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 think it is completely valid to say that non-apocalyptic eschatology exists. For one, what was eschatology before apocalyptic discourse developed? In addition to prophetic eschatology, I think it’s even possible to have wisdom eschatology etc., but perhaps my view of eschatology is more encompassing than yours. I don’t know.
It seems to me that there are two things in particular that distinguish apocalyptic eschatology from pre-apocalyptic eschatology.
1) Determinism. Where classic prophecy had called for great change at the threat of God’s wrath, apocalypses simply assumed God’s wrath and encouraged people to repent so that they might escape it.
2) ‘Synergistic passivity’. Hand in hand with the first distinctive, apocalyptic literature and worldview seem to assume that the present suffering of the righteous will have a directly causative role in bringing about God’s judgment and the new age.
What do you think? Fair?
I don’t know the context you got this from, but if I had to guess, I’d say that describing an eschatology as “apocalyptic” connotes things like “a radical, immanent breaking in of the future, such that one world is cast into flames as a new one is born”, whereas “prophetic” might hint at an eschatology held at a great distance, posing little threat to the status quo. I’d almost guess that – and these are coarse guesses – one might be more apt to attribute to apocalyptic eschatology to amillenialism and prophetic eschatology to premillenialism. But these are just guesses. And I’m not really sure what Brandon’s got in mind with “wisdom” eschatology…
I tend to agree with the distinction. I also tend not to concern myself too much with such categories. Eschatology is one thing, but apocalyptic is terribly confusing. And ill-defined in some manners. I’m assuming that is part of what is bringing about your question. But I find apocalyptic and eschatology themselves terribly confusing to separate, especially when scholarship hasn’t always been clear on the matter.
To offer another example, consider Finneyite and social gospel eschatology, in which people progress straight toward the day of God. Definitely eschatological, definitely not apocalyptic. My inflated nickel.
Brandon: To follow up, could you say more about “wisdom eschatology”?
John: I might go with you on determinism. Another way that some have phrased this is pessimism. That is, in apocalyptic eschatology, things have gotten so bad that there is no hope for reform and God must dramatically intervene. On your second point, I’m not as sure. I’m not sure I like the word “passivity.” Can you offer any examples?
Scott: The “radical inbreaking” of the new age seems a commonly assumed distinctive of apocalyptic thought. I wouldn’t say that prophetic eschatology (if we accept its existence) poses no threat to the status quo. In fact, its possibility for reform seems to suggest a challenge to the status quo. But isn’t there a radical element to prophetic eschatology as well? Isn’t the lion lying with the lamb radical?
John: You’ve hit it on the nose. It is terribly difficult to define. That may just be why I’m obsessed about it.
Greg: Thanks. I haven’t thought much about Finney. What about ancient eschatologies? Do you see the same thing in Second Temple Judaism or formative Christianity?
To All: On what basis do we make distinctions between different eschatologies?
Re: Passivity
Just to clarify, by this I mean something like the pregnancy metaphor. A pregnant woman has to endure the birth pains before she can witness new life, and the same is true for God’s people. I want to suggest that this is a typically apocalyptic way of thinking.
It is a big theme in Daniel, particularly in the earlier chapters, in which the faithful who passively suffer are protected by God. It is even more obvious in later works, though. 4 Ezra, in which ‘Why do God’s people suffer?’ is a central question, offers answers like this (7.6b-9):
There is a city built and set on a plain, and it is full of all good things; but the entrance to it is narrow and set in a precipitous place, so that there is fire on the right hand and deep water on the left. There is only one path lying between them, that is, between the fire and the water, so that only one person can walk on the path. If now the city is given to someone as an inheritance, how will the heir receive the inheritance unless by passing through the appointed danger?
The interpretation of the parable in vv. 10-16 is pretty illuminating – and there’s plenty of that in 4 Ezra. Also, though, in the Christian period there is evidence of such apocalyptic thought, in the earliest interpretations of Jesus’ death for instance (passive suffering bringing about the next stage in God’s plan) or, of course, in Revelation 6.9-11.
Those are the examples I’d offer off the top of my head, though there are many more. Is that clearer?
It seems like you’re working with a limited, Judeo-Christian theology of eschatology.
Literarily, I would say that eschatology is clearly its own field and apocalyptic literature is its own type of literary device/usage/imagery/message used within Messianic eschatology so they are not linked indefinitely. There are lots of eschatologies that are without apocalypticism, such as in Buddhism, Hinduism, reincarnation, and whatever the future age is the Muslim jihadists are looking forward to, where they’ll be fanned with palm branches and have 70 virgins looking after their needs.
So my answer is no, it’s not redundant. Apocalyptic eschatology is one type of eschatology specifically using the apocalyptic style of OT/NT writers. Within Judeo-Christian theology there is also prophetic eschatology, wisdom eschatology and many others. I’m sure people will begin to make up more as they deduce patterns in Scriptures that no one has seen before or patterns that they need to create in order to write a really resounding and impressive doctoral dissertation.
Just my two cents…now back to pessismism and determinism and something I didn’t quite understand about pregnancy…:)
John: Would you say that the theme of the coming persecution of Jesus’ disciples is part of apocalyptic eschatology? If so, is not the suffering the result of an active testimony to Jesus? This is partially why I’m uncomfortable with the term “passive.” The faithful are not entirely passive. There does seem to be an action-based mandate for the faithful: i.e., whatever “being faithful” means for that group or author.
Oh yes, certainly. By ‘passivity’ I am primarily trying to draw attention to God’s role in the drama; God’s people suffer because it is his plan for them to do so, and when their suffering is complete then he will intervene decisively and rescue them. Their suffering always comes about because of their own actions of course (refusal of idolatry, antisocial customs, even, sometimes, armed resistance) but the apocalyptic emphasis is on God’s role in the unfolding events. God will save his people, and he will do so as soon as their time of suffering is filled up.
I understand your discomfort with the word ‘passive’ in this context. It’s the word that I heard when I was introduced to this concept, but in thinking through this with you I find that I’m also not so sure that it’s the best word for the job. Let’s set that terminology aside for the moment and try to return to the original question. To simplify it a little, I’m saying that apocalyptic eschatology recontextualized suffering to be a means of prompting God to action on behalf of his people, a necessary prerequisite to God’s blessing, an essential part of God’s plan. I see this as being specific to the apocalyptic era, and I conceive of it as being tightly related to the determinism/pessimism we’ve already talked about as being characteristic of apocalyptic thought.
Is this any better, or am I still managing to communicate as poorly as I was earlier?
I think for “eschatology” to remain useful, it should refer generally to what it traditionally has: final cataclysmic events in history. Crossan seized on the term “world-negation” (by which Schweitzer meant apocalypticism) and used it so loosely that eschatology could refer to virtually anything (wisdom/sappientialism, nihilism, mysticism, etc.). And when we broaden our terms so that they mean almost anything, in a sense they mean nothing. So I would object to Brandon’s idea about “wisdom eschatology”, unless he has something else in mind that I’m missing.
I usually use eschatology and apocalypticism more or less synonymously, though I realize the terms become slippery depending on which scholars we’re reading.
In my take on these things, apocalyptic refers to a type of genre or intellectual thought in which mundane or earthly events are described in cosmological/astronomical terms. Apocalyptic literature, therefore, can be about the past, present, or future. Eschatology, on the other hand, is the study of the end of history or the last things. Eschatological literature, therefore, is always about the future.
Thanks, Brandon. But what distinguishes those forms of eschatology from each other?
Thanks for stopping by, Dawn. If my inquiry is limited, there is a reason. I am more interested in a historical phenomenon, occurring within a couple hundred years on either side of the common era transition within Second Temple Judaism and formative Christianity (which itself came out of Judaism). The eschatology of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are all very interesting, but not quite as relevant to my particular interests. For me, the comparisons need some kind of immediate historical connection. Once we introduce other religions, things get messier rather than clearer because we need a basis for comparison. That is the same reason I responded to Greg above regarding Finneyites.
I’m also itching for evidence more than simply saying there exists prophetic eschatology and sapiential eschatology. What specifically distinguishes those different types?
“Is that clearer?”
Hmmm. Well, to be honest, not really. I understand the idea of suffering before the end of the age, but I’m not entirely certain I see a causal relationship viz a viz your first comment. I’m also not sure I understand why you’re using the word “passive”. What is active suffering?
Passive suffering, as opposed to active resistance. That was my intended meaning.
For those interested, see Loren’s response on his blog. I think it may be the most helpful thus far.
Thanks, Ken. One theme I have kicked around in my research is the idea that the genre “apocalypse” has been divided into two categories: “historical” and “ascent.” Thus, can we divide apocalyptic thought in general into these categories? So, apocalyptic thought could possibly relate more to the concept of revelation of divine secrets, for example, without necessarily discussing “last things.” This is something I need to explore more deeply.
My definition is inductive. Looking at apocalyptic or proto-apocalyptic texts such as Daniel, Zechariah 1-8, Enoch, and Revelation, it seems to me that often these texts concern past or present events rather than future ones. The futuristic interpretation of apocalyptic literature is largely due to the history of Christian exegesis, especially amplified in North American Fundamentalism. The texts themselves, while often having an eye on the future, are more often about the past and present. Striking to me, e.g., is that Zech 1:8-6:15, which has very strong apocalyptic features, is not nearly as eschatological in orientation as Haggai 2:20-22, a passage emanating from a text that is considerably less “apocalyptic.” So, absolutely, I agree with you that apocalyptic literature pertains more to form than content, i.e. the revelation of divine secrets usually through intermediaries, visions, and dreams, and encoded in often cryptic symbolism, metaphors, and imagery. Eschatology, on the other hand, relates more to content than form, i.e., general or specific revelations about last things. The form of those revelations can vary considerably. In the Bible, eschatology is apparent in parables, prophecies, apocalypses, and liturgy.