kata ta biblia

a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia

Apocalypse against Empire: First Impressions and Opening Questions

Apocalypses as resistance against the empire, cryptic representations of marginalized groups, is an old story. In her recent book, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, Anathea Portier-Young seeks to breathe new life into this anti-imperial approach with a robust methodology. I recently received my complimentary copy, which I will be using to prepare a review for Arc: The Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University. Thus far, I have only read the intro and conclusion and other bits and pieces here and there. I have also chatted with a few scholars who have read the book already. My first impression is that this will be a very important contribution to the conversation on apocalyptic literature. It probably represents the most methodologically sophisticated attempt thus far to depict apocalypses as resistance literature. As one who is currently shaping his methodology in the study of apocalyptic discourse, I look forward to learning from her approach. I’m excited to see what she does with it all.

At the same time, I have some opening questions that I will have as I take further steps into the book. My specific research has been on early Christian documents, a couple hundred years out from Portier-Young’s scope (i.e., Daniel, the Apocalypse of Weeks [1 Enoch 93:1-10 + 91:11-17], and the Apocalypse of Dreams [1 Enoch 83-90]). For my research, I have found that too strong an emphasis on anti-imperial resistance can be problematic. So, even with my excitement about her work, I will admit that am also a bit of a skeptic coming in. Some things I’ll be looking for:

  • What does Portier-Young do with the relationship between apocalypse and wisdom? This is one of the dominant discussions regarding apocalyptic literature for the last three decades or so, yet some scholars still neglect the fruits of the labor seen in the Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism and Early Christianity program unit at SBL, for instance. Does she engage these scholars in an explicit manner? From a quick search through the book, I can’t tell. There’s a lot of talk about wisdom. I’ll be looking forward to seeing what she does with it.
  • How much does Portier-Young engage with postcolonial theory? It doesn’t have an entry in the subject index and a Google book search seems to confirm that it is not a dominant theme. The aspect that interests me most in postcolonial theory for this discussion is its recognition not only of potential resistance toward empire, but also the appropriation of the basic tools of empire. Hegemony appears to be an important concept for Portier-Young’s book: Is there an adoption of hegemonic rhetoric within the apocalypses themselves? Or are they simply contesting it?
  • How complex is her depiction of Jewish identity in this time period? It appears that the book tackles notions of “hybridity” a little bit, but my gut tells me that I might emphasize the fluidity of multiple collective identities more than Portier-Young does. We shall see.
  • How broad are are the book’s claims? Does the argument “stay put” in the Seleucid period, or does it reach beyond itself towards all apocalyptic literature? Is there a sense that apocalyptic literature is in general to be identified as resistance literature? Does it extend to apocalyptic discourse found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? In early Christian documents? Etc.
  • Is this monograph trying to have its nuanced cake and revolt against it too? In other words, will the methodological sophistication represent true innovation and complexity, or will it merely serve to offer a very fancy way of supporting a traditional anti-imperial theology? For those who don’t know, I’m an Anabaptist. Anabaptists generally have a very anti-imperial theology, or at least they have since John Howard Yoder popularized it. I think it is because I lean this way that I am skeptical of approaches that find anti-imperial theologies in the texts. I’d like to have a very high bar for finding biblical (and even extrabiblical) theologies that support my own perspective. Maybe Portier-Young will provide me with that bar–we’ll see!

In the end, I suspect that I will appreciate Portier-Young’s sophistication. I expect that I will learn a good deal of history that I hadn’t considered from her “thick description” of the Seleucid period. I’m guessing I will probably come to agree with her to some extent that there is some level of some form of resistance in these apocalypses. But I also imagine that I will remain hesitant about her conclusions. Whatever the case, I do know that this book will push me to be a better scholar by considering new questions about relevant texts. Now that I have some of those preconceptions out of the way, time to read a bit more . . .

By the way, Thea Portier-Young will be a member of my panel this fall, so it is with amplified interest that I approach this important new book.

What do you think? Will you be reading this one? Have you read it already? What are your impressions?

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon

4 Comments by Patrick George McCullough  /  July 14, 2011  /  Posted in: book reviews
Tagged: , , , ,
« Previous post
Next post »
  • Mhelfield

    hi Pat,
    I would love to read your review when it’s finished. Is ARC available online (through subscription? I see there is a section on the Maccabean era (which is of course essential to discussing apocalypticism). I would like to see how she sees that historical period and the various events therein, and how they may serve to explain (or not) the rise of the genre.

    I would also love to see your comments on her methodology. I find this such a hard topic because of how method and content are related.

    Michael H.

  • http://patmccullough.com/ Pat McCullough

    Thanks for the comment, Michael! I don’t believe ARC is available online, but I did ask the editor who recruited me for permission to post it on my blog (with proper credits given to ARC). I’ve been told that’ll be allowed. In any case, I hope to blog my thoughts about it as I’m able even before it reaches the final, published form.

    Thanks for voicing your interest about what you hope to evaluate from the book. I’m not an expert on the Seleucid period, but I look forward to evaluating her argument and learning from it on the historical issues. The methodological issues are very much at the forefront of my own work, so I will have tremendous interest in seeing what she does with it.

    I’m curious about your last comment. Would you say that content and method are more unrelated with other topics in our field? And how so? It’s certainly treated that way.

  • Mhelfield

    Hi Pat,

    Thanks for the response. I went to the website. It is great that you will have it on here. I am a frequent reader of your blog, so I am sure I will find the review when it is out.

    My comment was only intended to a general reflection. I think that apocalypticism or apocalyptic literature (etc.) is particularly frought with methodological issues since there is much resonance with current religious and political (ideological) concerns. Having said that, I think that any scholar worth his or her salt nowadays needs to really hunker down and spend time on methodology, whether in Early Judaism (a term which I like, but I think is kind of a large category – unless I am misunderstanding), Josephan studies, Rabbinic studies, etc.

    I am fascinated by the role of method. There is much I really don’t know about method, but here is what I am thinking. Post-colonial theory, for example. When looking at what a text does, is it not looking at authorial intention, is it looking to analyze and determine what is going on in a text (from a given perspective), or is there an effort to say that the author could possibly be trying to send a message of resistance? In this way, one’s agruments or ultimate claims: this is what is happening, this is what such language does, has a lot to do with how you approach a text or what you ‘can do’ with ancient texts. That’s all I meant, I hope that makes sense.

    Michael

  • http://patmccullough.com/2011/07/25/theorizing-ourselves-past-the-stale-pursuit-of-authorial-intention/ Theorizing Ourselves Past the Stale Pursuit of Authorial Intention | kata ta biblia

    [...] but rather more like a toolbox that assists us in deconstructing the rhetoric of ancient texts. In my initial post about Portier-Young’s recent book, Michael Helfield wondered aloud in the comments about the [...]