“Apocalypticism,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 28–34. ↵
The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 2–11. See also Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 1–11. It is, I think, unfortunate that this threefold distinction is not maintained by F. J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 5. ↵
See his influential and much quoted definition in Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979), 6: “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated 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.” In his “Introduction to Volume I” of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism (see note 1 above), Collins expanded this definition with words taken from A. Yarbro Collins, ed., Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Settings, Semeia 36 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1986), 7 concerning the social and rhetorical function of such writings: they were “intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and behavior of the audience by means of divine authority” (xiii). ↵
Both the Greek noun ἀποκάλυψις and the English noun “revelation” (from the Latin revelatio) literally mean “unveiling” (“veil” in Greek is κάλυμμα, in Latin velum), just as the corresponding Greek verb ἀποκαλύπτω and the English verb “reveal” (from the Latin revelare) both literally mean “to unveil,” and thus “to uncover (what was hidden).” ↵
The book actually has the formal features of a (circular) letter to seven churches (cf. 1:4; 22:21). ↵
Moreover, the value of the genre designation for books written before the second century ce is dubious, since, according to Collins, the “use of the Greek title apokalypsis (revelation) is not attested in the period before Christianity.” Works written before Revelation, he notes, “had not yet attained the generic self-consciousness” evident in later works, and thus “have affinities to more than one genre” (Apocalyptic Imagination, 3). An “apocalypse” is thus to be regarded as “a generic framework” incorporating other literary genres (letter, testament, parable, hymn, prayer, etc.) and “is not constituted by one or more literary themes but by a distinctive combination of elements, all of which are found elsewhere” (Apocalyptic Imagination, 8–9). (Similar remarks are made by Hanson, “Apocalypticism”). Such observations make any clear definition of the genre whereby an apocalypse (as a self-contained book) can be usefully distinguished from other literary genres (other books) well-nigh impossible (see the confusion about the matter in Murphy, Apocalypticism, 4–8). Collins notes that the formal definition offered in Morphology (see note 6 above) actually applies only “to various sections” of such works as 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch (Apocalyptic Imagination, 4), but this has not prevented many scholars, including Collins himself, from referring to 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, etc. in their entirety as “apocalypses” (cf. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 5–7). In Defeat of Death (197n4), I suggested that Collins’s definition in Morphology amounts to a definition of a “vision” (more accurately, “a written report of a vision”), a genre designation not normally applied to whole books. The various parts of works such as Daniel, 1 Enoch or 4 Ezra are often labeled “visions.” It may thus be better to think of an apocalypse as a smaller literary genre (Form) akin to prayer, parable or hymn, and not as a larger literary genre (Gattung) for a whole book such as letter, gospel, or history. By this definition, Mark 13 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18 are apocalypses (as generally recognized), but Mark and 1 Thessalonians, of course, are not. The same would apply, e.g., to Isaiah 24–27 (“the Isaiah Apocalypse”) or 1 Enoch 83–91 (“the Animal Apocalypse”). ↵
See note 3 above for a brief, working definition of “eschatology.” ↵
“Apocalypticism,” 30. ↵
Cf. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 10 (“a historical movement”), though in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism (see note 2 above), Collins uses the term to designate “a worldview” (“Introduction to Volume 1,” xiv), as does Murphy (Apocalypticism, 8). ↵
Cf. E. Cuvillier, “Das apokalyptische Denken im Neuen Testament: Paulus und Johannes von Patmos als Beispiele,” ZNT 22 (2008): 2–12. Apokalyptik, according to Cuvillier, concerns three things: a literary genre (Gattung), a social movement, and a worldview or ideology characterized by apocalyptic eschatology (p. 2). ↵
See further Hanson, “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism (Genre, Introductory Overview),” in ABD, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 279–82. See also de Boer, Defeat of Death, 41. ↵
“Apocalypticism,” 29. This perspective, says Hanson, is not to be confused with “a system of thought.” ↵
But see the discussion in note 9 above. ↵
See Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 5. ↵
See R. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 9–12. ↵
The actual “touchstone” for any definition of apocalyptic eschatology, therefore, is not “the kind of eschatology found in the apocalypses” generally (Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 9) but the kind of eschatology found in the book of Revelation specifically. ↵
It may go without saying that the expression “apocalyptic eschatology” is “a construct of scholars that purports to epitomize certain phenomena discernible in the sources” (de Boer, “Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 172). Any definition of the term is partly a matter of scholarly tradition and convenience even though it is based, as it should be, upon the data of the available sources, primarily Revelation, but also such conceptually related works as (parts of ) Daniel, 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra. There may be ancient apocalypses that contain no eschatology or an entirely different one, or that use the language of revelation outside the framework of apocalyptic eschatology, but that is of no consequence for the soundness of the definition since there is enough data to support it. ↵
See Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8: “A worldview is not necessarily tied to one literary form, and the apocalyptic worldview could find expression in other genres besides apocalypses.” On the problem of genre definition, see note 9 above. The nature of the relationship of apocalyptic to the literary genre apocalypse has bedeviled biblical scholarship since the pioneering work of F. Lücke in 1832. See R. Sturm, “Defining the Word ‘Apocalyptic’: A Problem in Biblical Criticism,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament, eds. J. Marcus and M. Soards, JSNTSup 24 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 17–48. ↵
Cf. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). ↵
“Apocalypticism,” 30. ↵
On this issue, see Hanson, Dawn (note 22 above) and J. J. Collins, “From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End,” in Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, I.129–61 (note 1 above). ↵
Cf. Philipp Vielhauer, “‘Einleitung’ zu ‘Apokalypsen und Verwandtes,’” Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, Band II (eds. E. Hennecker and W. Schneemelcher; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964), 407–42 (413), for whom the eschatological dualism of the two ages is the defining characteristic apocalyptic eschatology. The classic text is 4 Ezra 7:50: “the Most High has not made one age, but two.” There are scattered references to “this age” and/or “the age to come” in the relevant literature (cf. 1 Enoch 71:15; 4 Ezra 7:112, 119; 2 Baruch 44:8, 15; 83:4, 9; in the Mishnah, see Abot 4:1; Sanhedrin 10:1; Berakot 9:5), including the NT (e.g., Eph. 1:21; Matt. 12:32; Luke 20:34–35). For Paul, see below. This dualism should probably not be called a doctrine (as D. S. Russell does in Method and Mes
sage, 269), as if it were some carefully worked out principle or teaching. It is better to think of it as the basic presupposition of an apocalyptic-eschatological worldview, whether that be Jewish or Christian and whether or not the specific terms are used. The dualism of the two ages can be given expression in a rich diversity of imagery, symbolism, and concepts, derived from a wide variety of sources. It is thus somewhat misleading and even futile to provide a list of “characteristics” of the apocalyptic worldview or of apocalyptic literature, as is often done. The “family resemblance” between apocalyptic texts in all their diversity lies in the eschatological dualism of the two ages. ↵
The new age does not merely succeed the old age as on a timeline; it replaces this age with another age. For the two ages are not merely temporal epochs; they are also, perhaps even primarily, orbs or spheres (spaces) in which certain activities take place. The two ages are fundamentally distinct, mutually exclusive “orders of reality” (to use Hanson’s terminology) or “worlds.” ↵
A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London: A&C Black, 1931; German 1930). ↵
E. Käsemann, “The Beginnings of Christian Theology” and “On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 82–137. ↵
Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies”; idem, Galatians (see note 1). ↵
J. Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, eds. R. H. Hiers and D. L. Holland (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1971), 102, 108, and 132 (original emphasis), respectively, a translation of the first German edition of Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). ↵
Let that serve as a concise definition of apocalyptic eschatology. See note 20 above. ↵
Rowland, Open Heaven, 14. See my critique of Rowland’s approach in “Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse.” ↵
De Boer, “Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse,” 24, 33. It is true that neither Paul nor Revelation uses this expression, but both do use the expression “an apocalypse of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12; Rev. 1:1) and for both, God is effectively present in the person and the work of Christ. The apocalypse of Jesus Christ, then, is for both tantamount to the Apocalypse of God (I capitalize the term here to indicate the finality of the event). See further below on Paul’s use of the terms ἀποκάλυψις and ἀποκαλύπτω. ↵
J. L. Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 121 (emphasis original). ↵
Paul refers specifically to “this age” (ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος) in several passages (Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Cor. 4:4. He can also call it “this world” (ὁ κόσμος οὗτος) in 1 Cor. 3:19; 5:10; 7:31; cf. Eph. 2:2; 4 Ezra 4:2; 8:1). He does not use the expression “the age to come” (ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων/ὁ ἐρχόμενος) in his undisputed letters though it does occur in Eph. 1:21 as well as other NT texts (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Eph. 2:7; Heb. 6:5). It would seem probable that such expressions as “the Kingdom of God” (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal. 5:17; cf. Eph. 5:5; Col. 1:13), “eternal life” (Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; Gal. 6:8), and “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) in Paul (and elsewhere in the NT as well as in Jewish apocalyptic texts from the period) are often best understood as other ways of speaking about the age to come (looked at from different angles). The absence of the expression “the age to come” can also be explained by the fact that, for Paul, the new age had already begun to dawn in God’s sending the Son and his Spirit. ↵
In “Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” Käsemann observes that he speaks of “primitive Christian apocalyptic to denote the expectation of an imminent Parousia” (109n1). It is in this sense that “Apocalyptic was the mother of all Christian theology” (“Beginnings,” 102). But Käsemann nuances this strict definition later in the former essay: “Christ is God’s representative over a world which is not yet fully subject to God, although its eschatological subordination is in train since Easter and its end is in sight. No perspective could be more apocalyptic. . . . Paul is absolutely unable and unwilling to speak of any end to history which has already come to pass, but, he does, however, discern that the day of the End-time has already broken” (133; emphasis added). It is Martyn who has insisted that Paul’s present eschatology must also be given the label “apocalyptic,” not just his future eschatology, which remains equally important for Martyn’s understanding of Paul as an apocalyptic theologian. Cf. Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Galatians,” 421: “Paul’s perception of Jesus’ death is, then, fully as apocalyptic as is his hope for Jesus’ parousia (cf. 1 Cor. 2.8).” ↵
For this formulation of the tension, see de Boer, Galatians, 34. This tension has often been formulated as an “already” and a “not yet,” the latter reflecting “an eschatological reservation” formulated by Paul over against pneumatic enthusiasts in Corinth (Käsemann, “Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” 132). But for Paul himself and other believers, such as those in Thessalonica or Jerusalem, the (eager) expectation of an imminent Parousia was a matter of “still more.” ↵
Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, it is sometimes asserted, has its own version of “already” and “still more” (or “not yet”). This was already noted by Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 178. The point has received new emphasis in the work of L. Stuckenbruck, “Overlapping Ages and ‘Apocalyptic’ in Pauline Theology,” The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (ed. J. B. Rey; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 309–26; idem, “Evil in Johannine and Apocalyptic Perspective: Petition for Protection in John 17,” John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic (eds. C. H. Williams and C. Rowland; London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 220–32, esp. 229–32. However, the term “eschatology” in the expression “apocalyptic eschatology” involves finality and irrevocability, things that cannot be said of earlier divine interventions, also in the history of Israel. Furthermore, for Paul, previous divine interventions did not (in retrospect) deal with the problem (the human plight). Only Christ has done that. See Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies,” 121: “For the true war of liberation has been initiated not at Sinai, but rather in the apocalypse of the crucified one and in the coming of his Spirit.” Until the coming of Christ, the promise to Abraham remained just that, a promise (cf. Gal. 3:6-29). See further note 47. ↵
See de Boer, Defeat of Death, chapter 4. Cf. Martyn, Galatians, 105: Paul’s “view has, in fact, three foci: Christ’s future coming [his Parousia], Christ’s past advent (his death and resurrection), and the present war against the powers of evil, inaugurated by his Spirit and taking place between these two events.” ↵
The revelation of the age to come simultaneously unmasks the present time and everything leading up to the new age as the old age that is doomed to pass away, usually very soon, when it will be replaced by the new age. Apocalyptic eschatology thus involves not only the expectation of the new age, but also, the assessment of the past (up to the present moment) as the order or realm of evil, as what Paul calls “the present evil age” in Gal. 1:4. Both ages, then, are matters of revelation. ↵
This was a fundamental point of my book, Defeat of Death, where the relevant texts are scrutinized. The key texts in the letters of Paul are 1 Corinthians 15 (esp. vv. 20–28) and Romans 5 (esp. vv. 12–21). ↵
See de Boer, Defeat of Death, 83–84, 143–44. ↵
Cf. 2 Sam. 14:14: “We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up”; Job 7:9: “As the cloud fades and vanishes, so those who go down to Sheol do not come up.” It is a characteristic of apocalyptic that (bodily) death is no longer regarded as a naturally necessary event or reality as it is in the OT. Death has become the indication that something has gone terribly wrong with the world. ↵
Cf. 1 Enoch 1:3–9: “The God of the universe, the Holy Great One, will come forth from his dwelling. And fr
om there he will march upon Mount Sinai and appear in his camp emerging from heaven with a mighty power. And everyone shall be afraid, and Watchers [fallen angels] shall quiver. . . . Behold, he will arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all” (trans. E. Isaac, in J. H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 [New York: Doubleday, 1983]). ↵
Cf. 4 Ezra 7:33–38; 2 Baruch 49–52. According to 4 Ezra 7:113, “the day of judgment will be the end of this age and the beginning of the immortal age to come.” ↵
The preceding paragraph is a brief summary of a complex set of data. For more detail and nuance, see de Boer, Defeat of Death, chapter 3. The same can be said for the paragraph that now follows. ↵
For this reason, the righteous, in a sense, already proleptically experience and possess the eternal life that will be their reward at the Last Judgment. ↵
This counts, though in different ways, both for those human beings (usually rulers) who are morally complicit in the hegemony of the evil powers and for those (the righteous) who resist the powers and are persecuted and even put to death as a result. ↵
For the nomenclature “cosmological” and “forensic” to describe the two patterns or “tracks” of ancient Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, see de Boer, “Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology.” The “forensic” pattern is a weakened form of the “cosmological” pattern, that is to say, the former is a form of apocalyptic eschatology from which cosmological evil powers have disappeared, to be replaced by the notion of human guilt and responsibility. The cosmological pattern can have, and normally does, forensic elements (the evil powers or angels are judged as are the human beings who have been complicit in their hegemony; cf. 1 Enoch 1), but the forensic pattern seeks to suppress or remove “cosmological” explanations for evil (see my discussion in “Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 177–80). ↵
Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination Page 8