Those Brits just don't get it (says John Collins)
In reading on apocalyptic things, I came across this fun bit by John J. Collins in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, The Apocalyptic, and their Relationships (note the use of “Apocalyptic” in the title), edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert Haak (T & T Clark):
Categories and definitions were the subject of sustained discussion in the 1970s and early ’80s, beginning with the work of Klaus Koch and Paul Hanson, and continuing through the SBL genres project and the Uppsala colloquium. One of the most widely shared points of agreement in that discussion was the use of ‘apocalyptic’ as a noun was a source of confusion, and that distinctions should be made between apocalypse as a literary genre, apocalypticism, whether as a social movement or as a worldview, and apocalyptic eschatology. It is true that these distinctions have not been embraced by British scholarship. In fact, there was very little British participation in those debates, and the objections to the use of ‘apocalyptic’ do not appear to have been grasped in that part of the world. [45]
He also clarifies that the objection to the use of “apocalyptic” as a noun is not grammatical, but because of the “intrinsic vagueness of the term.” Collins later adds, “To revert to this usage, in my view, is to set the discussion back to the state of confusion that prevailed before Koch wrote his monograph” (46). Oh ye British in “that part of the world”! Trying to confound us again, eh? There is a relevant discussion about this in the comments of a blog post on Ben Myers’ blog from awhile back, kicked off by Mike Bird’s comment (reflecting the trend that Collins has noted here) and reacted against by others.
I tend to side with Collins (and Mike Bird) here. It does provoke interesting questions related to transatlantic scholarly discussions, though. We already have a big enough problem crossing language barriers. And I must say that I find it amusing that Collins makes the point within a book using “apocalyptic” as a noun in its subtitle (which is what provoked Mike Bird’s comment in the aforementioned conversation).
I should note that I received this book courtesy of Abigail Cox at T & T Clark and it is on the docket to be reviewed! Thank you Abby!
Apocalypticism and Destruction
Is destruction the 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 every Apocalypse that is listed in the chart. This makes sense as a defining characteristic. Apocalyptic writing is a rallying cry, a kind of fantasy about the future that proclaims ultimate vindication of the righteous ones. Apocalyptic eschatology spurs on the faithful to remain faithful by reminding them that the unfaithful will get theirs in the end.
If destruction of some kind is a defining characteristic of apocalyptic eschatology, then can we make a judgment on whether Jesus or the Christ-confessing movement is “apocalyptic” in some way? That is, do the first century followers of Jesus of Nazareth have a sense that the end will bring destruction and judgment of the wicked? Without a doubt, yes.
The Jesus that we have presented in the Gospels is depicted as the Son of Man who will come to judge the nations. The “Sermon on the Mount,” for example has the statement: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it” (Matt 7:13). Jesus speaks of the coming day of judgment in destructive terms: “Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (Matt 10:15). “I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” (Luke 12:49). The Son of Man condemns the wicked to a destructive end: “Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’” (Mt 25:41).
The only way around this is the way of the Jesus Seminar: Jesus never said that stuff. Whether he did or not, that is how he is remembered by the community of his followers. I am interested in whether the early followers of Jesus were motivated by apocalyptic eschatology and here I have no doubt that they were.
But is it all about destruction? Does the final destruction mean for the followers of Jesus that present behavior doesn’t matter? Without a doubt, no. For instance, note what Bartchy calls Jesus’ Nazareth Charter in Luke 4:18-19. Jesus appears to be announcing the purpose for his ministry. This includes bringing good news to the poor, proclaiming release for the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, letting the oppressed go free, and proclaim the year of the Jubilee. Here Jesus is quoting Isaiah 61:1-2 and yet he leaves out the statement immediately following: to proclaim “the day of vengeance of our God.” In his ministry, Jesus challenges the dominant cultural values and social codes of his situation, including honor and purity, as he touches and eats with those who are marginalized and thought to be unclean.
Apocalyptic eschatology in the Jesus movement is destructive, yes. But it also contains other strands of the prophetic view of history that seem to be more “optimistic.” For his early followers, Jesus embodied both destruction and the present transformation of behavior.
Defining Apocalypse, Apocalypticism, and Apocalyptic Eschatology
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.
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: