Kiwoon Lee ("Identity and Moral Formation in Early Christian Communities," page 75, Ph.D. Dissertation):
The word ἀπάντησις (1 Thess 4:17) refers to the civic reception of a ruler’s triumphant entry into the capital of the Empire (i.e. Rome) (LSJ; Harrison 2011:60).
However, one must be careful in determining whether these terms had merely political connotations, since the literary context itself does not clarify whether Paul intended to react to or oppose the Roman emperor. For example, the term παρουσία also occurs in Jewish literature, indicating the coming or presence of God, the last day, and the messianic figure (NIDNTTE 3:647-657). Moreover, with regard to the usage of ἀπάντησις elsewhere in the New Testament, the term refers to “action of going out to meet an arrival” rather than having a specific political meaning (LSJ; cf. Matt 27:32; Acts 28:15). Nevertheless, while one should not easily conclude that Paul simply conveys political overtones in using these words, the city officials and citizens might have been aware that Paul used this term in his message about Christ’s coming. Oakes (2005:317) does not rule out the possibility that the politarchs and fellow-citizens in Thessalonica could have construed Paul’s message in a political sense. But he explains that “[i]t is probably given to them by the unexpectedly weighty apocalyptic of v. 16 [1 Thess 4:16] … [t]he two terms may become political translations of apocalyptic into a form understandable to a Greek audience: political hook on which the audience can hang the apocalyptic imagery.”
See also Dean Kenneth Spalding, "Escorting Paul and the Other Emissaries of Jesus in Acts: The Significance of the Motif of Escort, Seen through the Lens of a Late First- (Early Second-) Century Mediterranean Cultural Script for Hospitality Conventions," Ph.D. Dissertation.
Tuesday, January 05, 2021
How Do Scholars Understand ἀπάντησις These Days? (Part III)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
First off, nice new color scheme on the blog, it looks really nice.
I have very little to say on ἀπάντησις itself (not something I've studied).
But one thing I think that's important to point out, is that "politics" in the modern sense of the term is more understood in terms of secular authorities that hold office in a certain country and people's attitude towards them, and allegiances to factions and so on and so forth, i.e. it's seperate from religion, cosmic issues, etc etc, often understood in terms of a modern liberal-democratic framework in which politics is more technocratic.
I don't think that distinction can be so clearly made in the ancient world, politics WAS religious, and religion was political.
So the idea of Christ being displayed in political terms might be correct in the ancient world (kings were partially divine, etc etc), but it wouldn't translate to the ancient world (just like the category of religion). Of course Jehovah's Witnesses are apolitican, in the sense that we don't support any human governments, but we are on the other hand hyper political in the ancient sense, we believe in the literal kingdom of God that will destroy the kingdoms of this earth.
so perhaps to take it out of the Christian sense, the Qumran secterians might be thought of as hyper political in that they spoke a lot about the Kittim and their coming doom, and their allegience with Belial, but their political solution was not weapons, but angels .... it's no less political from their standpoint ... but in modern categories we might say they were not political but millinarian, or something like that, but this is only due to the modern distinction between the religious/cosmic and the secular/political.
Thanks for your comments about the blog's new appearance: I just try to change it every year and play with different colors/designs.
Concerning politics in the ancient world, there's a vast amount of literature on the subject, but I agree with you. In one of his Marginal Jew volumes (I believe), John Meier discusses the Hebrew concept of a kingdom and "political" implications are certainly there, but not in the modern sense of the word. N.T. Wright has covered similar issues in his works.
Additionally, three important political works from antiquity are Plato's Republic, Laws by Plato, and Politics, written by Aristotle. The "Laws" does conflate politics and religion although some point out that it's a later work of Plato. Aristotle defines politics in an interesting way. See not only his Politics, but also the Nicomachean Ethics. Both Plato and Aristotle view politics as living in the polis (city-state) but religion is part of it all.
I might talk about other aspects of politics/religion later.
I agree, John Meiers's volumes are really really good (second only in my opinion Dale Allison's work when it comes to carefuly strict historical Jesus reconstruction).
I haven't read Walter Wink's work on the powers ... not yet at least, but it's on my reading list, it was a source that NT Wright used that shaped his view, but I'd like to read it.
I agree with Plato and Aristotle, as you said religion is part of it, and it also all fell under a kind of right order of the world, i.e. a cosmic telos/natural heierarchy (I touch on this in my Jesus's Manifesto book).
By the weay, John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas are two Christian theologians who get close to what I think is the correct view of Christianity and politics (closer to the politics is for the world, but the Christian is not part of that viewpoint).
I agree, I love the new appearance! :-)
~Kas
Roman: I've read a little Yoder, but no Hauerwas. Thanks also for mentioning Walter Wink and your book.
Kas: I appreciate it, my friend. Thanks for checking in 😀
Post a Comment