I am coming back now to some further discussion of the book of Romans. I am still dealing with some introductory matters which are important before dealing with the actual text. I must confess that the following discussion confuses and baffles me more than any other topic related to Romans (which I’ll explain shortly). In 1997 Richard Horsley released a book which charted a new course in Pauline studies, Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Horsley is the editor, with contributions from such notable scholars as Dieter Georgi, Helmut Koester, Neil Elliott and Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza. The studies were not new nor the conclusions novel, but the time was ripe for a wider readership and more cordial reception. With the new found interest in Paul launched by E.P. Sanders, people were now ready to listen to something fresh. That is exactly what Horsley and his colleagues have done–given us something fresh to think about. Again, since Sanders, people have been open to the idea of hearing something other than “Justification by faith” in the book of Romans. While never excluding that theme, some have found others to be just as prominent (if not more so). It is the contention of Horsley that Paul intended the book of Romans to be an anti-imperial message subverting the grandiose claims of Caesar. Here is where I can now explain my confusion. The arguments in favor of this reading are so compelling that I cannot but think that these scholars are on to something. BUT…hardly any mainstream scholars or commentators pay it any attention. J.D.G. Dunn’s (who is one of my favorites) massive The Theology of Paul the Apostle hardly recognizes this theme at all. In fact, were it not for Wright and Crossan, I probably would not have given it a second hearing (or maybe even a first).
Is there, then, something in Paul’s letter(s) which DOES bring this to the surface? The coin shown at the top of this post declares several things by it’s words and imagery. The words declare Augustus (and subsequent emperors) as the Son of God. The imagery (the corona civica=oak wreath) declares Caesar as the Savior of the world and the harbinger of peace, prosperity and righteousness. Does Paul in anyway upstage Caesar with the message of Jesus? That will have to be determined, but I think you can guess where I’m going. What I want to do is investigate some of the words and concepts that were regularly ascribed to and associated with Caesar that Paul uses to describe Jesus. This usage is either one of the greatest examples of coincidence in all of Paul, or one of the clearest instances of Paul’s deliberate, provocative challenge to Caesar and Empire. Follow along, and you be the judge.
Zachnostic 