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?




