Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-77pjf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:03:06.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revelation, Realia, and Religion: Archaeology in the Interpretation of the Apocalypse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Steven J. Friesen
Steven J. Friesen
Affiliation:
University of Missouri-Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The use of archaeological materials for interpreting New Testament texts poses many problems. While many archaeologists have interpreted the Hebrew Bible, this early interface of archaeology and the study of the Hebrew scriptures is due in part to the fact that the relation-ship between biblical texts and the realia from Palestine seemed more direct. Since archaeological materials tend to deal with mainstream culture and since the texts from Israel and Judah were connected to institutions that were part of that area's dominant culture, the study of archaeology has contributed much to an understanding of the Hebrew scriptures.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , July 1995 , pp. 291 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a review and analysis of the last fifty years, see Dever, William G., “Syro-Palestinian and Biblical Archaeology,” in Knight, Douglas A. and Tucker, Gene, eds., The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (Minneapolis: Fortress and Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985)Google Scholar ; Meyers, Carol and Meyers, Eric, “Expanding the Frontiers of Biblical Archaeology,” Eretz-Israel 20 (1989) 140–47Google Scholar.

2 , Dever, “Syro-Palestinian and Biblical Archaeology,” 66.Google Scholar

3 Horsley, Richard A., “The Historical Jesus and Archaeology of the Galilee: Questions from Historical Jesus Research to Archaeologists,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1994 91–135Google Scholar ; Oakman, Douglas E., “The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of the Historical Jesus,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1994 220–51Google Scholar ; Reed, Jonathan L., “Population Numbers, Urbanization, and Economics: Galilean Archaeology and the Historical Jesus,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1994 203–19Google Scholar ; Strange, James F., “First-Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1994 81–90Google Scholar.

4 For a recent attempt in encyclopedic format, see Rousseau, John J. and Arav, Rami, Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).Google Scholar

5 Strange, James F., “Archaeology and the New Testament?” BA 56 (1993) 153–57.Google Scholar

6 Ramsay, William M., The Revolution in Constantinople and Turkey (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1909)Google Scholar with episodes and photographs by Lady Ramsay 3-20.

7 Ibid., iv.

8 Ramsay, William M., The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan of the Apocalypse (1904; reprinted Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979) v.Google Scholar

9 , Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 215–27Google Scholar ; idem, Impressions of Turkey During Twelve Years’ Wanderings (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897) 126-36.

10 , Ramsay, Impressions of Turkey, 133, 158.Google Scholar

11 , Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 135.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., 134.

13 Ibid., 140-41.

14 Ibid., 202-3.

15 Ibid., 87.

16 Ibid., 69-72.

17 Ibid., 36.

18 Ibid., 89.

19 Ibid., 48-49.

20 Ibid., 49.

21 Merchant, Carolyn, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980)Google Scholar ; note the gender of terms in the preceding quote from Ramsay.

22 Keller, Catherine, “The Breast, The Apocalypse, and the Colonial Journey,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 10 (1994) 53–72.Google Scholar

23 , Ramsay, Impressions of Turkey, vii–ix.Google Scholar

24 , Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 71–72.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., 32.

26 Ibid., 143.

27 Ramsay, William M., The Imperial Peace: An Ideal in European History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 28.Google Scholar

28 , Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 96–97.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., 136-37.

30 Ibid., 156.

31 Ibid., 157.

32 Ibid., 221-23.

33 Ibid., 62-63.

34 Ibid., 64-67.

35 Ibid., 62, 67-69.

36 Ibid., 69.

37 Ibid., 420-22.

38 Ibid., 31.

39 Ibid., 171-96.

40 See, for example, ibid., 178-80.

41 Ibid., 178.

42 Ibid., 34.

43 , Ramsay, Impressions of Turkey, 158–62Google Scholar ; idem, Revolution in Constantinople, 14.

44 , Ramsay, Impressions of Turkey, 122, 270Google Scholar ; idem, The Imperial Peace, 28.

45 Hemer, Colin J., The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (JSNTSup 11, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1986).Google Scholar

46 Ibid., x.

47 Ibid., 25-26.

48 Ibid., 14.

49 Hemer does not seem to be aware of the importance that Ramsay placed upon nature as a distinction between Orientals and Europeans.

50 See ibid., 51.

51 Ibid., 54.

52 Ibid., 22.

53 , Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 431–32.Google Scholar

54 , Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, 40–41.Google Scholar

55 This is itself a problematic argument; see , Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 210–36.Google Scholar

56 Wilhelm Alzinger, “Ephesos vom Beginn der römischen Herrschaft in Kleinasien bis zum Ende der Principatszeit (Archáologischer Teil)”; Dieter Knibbe, “Ephesos vom Beginn der römischen Herrschaft in Kleinasien bis zum Ende der Principatszeit (Historischer Teil)”; ANRW 2.7.2 (1980) 811-30, 748-810, respectively.

57 , Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, 53Google Scholar ; my emphasis.

58 Ibid., 54.

59 Ibid., 92.

60 Ibid., 41.

61 Ibid., 81.

62 Ibid., 82.

63 IvE I 27.

64 Rogers, Guy, The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City (New York: Routledge, 1991).Google Scholar

65 Hicks, Edward L., The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum 3.2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1890) 83.Google Scholar

66 , Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, 53.Google Scholar

67 This is also noted in Sanders, Jack T., Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: The First One Hundred Years of Jewish-Christian Relations (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1993) 178.Google Scholar

68 , Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, 160.Google Scholar

69 For the metaphor of the key, see ibid., 1, 20.

70 Ibid., 210-12.

71 Said, Edward W., The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983) 4–5.Google Scholar

72 Dissanayake, Wimal, “Introduction: The Literary Turn in the Human Sciences,” in idem and Bradbury, Steven, eds., Literary History, Narrative and Culture (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989) 1.Google Scholar

73 See, for example, Bapty, Ian and Yates, Tim, eds., Archaeology after Structuralism: Post-Structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology (London: Routledge, 1990)Google Scholar ; Yoffee, Norman and Sherratt, Andrew, Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher, eds., Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987)Google Scholar ; Gathercole, Peter and Lowenthal, David, eds., The Politics of the Past (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990).Google Scholar For a helpful overview of the problems and positions, see Hodder, Ian, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (2d ed.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

74 Sullivan, Lawrence E., “Dissonant Human Histories and the Vulnerability of Understanding,” in Friesen, Steven, ed., Local Knowledge, Ancient Wisdom: Challenges in Contemporary Spirituality (Honolulu: East-West Center, 1991) 27–28.Google Scholar

75 Gillispie, Charles C., “The Scientific Importance of Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign,” Scientific American 271 (1994) 78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; regarding the racial, religious, and philosophical ideas underpinning such an invasion, see Bernal, Martin, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civiliation, vol. 1: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987) 183–88Google Scholar.

76 The term “civilization” was either coined in English around this time or experienced a dramatic new level of usefulness (Long, Charles H., Significations: Signs, Symbols, and Im-ages in the Interpretation of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 83–84).Google Scholar

77 , Bernal, Black Athena, 224–399.Google Scholar

78 Trigger, Bruce G., “Review of Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization vol. 2,” Current Anthropology 33 (1992) 121–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Burstein, Stanley M., “Review of Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization vol. 2,” Classical Philology 88 (1993) 157–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 , Bernal, Black Athena, 382–83.Google Scholar

80 Silberman, Neil Asher, Digging for God and Country: Exploration, Archeology, and the Secret Struggle for the Holy Land 1799-1917 (New York: Knopf, 1982) 10–17.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., 202.

82 Keller, Catherine, “The Breast, The Apocalypse, and the Colonial Journey,” 62–71Google Scholar ; Dunn, Oliver and Kelly, James E., The “Diario” of Christopher Columbus’ s First Voyage to America 1492-1493 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989) 17-19, 183–85Google Scholar.

83 Neill, Stephen, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961: The Firth Lectures, 1962 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964).Google Scholar

84 See esp. ibid. 336-48. The revised edition (Neill, Stephen and Wright, Tom, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986 [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988])Google Scholar was undertaken by Tom Wright to update the classic work. No attempt was made to restructure the basic study or expand the kinds of questions asked about the earlier periods.

85 Baird, William, History of New Testament Research, vol. 1: From Deism to Tubingen (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992).Google Scholar

86 Ibid., 375-76.

87 Said, Edward W., Orientalism (New York: Pantheon, 1978) 136–66.Google Scholar

88 , Bernal, Black Athena, 344–46.Google Scholar

89 Smith, Jonathan Z., Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

90 Georgi, Dieter, “The Interest in Life of Jesus Theology as a Paradigm for the Social History of Biblical Criticism,” HTR 85 (1992) 51–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 For a similar critique based on a different line of argument, see Horsley, Richard A., “Innovation in Search of Reorientation: New Testament Studies Rediscovering Its Subject Matter,” JAAR 62 (1994) 1127–66.Google Scholar

92 Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) xvGoogle Scholar ; Roloff, Jürgen, The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) viiGoogle Scholar.

93 An important exception to prevailing tendencies in Revelation studies is the work of Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza. For example, her The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgement (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985)Google Scholar and Revelation: Visions of a Just World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991)Google Scholar.

94 Said, Edward W., Culture and Imperialism (New York: Knopf, 1993) 13.Google Scholar