No abstract

In Minucius Felix's Octavius, the pagan Caecilius offers an intriguing critique of the Christian God. Having pilloried Christian faith as trust in a “solitary, forlorn God, whom no free nation, no kingdom, no superstition known to Rome has knowledge of,” he goes on to mock him as a voyeur:[W]hat monstrous absurdities these Christians invent about this God of theirs, whom they can neither show nor see! That he searches diligently into the ways and deeds of all people, yea even their words and hidden thoughts, hurrying to and fro, everywhere present at once; they make him out to be a troublesome, restless being, who has a hand in everything that is done, is shamelessly curious, interlopes at every turn, and can neither attend to particulars because he is distracted with the whole, nor to the whole because he is engaged with particulars.

No abstract

No abstract

This article relates Colossian vocabulary, motifs and theological themes to the cultural situation of the cult of the emperor. The author’s language and conceptualization of reconciliation as a cosmic and earthly peace (Col.1.15-23) reflects an imperial backdrop and utilizes civic vocabulary typical of Greek and Roman treatments of concord. His representation of Jesus’ death as a Roman triumph (2.15), and the incorporation of all humankind—including barbarians and Scythians—in a trans-ethnic unity (3.11) similarly reflects the geopolitical notions of a worldwide Roman Empire. The imperial imprint on the Household Code (3.18-4.1) is recognizable through attention to numismatic representations of Nero and his consort enjoying a divinely appointed familial concord. Though used by court theologians like Eusebius of Caesarea to legitimate a Christian application of Empire, the letter may be read as a destabilization of Empire inasmuch as it derives imperial-sounding ideals from the crucifixion of Jesus.