Question: Is "Apocalyptic Eschatology" Redundant?
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?
Two Views of History: Apocalyptic and Prophetic/Deuteronomic
In his survey courses at UCLA, Scott Bartchy often highlights the difference between the “prophetic view of history” and the “apocalyptic view of history.” As he outlines the topic, the prophetic view sees history as a series of cycles, in which things get bad, but the people of Israel can reverse the downwards course of history through repentance (the “optimistic” view). The apocalyptic view basically sees history moving in a downward direction and nothing can stop it, calling for a cataclysmic and radical break in history and God’s intervention (the “pessimistic” view).
I have just been reading through Daniel and some of John Collins’ writing on the book. Collins makes a point that connects the supplication of Daniel in chapter 9–an odd passage in relation to the whole of Daniel–with Bartchy’s basic theory:
Most important, the theology of prayer contrasts sharply with the apocalyptic framework of Daniel. The logic of the prayer is that the affliction of Jerusalem is a punishment for sin and will be removed if the people repent and pray. Yet when the angel arrives he tells Daniel that the response was sent forth at the beginning of his supplication (in effect without waiting to hear it) and he emphasizes that the end is decreed. In short, events will follow their predetermined course, irrespective of prayer and repentance. Whether this prayer was deliberately placed here by the author to show this contrast or was inserted by a later redactor, it neatly highlights a fundamental difference between the apocalyptic view of history and the traditional Deuteronomic theology. In the apocalpytic view, the course of events is predetermined. This does not mean that there is no room for human freedom. People can determine their own destiny by their reactions, but they cannot change the course of events. [The Apocalyptic Imagination, 108-9]
What Bartchy calls the “prophetic” view seems equivalent to Collins’ mention of the “Deuteronomic” view. What do you think? Is this a fair dichotomy? Can we point to two distinct views of history in early Judaism and Christianity?
Summer Research Mentorship Grant
Last week I learned that I was approved for UCLA’s Summer Research Mentorship Grant. I was a little worried about it–what, with the California state financial apocalypse and all. But the good news is that I will have the opportunity to work with Ra’anan Boustan on my apocalyptic obsession this summer, unhindered by all the demands of regular academic quarters.
This summer will be my first “break” in four years. Fuller Seminary has you work around the clock, all year long. At UCLA, I am glad to have some flexibility with my summer. So, I am looking forward to having some extra time to do “daddy daycare,” as my friend Kevin calls it, while I also focus my academic attention solely upon apocalyptic writings (and German). No classes. And UCLA is paying me for it. Can’t complain with that.
Boustan’s current seminar will flow into the summer mentorship nicely, since I am already being introduced to his perspective and much of the relevant literature on the topic. In case you’re wondering about what I’m doing with apocalyptic eschatology in my research, I seem to be narrowing in upon the idea of identity formation: How is apocalyptic expectation related to identity construction in early Judaism and Christianity? Such is the topic of my SBL paper for this November. This is the direction I expect to go with my dissertation. I plan to keep my cards pretty close to my chest as far as specifics, but I will say that there is no monolithic answer to my question.
Chris Wright on the "Great Climax"
On Koinonia, the blog hosted by Zondervan Academic, David Frees reviews Chris Wright’s views on the “Great Climax” in Wright’s book,The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith. Here is Wright’s own summary of the relevant chapter (10) in the book:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsvZVAahQEs]
I have not actually read Wright’s book yet, but from Frees’ post, I think Wright is on the right track. The end of the age is not simply about the wicked getting their punishment and the righteous their reward, but in the Jesus tradition, it relates directly to how one lives life in the present. Here is a helpful comment from the post:
While his discussion of the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment are important, I connected most with the first section, concerning the return of Christ. Without commenting on the timing of Christ’s return, Wright speaks about the certainty of it. A certainty that he says should deeply impact the believer. He challenges us as readers to ask ourselves what the sure return of Christ means to our lives today. Do we live as though Christ could return at any minute? Does the truth that Christ is the reigning and returning Lord have any bearing on our daily activities? What Christ’s return means to us is a question that should transform the way we think, speak and live every day?
It is easy to think of the “Big Day” as a time when Christ will return to deal out judgment to those who have done us wrong. The Day of the Lord, however, is more than just a day of judgment for unbelievers; it is also a day of examination for believers.
Well said. I am currently trying to work through the difficult complications of the historical situation myself, but I think the present-day Christian’s theological assessment of apocalyptic expectation must emphasize this point.
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.
Two Different Ways the Bible Looks at the "End"
I have just been reading the Paul Hanson’s section in the ABD article on “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism.” I came across a distinction between two types of biblical eschatology that seems helpful. Eschatology is the study of what will happen at the end of time. The Bible sees the end of time as a dramatic shift brought about by God’s initiative, according to God’s plan. There’s going to be judgment of the righteous and the wicked and a new era of God’s peace will be ushered in. According to scholars, the Bible contains two distinct major forms of eschatology: prophetic and apocalyptic. Prophetic eschatology is the understanding that “God’s new order would unfold within the realities of this world.” Apocalyptic eschatology, which is an outgrowth of prophetic eschatology, is more “dualistic.” In other words, in apocalyptic eschatology, the present era is more distinctly at odds with God’s new order than prophetic eschatology.
I am primarily interested in, as are many scholars, what are the circumstances that give rise to people thinking about the end of the world. In that vein, here’s where I found Hanson’s comment really interesting:
Prophetic eschatology and apocalyptic eschatology are best viewed as two sides of a continuum. The development from the one to the other is not ineluctably chronological, however, but is intertwined with changes in social and political conditions. Periods and conditions permitting members of the protagonist community to sense that human effort would be repaid by improved fortune tended to foster prophetic eschatology, that is, the view that God’s new order would unfold within the realities of the world. Periods of extreme suffering, whether at the hands of opponents within the community or those of foreign adversaries, tended to cast doubts on the effectiveness of human reform and thus to abet apocalyptic eschatology, with its more rigidly dualistic view of divine deliverance, entailing destruction of this world and resurrection of the faithful to a blessed heavenly existence. (Vol. 1, 281; emphasis mine)
In other words, when people had something like what we would call “freedom of speech” (and action, for that matter), prophetic eschatology was more likely. Where dissenting speech and action brought more persecution, apocalyptic eschatology was more likely. The anticipation of the end and the negative feeling towards the present state of the world was more powerful in apocalyptic eschatology. I presume the logic is that when people feel persecuted, they’re going to express their anticipation of the end more dramatically than if they believe they can change things.
It’s an interesting distinction. I think I need to look deeper into this and think about what specific texts are designated one or the other according to scholarly consensus.
-
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: