In other words, is there really such a thing as non-apocalyptic eschatology and what does it look like? In his ABD article on it, Paul Hanson creates a dichotomy between apocalyptic eschatology and prophetic eschatology. Is this valid?
The question came up as I met with Boustan today as we met at a little cafe in LA. I’m not sure I’m entirely satisfied with Hanson’s dichotomy and I’m going to be taking a closer look. Any thoughts?
I have taught in a few different capacities. Several of those have been ministry-related–small groups, sermons, Sunday school, etc. My first teaching assistant position was for Greek as an undergrad, where I often helped go through homework with students in class. In that position, in TA spots I had at Fuller Seminary and as a reader at UCLA, I occassionally helped students outside of class. At Fuller, I did take over a few classes for the Greek course I TA’d when the instructor had a baby. This fall, however, I will be responsible not just for grading or sporadic tutoring, but for guiding my own section of a class, week by week, through an entire quarter. I wasn’t expecting to get a TAship at UCLA because they are competitive to begin with and the California budget is somewhere in the ninth circle of hell.
Being an educator is the biggest reason I got into this business of academia, even if the research side of things does energize me as well. So, I am very excited to start getting my feet wet with a real classroom. The bad news is that I don’t know yet what I’ll be teaching. I will be assigned to one of the larger survey courses in the history department, perhaps Western Civilization or World History. That means that on a given week, I may know hardly any more than the students themselves. This is one of the challenges of the TA system at UCLA, but also an advantage. Such challenges will stretch me to discover how to teach subjects beyond my expertise, and I hope will give me more confidence to enter my first real job in a couple years.
But one step at a time. Maybe I should start boning up on Western Civ in the meanwhile.
I am reading through Mike Bird’s published dissertation, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, as part of my Graduate Summer Research Mentorship at UCLA. Through that I noticed his 2004 article in Evangelical Quarterly, “Mission as an Apocalyptic Event: Reflections on Luke 10:18 and Mark 13:10.” If you are familiar with my research interests–which you must be as my research fame is currently sweeping the globe–you will notice that the topic of the article relates closely with some of my own research (namely, my upcoming SBL paper presentation). For a moment there, I was worried my research balloon was popped and someone got to my ideas before I had them. But Mike went in somewhat of a different direction than I’m heading–for one, I’m not as interested in whether the Gentile mission originates with Jesus or his followers. And, at present, I have not been too interested in highlighting the restoration of Israel theme, though it is pretty hot stuff. His paper is still quite helpful to my research. As usual, Mike is great with the secondary literature and he also has some excellent observations of his own. Here is his conclusion regarding Luke 10:18 (the verse about Jesus having seen Satan fall from heaven):
Both mission and God’s final intervention at the last day are part of the one salvific event and the one act that orchestrates Satan’s downfall. In this sense any uncertainty about who actually vanquishes Satan is resolved. The act belongs to God alone, but the divine choice of weapons to execute his plan is the witness of the Church. Thus, the Church continues to exist for the purpose of mission which means that it will inevitably he brought into confrontation with the satanic horde. In Lk. 10:18 the entire sending out and return of the disciples highlights, ‘the experience of the mission as the arena of conflict and eschatological engagement with diabolic forces‘ [Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke, 411]. it is upon the globe and not simply in the heavenlies that the battle is fought and won. As the anointed Community who go out with the power of Jesus’ name and authority, it is a campaign that the Church is expected to win. [pg. 125-6, bold type mine]
So, God defeats Satan through the mission of Jesus’ followers [I'm always hesitant to use "Church," particularly with a big C, for this historical period--but I digress...]. This is something for me to chew on. Mike’s concluding thoughts on Mark 13:10 (”the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations”) are highly relevant and directly related to my own research pathway:
In addition, we should not overlook the fact that Mark 13, which in one way or another is an apocalyptic discourse despite the fact that it does not contain every conceivable apocalyptic literary device and motif gives a central place for mission in the divinely determined scheme of salvation. Mission, for Mark and no less Jesus, is part of the eschatological program put into effect in order to achieve that which apocalyptic dreamers hoped for: the revealing of God’s salvation. In this sense, mission does not simply anticipate the final triumph of God, but it actually achieves it in embryonic form. Mission is more than a foretaste of things future and apocalyptic, rather, it is performative apocalyptic. Mission, the proclamation of the gospel, is the pivotal act whereby God begins to repossesses the world for himself. [pg. 132, bold type mine]
That last comment is actually part of the purpose of my presentation this fall. I’m glad to have some more fruit to throw in the blender.
Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (IVP Bible Dictionary Series)
Editors: Craig A. Evans & Stanley E. Porter
Hardcover: 1328 pages
Publisher: InterVarsity Press
Year: 2000
ISBN:9780830817801
Many thanks to Adrianna Wright at IVP for forwarding a review copy! Though this was the last of the New Testament dictionaries in this series by IVP, it has been out for quite some time–nearly a decade. Yet, I hadn’t picked it up until now. As it turns out, after looking through, this is probably my favorite out of the bunch from IVP. The topics span quite a range, from Second Temple Judaism, Greco-Roman history and culture, Rabbinic Judaism (coverage especially from Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton), etc. It’s difficult to review a dictionary, but I thought I might highlight a sampling of some notable articles (from my perspective):
The Dead Sea Scrolls are well represented with contributors including William Schniedewind (of UCLA!) and Lawrence Schiffman. One can get a grand overall picture of the types of literature in Greece, Rome, and in Jewish history. We learn about how history is conceived and the understanding of scholarship in the ancient world. We can read about authors from the classics, such as Plutarch, Suetonius, or Cicero. The dictionary covers philosophies such as Epicureanism, Stoicism, Neo-Pythagoreanism and Platonism. The breadth of the entries is astounding. Outside the Anchor Bible Dictionary, this may now be the most useful dictionary that I own. If you’re interested in Christian origins in general, this is the perfect dictionary. At UCLA, Scott Bartchy has a course coming up in the fall on the religious environment of early Christianity and students planning on taking that course would do well to purchase this in advance and get to know the topics–it is also a great source to help fill out study guides for the midterm and final!
All of this said, out of the entries I scanned, the only entry I have strong reservations about is the single one in the book by D. A. Carson: Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy. While it could be worse, considering Carson’s typical bias and usual polemical tone, he quite strongly and too easily tosses aside any “mediating positions” on pseudonymity. Instead–going against James Dunn’s entry on the same topic in IVP’s Dictionary of the New Testament and Its Developments–Carson offers that either “some NT documents are psuedonymous and . . . the real authors intended to deceive their readers, or . . . the real authors intended to speak the truth and . .. . pseudonimity is not attested in the NT” (863). Though Carson’s entry is not without value on the whole, this idea that pseudonymity simply equals deception is problematic. Still, if the reader simply ignores this “editorial” assesment by Carson, the article is quite useful.
Dictionary articles are written by individuals, of course, and you’ll get a mixture of views and quality among them. But on the whole, the Dictionary of New Testament Background is a quality volume that NT scholars, pastors, and interested lay persons should all grab a hold of–if they haven’t already!
Geez, Kevin, I just got caught up on the last meme. But I concur with Jim that this new twist has the potential for some interesting thoughts. Here are Kevin’s rules:
1.) List the 5 primary sources that have most affected your scholarship, thoughts about antiquity, and/or understanding of the NT/OT.
2.) Books from the Bible are off limits unless you really want to list one, I certainly will not chastise you for it.
3.) Finally, choose individual works if you can. This will be more interesting than listing the entire corpus of Cicero as one of your choices.
Here are my texts:
The last two are not in the canon that I use. It’s hard to leave off Josephus and the Didache, but the list has to stop somewhere. And I shall tag: Nijay Gupta, Mark Goodacre (I know his list will include Q), Loren Rosson, Mike Koke, and April DeConick.
In an engaging and intelligent post, John Anderson brought the topic to our attention again, and Doug Chaplin followed up. There is also a pretty hearty conversation going on in the comment section of John’s post. In an older post of mine (two years ago), I shared some of my thoughts on the topic–and linked to other conversations going on at that time. That post just happens to be one of my all time most visited posts. People are always interested in this topic.
In my older post, I preferred using the term Tanakh as a richer option than “Hebrew Bible,” which seems bland to me. I also felt that when Christians are talking about an explicitly Christian reading of the Tanakh (such as with “OT theology” as John mentions), they shouldn’t be too uncomfortable with the term “Old Testament.” For Christians, the fact of the matter is that Jesus does change the equation when reading the Tanakh, though exactly how he does is the bigger question.
While I don’t disagree with my former self, I think I’ve become a little more pragmatic since that older post. In academic settings, I just say “Hebrew Bible” because that’s what everyone else says. In non-academic Christian settings, I just say “Old Testament.” In non-academic interfaith conversations, I’d probably say “Tanakh” more often than “Hebrew Bible.” For me, the matter is about a mixture of respect, honesty, and practicality.
A while back, Mike put up a very helpful post on the historicity of the future sayings of the “Son of Man” in the Gospels. He basically asked us all whether we think the apocalyptic, future judge “Son of Man” sayings really could be traced back to the lips of Jesus. I was working on a paper on the issue at the time and he’s been nudging me to give my own thoughts on the issue. I’m hesitant to say much because I feel like I have only scratched the surface of a very complex problem for which we have so little evidence to work with.
At this point in my academic career, I’m inclined to say that “historical Jesus” studies is a black hole. It’s something we should study and try to work through, but to devote too much effort just sucks you into the dark abyss of an ultimately unprovable mess. So, here is my disclaimer for my current thoughts on the future “Son of Man” issue: these are just my general inclinations. I am not so bold to really get in the mud and wrestle it out with others because I think it’s a dead end. Even though Casey’s book is so daring as to suggest he has the solution, I don’t really believe it can be “solved” beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That said, my inclination is that, yes, the apocalyptic “Son of Man” sayings are–at least to some extent–authentic. I am unconvinced that the Aramaic idiom approach (e.g., Vermes and Casey in different ways) has sufficient evidence to stand up as the only authentic “Son of Man” sayings. As I see it, the apocalyptic “son of man” references that we know of (Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, and 4 Ezra 13) all borrow from earlier mythic imagery and adapt it for their own purposes. Daniel 7 seems to be the first time “son of man” is used in an apocalyptic setting. And though the immediate context appears to refer to an angel, perhaps Michael, who represents Israel as a great prince and protector (12:1), the image of “son of man” in an apocalyptic sense seems to have been widely used and adapted further in subsequent Jewish literature–just as Daniel is adapting the literature that came before it.
It seems reasonable to me to understand Jesus as adapting this image of an apocalyptic “son of man” just as others did in the same time period. That Jesus would take a widely used symbol and adapt it for his own purposes is consistent with his own teaching program (e.g., “you have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . .”). It does not seem completely unreasonable to me for Jesus to adapt the exalted sense of “son of man” as a title for more sayings related to his earthly ministry. It also does not seem unreasonable that Jesus would add a suffering component to the Danielic “son of man” tradition, since suffering and humility is such a significant part of his teaching. The first shall be last and the last first, after all.
I am inclined to agree with Burkett who suggests that those who have investigated the nontitular explanation of “son of man” (Vermes, Casey, and those before them) have “performed a service for the scholarly community.” The view had some potential merit and needed to be explored. These scholars have walked down that path for us. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a dead end: “The time has come . . . to take stock and recognize that this line of research has not led to a convincing solution.” Current and future research must instead focus its attention by recognizing the bulk of passages referencing the “son of man” in the Gospels appear to be a title (see Burkett, 96).
So, those are my inclinations at this point. But they could change!
Though it is a late in coming, I was previously busy with my grand translation project earlier. So, here’s my stab at the five books meme begun and cataloged by Ken Brown. I was tagged by Kevin Scull and kind of unofficially by John Hobbins, so it’s time to live up to my tagged responsibilities. Here are the rules:
- Name the five books (or scholars) that had the most immediate and lasting influence on how you read the Bible. Note that these need not be your five favorite books, or even the five with which you most strongly agree. Instead, I want to know what five books have permanently changed the way you think.
- Tag five others.
I appreciate Ken’s first rule. These are not my favorite books per se, but books that have changed the way I think about the Bible. Most of these go back to my foundational years, just as I was beginning to discover what it might mean to become a scholar of the Bible.
A couple runners up include Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes by Robert McAfee Brown (I had a bout with liberation theology, which still lingers with me to some extent… it also often frustrates me when it comes to biblical interpretation) and The Story We Find Ourselves in by Brian McLaren (I’m not totally gung ho with everything emergent, nor was this book super literature, but it pushed me to consider what the overall story or “metanarrative” of the Bible might be). I’m sure there are others that escape me at the moment.
Have you read any of these? What did you think?
Oh, and as for the tagging others thing… if you haven’t been, then consider youself tagged 
My fellow bibliobloggers and biblioblog readers, I have tremendous news! I have discovered a new ancient document, heretofore never published! I discovered this document at the beginning of June and have worked tirelessly to decode its original script.
Using my advanced technological resources, I have dated the document to the late second century CE. Most astounding of all, this document includes a narrative revelation of the mysteries of the biblioblogging of June 2009. Thus, rather than actually doing the carnival for myself, I have simply translated this work so that we can all revel in its uncanny accuracy. Below is my transcript, with the accompanying links where appropriate. The prophecies are a bit fuzzy and there are strange translation issues, but if you hover over the links, those should be descriptive enough for our modern understanding of things.
___________________________________
I, Eve, daughter of life and mother of light record the mysteries revealed to me by the Most High, Father and King of heaven. This scroll unveils the secrets of many scrolls, each scroll in its own cloud, approaching from the four corners of the cosmos. Each scroll spews forth from the mouth of a distinct figure having the appearance of a human being, the messengers of wisdom.
Concerning the first mysteries, a great door opened and I heard an ancient voice.
Douglas the Gun shall inquire into the writings of another voice concerning the timing of a scroll of the Law. Calvin of the Park whose Hat Flops shall reveal two heads in this saying and that saying. Amanda of the Park whose Hat Flops will cry out to Adonai, plumbing the depths of the lamentable words.
Duane the Smith shall call for any idiot to answer his questions from an ancient language, to unveil the meaning of KAL DILI. The Smith will also search for the omens in old songs.
Coming from the East, Michael the Satlow arose and taught me about the dynasty of the Hasmonean kings of old.
Christopher who Hears will report the way of the teachers of the Language of the Old Mysteries. Kevin the Comber of the Edge shall seek the mysteries of the Jews and the Old Books, revealing One Called Semler as their enemy. Julia Daughter of the Exalted One will share with the faithful the wisdom of reading the Ancient Scriptures, once, twice, three times, four times. John the Saint of the Hobbits will report upon a copy of the Old Books, preserved in beauty. Douglas the Gun shall report upon the Old Mysteries revealed within the earth.
Concerning our Lord and the new mysteries, another door opened with the clang of a symbol.
Out of a southeastern river, I saw a hawk rise in the sky. The hawk heralded the new beginning of a wise man, proclaiming, “The bloggings of Brandon the Wason have risen!” In that time, Mark of the Good Land will unveil his true voice to the world. His voice shall whisper the secrets of the New Scriptures for each person to treasure for themselves. This Man of the Good Land will also proclaim regarding the sayings of our Lord, defending against the heresy of the secret scroll.
“In those days, James from the West shall share the proclamations of Marvin the Vinemaker that the Lord was the Wicked Priest to the Essenes of old.” I asked the messenger, “What strange spirit possesses this maker of vines to make these claims?” The man replied, “Such mysteries are hidden even from you, Eve.”
The Woman of the Fourth Month of the Conick will unveil in her scrolls how followers have proclaimed our Lord again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
In those days, Joel of the Lightning who calls himself the Martyr will explore him and it and the Word from the beginning of John’s account of our Lord–pointing the mysteries of other writings on the same topic. James the Son of Grace shall question the meaning of the Word become flesh. The Son of Grace will have written his own scroll revealed in those times.
The Man of Marx will rise up to challenge the Apostle, calling the Apostle a liar. James the Gregorian will examine the meanings of a single word, the word of the Apostle: The Gregorian called out to the earth: “Give!” Kevin of the Skull will place in order the messengers who comment upon the Apostle’s words to the Philippians. Jason the Great One shall report upon the Apostle and the Law.
And there shall be a great many voices from among the messengers calling out regarding The Bishop Called Wright, one and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another.
Greg of the Pleasant Stream will unveil the neglected words of the New Mysteries here and there and here and there and here and there again.
Michael of Coca-Cola shall reveal the mysteries of the segments of times.
Darrell who Pierces the Valley arose and taught me about the gathering of the New Scriptures.
And there were other various mysteries swirling in a great cloud, being revealed one after another.
In the great multitude there will be those who can control their bodies in such a fashion as to make musical sounds with their buttocks without foul smell. From among this number, David the Miller will search for Greek words rising from the ground of holy lands. Michael of the Thistle Patches will fight with the many headed beasts rising from various scrolls. James from the Village will be a messenger for the many messengers of Enoch.
Ken the Schenk shall dive into the pit of Scriptural errors, shining within it a bright light.
Roland the Farmer will attack the angry gaurdians of the scroll collectors.
The mysteries of James from the West shall be written on a scroll dedicated to the man.
And I looked and I saw a great fire. The fire was divided into a multitude of burning scrolls. There were five burning scrolls in each group and each group represented a single messenger: Ken from the Brown Lands, Brandon the Wason, Jared the Pebble, Kevin of the Skull, The Daniel and The Tonya, James the Son of Grace, Art the Ball Maker, Douglas the Gun, John the Saint of Hobbits, Michael of Coca-Cola, Nicholas the Norelli, The Man Crowned with Laurel from a Thorn Tree [Not Jesus], Judy the Red Woman, Douglas the Chantry Priest, Darrell who Pierces the Valley, James of the Good God, Kevin the Comber of the Edge, John the Son of Andrew, Scott the Attendent of the Castle, Brian the Minister, Claude the Mariottini, Michael the Barber, Michael the Bird Watcher, and many others.
In the end, the fires shall transform into gold and the Garden shall be renewed. And the Sons and Daughters of Wisdom shall know the truth. Amen, Amen, and Amen.
___________________________________
I am certain that you are all as astounded as I am at the odd beauty (and specificity) of this document! I am going to have to rethink my understanding of prophecy and apocalyptic literature.
I also have to say just how amazing Ken Brown must feel to have not only created such a successful meme among biblioblogs, but also to have had the success of his idea predicted hundreds of years ago. Unbelievable.
If you feel that the prophet has missed important discussions from the past month of biblioblogging, please do share them in the comments. But don’t blame me, I’m just the translator.
My blogging always seems to get the short end of the stick at the end of each quarter. There is just too much to do and when I’m not doing it, my brain is too fried to post anything intelligent. Yes, I know I am setting my self up for easy shots on my blogging habits there (”Unintelligent? Never stopped you before!”). Okay, so let us say, my brain has been too fried to post anything at all at the end of each quarter.
The end of this past quarter is particularly meaningful as it marks the end of my first year as a Ph.D. student and my first summer “off” in four years. After three years of year-round, full-time Fuller Seminary, I was exhausted. But I went straight into UCLA and . . . fatherhood. I’m ready for a break! Not that I’ll just be sitting around on the couch all summer long eating Bon Bons (do they still make those?). I will be working with Ra’anan Boustan on two projects: (1) a summer research mentorship grant to look into apocalyptic thought and (2) as his research assistant, indexing for a forthcoming book on religion and violence. And I’ll also be taking care of my six month-old son. But it’s nice not to be enrolled in any classes.
But as this is the end of a challenging year, I thought I’d share some of the highlights:
Next year will be my last year of classes. In the course of the year, I will be enrolling in Bartchy’s class on the religious environment of early Christianity, a seminar on Eusebius with Claudia Rapp, probably something on Roman history with Ronald Mellor, finish up with Latin in the Winter, and a few other things. I’ll be taking the German and French exams. I hope to be a TA–but our budgets are being slashed, so I’m not sure I’ll get a spot (at UCLA, TA’s get their own sections to teach and its very competitive). If not, I’ll probably be grading. The third year will be teaching and preparing for my comprehensive exams. Then, it’s just dissertation or bust.
Elsewhere…
