Apocalypse against Empire discusses Jewish resistance against Seleucid imperial rule at the beginning of the 2nd century BCE written down in three of the earliest Jewish apocalyptic documents: the book Daniel of the Hebrew Bible, and two parts of the Jewish pseudepigraphical book 1 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Book of Dreams.

The first part of this book theorizes on resistance, with a clear description of domination and hegemony (the latter being the ‘softer’, less tangible component of imperial rule), and the introduction of the attractive ‘state terror’ notion. The author borrows the latter notion from modern political scholarship, and in the epilogue she mentions the methodological frailty of the application of this modern notion to events of Antiquity.
A shortcoming of this theoretical part is that the author doesn’t answer the question what prompted the Jews to write their first apocalypses exactly while resisting Seleucid oppression. In other words: in what respect was Seleucid rule so different from earlier foreign rule that the Jews resorted exactly then to encryption of their resistance narratives?

Part two on Seleucid domination in Judea is the most elucidating part of this work. The desecration of the Jerusalem temple in 167 BCE, the Maccabean revolt and the reconsecration of the temple in 164 CE are the political/religious highlights of the era, but Portier-Young extensively describes the complex imperial and local political situation in the preceding decennia, which provides insight into the actions of Antiochus IV and the events that followed.
Part three discusses the three texts mentioned above. The anti-Seleucid character of every word and phrase of these writings is meticulously showed. Not surprisingly for a theologian, the emphasis of the analysis is theological, in contrast with the more politically oriented second part of this book. One conspicuous element of this ‘theologizing’ analysis is the reluctant discussion of the violence theme. The author ends her conclusion with the great vision of the future which the writers of these apocalyptic resistance texts offered their readers: a never ending era of justice, righteousness and joy for humankind, Judea and Jerusalem. Highly attractive as this prospect may have been (and may be), the way to achieve it was a ruthless reversal of the dominator-dominated positions. This element of large-scale violent revenge to achieve a Jewish imperial position, which allowed to oppress and exploit the former oppressor(s) in turn, is neglected.

In the epilogue the author formulates suggestions for further research. While reading this book I hoped to find references to later apocalyptic writings, in particular to Revelation, the Synoptic Apocalypse and the final chapter of the Didache, but Portier-Young never broadens her scope to these early Christian apocalyptic writings. Not even in the suggestions for further research at the very end of this book does she suggest the study of possible links with these important later apocalypses. Does the relation between the anti-Seleucid and early Christian apocalypses contain a threat? While Portier-Young convincingly shows that the early apocalypses under consideration are fully anti-Seleucid, a side by side study of the anti-Seleucid and early Christian apocalypses might yield the suggestion that the early Christian apocalypses were taking a fully anti-Roman stance. Maybe the study of the oppressor-oppressed position in the context of the beginnings of Christianity remains too sensitive. ( )