text in Kertledge, “Verständnis des Todes Jesu bei Paulus,” 116–24; Michael Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu Röm 5,1–11 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 166–78; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 38a (Dallas: Word, 1988), 1:254–60; Jewett, Romans, 355–68.

14. Sigmund Freud, Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1964), 116–16; cited by Taubes, Political Theology of Paul, 92.

15. Taubes, Political Theology of Paul, 92.

16. Ibid., 82.

17. Ibid., 95.

18. Reinhard, “Paul and the Political Theology of the Neighbor,” 21.

19. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1651–56; Neudecker, “And You Shall Love Your Neighbor.”

20. Slavoj Žižek, Eric L. Santner, and Kenneth Reinhard, The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). On the importance of Taubes for the genesis of these inquiries, see Reinhard, “Paul and the Political Theology of the Neighbor,” 2.

21. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, trans. James Strachey (New York: Norton, 1989), 66–69; cited in Žižek, Santner, and Reinhard, The Neighbor, 1.

22. Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 67; cited in Žižek, Santner, and Rein hard, The Neighbor, 2.

23. Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 68; cited in Žižek, Santner, and Rein hard, The Neighbor, 2.

24. Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 69; cited in Žižek, Santner, and Rein hard, The Neighbor, 2.

25. Kenneth Reinhard, “Toward a Political Theology of the Neighbor,” in Žižek, Santner, and Reinhard, The Neighbor, 11–75, here 13–14, 50–59.

26. Ibid., 13–14, 61–67.

27. Ibid., 45–46, 71–74.

28. Ibid., 73.

29. Eric L. Santner, “Miracles Happen: Benjamin, Rosenzweig, Freud, and the Matter of the Neighbor,” in Žižek, Santner, and Reinhard, The Neighbor, 76–133.

30. Santner, “Miracles Happen,” 91–92, referencing Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, book 11, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Norton, 1981), 214; and Jean Laplanche, New Foundations for Psychoanalysis, trans. David Macey (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 130.

31. Santner, “Miracles Happen,” 92, referencing Jean Laplanche, Essays on Otherness, ed. John Fletcher (London: Routledge, 1999), 80.

32. Santner, “Miracles Happen,” 92.

33. Ibid., 125.

34. Ibid., 132–33.

35. Ibid., 133.

36. Ibid., referencing Franz Rosenzweig, Der Mensch und sein Werk, in Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Reinhold Mayer and Annemarie Mayer (Dordrecht: Martonus Nijhoff, 1984), 1:2:770–71.

37. Santner, “Miracles Happen,” 133.

38. Slavoj Žižek, “Neighbors and Other Monsters: A Plea for Ethical Violence,” in Žižek, Santner, and Reinhard, The Neighbor, 134–90.

39. Ibid., 142–57.

40. Ibid., 158–69.

41. According to F. C. Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831): 61–206, here 114–16; Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Sein Leben und Wirken, sein Briefe und seine Lehre, ein Beitrag zu einer kritischen Geschichte des Urchristentums (Stuttgart: Becher und Müller, 1845), with a second edition published in 1866; followed by Adolf Hilgenfeld, Judentum und Judenchristentum: Eine Nachlese zur Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums (Leipzig: Fues, 1886); Hilgenfeld, “Der Clemens-Roman,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 49 (1906): 66–133. See the discussion in Gerd Lüdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel, vol. 2, Antipaulinismus im frühen Christentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983), 15, 15n12, 17n24, 41.

42. Žižek, “Neighbors and Other Monsters,” 189.

43. Ibid., 187.

44. Ibid., 190.

45. Ibid., 188–89.

46. Ibid., 190. Elsewhere, Žižek seems to express a rather different perspective on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity: see Žižek, The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003), 3–6, 108–12, 133–36. Žižek would doubtless explain that the difference is only due to a parallactic shift of perspective.

47. Jewett, Romans, 817. Similarly, Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978), 412; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1979), 2:679; Franz-Josef Ortkemper, Leben aus dem Glauben: Christliche Grundhaltungen nach Römer 12–13 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980), 132; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 784–85; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 681–82; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. S. J. Hafemann (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 212.

48. Giorgio Agamben, The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, trans. Patricia Daley (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 2–3 and passim.

49. Alain Badiou, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism, trans. Ray Brassier (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 55–64 and passim.

50. Taubes, Political Theology of Paul, 53.

51. Ibid., 1.

52. Ibid., 53–54. Perhaps Taubes was drawn to 1 Corinthians 7:29–31 by Martin Heidegger’s comments on this passage in his seminar of the early 1920s: see Martin Heidegger, Einleitung in die Phänomenologie der Religion, in Gesamtausgabe, ed. Matthias Jung (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1995), 60:1:117–19. In any case, subsequent interpreters have focused on 1 Corinthians 7:29–31 in seeking to understand Pauline eschatology, to the detriment of Romans 13:11–14: for example, Agamben, The Time That Remains, 23–43; Žižek, The Puppet and the Dwarf, 111–12; Žižek, The Fragile Absolute, or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? (New York: Verso, 2000), 129; Travis Kroeker, “Living ‘As If Not’: Messianic Becoming or the Practice of Nihilism?,” in Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitical Vision: Critical Engagements with Agamben, Badiou, Žižek, and Others, ed. Douglas Harink (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2010), 37–63, esp. 59–63.

53. Especially as mediated by the essays and responses in Stephen D. Moore and Mayra Rivera, eds., Planetary Loves: Spivak, Postcoloniality, and Theology (New York: Fordham University Press, 2011).

54. Julia Kristeva, Strangers to Ourselves (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).

55. On the context and composition of these writings, see J. Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 1977); Robert B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 2:639–72; Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (New York: T and T Clark, 2007); Kenneth Atkinson, “Herod the Great, Sosius, and the Siege of Jerusalem in Psalms of Solomon 17,” Novum Testamentum 38 (1996): 313–22; Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Marinus de Jonge, Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden: Brill, 1979); de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden: Brill, 2003); James L. Kugel, The Ladder of Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of the Biblical Story of Jacob and His Children (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).

56. For example, Seneca, Hercules Furens. See the discussion in John G. Fitch and S. McElduff, “Construction of the Self in Senecan Drama,” Mnemosyne 55 (2002): 18–40; Emma Jane Scott, “The Poetics of Sleep: Representing Dreams and Sleep in Latin Literature and Roman Art” (PhD diss., UCLA, 2005); Basil Dufallo, The Ghosts of the Past: Latin Literature, the Dead, and Rome’s Transition to a Principate (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2007).

57. For example, Ps.-Plato Cleitophon 407B–408C; Epictetus Diss. 2.20.10–15; Corp. herm. 1.15.23; Corp. herm. 13.4. See the discussion in Simon Roelof Slings, A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon (Amsterdam: Academische Pers, 1981); William C. Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1979).

2. KAIROS (B)

1. On the difficulty of the phrase, see Fréderic Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1977), 448–49; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988), 785; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 682; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 818–19. The phrase kai touto (and this) is described as “emphatic” in F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §553.9, and should be rendered “and at that” or “and especially” §290.

2. So, Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed., trans. Edwin C. Hoskyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 497–98; Franz-Josef Leenhardt, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. H. Knight (London: Lutterworth, 1961), 338; Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 389; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978), 413; Johannes P. Louw, A Semantic Discourse Analysis of Romans (Pretoria: University of Pretoria Press, 1979), 2.125; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 3. Teilband Röm 12–16, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar (Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1982), 75; Fitzmyer, Romans, 682; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 817, 819.

3. Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 395–97, suggests that a baptismal hymn is quoted in 13:11–12, while Jewett, Romans, 817–18, suggests an Agape hymn. Schlier and Jewett regard 13:11c (nun gar egguteron hēmōn hē sōtēria ē hote episteusamen) as an explanatory addition to the hymn by Paul.

4. The participle eidotes (knowing) in 13:11a clearly takes “the kairos” (ton kairon) as its object, not touto (this), as Jewett, Romans, 818, suggests: “The expression touto eidotes (“knowing this”) is used in an indicative sense, since it does not follow a finite verb in this sentence.” Note the absence of hoti (that) after eidotes, which, in other cases (for example, 1 Cor. 15:58; 2 Cor. 4:14; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 5:3; 6:9), signals that quoted material follows.

5. Jewett, Romans, 819, referencing Jörg Baumgarten, “kairos,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 2 (1991): 333. Similarly, Fitzmyer, Romans, 682; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. S. J. Hafemann (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 212–13; Moo, Romans, 819–20; Luke Timothy Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the New Testament Series (New York: Crossroad, 1997), 206.

6. For example, 2 Apoc. Bar. 85.10. See the discussion of apocalyptic views in Gerhard Dautzenberg, “Was bleibt von der Naherwartung? Zu Röm 13:11–14,” in Biblische Randbemerkungen: Schülerfestschrift Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed. H. Merklein and J. Lange (Würzburg: Echter, 1974), 361–74; Franz-Josef Ortkemper, Leben aus dem Glauben: Christliche Grundhaltungen nach Römer 12–13 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980), 133; Anton Vögtle, “Röm 13:11–14 und die ‘Nah’-Erwartung,” in Rechtfertigung, ed. J. Friedrich (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976), 557–73.

7. G. L. Davenport, “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in Psalms of Solomon 17,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and G. W. Nickelsburg (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 67–92; Robert B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 2:643–47, 667–68; Marinus de Jonge, “Expectation of the Future in the Psalms of Solomon,” Neotestamentica 23 (1989): 93–117; Craig A. Evans, “Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 3 (2006): 9–40, esp. 20–22; Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 340–44.

8. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” 643–47; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 341–44; Evans, “Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures,” 21–22.

9. H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 179–82; Marinus de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 124–40.

10. Émile Puech, “Fragments d’un apocrypha de Lévi et le personnage eschatologique: 4QTestLévi (?) et 4QAJa,” in The Madrid Qumran Conference: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:449–501; James C. Vanderkam, “Messianism and Apocalypticism,” in The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, ed. Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein (New York: Continuum, 2003), 120–21; George J. Brooke, “The Apocryphon of Levi (?) and the Messianic Servant High Priest,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 140–57; Michael A. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls,” in Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 307–26; John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 89–93.

11. The literature on the Synoptic Apocalypse is immense, and scholars differ regarding its occasion: the Caligula crisis, Nero’s persecution, the Jewish war, or a persecution of Christians at the time of Vespasian. For an evaluation of the literature, see Rudolf Pesch, Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968), 19–47; Egon Brandenburger, Markus 13 und die Apokalyptik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984), 21–42. See further G. Hölscher, “Der Ursprung der Apokalypse Markus 13,” Theologische Blätter 12 (1933): 193–202; Lars Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. (Lund: Gleerup, 1966); Luise Schottroff, “Die Gegenwart in der Apokalyptik der synoptischen Evangelien,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979, ed. David Hellholm (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 707–28; Martin Hengel, “Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums,” in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium, ed. H. Cancik (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 1–45; Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Eschatological Discourse of Mark 13,” in The Four Gospels 1992, ed. F. Van Segbroeck (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:1125–40; Gerd Theissen, “The Great Eschatological Discourse and the Threat to the Temple in 40 C.E.,” in The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (London: T and T Clark, 2004), 125–65.

12. On the sayings in Mark 13 announcing the coming of Jesus as the Son of Man at a future time that no one knows, see Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 153–54; cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993); John T. Carroll, “The Parousia of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” in The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity, ed. John T. Carroll (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 9–13.

13. Cf. Luke 21:25–28; Hebrews 10:25; James 5:8; 1 Peter 4:7; see the discussion in Dautzenberg, “Was Bleibt von der Naherwartung?,” 361–74; Ortkemper, Leben aus dem Glauben, 133; Vögtle, “Röm 13:11–14 und die ‘Nah’-Erwartung,” 557–73; Alexandra R. Brown, “Paul and the Parousia,” in Carroll, The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity, 47–76; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 786–87; Jewett, Romans, 821, with almost all commentators.

14. Gustav Stählin, “nun,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 4 (1967): 1120; similarly, Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 414; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 786; Jewett, Romans, 820.

15. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 681; cf. Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 396; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 786.

16. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 786; Jewett, Romans, 820.

17. Heinz Giesen, “hōra,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 3 (1993): 508. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1979), 2:681–82; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 818, 822.

18. Gerhard Delling, “kairos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3 (1965): 460.

19. Jewett, Romans, 819n23, citing Plato Prot. 361e6: nun d’ hōra ēdē kat’ ep’ allo ti trepesthai (But now it’s past time to turn to another matter); Arrian Tact. 33.6.4: hōra ēdē legein (it is past time to speak); see also Polybius 10.40.12; Lucian Pseudol. 32.12; Pausanias Graec. descr. 9.13.5. Cf. Gerhard Delling, “hōra,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 9 (1974): 675–81.

20. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:680–81; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 785; Jewett, Romans, 819.

21. For episteusamen as an ingressive aorist, see Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, §331; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 10–11; Godet, Commentary on Romans, 450; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 681; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 414; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 786; Jewett, Romans, 821. For Pauline other uses of the aorist of pisteuō to indicate the act of commitment that marked entrance into the messianic community, see 1 Corinthians 3:5; 15:2, 11; Galatians 2:16.

22. Evald Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1963), 33; Anton Grabner-Haider, Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus (Münster: Aschendorff, 1968), 84–85; Vögtle, “Röm 13:11–14 und die ‘Nah’-Erwartung,” 566; Ortkemper, Leben aus dem Glauben, 136, 138–39; Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12,1–15,13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 143–44.

23. Giorgio Agamben, The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, trans. Patricia Daley (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 59–87; see the discussion in Ryan L. Hansen, “Messianic or Apocalyptic? Engaging Agamben on Paul and Politics,” in Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitical Vision: Critical Engagements with Agamben, Badiou, Žižek, and Others, ed. Douglas Harink (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2010), 198–223; Douglas Harink, “Time and Politics in Four Commentaries on Romans,” in Harink, Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitical Vision, 304–11.

24. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 62.

25. Ibid., 71. See the classic statement of this insight by Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 99: “While other believers held that the finger of the world-clock was touching on the beginning of the coming hour and were waiting for the stroke that should announce this, Paul told them that it had already passed beyond the point, and that they had failed to hear the striking of the hour, which in fact struck at the Resurrection of Jesus.” See further Rudolf Bultmann, The Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1951), 1:278–29: Christ’s death and resurrection was, for Paul, “the eschatological event by which God ended the old course of the world and introduced a new aeon . . . what for the Jews is a matter of hope is for Paul a present reality—or better, is also a present reality” (emphasis original). Cf. M. C. de Boer, “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in McGinn, Collins, and Stein, The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, 166–81, esp. 173.

26. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 62; see the discussion in Gordon Zerbe, “On the Exigency of a Messianic Ecclesia: An Engagement with Philosophical Readers of Paul,” in Harink, Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitical Vision, 260.

27. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 63.

28. Ibid., 64.

29. Ibid., 65–68; see Hansen, “Messianic or Apocalyptic?,” 202–3.

30. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 65.

31. Ibid., 65–66.

32. Ibid., 67.

33. Ibid., 69.

34. Ibid., 64, emphasis mine.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid., 62; similarly, Giorgio Agamben, The Church and the Kingdom, trans. Leland de la Durantaye (London: Seagull Books, 2012), 13. The images reflect the participle sunestalmenos used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:29 to describe the kairos.

37. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 71.

38. Ibid., referencing Franz Kafka, Hochzeitsvorbereitung auf dem Lande und andere Prosa aus dem Nachlass, vol. 8, Gesammelte Werke, ed. Max Brod (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1966), 90, and an Islamic text cited in Paul Casanova, Mohammed et la fin du Monde (Paris: Geuthner, 1911), 69.

39. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 67, 71.

40. Ibid., 67.

41. Ibid., 65–67.

42. For Paul’s proclamation of the messianic event as antiphilosophical, see esp. 1 Corinthians 1:18—2:16, with the assessment of Alain Badiou, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism, trans. Ray Brassier (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 17, 46–54. Cf. L. L. Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition (London: T and T Clark, 2005).

43. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 69.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid., 67.

46. Ibid., 63, 70–71.

47. Ibid., 69.

48. Ibid.

49. On the influence of the tradition of Jesus’s sayings upon Romans 13:11–14, see David Wenham, “Paul and the Synoptic Apocalypse,” in Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 345–75; Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 116, 325–26; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 141–60. Especially suggestive are the similarities between Romans 13:11–14 and the parable of the Night Watchers in Mark 13:33–37, the nucleus of which goes back to the historical Jesus; see C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner’s, 1961), 127–32; Luise Schottroff, The Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 124–29.

50. On eggizō and eggus in expressions of the nearness of the decisive day, the coming of the kingdom of God, see Herbert Preisker, “eggus, ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 2 (1964): 331; Detlev Dormeyer, “eggizō,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 1 (1991): 370.

51. A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 122n1; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:682; Michel, Der Römerbrief, 414; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 146–47; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 786; Jewett, Romans, 822. On Mark 1:15 and Paul, see Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967), 30. On Jesus’s proclamation of the arrival of God’s kingdom in Q, see Heinz Schürmann, “Das Zeugnis der Redenquelle für die Basileia-Verkündigung Jesu: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung,” in Logia: Les Paroles de Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus, ed. Joëlm Delobel (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 121–200; Helmut Koester, “The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus,” in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical: Essays in Honor of Tjitze Baarda, ed. William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and H. J. de Jonge (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 137–54; James M. Robinson, “Jesus’ Sayings About God Reigning,” in Jesus According to the Earliest Witness (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 120–28. See further Helmut Merklein, Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft: Eine Skizze (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989), 23. On the meaning of basileia in Q and how the term should be translated, see now Giovanni Bazzana, “Basileia—the Q Concept of Kingship in Light of Documentary Papyri,” in Light from the East: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament, ed. Peter Arzt-Grabner and Christina M. Kreinecker (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010), 153–68.

52. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, 30.

53. Vögtle, “Röm 13:11–14 und die ‘Nah’-Erwartung,” 564; Jewett, Romans, 821.

54. Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963); G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986); Dale C. Allison, “The Eschatology of Jesus,” in McGinn, Collins, and Stein, The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, 139–65; Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2010), 31, 91, 112, 201.

55. Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reich Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1892); translated into English as Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (New York: Macmillan, 1968).

56. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner’s, 1961); Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (New York: Scribner’s, 1970); John A. T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 36–82.

57. John Dominic Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper and Row, 1973); Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991); Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 1994).

58. James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998); James L. Bailey, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 162–63.

59. Paul Joüon, “Notes philologiques sur les Evangiles,” Recherches de science religieuse 17 (1927): 537–40; cf. Joel Marcus, “‘The Time Has Been Fulfilled!’ (Mark 1:15),” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 49–68; Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1998), 59–60, 121; Ben F. Meyer, “How Jesus Charged Language with Meaning: A Study in Rhetoric,” in Authenticating the Words of Jesus, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 81–96, esp. 90. As is well known, Rudolf Bultmann regarded Mark 1:15 as “a secondary formulation . . . which might very well derive from Mark himself.” Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 118; similarly, Werner H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 9; John Dominic Crossan, In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1983), 56.

60. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 828, s.v., plēroō 2. Cf. Delling, “kairos,” 460.

61. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:152; see further Paul Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (Münster: Aschendorff, 1982); Dieter Zeller, Kommentar zur Logienquelle (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984).

62. On the imminent eschatology of Jesus, see Erich Grässer, Die Naherwartung Jesu (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973).

63. Émile Benveniste, Problems in General Linguistics, trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek (Miami: University of Miami Press, 1971), 217–20; cited and discussed by Agamben, The Time That Remains, 66–67.

64. For this conception of time, see Walter Benjamin, “Über den Begriff der Geschichte,” in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1.2, ed. Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhäuser (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1974), 693–704; translated into English as “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1979), 255–66.

65. As illustrated, for example, by the parable of the Harvest Time in Mark 4:26–29, the parable of the Night Watchers in Mark 13:28–37, and the parable of the Feast in Luke 14:16–24/Matthew 22:1–10/Gospel of Thomas 64. See the interpretations of these parables by C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner’s, 1961); Crossan, In Parables; Schottroff, The Parables of Jesus.

66. Scholars of early Christianity conventionally cite the Sayings Gospel Q according to Luke, reflecting the consensus that, in most cases, Luke preserves the Q material more faithfully than Matthew; see Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1990), 128–33.

67. See already Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 99.

68. On the modification of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology brought about by Paul’s conviction that the messianic event had already occurred, see ibid., 90–100; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:278–79; cf. de Boer, “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 173–81.

3. AWAKENING (C)

1. For example, Ps.-Plato Cleitophon 407B–408C; Epictetus Diss. 2.20.10–15; Philo Somn. 1.117, 121, 164; 2.106, 133, 160, 162, 292; Migr. Abr. 222; Odes Sol. 8.3–5; 4 Macc. 5:11; Corp. herm. 1.15.23; Corp. herm. 13.4; 1 Thessalonians 5:6–10; Mark 13:33–37; Ephesians 5:14; Matthew 24:43; Luke 12:39; Revelations 3:2–3; 16:15. Especially interesting is Test. Reuben 3:1–8, where sleep is figured as a destructive spirit within human nature: “Besides all these there is an eighth spirit of sleep (pneuma tou hupnou), with which is brought about the trance of nature (ekstasis phuseōs) and the image of death (eikōntouthanatou). With these spirits are mingled the spirits of error. . . . And with all these the spirit of sleep is joined which is that of error and fantasy (planekaiphantasia).” For ekstasis tēs phuseōs as “degeneracy,” see Theophrastus CP 3.1.6. Cf. Heinrich Balz, “hupnos, ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 8 (1972): 547–53; Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 396; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988), 786; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 820.

2. On the gloominess of the vision of Silver Age writers, see, in general, D. Henry and E. Henry, The Mask of Power: Seneca’s Tragedies and Imperial Rome (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1985); Thomas N. Habinek, The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998); John G. Fitch, Seneca VIII Tragedies, Loeb Classical Library 62 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002), 5–10, 21–27; J. G. Fitch and S. McElduff, “Construction of the Self in Senecan Drama,” Mnemosyne 55 (2002): 18–40; Paul Allen Miller, Subjecting Verses: Latin Love Elegy and the Emergence of the Real (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), esp. 184–209; C. A. J. Littlewood, “The Broken World,” in Self-Representation and Illusion in Senecan Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 15–102; Basil Dufallo, The Ghosts of the Past: Latin Literature, the Dead, and Rome’s Transition to a Principate (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2007).

3. In what follows, I choose Seneca as a particularly productive interlocutor for Paul because of Seneca’s proximity and exposure to the forces unleashed by the structure of sole sovereignty. See, in general, Paul Veyne, Seneca: The Life of a Stoic (London: Routledge, 2003).

4. Seneca Herc. Fur. 610–11; unless otherwise indicated, translations are from Frank Justus Miller, Seneca VIII Tragedies, Loeb Classical Library 62 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 57. See the commentary on this passage by Margarethe Billerbeck, Seneca: “Hercules Furens”: Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 411. On the function of tragedy in the political and cultural life of the first century, see Anthony J. Boyle, Roman Tragedy (London: Routledge, 2005).

5. Seneca Herc. Fur. 690. On the personification of Sleep (Sopor) here, see the commentary in John G. Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens”: A Critical Text with Introduction and Commentary (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 300–301.

6. Seneca Herc. Fur. 704–705.

7. Ibid., 838, 849–53; see Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 337.

8. Seneca Herc. Fur. 843; see Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 339–40: “the singular (somnos) means ‘the condition of sleep.’”

9. Seneca Herc. Fur. 861–63; trans. Fitch, Seneca VIII Tragedies, 117; see the commentary by Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 342, 343.

10. Seneca Herc. Fur. 1069; trans. Fitch, Seneca VIII Tragedies, 135; see the commentary in Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 397.

11. Seneca Herc. Fur. 1075–76; cf. Philo Somn. 2.667 M; Plutarch Mor. 107E; see the commentary in Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 398–99.

12. Seneca Herc. Fur. 137–38, 176–77; trans. Fitch, Seneca VIII Tragedies, 59, 61. 63; see the commentary by Billerbeck, Seneca: “Hercules Furens,” 262.

13. Seneca Herc. Fur. 860; trans. Fitch, Seneca VIII Tragedies, 117. See the discussion in James R. Harrison, “Paul and the ‘Social Relations’ of Death at Rome,” in Paul and His Social Relations, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 101–5

14. Seneca Oed. 126–32; see the discussion in Billerbeck, Seneca: “Hercules Furens,” 483.

15. For example, Ovid Tristia 1.3; 3.2, 11; Ex Ponto 1.9; see the discussion of this phenomenon in Miller, Subjecting Verses, 210–36; Dufallo, Ghosts of the Past, 123–27.

16. Mark 14:28; Matthew 16:21; 26:32; Luke 9:22; see Jakob Kremer, “egeirein,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 1 (1990): 372; Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12,1–15,13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 145: “egeirein (41x in the Pauline corpus) refers in every other case except Rom. 13:11 and Eph. 5: 14 to resurrection”; Jewett, Romans, 820.

17. Seneca Herc. Fur. 161, 163; see Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 174; Billerbeck, Seneca: “Hercules Furens,” 256–57.

18. Seneca Herc. Fur. 164–65; see Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 174.

19. Seneca Herc. Fur. 169–71; trans. Fitch, Seneca VIII Tragedies, 61; see Billerbeck, Seneca: “Hercules Furens,” 260–61.

20. Seneca Herc. Fur. 183–85; see Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 177.

21. Keith Hopkins, Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 2:205–11; Timothy Peter Wiseman, Catullus and His World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 4–14; Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture (London: Duckworth, 1987); Geza Alfölfy, The Social History of Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 135; Magnus Wistrand, Entertainment and Violence in Ancient Rome: The Attitudes of Writers of the First Century A.D. (Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1992); Roland Auguet, Cruelty and Civilization: The Roman Games (London: Routledge, 1994).

22. Rodolfo Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries (London: Macmillan, 1888), 64–67, summarized by Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 207–10. See now John Bodel, “Graveyards and Groves: A Study of the Lex Lucerina,” American Journal of Ancient History 11 (1986): 1–133, esp. 40–47. Bodel (81–83, 114n194) suggests that mass crematoria replaced mass inhumation in the first century C.E., appealing to Martial 8.75.9–10 and Lucan 8.736–38.

23. Keith Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 1:1–132; Keith Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), esp. 166–67; Willem Jongman, “Slavery and the Growth of Rome: The Transformation of Italy in the Second and First Centuries BCE,” in Rome the Cosmopolis, ed. Catherine Edwards and Greg Woolf (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 100–22.

24. Text of the inscription published in L’année épigraphique (1971): 88 and 89; English translation in Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1991), no. 22; see the discussion in O. F. Robinson, “Slaves and the Criminal Law,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 98 (1981): 223–27; Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, 166–67. On the crucifixion of slaves, see further Keith Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 113–37; Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 33–51.

25. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 11, 12, 29; Miller, Subjecting Verses, 184–209. On the Principate as a “state of exception” in the Schmittian sense, see Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 65–88.

26. For example, Tacitus Ann. 1.2.1; 4.1 on the slavishness fostered by Augustus and his successors and the destruction of the Roman character. Cf. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 3, 10; Miller, Subjecting Verses, 210–36; Dufallo, Ghosts of the Past, 123–27.

27. Seneca Herc. Fur. 64–65.

28. Ibid., 67–68.

29. Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 34–35; 39–40; cf. A. Rose, “Seneca’s HF: A Politic-Didactic Reading,” CJ 75 (1979–80): 135–42, esp. 141; G. Bruden, “Herakles and Hercules: Survival in Greek and Roman Tragedy,” in Theater and Society in the Classical World, ed. R. Scodel (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), 251. See, in general, Anthony A. Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 213–41; Aloys Winterling, Caligula: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 132–71.

30. Philo Leg. Gai. 75.

31. Suetonius Gaius Caligula, esp. 32–36; see also Philo Leg. Gai. 66, 89–90, 101.

32. Cassius Dio 59.10; cf. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 10. One should acknowledge that Cassius Dio is characterizing the reign of Caligula long after the fact. But abject fear is already attested by Epictetus Diss. 1.1.26; 1.3.2, and so on in passages enjoining his hearers not to be afraid that Caesar is going to kill you—are you the only one with a neck to be bared to the executioner?

33. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 11, 29.

34. P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore, Res gestae divi Augusti (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 22, 25.

35. Cassius Dio 49.12.

36. Suetonius Claud. 34. See further Catherine Edwards, “Death as Spectacle: Looking at Death in the Arena,” in Death in Ancient Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 46–77.

37. Harold N. Fowler and Richard Stillwell, Corinth (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932), 1:1:89–91, 79 (figs. 54–56, with plan); Ferdinand J. de Waele, Theater en Amphitheater Te Oud Korinthe (Utrecht: Dekker, 1928), 25–31; Katherine Welch, “Negotiating Roman Spectacle Architecture in the Greek World: Athens and Corinth,” in The Art of Ancient Spectacle, ed. Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 125–45, esp. 133–40.

38. Louis Robert, Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec (Paris: Champion, 1940), 270; Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 13.

39. On the psychological lure of spectacle, see Paul Veyne, Le pain et le cirque: Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique (Paris: Seuil, 1976); Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 2–3, 7–12, 17, 26; Carlin A. Barton, The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), esp. 47–106; Richard Beacham, Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 128, 240; Garratt G. Fagan, The Lure of the Arena: Social Psychology and the Crowd at the Roman Games (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

40. Seneca Herc. Fur. 838–39; see Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 338.

41. Tacitus Dial. Or. 29.

42. Seneca Ep. Mor. 7.5. Of course, one should recognize that Seneca and Tacitus may impute to the masses desires and motivations that may not have been their own. For an attempt to gain access to the mental world of the lower classes, see Nicholas Horsfall, The Culture of the Roman Plebs (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2003).

43. Tertullian De Spect. 12, 21.

44. Seneca Ep. Mor. 7.3.

45. Ibid., 7.5.

46. Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, Mario Torelli, Filippo Coarelli, and Antonio Giuliano, “Il monument teatino di C. Lusius Storax nel Museo di Chieti,” Studi Miscellanei 10, no. 3 (1963–64): 55–102. See the analysis and interpretation of this monument in John R. Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans: Visual Representation and Non-Elite Viewers in Italy, 100 B.C.–A.D. 315 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 145–52, esp. 151–52.

47. G. De Petra, “L’anfiteatro pompeiano rappresentato in un antico dipinto,” Giornale degli scavi di Pompei 1 (1868–69): 185–86; more recently, Valeria Sampaolo, “I 3, 23: Casa della Rissa nel-l’Anfiteatro,” in Pompei: Pitture e mosaic 1 (Rome: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1990), 77–81. See the analysis and discussion in Clark, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans, 152–58. It has long been recognized by scholars that the painting is an illustration of the riot described by Tacitus in Ann. 14.17.

48. See the parallel texts adduced by C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1979), 2:687–88; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 398–99; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 149; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 789–90; Jewett, Romans, 825–27; especially interesting is the account of Nero’s nocturnal behavior in Suetonius Nero 26: “No sooner was the twilight over than he would catch up a cap or a wig and go to the taverns or range about the streets playing pranks, which however were very far from harmless; for he used to beat men as they came home from dinner, stabbing any who resisted and throwing them into the sewers. . . . In the strife which resulted he often ran the risk of losing his eyes or even his life, for he was beaten almost to death by a man of the senatorial order, whose wife he had maltreated.”

49. Bruce Winter, “Roman Law and Society in Romans 12–15,” in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church, ed. Peter Oakes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2002), 67–102, here 86–88; Jewett, Romans, 824–27.

50. Giuseppe Fiorelli, “Pompei,” Notizie degli scavi di antichità 1 (1876): 193–95; August Mau, “Scavi di Pompei,” Bullettino dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica (1878): 191–94; Irene Bragantini, “VI 14, 35.36: Caupona di Salvius,” in Pompei: Pitture e mosaic 5 (Rome: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1994), 366–71. For analysis and interpretation, see Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans, 161–68.

51. For the text of the captions, see Mau, “Scavi di Pompei,” 194. On the relationship between the captions and the images, see Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans, 161.

52. Mau, “Scavi di Pompei,” 194; cf. F. A. Todd, “Three Pompeian Wall-Inscriptions, and Petronius,” Classical Review 53 (1939): 5–8, here 6; Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans, 165.

53. Mau, “Scavi di Pompei,” 194; see Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans, 162–64.

54. Mau, “Scavi di Pompei,” 194; cf. Todd, “Three Pompeian Wall-Inscriptions,” 8; Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans, 167.

55. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:687: “The relation between the two nouns in each pair is very close: each pair may, in fact, be understood as suggesting one composite idea (e.g. drunken revelries) rather than two distinct ideas”; see, similarly, Dunn, Romans 9–16, 789.

56. Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans, 161, 162, 167–68.

57. Reading apobalōmetha (let us cast off) in 13:12b (reasonably well attested by P46, D*, F, G), rather than apothōmetha (let us put off), with C. E. B. Cranfield, A Commentary on Romans 12–13, vol. 12, Occasional Papers of the Scottish Journal of Theology (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1965), 94; similarly, Jewett, Romans, 816, 822, who comments: “This wording carries forward the idea of rising from sleep and casting off bed covering.”

58. Seneca Herc. Fur. 1044–46; see Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 388–89.

59. Seneca Herc. Fur. 1051–52; see Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 390.

60. Rose, “Seneca’s HF: A Politic-Didactic Reading,” 135–42; Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 34–35, 39–40.

61. Seneca Herc. Fur. 1065–81; see the discussion of addresses and prayers to Sleep in Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 394–95.

62. Seneca Herc. Fur. 1083; trans. Fitch, Seneca VIII Tragedies, 137; see the commentary in Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens,” 400–401.

4. AWAKENING (C′)

1. Ps-Plato Cleitophon 407B–408C; Epictetus Diss. 2.20.10–15; Philo Somn. 1.164; 2.292; Odes Sol. 8:3–5; Ephesians 5:14; Corp. herm. 1.15.23, 27; Corp. herm. 7.1; Corp. herm. 13.4; Acts Thom. 110.43–44. Cf. Evald Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1963), 26; Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 396; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 820.

2. Ps.-Plato Cleitophon 408C; see Simon Roelof Slings, A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon (Amsterdam: Academische Pers, 1981), 118, 329, who suggests that the author was thinking of the famous comparison of Socrates with a gadfly in Plato Apol. 30E2–5 and 31A4.

3. Epictetus Diss. 2.20.10; cited in Jewett, Romans, 820.

4. Epictetus Diss. 2.20.15–16. Cf. A. A. Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 186.

5. Corp. herm. 1.27; see Richard Reitzenstein, Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen und frühchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), 58–59; George MacRae, “Sleep and Awakening in Gnostic Texts,” in The Origins of Gnosticism, ed. U. Bianchi (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 504. See, in general, Ernst Haenchen, “Aufbau und Theologie des Poimandres,” in Gott und Mensch (Tübingen: Mohr, 1965), 335–77. C. H. Dodd dates the Poimandres between 130 and 140 C.E. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), 209.

6. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 26; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 396; Jewett, Romans, 820.

7. Ps.-Plato Cleitophon 408B; see Slings, A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon, 338: “This is of course the central motif of all Socratic protreptic.”

8. Ps.-Plato Cleitophon 408A; see Slings, A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon, 334.

9. Epictetus Diss. 2.20.15.

10. Ibid., 2.20.17–18.

11. Ibid., 2.20.13.

12. Corp. herm. 1.1–2; text cited according to the edition of A. D. Nock and A.-J. Festugière, Corpus Hermeticum, vol. 1, Traités I–XII (Paris: Société d’édition “Les belle lettres,” 1945).

13. Corp. herm. 1.3.

14. Ibid., 1.8.

15. Ibid., 1.21; see Hans Dieter Betz, “The Delphic Maxim GNōTHI SAUTON in Hermetic Interpretation,” in Hellenismus und Urchristentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze I (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 92–111, esp. 94–95.

16. Corp. herm. 1.30. Cf. P. J. Södergard, The Hermetic Piety of the Mind: A Semiotic and Cognitive Study of the Discourse of Hermes Trismegistos (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2003).

17. On the possibility of development in Paul’s eschatology, see Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 91–100; C. H. Dodd, “The Mind of Paul, II,” in New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953), 108–28; Günther Klein, “Apokalyptische Naherwartung bei Paulus,” in Neues Testament und christliche Existenz, ed. H. D. Betz and L. Schottroff (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), 241–62; Gerd Lüdemann, Paulus, der Heiden Apostel, vol. 1, Studien zur Chronologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980), 213–70.

18. With the majority of critical scholars, I do not regard 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, or Ephesians as authentically Pauline: see William Wrede, Die Echtheit des II. Thessalonicherbriefes (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902); Herbert Braun, “Zur nichtpaulinischen Herkunft des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes,” in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 205–9; Wolfgang Trilling, Untersuchungen zum zweiten Thessalonicherbrief (Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1972); Edgar Krentz, “A Stone That Will Not Fit: The Non-Pauline Authorship of Second Thessalonians,” in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, ed. Jörg Frey et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 433–38; Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 247–50, 266–72.

19. For the translation, compare Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 57. As is well known, there are no explicit references to the parousia in Galatians. For the debate on the eschatology of Galatians, see J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 37–58; J. Louis Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies in the Letter to the Galatians,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 307–24; Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1985), passim; M. C. de Boer, “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, ed. Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein (New York: Continuum, 2003), 183.

20. Betz, Galatians, 70–71; de Boer, “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 174.

21. John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, rev. ed. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987), 95–99; Günther Bornkamm, Paul (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 17–21.

22. 1 Corinthians 9:1, ouchi Iēsoun ton kurion hēmōn heoraka (Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?); 1 Corinthians 15:8, ōphthē kamoi (he [sc. the Messiah] appeared also to me). The distinction between Paul’s use of horan (to see) in 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8 and apokaluptein (to reveal) in Galatians 1:16 has been pointed out by a number of scholars: Alfred Wikenhauser, Die Christusmystik des Apostels Paulus (Freiburg: Herder, 1956), 88–90; Hans Lietzmann, An die Galater, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 7–8; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1971), 55; Betz, Galatians, 71; de Boer, “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 174.

23. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 112, s.v., apokaluptō; 201, s.v., apokaluptō; cf. Albrecht Oepke, “apokaluptō ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3 (1965): 563–92, with the caveat on 564: “Unusual difficulties of method confront this lexical investigation. Because of ecclesiastical dogmatics, an unclarified pre-understanding of the subject is often imported into the normal translations ‘to reveal’ and ‘revelation.’” Especially interesting in connection with Galatians 1:16 is Corp. herm. 13:1: ainigmatōdōs kai ou tēlaugōs ephrasas peri theiotētos dialegomenos; ouk apekalupsas, phamenos mēdena dunasthai sōthēnai pro tēs paliggenesias (Enigmatically and not clearly you spoke when discussing divinity; you did not reveal it since, as you said, no one is able to be saved before regeneration); see William C. Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 3–4, 62.

24. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §220.1; Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 329, s.v., en 8; Dieter Lührmann, Das Offenbarungsverständnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 79n1; Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 86–87.

25. Betz, Galatians, 71: “There are indications that we should take his [Paul’s] words [en emoi] seriously. The ‘in me’ corresponds to Gal. 2:20 (‘Christ . . . lives in me’). . . . This would mean that Paul’s experience was ecstatic in nature.”

26. In an earlier era, Paul’s experience as reported in Galatians 1:16 was interpreted as “mystical”: see Richard Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1927), 371; Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 90–100, 181, and passim; Béda Rigaux, Letters of Saint Paul, ed. and trans. Stephen Yonick (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968), 51–55. More recently, this view has been revived on the basis of analysis of Jewish mystical texts by Alan Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 20–21, 39–52.

27. Galatians 1:1, 4, 11; 3:13; 4:4–6; see Betz, Galatians, 70–71; de Boer, “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 173–75.

28. Wolfgang Schrage, “Der gekreuzigte und auferweckte Herr,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 94 (1997): 25–38, esp. 25–26; Theo K. Heckel, “Der Gekreuzigte bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium,” Biblische Zeitschrift 46 (2002): 190–210, esp. 194–95; Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Kreuz,” Theologische Realenzyklopädie 19 (1990): 720.

29. L. L. Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition (London: T and T Clark, 2005), 234; Welborn, “The Culture of Crucifixion and the Resurrection of the Dispossessed,” in Paul and the Philosophers, ed. Ward Blanton and Hent de Vries (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013); Stanislas Breton, The Word and the Cross, trans. Jacquelyn Porter (New York: Fordham University Press, 2002).

30. Dieter Georgi, Theocracy in Paul’s Praxis and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 54; Alain Badiou, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism, trans. Ray Brassier (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 46–47; Justin Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1998), 75–76, 96–100; Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ, 2, 7, 147, 164, 233–34.

31. Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (1924; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970), 181–82; Erich Dinkler, “Die Verkündigung als eschatologisch-sakramentales Geschehen: Auslegung von 2 Kor 5,14–6,2,” in Die Zeit Jesu, ed. Günther Bornkamm and Karl Rahner (Freiburg: Herder, 1970), 169–89, esp. 186–87; Rudolf Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1976), 151–53; Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, Anchor Bible 32A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), 310, 326–28; Cilliers Breytenbach, “‘Christus starb für uns’: Zur Tradition und paulinischen Rezeption des sogenannten ‘Sterbeformeln,’” New Testament Studies 29 (2003): 447–75.

32. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 181; Bultmann, Der zweite Brief, 152–53; Furnish, II Corinthians, 309–10.

33. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 372–73; Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 182; Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), 66; Furnish, II Corinthians, 327.

34. Betz, Galatians, 121–22, calling attention to the similarity of Paul’s first-person singular style to the synthemata of the mystery cults collected in Albrecht Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966), 213–19. See already Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 260–61.

35. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ, 22, 42; Hubert Frankemölle, Das Taufverständnis bei Paulus: Taufe, Tod und Auferstehung nach Röm 6 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970), 41–53; Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology Against Its Graeco-Roman Background (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 46–49; Hans Dieter Betz, “Transferring a Ritual: Paul’s Interpretation of Baptism in Romans 6,” in Paulinische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsätze 3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 240–71, esp. 261–70.

36. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 144–47; Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ, 85–86; Bultmann, Der zweite Brief, 117–22; Furnish, II Corinthians, 255–56, 283–84; Timothy Luckritz Marquis, Transient Apostle: Paul, Travel, and the Rhetoric of Empire, Synkrisis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 112–14.

37. Pss. Sol. 17:23–35; 18:5–7; cf. Robert B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 2:643–46; Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 342–43.

38. Paul Veyne, Seneca: The Life of a Stoic (London: Routledge, 2003), 167; James Ker, The Deaths of Seneca (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 17–40, 41–64.

39. Seneca Ep. Mor. 70; cf. Ker, Deaths of Seneca, 147–76.

40. Seneca Ep. Mor. 77. See also Ep. Mor. 61 and the panegyric of death in Ad Marciam 20. Cf. Ker, Deaths of Seneca, 147–76.

41. See the account of Seneca’s death in Tacitus Ann. 15.62–64; cf. Ker, Deaths of Seneca, 17–40.

42. Seneca Herc. Fur. 1258–62; cf. John G. Fitch, Seneca’s “Hercules Furens”: A Critical Text with Introduction and Commentary (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 439–40.

43. For Seneca, see the essays collected in Shadi Bartsch and David Wray, eds., Seneca and the Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), esp. Austin Busch, “Dissolution of the Self in the Senecan Corpus,” 255–82.

44. For the concept of a messianic “partition” of the self in the thought of Paul, see Giorgio Agamben, The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, trans. Patricia Daley (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 49–53. See already, in somewhat different terms, Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 260–61; Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 3, 119, 121, 125.

45. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 222; Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 183–84; Dinkler, “Auslegung von 2 Kor 5,14–6,2,” 172; Furnish, II Corinthians, 311. See further John Ashton, The Religion of Paul the Apostle (Suffolk: St. Edmundsbury Press, 2000).

46. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 349, 371–73; Rigaux, Letters of Saint Paul, 51–55; Betz, Galatians, 71.

47. For the interpretation of the expression pistis Iēsou Christou as “the faith (or faithfulness) of Messiah Jesus,” see Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002).

48. Plato Phaedr. 66E–67A; see also Philo Gig. 14; cf. Bultmann, Der zweite Brief, 120.

49. Bultmann, Der zweite Brief, 121–22.

5. KAIROS (B′)

1. See later in this chapter for a comparison of Romans 13:11–14 with 1 Thessalonians 5:2–10.

2. 2 Apoc. Bar. 23:7; Mark 13:28–29; see the discussion in A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 122; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1979), 2:682–84; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988), 786–87; Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12,1–15,13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 146–47; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 821.

3. For the tradition upon which Paul is drawing, see esp. Isaiah 59:17. Cf. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:686: “ta hopla must mean ‘armour,’ and will include both defensive and offensive armour”; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978), 415; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 3. Teilband Röm 12–16, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar (Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1982), 77; Jewett, Romans, 822–23, citing Herodotus 7.218 on “men dressed in armor” (enduomenous hopla) and Xenophon Cyr. 1.4.18 describing Cyrus “then stepping into his armor for the first time” (autos proton tote hoopla endus).

4. Hans Conzelmann, “phōs, ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 9 (1974): 312; Karl Georg Kuhn, “hopla. ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 5 (1967): 298–300; Michel, Der Römerbrief, 415; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 788, citing 1 Enoch 10:5; 92:4–5; 108:11–15; 2 Enoch 65:9–10; 2 Apoc. Bar. 18:2; 48:50; 1QS 1:9–10; 3:24–25; 4:7–13; 1QM 1:1, 8–14; 13:5–16.

5. 1 QM 13:14–16; text in Die Texte aus Qumran, ed. Eduard Lohse (München: Kösel Verlag, 1971), 210; translated into English as The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, trans. Geza Vermes (New York: Penguin, 1975), 141. Cf. Herbert Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 1:222–24; Jewett, Romans, 824.

6. Edgar Haulotte, Symbolique du vêtement selon la Bible (Paris: Aubier, 1966), 212–13; Jewett, Romans, 823.

7. humas is chosen in Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), 467; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:680; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 784. Jewett, Romans, 816, argues for hēmas on rhetorical grounds.

8. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:685; Jewett, Romans, 822.

9. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:687; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 398; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 416; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 789; Jewett, Romans, 825. For euschēmonōs, compare 1 Thessalonians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 14:40.

10. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §337; Jewett, Romans, 825.

11. Evald Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1963), 41–45; Jewett, Romans, 827. The concept of “putting on” a redeemer figure has its background in the mystery religions: see Richard Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1927), 42–42, 60–62, 266, 350–51. On endusasthe, compare Galatians 3:27, with the comments of Betz, Galatians, 188.

12. J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (1930; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985), 543, s.v., pronoia; cf. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 417n24; Jewett, Romans, 828.

13. In the history of scholarship, Paul’s eschatology is usually derived from 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15; see M. C. de Boer, “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, ed. Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein (New York: Continuum, 2003), 166–67. Some scholars perceive a waning of interest in the parousia from the early to the late letters, for example, J. Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought, trans. L. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 31. Yet, Alexandra Brown probably voices the consensus (post Käsemann and Martyn) in saying: “But the letters taken together and read with attention to Paul’s pervasive apocalyptic perspective demonstrate that the parousia hope, whether imminent or distant, is fundamental to his theological vision, . . . even when it is not explicitly narrated.” Brown, “Paul and the Parousia,” in The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity, ed. John T. Carroll (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 47–76, here 50–51. Cf. Ernst Käsemann, “On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 108–37; Paul Hoffmann, Die Toten in Christus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zur paulinischen Eschatologie (Münster: Aschendorff, 1966); Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997).

14. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 34–35; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 416; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 145, 149; Jewett, Romans, 821.

15. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 32B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 295.

16. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 34–35.

17. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 852, s.v., katheudō; 490, s.v., katheudō. Cf. Malherbe, Thessalonians, 295.

18. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1873, s.v., hupnos; Heinrich Balz, “hupnos, ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 8 (1972): 547–48.

19. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 35–37, 40–41; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 786. On sleep as a gnostic metaphor expressing “man’s total abandonment to the world,” see Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity (Boston: Beacon, 2001), 70.

20. Hesiod Th. 212.

21. Homer Il. 14.231; 16.672, 682.

22. Bauer, A Greek-English, 360, s.v., grēgoreō; 207–8, s.v., grēgoreō. Cf. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 45–58; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 295.

23. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 360, s.v., grēgorēsis; see Daniel 5:11 (Septuagint).

24. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 469, s.v., egeirō I.1, II.1; 271, s.v., egeirō 2; cf. Jewett, Romans, 820.

25. Cf. Philo Somn. 2.160–62.

26. Cf. Plutarch Mor. 781D, 800B.

27. Jakob Kremer, “egeirō,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 1 (1990): 372.

28. Cf. Test. Levi 19:1; Test. Benj. 5:3; 1QM 15:9; see the discussion in Hans Conzelmann, “skotos, ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 7 (1971): 442; Roman Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 225–27; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 293–94.

29. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 33; Vögtle, “Röm 13:11–14 und die ‘Nah’-Erwartung,” 566; Jewett, Romans, 821.

30. Gustav Stählin, “prokoptō, ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 6 (1968): 716n85; Wolfgang Schrenk, “prokoptō, prokopē,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 3 (1993): 157–58.

31. Stählin, “prokoptō, ktl.,” 716; see further Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 30; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 787; Jewett, Romans, 821.

32. The principal proponent of the theory that Paul’s eschatology developed over time was C. H. Dodd, “The Mind of Paul, II,” in New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953), 108–28; cf. Günther Klein, “Apokalyptische Naherwartung bei Paulus,” in Neues Testament und christliche Existenz, ed. H. D. Betz and L. Schottroff (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), 241–63; Jörg Baumgarten, Paulus und die Apokalyptik: Die Auslegung apokalyptischer Überlieferungen in den echten Paulus Briefen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975); Gerd Lüdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983), 1:213–71.

33. A. F. J. Klijn, “1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and Its Background in Apocalyptic Literature,” in Paul and Paulinism, ed. Morna D. Hooker and Stephen G. Wilson (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1982), 67–73; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 120.

34. David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 328; C. M. Tuckett, “Synoptic Traditions in 1 Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. R. F. Collins (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 171; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:120.

35. Pss. Sol. 8:18, describing the hubris with which Pompey occupied Jerusalem and desecrated the temple: “He entered with peace (met’ eirēnēs), as a father enters his son’s house; he set his feet with security (meta asphaleias).” The slogan, as Paul employs it, is probably adapted from the political realm, as a challenge to the “peace and security” claimed as an achievement by the Roman rulers: thus, Helmut Koester, “From Paul’s Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Scheme of 2 Thessalonians,” in Paul and His World: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 55–69, here 62: “As a political slogan, eirēnē kai asphaleia = pax et securitas is best ascribed to the realm of Roman imperial propaganda.”

36. C. L. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development in Paul,” New Testament Studies 27 (1980–81), 137–51; Lüdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel, 1:230, 239–40; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:120.

37. Joseph Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection: An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 4:13–18,” in Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor of David Michael Stanley, S.J., ed. J. Plevnik (Willowdale: Regis College Press, 1975), 199–277; Lüdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel, 1:231–63; Brown, “Paul and the Parousia,” 64–65, 67–70.

38. Koester, “From Paul’s Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Scheme of 2 Thessalonians,” 59, observing that “the term parousia is a peculiar feature” of the Thessalonian correspondence. As has been often noted, there are no uses of the term parousia in reference to the second coming of Jesus in Galatians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, or Romans: James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 307; de Boer, “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 183, 184. To be sure, Paul uses the term parousia in a mundane sense to describe his own “presence” or “arrival,” and that of his colleagues, in 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10; Philippians 1:26; 2:12. Helmut Koester argues convincingly that Paul’s use of the term parousia in reference to the second coming of Jesus in 1 Thessalonians is adapted from Roman imperial ideology. Koester, “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, ed. Richard Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), 158–66. Cf. James R. Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 56–59.

39. Most interpreters assume that the parousia is implicit in talk of judgment “through Jesus Christ” in Romans 2:16, and similarly, in Romans 5:9–10, 8:29–30, 13:11: see Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 308. Yet, Dunn acknowledges: “In Romans 8 the failure to mention Christ’s parousia as a fundamental feature of the climax to the salvation process remains surprising” (308). Similar assumptions are generally made about references to the “day of Messiah Jesus” in Philippians 1:6, 10.

40. A number of interpreters see a reference to Jesus’s second coming in Paul’s citation of Isaiah 59:20–21 (Septuagint) in Romans 11:26, in light of the future tense of the verb hēxei (will come): “and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘Out of Zion will come the deliverer; he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob’”; see Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:578; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 356; Hans Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984), 114; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:256–57; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 682; Jewett, Romans, 704. Other interpreters suggest that Paul was thinking of the Messiah’s death and resurrection, and that the future verb (hēxei) should be understood as a prophecy that has already been fulfilled: see Ulrich Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1968), 294–95; Dieter Zeller, Der Brief an die Römer, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1985), 199; Heikki Räisänen, “Römer 9–11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringes,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung 2.25.4 (1987): 2920. In support of the latter interpretation may be Paul’s deliberate alteration of the Septuagint text of Isaiah 59:20, substituting ek Ziōn (“out of Zion” or “from Zion”) for heneken Ziōn (“for the sake of Zion”). In any case, the original reference of the Isaiah citation was to the Lord God as “the deliverer” (cf. Jub. 22:14–15), although Paul undoubtedly understood the reference in a messianic sense (cf. 1 Thess. 1:10).

41. Gerhard Delling, “hēmera,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 2 (1964): 951–52; Jewett, Romans, 203, referencing Zephaniah 1:12, 15–16.

42. Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 257n2, referencing 4 Ezra 13:16–19; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 38a (Dallas: Word, 1988), citing Daniel 7:21–22, 25–27; 12:1–3; Jub. 23:22–31; Test. Mos. 5–10; 1 QH 3:28–36; Sib. Or. 3.632–56, in support of the hypothesis that “Paul is taking over an earlier eschatological schema.” Note especially Paul’s use of the expression “the now time” (ho nun kairos) in Roman 8:18 in reference to the moment of suffering that precedes “the glory about to be revealed”; cf. Jörg Baumgarten, “kairos,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 2 (1991): 233.

43. What Louis Martyn says of Paul’s eschatology in Galatians is still more apposite of Romans: “The focus of Paul’s apocalyptic lies not on Christ’s parousia, but rather on his death.” J. Louis Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies in the Letter to the Galatians,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 420.

44. I construe the phrase kata kairon with apethanen, as a reference to the messianic event, in agreement with Gerhard Delling, “kairos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3 (1965): 460; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 1:264; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 181; contra Jewett, Romans, 358, who translates “at that time.”

45. Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), 82; Helmut Koester, “1 Thessalonians—Experiment in Christian Writing,” in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History: Essays Presented to George Hunston Williams, ed. F. Forrester Church and Timothy George (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 33–44; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:119.

46. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, 175; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:144–48.

47. For the traditional chronology, which dates the composition of 1 Thessalonians to 50 C.E. and Romans to 56 C.E., see Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979); for the early chronology, which dates 1 Thessalonians to 41 C.E. and Romans to 56 C.E., see Lüdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel, vol. 1.

48. John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonment (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); David E. Fredrickson, “Paul, Hardships, and Suffering,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World, ed. J. Paul Sampley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), 172–97; Jennifer A. Glancy, “Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23–25),” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 99–135.

49. Manual Vogel, Commentatio Mortis: 2 Kor 5,1–10 auf dem hintergrund antiker ars morendi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2006); Murray J. Harris, “2 Corinthians 5:1–10: Watershed in Paul’s Eschatology?,” Tyndale Bulletin 22 (1971): 32–57.

50. Dodd, “The Mind of Paul, II,” 109–18. Dodd intuited the “turning point” in Paul’s eschatology “to lie somewhat about the time of II Corinthians” (116), an experience reflected in 2 Corinthians 1:8–10. Cf. A. E. Harvey, Renewal Through Suffering: A Study of 2 Corinthians (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1996).

51. Koester, “From Paul’s Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Scheme of 2 Thessalonians,” 66: “On the contrary, one could argue that the expectation of the nearness of these events even intensified in the later writings of Paul. Using the same terms employed in 1 Thess. 5:1–11 (kairos ex hupnou egerthēnai, sōtēria, nux, hēmera endusasthai to hoopla tou phōtos), Rom. 13:11–14 even radicalizes the expectation of the nearness: nun gar egguteron hēmōn hē sōtēria ē hote episteusamen (Rom. 13:11). Neither 1 Thessalonians nor Romans was written by someone who was worried about the ‘delay of the parousia.’” On whether the problem of the “delay of the parousia” was a factor in the development of Paul’s eschatology, see further Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 310.

52. Cf. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 99: “For the man of insight who dares to see things as they really are, faith ceases to be simply a faith of expectation. It takes up present certainties into itself. This invasion of a belief in the future by a belief in the present has nothing to do with the spiritualizing of the eschatological expectation; in arises in fact from the intensification of it.”

53. So, Rudolf Bultmann, The Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1951), 1:278–79.

54. The “sons of God” (huioi tou theou) in Romans 8:19 are not the “angelic powers,” as suggested by Olle Christoffersson. See Christoffersson, The Earnest Expectation of the Creature: The Flood Tradition as Matrix of Romans 8:18–27 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1990), 120–24. They are instead messianic believers, transfigured human beings: see, rightly, Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 260; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 266; Fitzmyer, Romans, 507; Jewett, Romans, 512. Note Paul’s reference to the “sonship” of believers in Romans 8:15, 23. Paul’s personification of the created world in the phrase hē apokaradokia tēs ktiseōs conjures a vivid image: the whole creation waits with outstretched neck for the emergence and empowerment of those human beings who will take responsibility for the redemption of the world.

6. NEIGHBOR (A′)

1. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented by H. S. Jones (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1277, s.v., opheilō; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 743, s.v., opheilō; J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (1930; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985), 468, s.v., opheilō; Friedrich Hauck, “opheilō, ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 5 (1967): 559–64.

2. Adolf Strobel, “Zum Verständnis von Röm 13,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 47 (1956): 88; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 805–6.

3. Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978), 408.

4. Richard Saller, Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 1.

5. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “Patronage in Roman Society: From Republic to Empire,” in Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill (London: Routledge, 1990), 63–87, esp. 73.

6. M. I. Finley, The Ancient Economy, updated ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 64; cf. Bruce W. Frier and Dennis P. Kehoe, “Law and Economic Institutions,” in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. Walter Scheidel, Ian Morris, and Richard Saller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 131–32.

7. Finley, The Ancient Economy, 56; Wallace-Hadrill, “Patronage in Roman Society,” 79–81; Anton von Premerstein, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats (Munich: Beck, 1937). On the structure of power in Roman society as the context for Paul’s argument in Romans, see esp. Neil Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010).

8. Philemon Comic apud Lucian Laps. 6: “First I beg good health, and second doing well, thirdly to have joy, and last to owe nobody (opheilein mēdeni)”; IGRom, 1.104: the grave inscription of a Roman woman who “lived well and owed no one anything” (kalōs biōsasa, mēdeni mēden opheilousa), cited by Strobel, “Zum Verständnis von Röm 13,” 92; Jewett, Romans, 805.

9. Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 218–58, esp. 218–19, 233, 239, 252–53; L. L. Welborn, An End to Enmity: Paul and the “Wrongdoer” of Second Corinthians (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 132–39, 368–69, 428.

10. Jewett, Romans, 53–70. Cf. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus and Insulae in Rome: Families and Housefuls,” in Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. Carolyn Osiek and David Balch (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 3–18; Christiane Kunst, “Wohnen in der antiken Grosstadt. Zur sozialen Topographie Roms in der frühen Kaiserzeit,” in Christians as a Religious Minority in a Multicultural City: Modes of Interaction and Identity Formation in Early Imperial Rome, ed. Jürgen Zangenberg and Michael Labahn (London: T and T Clark, 2004), 2–19.

11. For the interpretation of ei mē as designating an inclusive exception (“except to love one another”), rather than an antithesis (“but you ought to love one another”), see the analysis in Anton Fridrichsen, “Exegetisches zu den Paulusbriefen,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 102 (1930): 294–97; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §376, 428.3; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1979), 2:674; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 408n4; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988), 776; Jewett, Romans, 806.

12. Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, §399.1; Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12,1–15,13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 123; Jewett, Romans, 806.

13. Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1998); Steven J. Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2004): 323–61; Neil Elliott, “Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities,” in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 97–122.

14. Steven J. Friesen, “Paul and Economics: The Jerusalem Collection as an Alternative to Patronage,” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Given (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), 27–54. Cf. L. L. Welborn, “That There May Be Equality: The Contexts and Consequences of a Pauline Ideal,” New Testament Studies 59 (2013): 73–90, esp. 89–90.

15. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. M. Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 50–56, 59, 65, 102; Lampe, “Early Christians in the City of Rome: Topographical and Social-Historical Aspects of the First Three Centuries,” in Christians as a Religious Minority in a Multicultural City: Modes of Interaction and Identity Formation in Early Imperial Rome, ed. Jürgen Zangenberg and Michael Labahn (London: T and T Clark, 2004), 20–32.

16. Petros Vassiliadis, “The Collection Revisited,” Deltion Biblikon Meleton 11 (1992): 42–48, esp. 44.

17. On the social status of Crispus, the former “synagogue president” (Acts 18:8), and Gaius, “the host of the whole ekklēsia” (Rom. 16:23), see Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 73–74; Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 57–58, 221n7; Peter Lampe, “Paul, Patrons, and Clients,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World, ed. J. Paul Sampley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), 496; Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies,” 365, observing that Gaius must have had “a larger house than the others, which makes him perhaps the wealthiest person we know of from Paul’s assemblies.”

18. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 71–73; Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 75–76, 96–100; Steven J. Friesen, “Prospects for a Demography of the Pauline Mission: Corinth Among the Churches,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth, ed. Daniel Schowalter and Steven Friesen (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005), 351–70; Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies,” 348–53.

19. Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 43n15, 68.

20. Petros Vassiliadis, “Equality and Justice in Classical Antiquity and in Paul: The Social Implications of the Pauline Collection,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 36 (1992): 51–59; Vassiliadis, “The Collection Revisited,” Deltion Biblikon Meleton 11 (1992): 42–48, esp. 44; David G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics (London: T and T Clark, 2005), 239–40; L. L. Welborn, “That There May Be Equality: The Contexts and Consequences of a Pauline Ideal,” New Testament Studies 59 (2013): 73–90.

21. Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 62–67; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 68–69. Cf. Michael Wolter, “opheilō,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 2 (1991): 551.

22. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 50–56, 65.

23. Ibid., 59, 63. It is impossible to determine whether the evidence of a Christian population in these districts of Rome comes from Paul’s own day.

24. For ton heteron (the other) as the object of the participial expression ho agapōn (the one who loves), see Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:675–76; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 776; Jewett, Romans, 807–8. For the alternative construction, which takes ton heteron as a modifier of nomon, designating the Mosaic law in contrast to the Romans law, see Willi Marxsen, “Der heteros nomos Röm 13:8,” Theologische Zeitschrift 11 (1955): 230–37; Franz-Josef Leenhardt, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. H. Knight (London: Lutterworth, 1961), 337–38.

25. Jewett, Romans, 808.

26. Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (Leipzig: Deichert, 1910), 562; followed by Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 395; Jewett, Romans, 808.

27. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 3A (New York: Random House, 2000), 1652, 1654.

28. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: Black, 1957), 250; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:676; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 776–77; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 125.

29. In my view, too much attention has been paid to the utopian formula of Galatians 3:28 (“not Jew and not Greek, not slave and not free, not male and not female”), and too little attention has been devoted to the inclusive formula of 1 Corinthians 12:13 (“whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free”), which must have been the constructive basis of Paul’s community foundation. Daniel Boyarin warns that Galatians 3:28 posits unity in Christ on the basis of the erasure of differences. Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). But see the interpretation of Galatians 3:28 in Brigitte Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 218–27.

30. Alain Badiou, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism, trans. Ray Brassier (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 73.

31. Aristotle Eth. Eud. 1234b18–23, 1237a35–40, 1237b10–17, 1239a27–40; Cicero De Amic. 6.20, 9.31, 15.61–21.18. See further Horace Sat. 1.6.52–64; Ep. 1.7.22–24, 2.1.245–47; Laus Pisonis 128–37, 218; Tacitus Dial. 52., 6.2. Cf. Jacques Derrida, Politics of Friendship, trans. George Collins (London: Verso, 1997), 1–25.

32. Kenneth Reinhard, “Paul and the Political Theology of the Neighbor,” soundandsignifier.com, UCLA Center for Jewish Studies (May 2007), 24.

33. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:676–77; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 395; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 410–11; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 3. Teilband Röm 12–16, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar (Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1982), 3:69–71; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 125–26.

34. Jacob Taubes, The Political Theology of Paul, ed. Aleida Assmann with Jan Assmann, in conjunction with Horst Folkers, Wolf-Daniel Hartwich, and Christoph Schulte, trans. Dana Hollander (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 23–24; Jewett, Romans, 809.

35. Hans Dieter Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, trans. L. L. Welborn (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 37–54, esp. 42–43; Georg Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary, trans. O. C. Dean (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988), 54–55; Jewett, Romans, 809.

36. Heinrich Schlier, “kephalē, anakephalaioomai,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3 (1965): 681–82; Helmut Merklein, “anakephalaioō,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 1 (1990): 82. See the discussion of “recapitulation” in Giorgio Agamben, The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, trans. Patricia Daley (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 75–77, esp. 76 on Romans 13:9–10.

37. On the determination of love by its object, see the analysis of Hannah Arendt, Love and Saint Augustine, ed. Joanna Vecchiarelli and Judith Chelius Stark (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 17, 18.

38. Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, book 7, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959–1960, trans. Dennis Porter (New York: Norton, 1992), 177–78; Lacan, Les non-dupes errant, December 18, 1973, as cited in Kenneth Reinhard, “Toward a Political Theology of the Neighbor,” in The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology, ed. Slavoj Žižek, Eric L. Santner, and Kenneth Reinhard (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 72–73.

39. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1653, citing Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Bekhor Shor. See also Hans-Peter Mathys, Liebe deinen Nächsten wie dich selbst: Untersuchungen zum alttestamentlichen Gebot der Nächstenliebe (Lev 19,18) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1990), 4, citing Nahmanides. See the discussion in Reinhard Neudecker, “‘And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself, I Am the Lord’ (Lev. 19:18) in Jewish Interpretation,” Biblica 73 (1992): 503–4; Kenneth Reinhard, “The Ethics of the Neighbor: Universalism, Particularism, Exceptionalism,” Journal of Textual Reasoning 4 (2005), http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume4/TR_04_01eol.html.

40. David Zvi Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905), 43; Martin Buber, Two Types of Faith (New York: Harper Torch, 1961), 69; Edward Ullendorff, Thought Categories in the Hebrew Bible: Studies in Rationalism, Judaism and Universalism, ed. Raphael Loewe (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), 277. See the discussion in Mathys, Liebe deinen Nächsten, 4–5.

41. On the difficulty of this text and its importance for Paul’s theology, see Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 151–54; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 181–82; Michael Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu Röm 5,1–11 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 169–76; Jewett, Romans, 357–62.

42. In Romans 5:3–5, “suffering” (thlipsis) initiates the sequence of “endurance,” “character,” and “hope.” See also Romans 6:3–4. Cf. Walter Benjamin, “Theologico-Political Fragment,” in Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings, ed. Peter Demetz (New York: Schocken, 1986), 313: “Whereas, admittedly, the immediate Messianic intensity of the heart, of the inner individual human being, passes through misfortune, as suffering.”

43. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 29–34.

44. This definition of “class” draws upon Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in Selected Works, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1950), 1:302–3; cf. G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquest (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), 43. As is well known, Marx’s chief work, Capital, breaks off just as he was about to embark upon a definition of class. On inequality and class divisions in the economy of the Roman Empire, see Walter Scheidel and Steven J. Friesen, “The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire,” Journal of Roman Studies 99 (2009): 61–91; Willem M. Jongman, “The Early Roman Empire: Consumption,” in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. Walter Scheidel, Ian Morris, and Richard P. Saller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 592–619; Arjan Zuiderhoek, “The Concentration of Wealth and Power,” in The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire: Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 53–70.

45. Georg Lukács, “Class Consciousness,” in History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971), 55–59; Finley, The Ancient Economy, 50; de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, 44.

46. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum³ 2.684; see Alexander Fuks, “Social Revolution in Dyme in 116–114 B.C.E.,” in Studies in History, ed. D. Asheri and I. Schatzman, Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1972), 21–27.

47. Appian Bell. Civ. 1.117–20. Cf. Joseph Vogt, Struktur der antiken Sklavenkriege (Wiesbaden: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1957).

48. Tacitus Ann. 14.42–45; cf. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, 372.

49. Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes 4.914; see the discussion in de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, 307–8. Perhaps one should also mention the revolt of a certain Aristonicus in Asia Minor in 132/31 B.C.E., who, according to Strabo (14.1.38), “assembled a multitude of poor men and slaves whom he won over by a promise of freedom”; see J. C. Dumont, “A propos d’Aristonicos,” Eirene 5 (1966): 189–96.

50. Fuks, “Social Revolution in Dyme,” 25; de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, 307.

51. Appian Bell. Civ. 1.120. Cf. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, trans. Alan Sheridan (London: Allen Lane, 1979), 48.

52. Tacitus Ann. 14.45.

53. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum³ 2.684; cf. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, 307.

54. Pausanias Descr. Gr. 8.16.9.

55. Finley, The Ancient Economy, 44–61; Keith Hopkins, Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 2:14–20.

56. See in general, A. H. J. Greenridge, Infamia: Its Place in Roman Public and Private Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1894); see further Thomas Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators (London: Routledge, 1992), 26.

57. Seneca Ad Marciam 20.3.

58. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 17, 17n25, 18; Katherine E. Welch, The Roman Amphitheatre: From Its Origins to the Colosseum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 50, 103; see also Frank Sears, Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

59. Elizabeth Rawson, “Discrimina Ordinum: The Lex Julia Theatralis,” Papers of the British School at Rome 55 (1987): 83–114.

60. Suetonius Aug. 44; Cassius Dio 55.22; 60.7; Tacitus Ann. 15.32; see Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 17n25.

61. Welch, The Roman Amphitheatre, 103.

62. J. Kolendo, “La repartition des places aux spectacles et la stratification sociale dans l’empire romain à propos des inscriptions sur les gradins des amphithèâtres et thèâtres,” Ktema 6 (1981): 301–15.

63. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 11, referencing Strabo 6.2.6; Martial De Spect. 7; cf. Donald G. Kyle, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1998), 185.

64. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 18–19.

65. Lukács, “Class Consciousness,” 55–56.

66. Ibid., 56–57.

67. Ibid., 57.

68. Ibid.

69. Text in B. E. Perry, Aesopica (New York: Arno Press, 1980); translation in L. W. Daly, Aesop Without Morals (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1961). On the history of the text and its transmission, see B. E. Perry, Studies in the Text History of the Life of Aesop (Haverford: American Philological Association, 1936), 24–26. On the date, see Daly, Aesop Without Morals, 22: “Internal evidence makes it likely that the Life was written by a Greek-speaking Egyptian, in Egypt, probably in the first century after Christ.” For the anti-Hellenic bias and critique of the educated elite, see Daly, Aesop Without Morals, 20–22; John J. Winkler, Auctor and Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’s Golden Ass (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 282.

70. Vit. Aesop. 1, 2, 14, 18, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31, 87.

71. Indeed, Aesop is abused by his fellow-slaves who suggest that he ought to be crucified for his impudence: Vit. Aesop. 2, 18–19.

72. Vit. Aesop. 4–7. Cf. Daly, Aesop Without Morals, 20–22; Winkler, Auctor and Actor, 286.

73. Vit. Aesop. 4–7.

74. Ibid., 5.

75. Ibid., 6–7.

76. Lukács, “Class Consciousness,” 46–82.

77. Theissen, “Social Stratification in the Corinthian Community,” in The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 69–119; Meeks, First Urban Christians, 51–73; Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 65–84.

78. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 43, 49–51.

79. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 71–73; Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 75–76, 96; Wolfgang Stegemann and Ekkehard Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of the First Century (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1999), 291–96; Friesen, “Prospects for a Demography of the Pauline Mission,” 351–70, esp. 367.

80. Scott Bartchy, Mallon Chresai: First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 (Missoula; Scholars Press, 1973); J. Albert Harrill, The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 68–128.

81. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 71–73; Meeks, First Urban Christians, 57–58, 221n7; Lampe, “Paul, Patrons, and Clients,” 496; L. L. Welborn, An End to Enmity: Paul and the “Wrongdoer” of Second Corinthiansm (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 236–50.

82. Edwin A. Judge, “Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents,” Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984): 3–24, here 21; Orsolina Montevecchi, “Phoebe prostatis (Rom. 16:2),” in Miscellania papirològica Ramon Ruca-Puig enel seuvuitantè anaiversari, ed. S. Janeras (Barcelona: Fund S. Vives Casajuana, 1987), 205–16.

83. Lukács, “Class Consciousness,” 54.

84. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 30; Agamben attributes the thesis that “the Marxian concept of a classless society is a secularization of the idea of messianic time” to Walter Benjamin.

85. Karl Marx, Collected Works (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975), 3:186.

86. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 31. Cf. Grant Poettcker, “The Messiah’s Quiet Approach: Walter Benjmin’s Messianic Politics,” in Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitical Vision: Critical Engagements with Agamben, Badiou, Žižek, and Others, ed. Douglas Harink (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2010), 90–115, here 102.

87. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 31.

88. Ibid. Cf. Scott Bartchy, “Paul Did Not Teach ‘Stay in Slavery’: The Mistranslation of Klēsis in 1 Corinthians 7:20–21” (unpublished paper). See also Harrill, Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity.

89. Agamben, The Time That Remains, 23.

90. Ibid., 53.

91. Ibid., 25.

92. Ibid., 57.

93. Ibid., 25, 44–58. Cf. Travis Kroeker, “Living ‘As If Not’: Messianic Becoming or the Practice of Nihilism,” in Harink, Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitical Vision, 37–63, here 60.

94. P. Travis Kroeker, “Whither Messianic Ethics? Paul as Political Theorist,” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 25 (2005): 37–58, here 51–54.

95. Kroeker, “Living ‘As If Not,’” 61–62.

96. Benjamin, “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1979), 263.

97. From a conversation with Kafka as related in Max Brod, Franz Kafka: Eine Biographie (Prague: H. Mercy Sohn, 1937), 278.

98. Badiou, Saint Paul, 13–14 and passim.

99. Alain Badiou, “The Communist Hypothesis,” New Left Review 49 (2008): 29–42, here 37.

100. Ibid., 38.

101. Ibid.

102. Ibid., 39.

103. Ibid.; Badiou, Saint Paul, 6–10.

104. Badiou, Saint Paul, 10–11.

105. Badiou, “The Communist Hypothesis,” 38–39. See the insightful discussion of Badiou in Neil Elliott, “Ideological Closure in the Christ Event: A Marxist Response to Alain Badiou’s Paul,” in Harink, Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitical Vision, 135–54.

106. Badiou, “The Communist Hypothesis,” 41.

107. Ibid.; cf. Elliott, “Ideological Closure in the Christ Event,” 154.

108. See the discussion of the phrase to de kath’ heis allēlōn melē in Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, §305; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 376: “Aus kath’hena (1 Kor 14,31) ist das indeclinable kath’ heis enstanden, das hart klingt”; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 724.

109. Badiou, Saint Paul, 10–14.

110. Cf. the reading of neighbor-love in Paul by Julia Kristeva, Strangers to Ourselves, trans. Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 77–83: the strangeness of the other is absorbed into a new, singular universality through identification with Christ.

111. On the ethics of hospitality between the “strong” and the “weak” in the Roman communities addressed by Paul, see Mark Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1—15:13 in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Jewett, Romans, 829–99.

112. Badiou, “The Communist Hypothesis,” 37. Or, to use Paul’s own expression, a “making new of the mind” (anakaiōsis tou noos) which brings about “transformation” (morphousthai), in place of conformity to this world (Rom. 12:2).

113. See the discussion of the various political interpretations of Paul’s vision of a messianic community by Agamben, The Time That Remains, 31–33. Agamben outlines three alternatives: revolution without revolt (Stirner), revolution coincident with revolt (Marx, elaborated by Lukács), revolution indistinguishable from revolt (Benjamin, elaborated by Taubes).

114. Similarly, Agamben, The Time That Remains, 33.

115. Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), 142. A number of scholars have proposed that Romans 13:1–7 is an interpolation by a redactor: Alexander Pallis, To the Romans: A Commentary (Liverpool: Liverpool Booksellers, 1920), 141; Christian Eggenberger, “Der Sinn der Argumentation in Röm 13,2–5,” Kirchenblatt für die reformierte Schweiz 101 (1945): 242–45; Ernst Barnikol, “Römer 13: Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung der absoluten Obrigkeitsbejahung in Röm 13,1–7,” in Studien zum Neuen Testament und zur Patristik: Erich Klostermann zum 90. Geburtstag darge-bracht (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961), 65–133; James Kallas, “Romans XIII:1–7: An Interpolation,” New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65): 365–74; J. C. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (London: Penguin, 1975), 207–10; Winsome Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 56–67, 79; Walter Schmithals, Der Römerbrief: Ein Kommentar (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988), 191–97. The reasons offered in support of the proposal seem compelling: (1) 12:21 finds its continuation in 13:8 (mēdeni kakon [12:17] . . . mē nikō [12:21] . . . mēdeni mēden opheilete [13:8]); by contrast, the transition from 12:21 to 13:1 is abrupt, lacking a conjunction, and shifting from the second-person admonitions of 12:9–21 to the third-person style of 13:1ff.; (2) the vocabulary of 13:1–7 is not especially Pauline: diatagē (ordinance) and antitassō (oppose, resist) are hapax legomena within the Pauline corpus; (3) the attitude of submission to the “governing authorities” in 13:1–2 stands in contrast to the critical attitude toward the “rulers of this age” exhibited in 1 Corinthians 12:8. In consequence, even scholars who do not regard Romans 13:1–7 as an interpolation by a redactor recognize that it is an “independent insertion” (selbständige Einlage) alien to its present context: Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 393–94; see also Martin Dibelius, “Rom und die Christen im ersten Jahrhundert,” in Botschaft und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953), 2:177–228, here 182; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980), 352; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 3:30. Among attempts to make the diatribe of Romans 13:1–7 comprehensible as authentically Pauline in the context of Romans 12:1—13:14, one may mention: Ernst Bammel, “Romans 13,” in Jesus in the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 365–83; J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stühlmacher, “Zur historischen Situation und Intention von Röm 13,1–7,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 73 (1986): 131–66; Neil Elliott, “Romans 13:1–7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), 184–204; James R. Harrison, “Did Paul Found a New Concept of State?,” in Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 271–323.

116. For example, Josephus B.J. 2.140; 4.175. Cf. Barnikol, “Römer 13,” 74–80; on the language of Hellenistic-Jewish paraenesis, see Dibelius, “Rom und die Christen,” 183–84; Gerhard Delling, Römer 13:1–7 innerhalb der Briefe des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962), 56–57; Delling, “hupotassō,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 8 (1972): 39–40; Wolfgang Schrage, “Römer 13,” in Die Christen und der Staat nach dem Neuen Testament (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), 64; W. C. van Unnik, “Lob und Strafe durch Obrigkeit: Hellenistisches zu Röm 13,3–4,” in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Earle Ellis and E. Grässer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975), 334–43; Michel, “Zur Eigenart der Tradition Röm 13,1–7,” in Der Brief an die Römer, 395–97.

117. Contrast the dearth of monographs on Romans 13:8–10 or 13:11–14 with the number and influence of works devoted to Romans 13:1–7 in the history of interpretation; cf. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 209; Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 13–19.

118. De Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, 432–33, 439.

7. CODA

1. Giorgio Agamben, The Highest Poverty: Monastic Rules and Form-of-Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013).

2. Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954–63 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988); Branch, Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years, 1963–65 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998); Branch, At Canaan’s Edge: America in the King Years, 1965–68 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006).

3. Giorgio Agamben, The Church and the Kingdom, trans. Leland de la Durantaye (London: Seagull Books, 2012).

4. Ibid., 41.

5. Ibid.

6. L. L. Welborn, “That There May Be Equality: The Contexts and Consequences of a Pauline Ideal,” New Testament Studies 59 (2013): 73–90, esp. 74.