ABSTRACT
The way that different social groups were positioning themselves in the early imperial period can be seen in terms of a crucial asymmetry. The “Second Sophistic” as a cultural/social phenomenon was very much invested in the past, whereas those Christians looking forward to their material resurrection were adamantly focused on a utopian future where they would find justice. The futurity and utopianismofChristian apocalyptic discourse iswell known andmuch studied, but positioning this discourse in a cultural frame with the Second Sophistic’s valorization of the past historicizes these aspects and intimates a contemporary debate taking place through competing chronologies.1 This different orientation highlights the importance of chronology in the negotiations around identity that were taking place in this period of emerging empire. The contrast between these two chronological perspectives may help explicate the appeal of Christian visions to others in this historical context.
