As people started sharing their most influential female biblical scholars, I started noticing that more people may be interested in apocalyptic literature and thought than I had known. Quite a few young scholars, as a matter of fact.

My impression has been that many biblical scholars haven’t cared much for research into apocalyptic writings and thought. One Fuller professor told me she thought it was “tedious.” Indeed! I have found apocalyptic research mind-numbingly difficult, but for some reason that just pushes me to look deeper.

There has, of course, been a steady stream of research coming out regarding apocalyptic literature since the 1970′s or so. Many scholars in this field have married themselves to the topic–it seems to take that level of commitment to come to some sort of understanding of these divine mysteries.

Lately, though, I have noticed apocalyptic themes being exposed in more “mainstream” scholarship–the kind that gets widespread attention from folks in various subfields. Take, for example, Douglas Campbell’s new The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul or C. Kavin Rowe’s recent World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (speaks of Luke’s “attempt to form communities that witness to God’s apocalypse”). They must be putting something revelatory in the water over there at Duke.

Aside from this, all these bibliobloggers seem to be interested in apocalyptic literature–including many who are working on their Ph.D.’s right now (like me). That suggests to me that apocalyptic thought is starting to heat up in biblical scholarship.

Here’s a list of bloggers who have research interests in apocalyptic literature and thought. I am basing it off a combination of personal communication, listed interests on about pages, known publications, and frequency of the topic in blog posts (for Steph, her comments). Please let me know if I should remove/add any names from this list:

• Alan Bandy
• Michael Bird
• Greg Carey
• Stephen Cook
• Steph Fisher
• Philip Harland (he even teaches a course on apocalypticism)
• David Larsen
• Pat McCullough
• Brant Pitre
• Rob Reid
• Loren Rosson III
• James Tabor
• “Theophyle”
• Colin Toffelmire
• “Johannes Weiss”
• Michael Whitenton
• Danny Zacharias

Who else?

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 am reading through Mike Bird‘s published dissertation, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, as part of my Graduate Summer Research Mentorship at UCLA. Through that I noticed his 2004 article in Evangelical Quarterly, “Mission as an Apocalyptic Event: Reflections on Luke 10:18 and Mark 13:10.” If you are familiar with my research interests–which you must be as my research fame is currently sweeping the globe–you will notice that the topic of the article relates closely with some of my own research (namely, my upcoming SBL paper presentation). For a moment there, I was worried my research balloon was popped and someone got to my ideas before I had them. But Mike went in somewhat of a different direction than I’m heading–for one, I’m not as interested in whether the Gentile mission originates with Jesus or his followers. And, at present, I have not been too interested in highlighting the restoration of Israel theme, though it is pretty hot stuff. His paper is still quite helpful to my research. As usual, Mike is great with the secondary literature and he also has some excellent observations of his own. Here is his conclusion regarding Luke 10:18 (the verse about Jesus having seen Satan fall from heaven):

Both mission and God’s final intervention at the last day are part of the one salvific event and the one act that orchestrates Satan’s downfall. In this sense any uncertainty about who actually vanquishes Satan is resolved. The act belongs to God alone, but the divine choice of weapons to execute his plan is the witness of the Church. Thus, the Church continues to exist for the purpose of mission which means that it will inevitably he brought into confrontation with the satanic horde. In Lk. 10:18 the entire sending out and return of the disciples highlights, ‘the experience of the mission as the arena of conflict and eschatological engagement with diabolic forces‘ [Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke, 411]. it is upon the globe and not simply in the heavenlies that the battle is fought and won. As the anointed Community who go out with the power of Jesus’ name and authority, it is a campaign that the Church is expected to win. [pg. 125-6, bold type mine]

So, God defeats Satan through the mission of Jesus’ followers [I'm always hesitant to use "Church," particularly with a big C, for this historical period--but I digress...]. This is something for me to chew on. Mike’s concluding thoughts on Mark 13:10 (“the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations”) are highly relevant and directly related to my own research pathway:

In addition, we should not overlook the fact that Mark 13, which in one way or another is an apocalyptic discourse despite the fact that it does not contain every conceivable apocalyptic literary device and motif gives a central place for mission in the divinely determined scheme of salvation. Mission, for Mark and no less Jesus, is part of the eschatological program put into effect in order to achieve that which apocalyptic dreamers hoped for: the revealing of God’s salvation. In this sense, mission does not simply anticipate the final triumph of God, but it actually achieves it in embryonic form. Mission is more than a foretaste of things future and apocalyptic, rather, it is performative apocalyptic. Mission, the proclamation of the gospel, is the pivotal act whereby God begins to repossesses the world for himself. [pg. 132, bold type mine]

That last comment is actually part of the purpose of my presentation this fall. I’m glad to have some more fruit to throw in the blender.

A while back, Mike put up a very helpful post on the historicity of the future sayings of the “Son of Man” in the Gospels. He basically asked us all whether we think the apocalyptic, future judge “Son of Man” sayings really could be traced back to the lips of Jesus. I was working on a paper on the issue at the time and he’s been nudging me to give my own thoughts on the issue. I’m hesitant to say much because I feel like I have only scratched the surface of a very complex problem for which we have so little evidence to work with.

At this point in my academic career, I’m inclined to say that “historical Jesus” studies is a black hole. It’s something we should study and try to work through, but to devote too much effort just sucks you into the dark abyss of an ultimately unprovable mess. So, here is my disclaimer for my current thoughts on the future “Son of Man” issue: these are just my general inclinations. I am not so bold to really get in the mud and wrestle it out with others because I think it’s a dead end. Even though Casey’s book is so daring as to suggest he has the solution, I don’t really believe it can be “solved” beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That said, my inclination is that, yes, the apocalyptic “Son of Man” sayings are–at least to some extent–authentic. I am unconvinced that the Aramaic idiom approach (e.g., Vermes and Casey in different ways) has sufficient evidence to stand up as the only authentic “Son of Man” sayings. As I see it, the apocalyptic “son of man” references that we know of (Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, and 4 Ezra 13) all borrow from earlier mythic imagery and adapt it for their own purposes. Daniel 7 seems to be the first time “son of man” is used in an apocalyptic setting. And though the immediate context appears to refer to an angel, perhaps Michael, who represents Israel as a great prince and protector (12:1), the image of “son of man” in an apocalyptic sense seems to have been widely used and adapted further in subsequent Jewish literature–just as Daniel is adapting the literature that came before it.

It seems reasonable to me to understand Jesus as adapting this image of an apocalyptic “son of man” just as others did in the same time period. That Jesus would take a widely used symbol and adapt it for his own purposes is consistent with his own teaching program (e.g., “you have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . .”). It does not seem completely unreasonable to me for Jesus to adapt the exalted sense of “son of man” as a title for more sayings related to his earthly ministry. It also does not seem unreasonable that Jesus would add a suffering component to the Danielic “son of man” tradition, since suffering and humility is such a significant part of his teaching. The first shall be last and the last first, after all.

I am inclined to agree with Burkett who suggests that those who have investigated the nontitular explanation of “son of man” (Vermes, Casey, and those before them) have “performed a service for the scholarly community.” The view had some potential merit and needed to be explored. These scholars have walked down that path for us. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a dead end: “The time has come . . . to take stock and recognize that this line of research has not led to a convincing solution.” Current and future research must instead focus its attention by recognizing the bulk of passages referencing the “son of man” in the Gospels appear to be a title (see Burkett, 96).

So, those are my inclinations at this point. But they could change!

In his essay on the mixture of wisdom, prophetic, and apocalyptic forms in the letter of James, Patrick Hartin suggests that James primarily fits within the genre of wisdom with some influence from apocalyptic discourse [see bibliographic info below - read most of the essay on Google Books]. Since his very recent commentary on James looks so wonderful, I had high hopes for this article. I am saddened to say that I was disappointed. It felt like the article tried to do too much in too little space. In Hartin’s defense, the essay is a shortened version–though, I think you would need an entire book to accomplish Hartin’s task with any satisfactory evidentiary support. I will be reviewing his book and commentary on James this summer, which I expect are better venues for Hartin’s approach.

One section in particular modeled some of the problems I saw in this article:

Without doubt James is aware of the apocalyptic imagination since it is part of the thought patterns that he shares with his contemporaries and in particular with his readers. However, James tends to distance himself from apocalyptic thinking in two ways. In the first instance, James is convinced that the eschatological age has arrived since the “Judge is standing at the doors” (5:9); yet, those formal elements that belong to truly apocalyptic discourse are absent. This leads James to reinterpret the apocalyptic signs. The ordinary sufferings of the present are reinterpreted as signs of the end, such as the tribulations afflicting the widow and the orphan, as well the trials faced by every brother and sister (1:2). Second, despite the view that the coming age brings judgment, the ethos of the whole letter is that this coming age is to be approached not with fear and trepidation, but with joy and happiness: “Count it all as joy” [1:2]) [sic]. Adopting James’s wisdom exhortations will bring hope, joy, peace, and perfection. The focus rests on the future hope, “the Lord of glory” (2:1) who provides the “crown of life” (1:12), rather than on dread and fear of judgment. [pp. 161-2, emphases mine]

Allow me to respond to this quote by looking separately at the “two ways” in which James distances himself from apocalyptic thinking, according to Hartin:

1. First of all, we need a definition of what is “truly apocalyptic discourse.” Later, Hartin seems to suggest at least two ways that James differs from typical apocalyptic discourse: (1) James lacks a detailed description of the coming judgment (164); (2) James lacks a sense of special revelation (165 – probably, but what about the “wisdom from above”?). I can see how these missing elements might set James apart from the genre of “apocalypse,” but I don’t know that they are necessary for all “apocalyptic discourse.” Secondly, we need a better definition of what “ordinary sufferings” are. What is it about James 1:2 that suggests the πειρασμοῖς are simply your run-of-the-mill sufferings as opposed to whatever extraordinary sufferings are meant to be (martyrdom?). Are not present sufferings often given eschatological significance in apocalyptic thought? Just because sufferings are in the present does not disqualify them from apocalyptic significance.
2. On the second point, the fact that the righteous should have joy about their coming rewards seems to me a common feature of apocalyptic discourse, not a way in which James differs from apocalyptic thought. As I understand it, the joy awaiting the righteous one after the judgment is part of the purpose of apocalyptic thought. On this point, though, it seems that Hartin contradicts himself in the same article: in a paragraph arguing that James does share “aspects of some thought patterns” of apocalyptic thought, Hartin includes the fact “that there is a ‘crown of life’ (1:12) in store for those who show their love of God” (166). On one page, the “crown of life” is an example of how James departs from apocalyptic thought and a few pages later it is an example of how James includes apocalyptic thought in his letter.
3. The overall paragraph quoted above also models another confusing feature of Hartin’s article: I cannot tell whether he is arguing James’ primary focus is the present or the future. Things are a little muddy on this point–understandably so, given James’ statements. I am with Hartin when he makes these comments: “The present is on the threshold of the end of history” (159) and “the future does operate in James as a call to the present” (165). But I am confused when he uses the word “focus.” In the quote above, Hartin suggests that for James, “the focus rests on the future hope.” A few pages later, Hartin states that James’ “focus” is “providing exhortations and advice to the readers about how they are to lead their lives in the present” (166; emphases mine). It seems worth considering what precisely we mean by “focus” and whether the term is even appropriate when discussing the letter.

It bothers me to write a negative review of this article. I do feel there are several nuggets worth chewing on for awhile, but the article just covers too much and the logic feels a little loose. At present, I am not exactly certain what Hartin’s thesis is nor what purpose his use of the Epistle of Enoch serves (takes up a couple pages). I do still look forward to reading his other works this summer. If someone has read this essay and would like to counter my assessment of it, please do. I would be quite happy to be “converted” on this work.

________

Patrick J. Hartin, “Who Is Wise and Understanding among You? (James 3:13): An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology, and Apocalypticism in the Letter of James,” in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom And Apocalypticism (Atlanta: SBL, 2005) 149–68.