Comments on: Question: Is "Apocalyptic Eschatology" Redundant?

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:35:58 +0000

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.

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:43:45 +0000

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.

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:40:19 +0000

For those interested, see Loren's response on his blog. I think it may be the most helpful thus far.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:21:58 +0000

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.

By: Loren Rosson

Loren Rosson — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:58:05 +0000

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.

By: John Ottens

John Ottens — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:06:07 +0000

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?

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:58:08 +0000

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.

By: John Ottens

John Ottens — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:22:33 +0000

Passive suffering, as opposed to active resistance. That was my intended meaning.

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:23:53 +0000

“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?

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:17:09 +0000

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?