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?
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.
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.
Book Review: Christian Origins by Jonathan Knight
I would like to extend my gratitude to Abby at T&T Clark (see their blog) for sending along a fabulous (brand) new survey on the origins of Christianity. Jonathan Knight’s Christian Origins [publisher link - find the table of contents there] is a comprehensive introduction to the Jewish origins of Christianity, with an emphasis on the eschatological connection between Second Temple Judaism and the beginnings of the Jesus movement. The book is particularly relevant for my own interests because (1) I have just begun my doctoral program in Christian origins at UCLA and (2) I’m crazy about apocalyptic eschatology.
Knight’s work is quite ambitious. Within these pages, you find 31 mostly bite-sized chapters ranging topics as diverse as the sources of Second Temple Judaism, Diaspora Judaism, “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?”, Pauline soteriology and ethics, the “breach” between Christianity and Judaism, and the rise of Gnosticism. Knight covers both social and theological topics. He is sensitive to matters of scholarly nuance and introduces readers to important names and arguments within scholarship, while also keeping his prose accessible. Before going to far, we should note that Knight serves as a Research Fellow of the Katie Wheeler Trust and Visiting Fellow in New Testament and Christian Ministry at York St John University, UK. Knight is an ordained Anglican priest and has also written a book on Jesus. His preface notes that his next book will be on apocalypticism, “as if this has become a theme which I cannot evade” (xiii).
Knight attempts to dispossess the reader of the concept of an unambiguous “fixed” Christianity (or Judaism for that matter). He would like to take the reader back past the councils of the early church to the rich complexity of early Christianity. The book is divided into four parts, “From Judaism to Jesus,” “Jesus and His Mission,” “Paul and Christian Beginnings,” and “The Birth of Early Christianity.” The second part, especially the eleventh chapter on “An Approach to Jesus,” is a good primer on “historical Jesus” studies. To my enjoyment, Johannes Weiss receives a whole page and is not simply subsumed as a sentence or two under Schweitzer. Knight’s section on Paul does not survey the history of scholarship in the same way that he does for the historical Jesus, but it does reflect that scholarship. He surveys the writings of Paul (undisputed and disputed), gives a “whistlestop tour” of Pauline soteriology, highlights his eschatology, and considers his ethics.
Having just finished a presentation on the history of Christian writings on Judaism, I was happy to see Knight guide the reader through that difficult issue. For example, when speaking of Christianity’s possible inheritance of apocalyptic eschatology from Judaism, Knight rightly cautions,
In saying this, we must be careful to note the differences between ancient Judaism and modern Christianity and not to impose the younger understanding arbitrarily on older and quite different texts. This is to call for sensitivity in interpretation which allows the ancient texts to speak for themselves and not through a Christian matrix. Christian readers should recognize their natural bias in this respect. [58]
On mentioning E.P. Sanders’ “covenantal nomism,” Knight observes, “Sanders criticizes earlier scholarship on Judaism–particularly Christian scholarship–for its presentation of that relation as dominated by the perennial balance between sins and merits” (33). Knight could have tread a bit more carefully in his chapter on the “breach” between Judaism and Christianity. Even calling whatever “parting of the ways” that occured between the Jesus movement and its religious heritage a “breach” seems a bit harsh (?). Knight’s comment to start off the chapter uncharacteristically lacks some sensitivity to reader reaction: “The separation that occured was the result of reaction against the Christians by people of Jewish descent” (266). Out of context, this statement could be read as “blaming” the Jews for the separation and that is certainly thin ice. The content of the chapter, however, does cover key issues, including christological developments, the “twelfth benediction” of the Jamnian Academy and John 9, the polemic against the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, and so-called “Jewish Christianity” such as the Ebionites.
To give an idea of his comments on Jesus’ death and resurrection, Knight strongly dismisses the idea that Jesus did not actually die on the cross (148) and more gently suggests that we “need not doubt” statements regarding the empty tomb (155, cf. 260). Contrary to being an intentional apologetic, however, Knight’s agenda in discussing the resurrection of Jesus is in what Jesus’ early followers did with the event. Knight suggests that the empty tomb is an “ambiguous symbol” and that resurrection appearances are “apocalyptic visions in which a heavenly mediator appears to the disciples and communicates a revelation to them” (260).
The biggest oversight in the book from my perspective is its lack of addressing the issue of women in the church. Knight breezes past a comment that the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 is “controversial,” barely mentioning “a statement of the subordination of women to men” (181). In his endnote for this sentence, he does refer to work done by Morna Hooker and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Curiously, in the next endnote, which is regarding spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12-14, he refers to Wayne Grudem’s work on prophecy in 1 Corinthians without explanation. Grudem’s work in this area is highly tilted in favor of the subordination of women. The missing engagement of women’s roles is felt particularly strongly in his chapter on “The Development of the Christian Ministry.” Within this chapter, Knight has the following statement under his treatment of “deacons”:
A whole passage in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 3.8-13) prescribes rules for their [deacons'] behaviour, including the behaviour of women deacons. The fact that the same epistle forbids women to teach or to have authority over men (1 Tim 2.12) is an indicator of the subordinate role of deacons in the communities addressed at that time. [291]
As far as I can see, this is the only statement on women in ministry in Knight’s book. I believe a book like this must address the patriarchal and androcentric nature of the surrounding society. Regarding gender roles in the family, Knight only casually mentions the household codes (191) and even then does not mention the role of husbands and wives. Within the book’s index, there are no entries for any of the following terms: women, female, gender, family, feminism, patriarchalism, or androcentrism. Knight nowhere mentions Paul’s key text (however one interprets it) in Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
The book uses endnotes rather than footnotes, and 100 pages of them at that. While I know Nick Norelli prefers the latter (he demotes his reviewed books one star out of five if they use endnotes!), endnotes do seem appropriate for a book aimed at a survey introducing newcomers to the field. The “Index of Names” is a misnomer, as it is an index of names and topics, where it would be helpful to have them separated.
Any oversights aside, I would highly recommend this book for use in a Christian origins or introductory New Testament course (though the latter should probably supplement Knight with a New Testament introduction proper). My two favorite things about this book are: (1) Knight’s integration of the study of apocalyptic eschatology into nearly all aspects of Christian origins and (2) Knight’s adroit descriptions of complex scholarly arguments in an accessible manner. My most significant caution about using the book would be the need to supplement Knight’s work with solid coverage of gender roles in Christian origins. The material is certainly appropriate for seminarians or other graduate students and may be challenging to undergraduates, but in a positive way. As noted, Knight is a Christian, but his purpose is not to coddle conservative evangelicals–far from it. His insistence on nuance and ambiguity may just make a fundamentalist student’s head explode. But maybe they could grow a new one. On the other end, I do not believe it is too confessional for a secular classroom. With that said, I wish everyone happy reading!
Johannes Weiss in context
In a course I am currently taking on Post-Reformation and Modern Theology, the professor (Richard Muller) mentioned the relationship between Johannes Weiss and his father-in-law, Albrecht Ritschl. I first discovered this interesting relationship in my course on the history of NT scholarship. It’s a fascinating historical example.
Ritschl, the theological liberal (a descriptor, not a polemic), advocated an understanding of the “kingdom” that focused on morality and ethics (influenced by Kant and Schleiermacher). The little work of Johannes Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, undermined the biblical basis for Ritschl’s work. Weiss found that Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom was not so much the foundation for a moral society, but was rather deeply eschatological. Apocalyptic eschatology was not a hot topic in biblical studies at the time. Quite the opposite. In fact, it was closer to an embarrassment to biblical scholars since contemporary apocalyptic movements are considered, well, silly.
So, Weiss bucks the theological trends of his own 19th century Germany, including the imposing shadow of his own father-in-law. Weiss did, however, wait a few years after the death of Ritschl to publish his work. He also did not disagree with Ritschlian theology. Rather, he believed that Jesus’ message was eschatological, but that Jesus’ immediacy was simply wrong. While he believes that Jesus was wrong about the kingdom, Weiss also thinks that the “Exalted Christ,” if he were to return, would now affirm the agenda of liberal theology and would bring about the transformation of society.
What impresses me so much about Weiss is that he went against the grain, even his own theological presuppositions, to pursue historical research of Jesus and the texts. What a rare occurrence!
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: