I had a conversation with a very intelligent and well-read UCLA undergrad yesterday about how we define the various terms used for eschatology and apocalyptic things in New Testament studies. I went back to a paper I wrote on the history of scholarship on apocalypticism and thought it might be good to post the brief section on definitions. When defining “apocalyptic” things, I tend to rely on the “established” apocalyptic scholars who have worked with the “official” conferences (like the Uppsala Colloquium) and meetings (like the Society of Biblical Literature Genres Project) on the topic. Folks who have participated in these efforts have contributed much to our understanding. So, here goes . . .
Though the term refers to an “uncovering” or “disclosure,” apocalypticism ironically remains one of the most mysterious topics in the study of the New Testament. A great deal of scholarly ink has been spilled simply attempting to define “apocalypticism” and its related terms.
Some basic terminological distinctions have come to be generally accepted in contemporary scholarship. Past scholarship relied heavily upon the term “apocalyptic” as a loose category and used the term more as a noun than an adjective. John J. Collins states, however, “More recent scholarship . . . distinguishes between apocalypse as a literary genre, apocalypticism as a social ideology, and apocalyptic eschatology as a set of ideas and motifs that may also be found in other literary genres and social settings.”1 These three categories are generally defined according to the class of texts generally accepted as “apocalyptic” by the consensus of modern scholarship (e.g., Daniel, Revelation, and 1 Enoch). The definitions of apocalypticism and apocalyptic eschatology, then, are connected to themes seen in the apocalypse genre. The definition of the genre put forth by Semeia 14 is widely cited and bears repeating in full here:
“Apocalypse” is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.2
This definition is seeking the lowest common denominator and therefore leaves out several features found in many apocalypses, such as pseudonymity or ex eventu prophecy. Building off the work of David Hellholm and David Aune who both reacted to Semeia 14, a group of scholars sought to expand this description to include social features of the apocalypse genre in Semeia 36:
[Such a work is] intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.3
Semeia 14 distinguishes between two main types of the apocalypse genre: the otherworldly journey (e.g., 1 Enoch 1-36) and the historical apocalypse (e.g., Daniel). In the former, the human is guided either in a heavenly ascent or a descent to the netherworld. The historical apocalypse presents a review of history relevant to its depiction of the final judgment, such as with the four kingdoms in Daniel.
The following is a helpful chart adapted4 from Semeia 14 to show the some of the characteristics that may be found in various apocalypses:
The fact that a judgment of the wicked is included in all of the texts in this chart adds weight to the suggestion that such texts had some intention to influence behavior, seen in the addition from Semeia 36. Apocalyptic eschatology, then, would be an ideology about the coming “end” which assumes some combination of these aspects. Likewise, apocalypticism is defined as a social movement of people motivated by these concepts.
__________
1 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 2.
2 J. J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press), 9.
3 Adela Yarbro Collins, Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (Semeia 36; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1986), 7.
4 J. J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 7.
5 Comments
November 18, 2008 at 8:34 am
I can’t speak to these definitions.
But I can speak to one of my pet peeves. It irritates me to no end when writers use ‘apocalyptic’ as a noun (e.g. “Daniel wrote in the genre of apocalyptic”). Come on. Seriously?
November 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“a group of scholars sought to expand this description to include social features of the apocalypse genre in Semeia 36:
[Such a work is] intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future . . .”
This is in line with a point that Tom Wright has repeated in his fabulous Christian Origins series, that the dramatic, metaphoric, symbolic, and cosmic language used by apocalyptic literature is a way of investing political, social, and perhaps even personal events with their divine significance. Because, like in wisdom literature, the deity was responsible for and worked through the system and order of nature, so by referring to nature in extraordinary ways, the extraordinary nature of the divine activity is better described. Oftentimes, the social context that gives rise to it is one of oppression.
In fact, I myself, as a person who feels oppressed by my own government and views my government as an oppressor, felt that the genre of apocalypse was well-suited for my own purposes. And thus, I wrote something called A Presidental Apocalypse
(http://www.echoofeden.com/digest/slaveofone/2008/09/23/a-presidential-apocalypse/) in which I not only described recent past history, but described ahead of time (correctly, I should add) not only who was going to be president but what would happen with Wall Street.
December 3, 2008 at 11:08 am
My only response, again, would be that, when we speak of Jesus of Nazareth, can we really apply this to his ‘basileia’ movement?
“a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves ANOTHER, SUPERNATURAL world.
I think the main question which we’d have to ask if we are to define Jesus (and by extension, early Christianity) as being both eschatological and apocalyptic is motivation. Were Jesus and his followers motivated primarily by another, supernatural world? Or were they motivated by changing THIS world? Were their beliefs destructive, or were they transformative? Was theirs an interim ethic or was it permanent?
That is why I continue to hold that Jesus and his followers were eschatological but not apocalyptic (at least most of them). If I can steal J.D. Crossan’s term, theirs was an “inaugurative eschatology.”
December 3, 2008 at 12:31 pm
E.: I think that your “Or” here may be misplaced. Why not both? The definition above is referring specifically to the genre of apocalypse. Certainly, the Book of Revelation is concerned with another, supernatural world (see chapter 21). But also note the second part of the definition added by Semeia 36: “to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.” The unique (if we can use that term) concept of the Jesus movement is that it is concerned with both: awaiting the coming judgment and the end of this age, while also believing that the end has been “inaugurated” with implications for present behavior.
December 7, 2008 at 3:07 pm
[...] defining characteristic of apocalyptic thought? If you look at the chart that I have included in a previous post, you see that “judgment/destruction of the wicked” is the only category that appears in [...]