I am presently thinking about the different categories of scholars who deal with Paul and the empire. There seem to be two broad categories of those who see the empire as a bad thing and those who say, “What’s the big deal about empire?” Within those who see the empire as evil, there seems to be a spectrum between “Paul as anti-empire” and “Paul as an imperialist.” There are throngs of authors who claim Paul as their herald of anti-imperialism in various ways, of course, but I’m having trouble finding as many scholars who belong to “Empire is bad + Paul is imperialist” category (in other words, a “Paul is complicit in imperial rhetoric and ideology” category). Who all comes to your mind in this category? I am speaking especially of Paul as represented in the undisputed letters.
If anyone wants to challenge my initial typology, I’m quite open to that!
I’d probably class Albert Harrill and Jennifer Glancy in the “Paul is complicit in imperial rhetoric and ideology” category. They both focus on his attitude to slavery in particular, not empire in general, but as they and pretty much everyone else argue, the Roman empire was largely built by slaves and its continuation depended upon them. So when they argue that slavery was/is bad and that Paul supported it that might be close to what you’re after.
Struggling to remember more general “Empire is bad + Paul is imperialist” people at the moment, sorry. I’m sure there are some, they’re just not coming to mind.
Did you get my response to you on Facebook?
Yes, Thanks Rob!
Jeremy, Thanks for your response. Having Scott Bartchy as my advisor (to whom Harrill and Glancy respond and build upon), slavery is certainly an issue in my sights. Unfortunately, we don’t have much on slavery in the undisputed letters. 1 Cor 7, of course, and that’s what Bartchy did his dissertation on.