Historical Roots of Apocalyptic
According to most scholars, the literature of the Second Temple period dates from approximately 200 B.C.-200 A.D1 . These are approximate dates and some would trim either end of those dates by as many as fifty years. It must not be thought that the apocalyptic literature of this period arose spontaneously without antecedent events and historical development. The literature itself was a product of its time. The usual explanation of the origin of this literature was due to the political, social, economic, and theological crises the Jewish people were facing at that time. The history of the Jewish revolts is a testimony to the nature of these crises. The Jews were a people who found their identity in cultic ritual observances centered predominantly in the Temple at Jerusalem. The loss of the Temple and all of its furniture and holy objects was devastating to the Jews. Where would they go to offer their sacrifices once their cultic center was either destroyed or profaned by Gentile conquerors?2 If the Torah was central to even their synagogues, why were they still being oppressed and overrun? What about the covenant God made with them? What about the Golden Age of which the prophets spoke? These were the questions of the time for the Jews and they were ripe for a voice with an answer.
George Ladd offers three reasons for the rise of apocalypses. (1) The emergence of a righteous remnant. These are those who refused to submit to foreign cultural assimilation and either withdrew from society (e.g. Qumran community) or chose to suffer death (e.g. Hasidim). (2) The problem of evil. Once Israel had been restored to the land, there was an expectation based upon the prevalent understanding of the teaching of the prophets that they would inherit the kingdom. Based upon all they knew from the Scriptures, they had satisfied the conditions of being righteous, but yet the kingdom had not yet come. (3) The cessation of prophecy. God's voice had been quieted. There were no prophets walking among them declaring "Thus says the Lord" as in days gone by to explain to them why they were still under affliction, suffering, and subjugation. It was a conundrum to the Jews. Why were they suffering and why did God not intervene on their behalf?3
As a result of the above three conditions, there was a desperate need for revelation--even if it was made to order.4 It was a literature answering to its time--and the time was bleak from a theological perspective, not to mention politically and economically. Morris captures the idea well:
Apocalyptic was indeed called forth by the circumstances of the day. But it should not be understood in opportunistic terms, or in terms of worldly wisdom or of fanatical piety. It was 'the response of faith', responding to the times, but also reacting in its turn on the times, for it built up faith in God's people. It was scarcely possible apart from the unusual times and circumstances in which it arose. This combination of circumstances brought about a new situation in which the new type of writing could flourish. It was directed mainly to a people in trouble, a people who saw themselves as God's own, but who were puzzled by the plight in which they found themselves. The apocalyptists sought to justify God's ways to men and to give courage and confidence to God's people. They put meaning into life for confused and troubled men.
5
Paul Hanson is one author who has seen a parallel in contemporary society of today (i.e. the 1970s) in terms of what he calls an apocalyptic movement spawning around the issue of ecology. He evaluates the "prophets" of this movement as seeing a crisis that bids an outcry against the abuse of the majority's values (despising the basic elements of nature for the sake of Progress). Such people envision a total collapse of the ecological structure, unless there is intervention to halt "Progress." Then he observes that the modern day ponderers, alienated from the crumbling structures of society, "withdrew into apocalyptic sects given to visions of the imminent collapse of this order and the dawn of a new era." He identifies them as Hare Krishna and the Process. It is such as these, he says, who are resorting to "the apocalyptic visions of the past; indeed, they are producing apocalyptic literature before our own eyes. The rest of us, disturbed by the signs, yet remaining within the system, account for the growing popularity of apocalypticism in the weekly magazines."
The above certainly identifies the milieu of apocalyptic, but it does not explain its origin and where its roots lie. The author who has contributed significantly to this area is Paul Hanson. According to Hanson, the apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple period actually reaches back to pre-exilic times and its roots grow directly out of prophecy. He demonstrates the invalidity of drawing a sharp line between prophecy and apocalyptic, even though many before him say the division cannot be disputed. Rowley admits the relationship, but denies the ultimate division: "That apocalyptic is the child of prophecy, yet diverse from prophecy, can hardly be disputed."6
Hanson demonstrates how Rowley and others arrive at the conclusion that there is a sharp division between prophecy and apocalyptic. His chart is reproduced below to illustrate the process of how such a conclusion is normally drawn.
What Hanson seeks to demonstrate from this chart is that the evident dissimilarity between prophecy and apocalyptic has led many researchers astray on a search for the roots of apocalyptic outside of the prophetic tradition. The most common source scholars have turned to, he says, is the Iranian (Persian) influence. This seems to be a logical recourse since the book of Daniel is normally recognized as one of the canonical books that can be classified as apocalyptic. The Persian influence upon the book of Daniel is not disputed, so it would be natural to seek for the origins of apocalyptic from the Persian soil. But Hanson says this is amiss. Since many scholars give Daniel a late date of authorship (under pseudonymity ca. 167 B.C.), and they make the connection of Persian influence, they then draw the conclusion that apocalyptic sprung up as a "new baby of second century foreign parents."7
Hanson offers his own critique of the flaw of the above methodology as noted in the citation below.
That the method we have been describing fails to understand also the intrinsic nature of apocalyptic is seen in the descriptions of apocalyptic given in the handbooks, descriptions consisting of long lists of random features gleaned from various apocalyptic works. The picture with which one is left is not only confusing, it is also misleading, for no given apocalyptic work comes close to incorporating all of the listed features. To illustrate, we offer the list found in D. S. Russell which draws heavily upon J. Lindblom:8 transcendentalism, mythology, cosmological, orientation, pessimistic historical view, dualism, division of time into eras, teaching of two eras, numerology, pseudo-ecstasy, artificial claims of inspiration, pseudonymity, esotericism, unity of history, conception of cosmic history which treats of earth and heaven, notion of primordiality, speculation on source of evil in the world, conflict between light and darkness, good and evil, God and Satan, Son of Man, life after death, individualism. How, by means of such a list, can one hope to come to an understanding of apocalyptic, or even to be able to identify a composition as apocalyptic?
Hanson then follows this with a fourfold negative critique:
- the sources of apocalyptic are misunderstood;
- the period of origin is centuries off the mark, meaning that the resulting typology of apocalyptic literature is grossly inaccurate;
- the historical and sociological matrix of apocalyptic is left unexplained;
- the essential nature of apocalyptic is inadequately clarified
9
Hanson does not deny that there is some Persian and other outside influence upon apocalyptic literature. His distinction is rather that apocalyptic is not the child of these outside sources. It owes its birthright to the prophetic tradition of Judaism. That apocalyptic literature emerged as a result of socio-political crisis is valid. But this is part of its birthright since the first prophets were "born of a crisis in the tenth century when Yahwism was thrust into an environment within which it could survive only by adopting new forms. The view of reality of which the prophets were Yahweh's spokesmen therefore was characterized by emergence, change, and development from the beginning."10 Throughout Israel's history, these prophets served a vital socio-political function. They were barometers of cosmic pressure. They served as the spokesmen who ascribed significance to the events of the nation. Kings, priests and laymen heard from God through the voice of the prophets. But it all changed after 587 B.C. Here is how Hanson articulates it, culminating in what he has termed the emergence of "apocalyptic eschatology":
Israel's political identity as a nation comes to an end. The office of kingship ends. The prophets no longer have the events of a nation's history into which they can translate the terms of Yahweh's cosmic will. Hence the successors of the prophets, the visionaries, continue to have visions, but they increasingly abdicate the other dimension of the prophetic office, the translation into historical events. At that point we enter the period of the transition from prophetic into apocalyptic eschatology.
11
To conclude this section of the historical roots of apocalyptic, it would seem reasonable to give sincere credit to Hanson for his insight into its prophetic origins. Apocalyptic has Jewish roots reaching back to the prophets of Israel. This observation alone merits consideration for the value of apocalyptic literature upon the New Testament. Stone gives a praiseworthy acknowledgment to Hanson by remarking that his contribution is of "capital importance" to this area of study.12 He faults him only in that he believes Hanson has applied his results too broadly. In other words, Stone believes Hanson has explained the origins of apocalypticism but not the origins of apocalyptic. So the confusion over terminology continues.
1Cf. Larry Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002): 117. The Second Temple period actually extends from 586 B.C.-A.D. 135. These dates span the time from the destruction of the First Temple until the destruction of the Second Temple, both occurring, ironically, on the same calendar date (viz. 9th of Ab, or July).
2Helyer suggests that this explains the origin of the synagogues. Even after the Second Temple was built (516/15 B.C.) the Jews in general could only afford one trip to Jerusalem during their lifetime. The synagogue became the answer to their cultic dilemma. Cf. Helyer, p. 37. He also acknowledges there is a debate over the origin of the synagogue.
3George Eldon Ladd, "Apocalyptic, Apocalypse," in Baker's Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960): 50-51.
4Cf. Ibid., p. 50, where he describes an apocalypse as a "real or alleged" revelation of heavenly secrets.
5Leon Morris, Apocalyptic (London: InterVarsity Press, 1972): 26-27.
6H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation (Greenwood, S.C.: The Attic Press, 1944, reprint 1980): 15.
7Ibid., p. 6.
8Hanson cites these sources in respective footnotes: D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), p. 19; and J. Lindblom, Die Jesaja-Apokalypse (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1938), p. 102.
9Hanson, Dawn of Apocalypse, p. 7.
10Ibid., pp. 12-13.
11Ibid., p. 16.
12Stone, Lists of Revealed Things, 441-42.
Back to Apocalyptic Index
Back to Apocalyptic and the NT Home Page
This page is provided by Roger DePriest, M.A., Ph.D. student, as part of the "Apocalyptic and the New Testament" site project.