Roman Self-Representation and the Lukan Kingdom of God by Michael Kochenash

Abstract

Reviewed by: Roman Self-Representation and the Lukan Kingdom of God by Michael Kochenash Linda Maloney michael kochenash, Roman Self-Representation and the Lukan Kingdom of God (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2020). Pp. xvi + 223. $100. Michael Kochenash's book began as a dissertation written under the supervision of Dennis R. MacDonald at Claremont Graduate School (2017), as readers familiar with MacDonald's work will recognize. K.'s favored author for comparison, however, is not Homer but Virgil, and there are necessary differences between comparing Greek texts of different periods and aligning a Greek text with a roughly contemporary Latin one—which distinguishes Kochenash's book from one by MacDonald from the outset. In many ways the most important parts of the book are the Introduction ("Reading Luke and Acts within the Context of the Roman Empire") and the Epilogue ("Summary and [End Page 328] Reflection"). These are not mere summaries of the content that unfolds between them but serious reflections on method, with reference to a number of newer scholars and schools. K.'s principle is that "frameworks exert influence over interpreters, sometimes without their knowledge" (p. 11); and its corollary is that "frameworks foreclose the possibility of asking certain interpretive questions" (p. 15). We all know this in principle, but in practice we may forget it—or, in critiquing the work of others, we fail to recognize that they cannot answer any and all questions that may seem important to us within our own frameworks. K. calls his work an analysis of sections from Luke and Acts "within an underdeveloped framework: one that compares the Lukan 'kingdom of God [βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ]' with Roman representations … of its own 'kingdom [βασιλεία]'" (p. 15). Part 2, "Juxtaposing Foundational Figures" contains three chapters: "Imperial Genealogies and Adam as God's Son," "Movement of Capital and Jesus's Teachings," and "Commissions for Violence and Jesus's Ascension." The first of these contains interesting material on what K. calls Jesus's "double-divine pedigree" and that constructed by and for Augustus. He sees neither opposition to nor affinity with Rome's system here. Chapter 3, however, is a meaty discussion of the contrary "ideal" movements of wealth in Rome and in Jesus's kingdom: upward in the one case, downward in the other. Luke's hostility to wealth deserves emphasis, especially in our time. (In the Third Gospel the word "rich" is never associated with virtue or even ordinary goodness; in Acts "rich" never even appears.) In chap. 4, K. compares Jesus's ascension with that of Elijah but also with the story of Romulus, emphasizing the contrasting nonviolent nature of the reign of God. Part 3, "Juxtaposing Expressions of Inclusion" treats the Aeneid as a comparison text and Aeneas as a "structural metonym in Acts" (p. 98). Thus, chap. 5 is "Aeneas: A Roman Way to Structure Luke's Narrative." In fact it is more a comparison of the stories of Aeneas and Paul. In chap. 6, "Imperial Violence and the Resuscitation of Tabitha," K. asserts "several allusions to and juxtapositions with the Roman Empire," but I found this chapter the least persuasive, especially when Tabitha is compared to Dido on the basis of her name, "gazelle," which K. equates with "deer." Chapter 7, "Status Inequality and Cornelius's Obeisance," develops the premise that Acts 10:25–26 should be read against images of Roman domination in the Mediterranean world, arguing that "Peter's raising up of Cornelius subverts [the logic displayed, e.g., on Roman victory coins] and communicates the equal status of Judeans and Gentiles in the kingdom of God" (p. 127). In chap. 8, "Divine Duplicities and Luke's Union of Jews and Gentiles," K. deals with the ways in which "the inclusion of different ethnic groups within a superordinate identity" is negotiated in Luke-Acts and evaluates recent work by Marianne Palmer Bonz, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Aaron Kuecker. K. himself reads "Luke's story of the kingdom of God as appropriating and transvaluing the logic of Rome's foundation epic" (p. 143). The concluding reflections are unusual and gratifying. Having summarized his work by saying that "the present study explains several apparent non-sequiturs within Luke's narratives by...