Steven J. Friesen

Friesen begins his book with a chapter on religious criticism, and it is largely from that vantage point he evaluates the artefacts from Roman imperial cults and expounds on selected themes from the Apocalypse of John.

Though with an ambitious-sounding subtitle, the contents guide the readers “in the Ruins” (over 110 pages) more than “Reading Revelation” (about 80 pages). As such, Friesen’s work sits definitively in a specialist category and it would be unfair to compare it with any full-length commentary on the Revelation of John. In fact, the author plainly states (p. 211) that his goal is not to produce an interpretation of Revelation for the Christian communities; for doing so would require threading through a robust Biblical, historical redemptive narrative that this book lacks.

In a couple of places Friesen expresses dissatisfaction with the scarcity of in-depth study with imperial cults in relation to Revelation, even though the literary or authorial link has been widely acknowledged. It is without doubt his explications of archaeological artefacts, and analyses of aspects of imperial cults are laudable. Nevertheless, the question remains as to how successful he is, as he purports to bridge the disciplinary divide between archaeology and New Testament studies. As an example, the way Friesen compares the Sebasteion sculptures (p. 170f.) and imagery pattern in Revelation is tortuously strained, his addition of a note (n 16, p. 251) simply leaves readers bewildered.

There are valuable insights in Friesen’s reading of Revelation (Part II) not to be dismissed, especially in the sociological and political arenas. Notable is his assertion that John was not simply anti-Rome, he was anti-empire. One has to ask: in what aspect(s) of an empire was John against? Or was he simply against any hegemony? Is the new Jerusalem John points to, whose King has dominion over all, where kings of nations bring tributes, another hegemony?

A lot of philosophizing in the book as derived from reading the Apocalypse of John requires better Biblical grounding (see, e.g., 2nd paragraph on p. 157).… (altro)

This book consists of two parts, of which the first provides an informative discussion of the different imperial cults (plural) in Asia Minor, mainly based on the material remains that to our days testify of them. Although the subject is discussed in great detail, it does not really bring to life the impressive and (for its opponents) arrogant presence of imperial Rome in Asia Minor. In their ‘In Search of Paul – How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom’ Crossan and Reed for example draw a much more vivid picture of the different aspects of Roman domination in the East and of the aversion and hostility this evoked in its Jewish opponents.

The second part purports to show how we can read Revelation in the ruins of Roman imperial presence in Asia Minor. However, the discussion does not predominantly focus on this relation. This second part is mostly a self-contained discussion of Revelation which contains a fundamental ambivalence. The discussion moves back and forth between a historical and a mythical position. Every time the author discusses an aspect of the anti-Roman content of the text he waters down this position later on. This way the historical focus of this book eventually becomes too weak. Major Roman elements like the staging of Vespasian and Titus in chapter 6 and the description of the Roman army during the war against the Jews in chapter 9 are missing. Equally important oppositional Jewish/Essene elements are also absent: Paul’s staging in chapter 10 and Jesus’ in chapter 11 for example, and the description of the birth of Essene messianism including Qumran as the wilderness in chapter 12. Also the pivotal ‘great catastrophe’ is not identified as the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the fall of the city.

This brings us to Friessen’s discussion of myth in Revelation. It is obvious that the author has difficulties clarifying the concept of myth in this book, as in my opinion the mythological element is absent. The Apocalypse of John mainly presents history, but not overt history because this would have been suicidal for its author as well as for his audience. The major conflict between the Jews and the Romans and its future settlement are the subject of Revelation, and for safety reasons this story has been encoded in a hostile Rome-dominated world. Friessen rejects the literal interpretation of Revelation while I think this is the only way Revelation can make sense, if at least encoded history is included in this literal reading. Obviously the scenes in heaven and the imagery of the future New Jerusalem are exceptions to this ‘coded history’ predominance as these subjects can only stem from John’s imagination.

At the beginning of this book as well as at its end Friessen states that John was not anti-Roman but simply anti-empire. John opposed the Roman empire but he favored a future Jewish/Essene empire. Like most other apocalyptic texts Revelation expresses the hope for a violent reversal of the dominator/dominated positions. This makes Revelation an important politicoreligious work.

My hope that Friessen's book would contribute to a better understanding of the history behind the codes of Revelation has not been fulfilled.… (altro)

If you are a serious student of Revelation, this is a book you must read. I don't think there's another book like it ... yet. That Revelation's warnings often relate directly to the Imperial Cult of the late first century has been understood for a long time, but this book tackles the topic head on, in scholarly fashion. Friesen relates what archaeology has discovered about Caesar worship in Asia Minor, Revelation's target audience. Much can be gathered from the study of coins, temple ruins, and writings. The Caesars were often simulated into the worship of traditional Greek deities, and what we understand from archaeology about both the public and mystery rituals is detailed.

One conclusion Friesen draws is that the Imperial Cult was definitely founded upon Caesar Augustus and his accomplishments. Augustus was worshiped as Zeus, the high god of the Greeks. In my mind, at least, there can be little doubt that the first of the seven kings of Revelation is Augustus ... not, as some preterists insist, Julius Caesar. Friesen also concludes that the Flavians, including Vespasian and Titus, were also highly honored in myth. This matches the findings and conclusions in my own book, Revelation: The Way it Happened. (www.thewayithappened.com)

Friesen's book is in two parts: First, the study of the Imperial Cults, and then, how Revelation relates to that study in its direct opposition to Roman imperialism and the abomination of Caesar worship. Of particular interest to readers of Revelation, of course, is Nero Caesar, considered by most to be either the fifth or the sixth king of the seven (depending upon whether you begin counting with Augustus or Julius). Most studied scholars of Revelation agree that, at least on some level, John was surely writing about Nero as the Beast of the Sea.… (altro)