I’m looking into the whole “Paul and empire” banquet of goodies these days, trying to categorize the scholarship. In my last post, I asked for scholars who might fall into the category of seeing the empire as a bad thing and Paul as complicit in that empire in some way — especially with the undisputed letters. Some scholars make the case that Paul himself in the undisputed letters is a revolutionary and is “domesticated” (so to speak) one step in Colossians/Ephesians (household codes) and still further in the Pastorals (1 Tim 2 and whatnot).

I’d like to ask a related but different question in this post. Namely, what are the specific passages that scholars typically use (or might use) to argue for Paul’s complicity with empire? [I'm not asking whether or not they are correct in their interpretations of these texts.] We can take this topically. I’ll start it off and add more as you all suggest more. Perhaps later we can fill in the specific scholars associated with the complicity argument with these texts.

Political: Romans 13

Slavery: 1 Cor 7:21

Women: 1 Cor 11 & 14

Violence: 2 Cor 10:1-6

“Anti-Judaism”: 1 Thess 2

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!