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.