No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 May 2021
This article will suggest that scholars have overlooked a model plausibly lurking in the background of Col 2:15 which parallels the triumphal death of Christ: namely, the crucifixion of Regulus. Regulus was a general who achieved a near-mythic status during the First Punic War by his sacrificial death, in which his perseverance on the gibbet was seen as even greater than riding in the victor’s car. Tertullian credited Regulus as having set the precedent for enduring the torments of the cross, while others declared him as having overcome through death not only his human foes but also Lady Fortune. Regulus’ story enjoyed so much widespread popularity it was admitted in the curriculum of Roman schools by the middle of the first century CE. Because Regulus’ epic contains low-hanging fruit, ripe for comparison with Christ’s crucifixion, Christians drew upon the story of Regulus from at least as early as Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Augustine. Nevertheless, scholars have overlooked the possible parallels with Regulus’ story and Christ’s triumphal death in Col 2:15. I will first provide a composite depiction of Regulus’ military life and sacrificial death along with its reported ramifications in order to tease out similarities and differences with Col 2:15 and finally conclude with comments concerning the significance of including the legend as additional background for the verse. In short, I will propose that reading Regulus’ story in comparison with Col 2:15 supports an anti-imperial and/or a supra-imperial reading of the letter.
I would like to thank my graduate assistant, Adam Jones, for his valuable help with this essay. A version of this essay was presented during the Disputed Pauline Letters session at the 2019 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA. I also sincerely appreciate the comments from the participants and other presenters there.
1 John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (New York: HarperOne, 2005) 10.
2 John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (WUNT 2/327; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) 133.
3 Arthur M. Wright Jr., “Disarming the Rulers and Authorities: Reading Colossians in Its Roman Imperial Context,” RevExp 116 (2019) 446–57, at 451.
4 Karl Galinsky, “In the Shadow (or Not) of the Imperial Cult: A Cooperative Agenda,” in Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult (ed. Jeffrey Brodd and Jonathan Reed; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011) 222. See also Warren Carter, “Roman Imperial Power: A New Testament Perspective,” in Rome and Religion (ed. Brodd and Reed), 137–51.
5 Harry O. Maier, Barbarians, Scythians, and Imperial Iconography in the Epistle to the Colossians (WUNT 2/193; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 389.
6 There is a question as to whether “Jesus” or “the cross” is the antecedent of έν αύτω. In other words, is it “in Christ” or “in his cross” (τω σταυρω) where victory is seized and triumph obtained? Although τω σταυρω is the more immediate antecedent, the significance here is minimal, since Paul construes God as overcoming the powers through Christ and his cross. See Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018) 260; Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 112; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1984) 128. It could also refer to the triumphal procession; see Murray J. Harris, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Colossians and Philemon (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010) 100.
7 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 110–11; and Michael F. Bird, Colossians and Philemon (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009) 81. The powers here could refer to political or spiritual powers or both. See Wesley Carr, Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase “hai archai kai hai exousiai” (SNTS 42; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 7–43; Adam Copenhaver, Reconstructing the Historical Background of Paul’s Rhetoric in the Letter to the Colossians (LNTS 585; London: Bloomsbury, 2018) 205; Walter Wink, Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament (vol. 1 of The Powers; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992) 64–66; Wright Jr., “Disarming the Rulers and Authorities,” 446–57.
8 James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 170.
9 J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians (13th ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) 192.
10 Ibid., 192. Christ’s cross is likened to a chariot in triumphal parade; Dunn, Colossians, 168. See also Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, 111. This claim has consequently led to a long tradition of theological reflection with respect to the Lord’s conquest on the cross (i.e., Christus Victor). See John M. G. Barclay, Colossians and Philemon (London: T&T Clark, 2004) 84; and Marianne Meye Thompson, Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 60.
11 On the triumphal procession, see Christoph Heilig, Paul’s Triumph: Reassessing 2 Corinthians in Its Literary and Historical Context (Leuven: Peeters, 2017); Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); Roger David Aus, Imagery of Triumph and Rebellion in 2 Corinthians 2:14–17 and Elsewhere in the Epistle (Studies in Judaism; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005) 1–84; and H. S. Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: Brill, 1970). Cf. Carr, Angels and Principalities, 59–66.
12 Scholars’ tendency to overlook this model may have something to do with Martin Hengel’s dismissal of the parallel due to the dubious details surrounding Regulus’s crucifixion (Martin Hengel, Crucifixion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977] 64). See also Yann Le Bohec, “L’Honneur de Régulus,” Antiquités africaines 33 (1997) 87–93; F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (6 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 1:94. Cf. Elimar Klebs, “Atilius 51,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (ed. Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, and August Friedrich von Pauly; Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1992) 2092; Theodor Mommsen, The History of Rome (trans. William Purdue Dickson; 2 vols.; New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1895) 2:184 n. 1; and J. F. Lazenby, The First Punic War: A Military History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996) 106; Rosa María Marina Sáez, “Retórica y Pensamiento en la Apologética Cristiana. El Exemplum de M. Atilio Régulo, De Tertuliano a Agustín” Polis 23 (2011) 153–70, at 153–54. Although contemporary scholars may question the degree of historical accuracy regarding Regulus’s crucifixion, Cicero and many others in the ancient world did not. Nevertheless, the argument of this article is the allusion to the legend of Regulus, not the actual historical event.
13 Regulus was also elected as suffect in 267 and 256 BCE; see G. K. Tipps, “The Defeat of Regulus,” CW 96 (2003) 375–85.
14 Silius Italicus, Punica 6.545. On the currus triumphalis, see Versnel, Triumphus, 56. Unless noted otherwise, all translations of ancient sources come from the respective volumes in the LCL.
15 Tertullian, Nat. 1.18. “(If we take the torture) of the cross, of which so many instances have occurred, exquisite in cruelty, your own Regulus readily initiated the suffering which up to his day was without a precedent.”
16 See Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1:16–26.
17 Ettore Pais, “I tormenti inflitti ad Attilio Regolo e l’autenticità della tradizione Romana,” in Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto pubblico di Roma (Rome: Loescher, 1921) 411–37, at 433. See also Gaetano de Sanctis, Storia Dei Romani (2nd ed.; 3 vols.; Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1967) 1.153 §155.
18 Sáez, “Retórica y Pensamiento en la Apologética Cristiana,” 153. See also Bohec, “L’Honneur de Régulus,” 93.
19 Steele Commager, The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995) 111.
20 On the imperial critical approach to Colossians, see Wright Jr., “Disarming the Rulers and Authorities,” 446–57.
21 Harry O. Maier, “A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire,” JSNT 24 (2005) 323–49, at 327.
22 This relates to Warren Carter’s plea for scholars to resist “spiritualized and individualized readings” that either render the empire invisible or dismiss it altogether (Carter, “Roman Imperial Power,” 138). See also Wright Jr., “Disarming the Rulers and Authorities,” 446–57; and Maier, “A Sly Civility,” 323–49.
23 Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) 7, 226. See also Brian J. Walsh, “Late/Post Modernity and Idolatry: A Contextual Reading of Colossians 2:8–3:4,” ExAud 15 (1999) 1–17.
24 Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed, 155.
25 Maier, “A Sly Civility,” 326.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid., 348.
28 Ibid., 341. Cf. Max Mühl, Die antike Menschheitsidee in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975) 82.
29 N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon (TNTC; Cambridge: Tyndale, 2008) 121.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 63–64.
34 Ibid., 126.
35 Ibid., 257.
36 Wright Jr., “Disarming the Rulers and Authorities,” 451.
37 Ibid., 455.
38 Ibid., 456.
39 Ibid., 457.
40 Livy, Ab urbe cond. 10.37.13–15. Cf. the ministry of Lucius Aemilius Paulus, who celebrated two triumphal processions. See Aus, Imagery of Triumph, 1–7.
41 Polybius considered this “the longest, most unintermittent and greatest war” in memory (264–241 BCE) (Polybius, Hist. 1.63.4–5). Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 23.15.7. Cf. Polybius, Hist. 1.31.2–3; and Florus, Epit. 1.18.18–20. Cf. Klebs, “Atilius 51,” 2087; and Mommsen, The History of Rome, 2:181. On this naval battle, see Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1:85–86; Lazenby, The First Punic War, 81–96; Bohec, “L’Honneur de Régulus,” 87–88.
42 Florus, Epit. 1.18.21. Cf. M. Cary and H. H. Scullard, A History of Rome down to the Reign of Constantine (3rd. ed.; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975), 171–72; Lazenby, The First Punic War, 100; Tipps, “The Defeat of Regulus,” 376–78. See also William R. Nifong, “Promises Past: Marcus Atilius Regulus and the Dialogue of Natural Law,” Duke Law Journal 49 (2000) 1077–126, at 1077. On the terms ΘΡΙΑΜΒΟΣ and TRIUMPHUS, see Versnel, Triumphus, 11–55. Silius Italicus has Regulus’s wife recount Regulus’s last parade, when his shoulders gleamed with a purple robe of the vestis triumphalis as the Roman lictors marched forth to execute his prisoners (Silius Italicus, Punica 6.440–445). On the vestis triumphalis, see Versnel, Triumphus, 56.
43 Lazenby, The First Punic War, 100. See Silius Italicus, Punica 6.140–180; and Livy, Ab urbe cond. 18. Cf. Richard B. Stothers, “Ancient Scientific Basis of the ‘Great Serpent’ from Historical Evidence,” Isis: A Journal of the History of Science Society 95 (2004) 220–38. According to the tale, the snake was 120 feet in length and “as thick as it was long” (Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 11.22). The monster had been spawned by the earth in her terrible wrath, created for the defense of Africa (Silius Italicus, Punica 6.150; Florus, Epit. 1.18.18–20).
44 Silius Italicus, Punica 6.140–295; Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 11.8.13.
45 In light of what happened next, some ancient authors considered the strange episode with the snake as portending what Tyche was about to do to Regulus. This follows her reputation as one who reverses a person’s lot “at the moment of extreme prosperity” (Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1:92–93). See also Tipps, “The Defeat of Regulus,” 377.
46 On the debate as to who actually initiated the treaty, see Lazenby, The First Punic War, 101–2; and Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1:90.
47 Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 23.12.1.
48 Cary and Scullard, A History of Rome, 172. Cf. Lazenby, The First Punic War, 102–3; and Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1:91.
49 Erving R. Mix, Marcus Atilius Regulus: Exemplum Historicum (Paris: Mouton, 1970), 135. See also Lazenby, The First Punic War, 103.
50 Mommsen, The History of Rome, 2:181; and Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1:91–92.
51 In return, Regulus placed most of his soldiers in the center to offset Xanthippus’s elephants. The strategy horribly failed and set the troops up to be trampled all the more. Cf. Tipps, “The Defeat of Regulus,” 381; Lazenby, The First Punic War, 104–5; and Cary and Scullard, A History of Rome, 172.
52 Silius Italicus, Punica 6.335–45; Florus, Epit. 1.18.23.
53 Thirteen thousand of them from approximately 15,000 infantry men. See Tipps, “The Defeat of Regulus,” 381.
54 Polybius, Hist. 1.34.7–8.
55 Orosius, Hist. 4.9.9. Cf. Cook, Crucifixion, 156–57.
56 Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 23.15.2.
57 Polybius, Hist. 1.35.1.
58 On other Roman authors who referred to Regulus, see Sáez, “Retórica y Pensamiento en la Apologética Cristiana,” 154.
59 Silius Italicus, Punica 6.340–45.
60 Ibid., 1.6.530–35.
61 Quintilian, Inst. 12.2.30. Literally: “fortitudinem, iustitiam, fidem, continentiam, frugalitatem, contemptum doloris ac mortis melius.”
62 Silius Italicus, Punica 6.340.
63 Ibid., 6.365–70; cf. Florus, Epit. 1.18.23.
64 For more on this, see Sáez, “Retórica y Pensamiento en la Apologética Cristiana,” 153–54.
65 Circa 247 BCE; see Gaetano de Sanctis, Storia dei Romani (4 vols.; Italian edition; Turin: Bocca, 1907–23), 1.152 §154.
66 Silius Italicus, Punica 6.465–90.
67 Tipps, “The Defeat of Regulus,” 379.
68 According to Dio, “There is no single respect,” Regulus reasoned, “in which reconciling with Carthage is advantageous to Rome” (Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 11.8.15).
69 For more on this, see Nils Rücker, “Exempla fidei: Die Figur des Regulus in der Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis,” in Noctes Sinenses. Festschrift für Fritz-Heiner Mutschler zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Andreas Heil, Matthias Korn, and Jochen Sauer; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2011) 397–406.
70 Sáez, “Retórica y Pensamiento en la Apologética Cristiana,” 153–54.
71 Horace, Carm.3.5.40–50. Literally: “atqui sciebat quae sibi barbarus tortor pararet. Non aliter tamen dimovit obstantes propinquos et populum reditus morantem.” According to Dio, Regulus declared: “As for me I know that manifest destruction awaits, but even so, I consider Rome’s public advantage above my own personal welfare” (Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 11.31).
72 Horace, Carm. 3.5.40–50: “Fertur pudicae coniugis osculum parvosque natos ut capitis minor ab se removisse et virile torvus humi posuisse voltum.” See also Silius Italicus, Punica 6.495–520. Cf. Florus, Epit. 1.18.23; and Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 11.8.15: “To any friend who would beg him to escape, the general explained: I have sworn to the Carthaginians to return, and I will not transgress my oaths, not even when these vows have been given to my enemies.”
73 Some sources say the Carthaginians made Regulus drink poison; others state that before his execution, the torturers cast Regulus into utter darkness, sentencing him to solitary confinement (e.g., Augustine, Civ. 1.15; cf. Klebs, “Atilius 51,” 2087–90).
74 See Cicero, Fin. 5.27.82; Pis. 43; Off. 3.27.100. As a result, according to this account, the general eventually died from lack of sleep.
75 Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 11.8.15; Silius Italicus, Punica 6.540–45; and Cicero, Pis. 43. Cf. Augustine, Civ. 1.15, who describes it as having the “sharpest of nails on all sides” (clavisque acutissimis undique confixo).
76 Seneca, Prov. 3.69: “Figunt cutem et quocumque fatigatum corpus reclinavit, vulneri incumbit, in perpetuam vigiliam suspensa sunt lumina. Quanto plus tormenti tanto plus erit gloriae.”
77 Crucifixion was the common form of execution practiced in Carthage. Hengel, Crucifixion, 64.
78 Seneca, Ep. 98.12. Cf. Prov. 3.11.
79 Silius Italicus, Punica 6.340–45.
80 Ibid., 2.430–40.
81 Cicero, Fin. 2.20.65. See Alan Brinton, “Cicero’s Use of Historical Examples in Moral Argument,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 21.3 (1988) 169–84. Cicero mentions Regulus many times in his speeches and essays, “which seem to represent a planned program of philosophical and moral exposition” (Mix, Regulus, 35). See also Florus, Epit. 1.18.25, where he argues that the general’s imprisonment and crucifixion in no way sullied (deformata) Regulus’s dignity (maiestas).
82 Cicero, Fin. 2.20.65.
83 Cicero, Fin. 2.20.65 and Off. 3.27.100. See Brinton, “Cicero’s Use of Historical Examples,” 177–78.
84 From the ancient Roman’s perspective, Regulus’s fides found its justification in Scipio’s victory over Carthage and the resulting unfolding of Rome’s majestic destiny and ideological influence (Mix, Regulus, 55).
85 Silius Italicus, Punica 6.465–70. “Regulus’ defeat inspired instead a sense of reawakening” (La disfatta di Regolo ispirò invece un senso di resipiscenza) (de Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, 1.153 §155). Moreover, it made the Romans as intent on avenging Regulus as on gaining a victory for Rome; see Florus, Epit. 1.18.26. However, the final victory of this first war came still thirteen years later, the prolongation of which set up the eventual success of Hannibal. It was in reality “fifty years later and on much the same ground” that Scipio would “exact a measure of revenge for the defeat of Regulus” (Tipps, “The Defeat of Regulus,” 385).
86 Silius Italicus, Punica, 6.545–50. Literally: “longo revirescet in aevo gloria, dum caeli sedem terrasque tenebit casta Fides; dum virtutis venerabile nomen, vivet; eritque dies, tua quo, dux inclite, fata audire horrebunt a te calcata minores.”
87 Cicero, Fin. 2.63–64.
88 Cicero, Pis. 43. Cf. Mix, Regulus, 37. As Florus put it in the 2nd cent. CE, by Regulus’s execution the general triumphed “victorious over his victors … even over Tyche herself” (Quid aliud quam victor de victoribus atque etiam … de fortuna triumphavit); Epit. 1.18.26.
89 Seneca, Prov. 3.9. Seneca goes on to place Regulus’s model over against that of Maecenas, who drugs his body with wine and beguiles his mind with a thousand pleasures. Nevertheless, according to Seneca, Maecenas will no more be able to close his eyes while he lies on his bed than Regulus could as he lay upon his cross—with his severed lids. In stark contrast to Maecenas, however, Regulus found consolation because he suffered hardship for the sake of what is right, and the general could, therefore, ever fix his eyes on his just cause. This is beyond the scope of this article but perhaps an area for further research: Regulus is often placed in juxtaposition with someone who is considered a slave of pleasure. For instance, see also Cicero, Fin. 2.20.63–65.
90 Paul C. Burns, “Roles of Roman Rhetorical exempla in Augustine’s City of God,” StPatr 38 (2001) 36.
91 Regulus’s veneration continued in the ensuing centuries—being honored by Christians and non-Christians alike in poetry, prose, and art, from Horace to Milton to early American laws. Similarly, William Havard states that Regulus’s story exists to point out “the blackness of our vices by the brightness of his virtues … to scatter the seeds of virtue in the bosom of the rising generation” (William Havard, preface to Regulus: A Tragedy [London, 1744]). Regulus appears in works of histories, biographies, “lyric poetry, moral and theological essays and letters, and compendia of various types. Throughout, the influence of rhetoric is felt” (Mix, Regulus, 39). Cf. Nifong, “Promises Past,” 1079.
92 Carole Straw, “ ‘A Very Special Death’: Christian Martyrdom in Its Classical Context,” in Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives in Martyrdom and Religion (ed. Margaret Cormack; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 39–57, at 40. See also Sáez, “Retórica y Pensamiento en la Apologética Cristiana,” 155.
93 Straw, “ ‘A Very Special Death,’ ” 40.
94 For the influence of the Regulus tale on Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis, see Rücker, “Exempla fidei,” 397–407. See also Markus Janka, “Der Musterrömer Regulus und die Römerwerte. Neues zur Prisca Virtus Romana,” in Brandenburger Antike-Denkwerk. O tempora, o mores. Relevanz und Relativierung von Wertbegriffen (ed. Ursula Gärtner; Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2013) 37–63. On the evolution of how Christian authors referred to Regulus, see Sáez, “Retórica y Pensamiento en la Apologética Cristiana,” 154–68.
95 Minucius Felix, Oct. 37.5–6.
96 See Augustine, Civ., 1.15. Cf. Burns, “Roles of Roman Rhetorical exempla,” 37.
97 Minucius Felix, Oct. 37.5–6.
98 Arnobius,Adv. Gent. 1.40. See Sáez, “Retórica y Pensamiento en la Apologética Cristiana,” 158.
99 Tertullian, Mart. 4; idem, Apol. 50.6.
100 Tertullian, Mart. 4.
101 Tertullian, Apol. 50.11.
102 Straw, “ ‘A Very Special Death,’ ” 41.
103 Tertullian, Apol. 50.12. He illustrates this increasing degree of torture by referring to the rape of a young Christian girl, whom they savagely condemned “to the pander rather than the panther,” 50.13.
104 Ibid., 50.13.
105 Augustine, Civ. 1.24; 1.15. Augustine refers to Regulus a total of seven times in the book (1.15, 1.24, 2.23, 2.29, 3.18, 3.20, and 5.18). For more on Augustine’s use of Regulus, see Burns, “Roles of Roman Rhetorical exempla,” 31–41.
106 Augustine, Civ. 1.24.
107 Ibid., 1.15.
108 See Wright Jr., “Disarming the Rulers and Authorities,” 446–57.
109 See Maier, “A Sly Civility,” 323–49.
110 E.g., see Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 13–152; Lightfoot, Colossians, 189–92; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962) 101; Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 111; Roy Yates, “Colossians 2.15: Christ Triumphant,” NTS 37 (1991) 573–91, at 574. Cf. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961) §5:1; R. B. Egan, “Lexical Evidence on Two Pauline Passages,” NovT 19 (1977) 134–62; and G. G. Findlay, “St. Paul’s Use of θριαμβεύω,” Expositor 1:10 (1897) 403–21; A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (London: SPCK, 1974) 153; and F. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899) 181–82.
111 Of course, determining what model or models are submerged beneath a text is “not necessarily a straightforward or simple process” and “possible backgrounds and texts cannot be neatly separated from one another”; further, “it is likely that each possible background both interprets and is interpreted by the other” (Erin M. Heim, Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and Pauline HUIOTHESIA Metaphors [Leiden: Brill, 2017] 115, 145). See also Cilliers Breytenbach and J. C. Breytenbach, “Paul’s Proclamation and God’s ‘Thriambos,’ ” Neot 24 (1990) 258; and Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 138.
112 Rather than ruling out one background in favor of another, scholars should weigh all of the possible models, since each one could contribute to the overall meaning of the text. Both the author and the audience of this letter could have been influenced by multiple backgrounds, especially since the Colossian audience was comprised of people from diverse ethnic groups and social stations (e.g., Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; see Col 3:11). The various perspectives of individuals in each group could result in different models being conjured up in their particular minds.
113 Jerry L. Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008) 146.
114 See Silius Italicus, Punica 6.545; and Lightfoot, Colossians, 192.
115 See Arnobius, Adv. Gent. 1.40.
116 According to Peter Zhang, a comparison brings forth striking points of coherence and smuggles in “disconnections as part of the deal” (Peter Zhang, “Corporate Identity Metaphor as Constitutive Discourse in Miniature: The Case of New China Life,” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 68 [2011] 381).
117 McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 260.
118 Maier, “A Sly Civility,” 323–49.
119 Silius Italicus, Panica 6.465–90.
120 Cf. Augustine, Civ. 1.15. Cf. also, Minucius Felix, Oct. 26.3.
121 Tertullian,Apol. 50.11. See Straw, “ ‘A Very Special Death,’ ” 41.
122 For a champion to celebrate two triumphal processions was rare in Rome; see Aus, Imagery of Triumph, 7–8.
123 See Silius Italicus, Punica 6.340.
124 Greek authors such as Diodorus and Polybius highlighted Regulus’s pride, which not only got the general executed but also led to the deaths of Roman soldiers and Carthaginian sympathizers. If the Colossians were familiar with the Greek versions of Regulus’s death, they might also have highlighted the merciless hubris of the Roman hero that led to his defeat by το δαιμόνιον over against the compassion and victory of Christ.
125 H. Gregory Snyder, “Response to Karl Galinsky, ‘In the Shadow (or Not) of the Imperial Cult: A Cooperative Agenda,’ ” in Rome and Religion (ed. Brodd and Reed), 227–34.
126 Snyder, “Response to Karl Galinsky,” 228.
127 This is not meant to endorse the Rome-centric view, which classicists have abandoned. See Galinsky, “In the Shadow (or Not) of the Imperial Cult,” 215–25. But even if, as Galinsky argues, Justin Hardin goes too far in saying “imperial ideology wrapped its fingers around every fabric of society,” Rome’s politeuma carried enough weight to influence believers more often than not. Cf. Justin Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult (WUNT 2/37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
128 Cf. Maier, “A Sly Civility,” 323–49; Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed; and Walsh, “Late/Post Modernity and Idolatry,” 1–17.
129 See Karl Galinsky, “The Cult of the Roman Emperor: Uniter or Divider?” in Rome and Religion (ed. Brodd and Reed), 1–21; idem, “In the Shadow (or Not) of the Imperial Cult,” 215–25; and Snyder, “Response to Karl Galinsky,” 228. See also McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 62–65; and John M. G. Barclay, Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016)363–87.
130 Wright Jr., “Disarming the Rulers and Authorities,” 451.
131 Of course, this divine initiation was considered to be under the direction of the divi filius, their “divinely established ruler.” See Maier, Barbarians, Scythians, and Imperial, 386, 388.
132 Galinsky, “In the Shadow (or Not) of the Imperial Cult,” 222.
133 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 1–33.
134 Cf. Oliver O’Donovan, “The Political Thought of the Book of Revelation,” TynBul 37 (1986) 61–94.
135 Maier, “A Sly Civility,” 349; and Carter, “Roman Imperial Power,” 148. Cf. Rosemary Canavan, Clothing the Body of Christ at Colossae: A Visual Construction of Identity (WUNT 2/334; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 189–90. According to Canavan, regarding “the visual construction of identity in Colossians,” the borrowed imagery was “not essentially a polemic against the Romans. Rather … it emulated a common cultural practice [that] … corresponded with that used by the Roman regime to assert itself via images as the omnipotent power” (p. 189). The Regulus story could serve in a similar way for the Colossians.