This sizable volume contains 42 studies illustrating the imprecisely defined concept of ‘eschatology’. The editors spread their net widely, with subjects ranging from ancient Sumeria through Graeco-Roman antiquity to late antique Christianity and early Islam. Few scholars could fail to find something new in its broad scope of topics. The overall quality of individual studies is also high. Some chapters seem intended to introduce relatively unknown subjects to a broader audience, like Z. Pogossian's piece about unpublished Armenian apocalypses. Others place themselves firmly within well-known debates. S. Underwood Dixon, for example, adds real clarity to the disputed question of the relationship between the prophetic passages in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Several scholars expand on work from their earlier publications, as, for instance, the fine contribution by R.G. Edmonds, which extends his ongoing campaign of demolition against the myth of a unified ‘Orphic’ theology. The list of authors contains a number of major scholars in their respective fields, and the book might merit a place on library shelves on that basis alone. The bibliographies of individual chapters are also generally as up to date as the publication date allows.

Still, the overall haziness of the governing concept of ‘eschatology’ deserves mention. The editors invoke the Greek root of eschata, ‘final things’, which they define as applying to individual fates in the afterlife but also to broader apocalyptic prophecies of ‘last days’. There is the problem that prophecies of Armageddon are not necessarily related to personal afterlives, just as, for example, N. Wiater's discussion of Polybius’ suggestion that Rome's political power might end has no obvious connection to the idea of the survival of the soul after death. One could go further, though, and ask whether either apocalypses or afterlives constitute ‘final things’. A. Long defines the word ‘afterlife’ as ‘the post-mortem continuation, or renewal, of the deceased's consciousness and personal identity’ (p. 144). If so, then, by definition, an afterlife is not a final ending, merely a transition from one state of existence to another, whether that existence takes the form of a permanent placement (in an underworld, a heaven, a hell etc.), or reincarnation, or some type of interaction with the living through a cult of the dead. Shifting to apocalyptic prophecy only raises the same problem. Last judgements and the apocalyptic destruction of kingdoms are themselves transitional, setting the stage for a continued existence of some sort (often better) after the apocalypse. A peculiar statement like that of V. Cvetković, that ‘eschatology should not be placed at the end of history’ (p. 554), only illustrates the problem. Also, some of the prophecies discussed, for example several of the examples in A. Loktionov's piece about ancient Egypt, are ‘prophecies’ made after the fact to interpret what, from the author's point of view, are past events. Are you really discussing ‘final things’ when the chronological reference points in a prophecy are between the past and the more distant past rather than the future? As an axis for the conceptual grouping of topics, the idea of eschata does not seem to be a very useful concept. If interpreted strictly, then only A. Schiesaro's paper about Lucretius is truly eschatological, for Lucretius was unusual in insisting that death represented a final ending. This volume lacks a clear conceptual framework, even when the individual chapters are excellent.

I regret that I do not have space to discuss all 42 papers, and I should stress that my failure to mention some of them is not a negative reflection on their often interesting contents. One paper that I thought represented a useful approach was D. Katz's work on the afterlife in Mesopotamian texts. The most famous texts like the Epic of Gilgamesh suffer from the ‘Alcestis problem’, that is, the story of Gilgamesh, like the classical Greek tale of Alcestis, has a plot-driven reason to portray the afterlife negatively (to inspire Gilgamesh's search for immortality). On a priori grounds, though, one would expect a more positive scenario to exist as well, as it did in classical Greece. By focusing on the cult of dead, Katz has gone a long way towards solving the problem. She can note the compatibility of Gilgamesh with cults of the dead, while still allowing for the idea of posthumous interaction with the living to provide a more positive option than Gilgamesh's gloomy underworld alone.

Co-editor Marlow, working on the biblical book of Ezekiel, stresses the need for a consideration of the use of space and topography when exploring prophetic texts. She examines Ezekiel visually, as if reconstructing the view of the prophet looking into the apocalyptic landscape. This produces a quasi-phenomenological effect, attempting to experience the act of seeing the vision from a spatial point of view, which in turn allows for new perspectives on a familiar text. Other contributors attempt similar topographical examinations of other landscapes derived either from prophecy or from depictions of afterlives, and they do so with generally interesting results. The volume has two studies of 1 Enoch: G. Boccaccini approaches the text theologically, looking at ideas of redemption; F. Flannery takes a more topographical approach, looking at the symbolism of trees in the landscape. Both studies make insightful points, but their overall lack of overlap is notable, again demonstrating the value of examining the spatial perspective in addition to more traditional approaches.

I cannot, however, fully endorse G.A. Gazis's similarly spatial examination of the afterlife depicted in Homer's Odyssey 11; for it seems to me that he does not take the topographical analysis far enough. Noting (correctly) that there are references to the dead residing underground scattered throughout the Homeric poems, he then sees the realm of the dead in Odyssey 11 as inconsistent in having features that are clearly on the earth's surface. Gazis should consider another possibility, that the poet created a two-level realm, so that the ‘underworld’ is only one section of the larger realm of the dead that includes both underground and surface areas. This point is most explicit at Odyssey 11.36, when some of the dead come up from the underground area of Erebus to reach the surface area, where Odysseus will encounter them. Instead of dismissing this passage, one should consider that it helps to make sense of the whole description. The poet has a plot-driven reason to have more than one zone in his realm of the dead. Odysseus needs to talk to both buried and unburied dead, but the unburied dead were not welcome in the dwellings of the buried dead. By placing the dwelling places of the buried dead underground in Erebus but extending the realm of the dead to include a surface-level area, the buried and unburied dead can both be separate and visible above ground, without the unburied dead or the still-living visitor Odysseus ever going down to the true underworld. The surface area also allows Odysseus simply to sail there, and a reference to the surface zone having living Kimmerian neighbours (11.14–15) suggests that there was also an overland route, as Odyssey 24.10–13 portrays. The dead also seem to use the surface component of their world for certain purposes besides greeting visitors, as the court of Minos and the fields of Asphodel are part of the surface section of the realm of the dead. They are just not part of the underworld (Erebus); so one must distinguish between Homer's underworld and the larger realm of the dead that includes an above-ground area of public space that the dead can use.

I am also unsatisfied with the ‘ecocriticism’ approach offered by A. Hogeterp's discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He takes a future prediction of an ‘everlasting plantation’ in the ‘Teacher Hymns’ as a return to ‘complete harmony with nature’, which he implies to be some sort of unmanipulated pure experience. The words ‘everlasting plantation’, though, imply agriculture and therefore the control of nature. Invoking the Garden of Eden does not solve the problem because a garden too is a controlled space. Unmanipulated nature is what Adam and Eve were ejected into when they left the Garden of Eden, not the Garden itself, which was tightly controlled by God and farmed by Adam. I think Hogeterp is trying to invoke a sense of what a natural state would be that is too modern in its symbolic implications.

The volume's final section covers late antiquity, and this will likely be for many readers the section that moves the farthest from familiar subjects. One has to give the editors credit for the range of texts that the chapters discuss. There are more obscure Latin poets (Commodian, Juvencus) who are well outside the standard classical canon. There are chapters on Syriac Christian texts, Armenian apocalypses, Islamic texts and late Jewish texts from the early Middles Ages that show an interesting view of Christianity as the future enemy in prophetic statements. There is even a discussion of the visual iconography of Christian wall painting, whereas art history is otherwise mainly represented by a chapter on the much earlier Etruscans. I particularly liked the chapter on hagiography by P. Gemeinhardt, which has an especially interesting discussion on how the lives of saints would distinguish between the type of afterlife possible for a saint and the afterlife of an ordinary person. It is one of several papers that could, in theory, be the cornerstone for a whole separate volume on the issues it raises. The late antique section also works better than some of the earlier parts of the book, except maybe the section on the New Testament, in having papers build upon each other. The paper (by S. Trostyanskiy) on Platonic-derived themes in Basil the Great and Gregory the Great builds on ideas discussed by A.-C. Jacobsen in relation to Origen, which in turn look back to earlier sections of the book about Philo of Alexandria (by S. Yli-Karjanmaa) and Plato (by A. Long).

Viewed as a whole, and even despite the general haziness of the category of ‘eschatology’, the volume is an impressive collection of studies, which are interesting, whether or not they also work together as a group, which is only sometimes true. Even in cases where I disagree with the conclusions, the papers are stimulating food for thought. The high price might discourage individual buyers, but it would be a fine work for any library, and I recommend it to readers.