Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JRS, IP address: 128.114.34.22 on 03 Apr 2015 i objectiveAs Roman economic historians have moved beyond concepts such as formalism and substan tivism that exercised previous generations of scholars, questions of economic growth and performance have increasingly come to the fore. 1 Consideration of these issues requires a basic understanding of the probable size of the Roman economy and the distribu tion of income across its population. This perspective not only encourages us to ask how different segments of the economy -such as the share of output captured by the state or the relative weight of élite wealth -were interrelated and to ponder the overall degree and struc ture of inequality, but also invites and facilitates comparison with other pre-modern economies. Engagement with such macro-level questions has a short academic pedigree in our field. With the notable exception of the historian-sociologist Keith Hopkins, Roman histo rians have shied away from addressing the problem of the size of the economy of the Empire and effectively ceded this important area of inquiry to a handful of enterprising econo mists who were not afraid to venture into unfamiliar territory. 2 While scholarly JRS 99 (2009), pp. 61-91.

There was no new consensus or old consensus during the twentieth century regarding social status in Paul’s assemblies. A comparison of the work of Adolf Deissmann with publications from the late twentieth century suggests instead a shift from an industrial capitalist interpretation of society focused on ‘class’ to a consumer capitalist interpretation of society focused on ‘social status’. Social status defined in this way is inappropriate for the description of the Roman empire, so this argument focuses instead on measuring economic resources. Rather than using the vague binary categories of rich/poor, a poverty scale is proposed with seven categories ranging from ‘below subsistence level’ to ‘imperial elites’. Using this scale, an examination of explicit references to economic resources in the undisputed Pauline letters leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence for any wealthy saints in the Pauline assemblies. On the contrary, most of the saints can be described as poor; that is, living near or below the level of subsistence.

Concludes with an interpretation of Revelation. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza summarized how confessing communities tend to interpret Revelation. David Barr and Catherine Keller have suggested the significance of Revelation for western society in general. Friesen argues that Revelation is best understood as a form of religious criticism from within the western tradition, which provides a critique of the western tradition. Revelation opposed imperialism, and provides a challenge to the modern West's understandings of humanity, society, and rationality.

The book of Revelation did not have one single social setting but several, reflecting the fact that its recipients lived in seven different urban settings. These recipients had various external and internal problems but they agreed with John about non-participation in imperial cults. In the last half of Revelation, John used their agreement regarding imperial cults as a way of addressing three disagreements he had with certain members of some of the assemblies. In each case, John connected the disputed issue to imperial cults, and then located the issue in a broader critique of Roman imperial society. Thus he employed the imagery of imperial cults to move his audience from the consideration of particular issues to an analysis of religion, economy, and imperialism.

Synthesizes the existing evidence for municipal imperial cults in the cities of Asia (Ephesos, Priene, Miletos, Sardis, Pergamon). An examination of imperial cults in temple settings and those without temples shows that municipal imperial cults permeated city life and were more attuned to local piety. In comparison with provincial imperial cults, the municipal institutions were more variegated in their formats and in the objects of worship. There was more incorporation of imperial figures into the cults of other deities, more assimilation of imperial figures to specific deities, and a different standard for the language of divinization.