Chapter 4 deals with several concepts, most of them introduced in the proemial fragments, that translate Empedocles’ idea of the divine. In order both to address the disputed question of what can be considered true gods in Empedocles’ physical system and to explore some of the details of his belief in rebirth by defining what the final promise of divine reward entails, I analyze the entities Empedocles explicitly refers to as gods. Several entities are made equally divine, yet each of them is divine for different reasons, although some of them also share common qualities that allow us to delineate a notion of the divine. In this regard, as far as living beings are concerned, we can conclude that for them to be (or become) gods means having a divine status that is modelled on the divine characteristics of Sphairos, the perfect form of the universe and cosmic god. These characteristics are associated with Love as opposed to Strife and include purity, stability (continuity), symmetry and beauty, bliss and perfect knowledge. In this sense, the divine nature of Sphairos represents Empedocles’ paradigm of godhood in the cosmos to which all living beings aspire.

Chapter 3 focuses on the Lamb’s place on a heavenly throne, which is viewed in light of the ancient practice of divine throne-sharing. Widely attested in the ancient Mediterranean world, throne-sharing occurred when one entity shared the throne of a deity or occupied a throne in close proximity to a deity. Most often throne-sharers were kings, and the king’s place on a divine throne functioned to demonstrate the divine legitimacy of their rule. Chapter 3 surveys the evidence for throne-sharing in various ancient Mediterranean contexts in order to shed light on the appropriation of this ideology in Revelation. In short, the Lamb’s position on the heavenly throne thus designates the Lamb as a divinely-elected king. At the same time, it functioned as an implicit rejection of imperial claims of the divine legitimacy of the emperor’s rule.

A gift of a patron necessitated a response on the part of the recipient, which most often took the form of loyalty and other honors befitting the gift. Especially magnanimous benefactions were considered “divine” and compelled “divine” honors, including festivals, processions, priesthoods, crowns, and hymns. Chapter 5 presents a survey of the honors-for-benefits system inherent in systems of patronage and benefaction in the ancient Mediterranean world, with attention to the varieties of “divine” rewards requited for “divine” gifts, including especially divine hymns. This survey contextualizes the divine honors requitted to the Lamb, namely, allegiance to the point of death and hymns of praise, which befit his divine gifts as God’s royal vicegerent.

A gift of a patron necessitated a response on the part of the recipient, which most often took the form of loyalty and other honors befitting the gift. Especially magnanimous benefactions were considered “divine” and compelled “divine” honors, including festivals, processions, priesthoods, crowns, and hymns. Chapter 5 presents a survey of the honors-for-benefits system inherent in systems of patronage and benefaction in the ancient Mediterranean world, with attention to the varieties of “divine” rewards requited for “divine” gifts, including especially divine hymns. This survey contextualizes the divine honors requitted to the Lamb, namely, allegiance to the point of death and hymns of praise, which befit his divine gifts as God’s royal vicegerent.

One of the most common tenets of royal and messianic ideologies is the notion that the king ruled by divine favor. This ideology was variously signaled, very often by way of omens, dream visions, as well as other predictive mechanisms, epithets, and even the direct intervention of the gods. Chapter 1 explores the way that this ideology takes shape in non-Jewish kingship treatises as well as various early Jewish texts, focusing especially on messianic figures which serve as archetypes for Revelation’s Christ, including King David and the Danielic and Enochic Son of Man.

We then explore Revelation’s appropriation of this ideology, including especially the preponderance of messianic titles as well as the investiture scene in Revelation 5, where the Lamb’s reception of the scroll from the right hand of God signals divine favor and his right to rule on God’s behalf. These strategies for designating Jesus as God’s chosen vicegerent are viewed in light of similar tropes in other early Christian texts.

Chapter 3 focuses on the Lamb’s place on a heavenly throne, which is viewed in light of the ancient practice of divine throne-sharing. Widely attested in the ancient Mediterranean world, throne-sharing occurred when one entity shared the throne of a deity or occupied a throne in close proximity to a deity. Most often throne-sharers were kings, and the king’s place on a divine throne functioned to demonstrate the divine legitimacy of their rule. Chapter 3 surveys the evidence for throne-sharing in various ancient Mediterranean contexts in order to shed light on the appropriation of this ideology in Revelation. In short, the Lamb’s position on the heavenly throne thus designates the Lamb as a divinely-elected king. At the same time, it functioned as an implicit rejection of imperial claims of the divine legitimacy of the emperor’s rule.

One of the most common tenets of royal and messianic ideologies is the notion that the king ruled by divine favor. This ideology was variously signaled, very often by way of omens, dream visions, as well as other predictive mechanisms, epithets, and even the direct intervention of the gods. Chapter 1 explores the way that this ideology takes shape in non-Jewish kingship treatises as well as various early Jewish texts, focusing especially on messianic figures which serve as archetypes for Revelation’s Christ, including King David and the Danielic and Enochic Son of Man.

We then explore Revelation’s appropriation of this ideology, including especially the preponderance of messianic titles as well as the investiture scene in Revelation 5, where the Lamb’s reception of the scroll from the right hand of God signals divine favor and his right to rule on God’s behalf. These strategies for designating Jesus as God’s chosen vicegerent are viewed in light of similar tropes in other early Christian texts.

In DA I.1, Aristotle asks whether nous (understanding or reason) is chōristē (separable) and presents a separability condition: the soul is separable if it has some activity proper to it that is not shared with the body. I argue that Aristotle is speaking here of separability in being, not separability in account or taxonomical separation. In the case of the soul, this sort of separability would allow the soul to exist apart from the body. Met. Λ.3, GA II.3, and DA III.4 suggest that Aristotle introduces the separability condition because understanding meets it. Reason is independent of the body in a way that no other power of the soul is. Nous alone is divine and separable. DA III.5 then situates this claim: there is an aspect of understanding that can only be active in connection with the body, but understanding is what it is and continues to be active apart from the body. This raises further questions about the life and ontological status of the sort of separated human nous Aristotle envisages. While figuring out its precise contours is difficult, Aristotle is, in fact, committed to the possibility of human intellectual activity continuing apart from the body.

In this paper D’Alessio explores the reception of the ideology of choral performance in Horace’s Carmen Saeculare arguing that, contrary to current scholarly consensus, it is profoundly indebted to Hellenistic choral theory and practice, and, more particularly, to its crucial, but often overlooked configuration in Callimachus. D’Alessio’s interpretation starts from an analysis of the relationship between divine ‘presence’, political power, and the ‘present’ of poetry in the Epistle to Augustus, moving to the centrality of choral performance as the site for recognizing and legitimizing divine presence and staging political power relations in Hellenistic choral poetry and in Callimachus’ Hymns, where, as he argues in detail, this theme finds one of its most fully articulated formulations. In the following section the author shows how important features of the Carmen Saeculare should be read against the lively tradition of post-classical, Hellenistic and later Greek public cultic poetry, as well as through intertextual Callimachean links, and finally draws attention to Horace’s peculiar re-configuration of the ideological background provided by his models.