Critical Review: Paul Hanson's Dawn of Apocalyptic



Hanson, Paul. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, revised edition 1979. vii-xii + 444. hb $40.00, pb $20.00.


Hanson's undertaking in this book is ambitious and the subtitle of the work is indicative of the same. It is a study of the historical developments and sociological ideologies that both resulted from and partially contributed to the socio-political upheavals in and around the Jewish communities, especially during the Second Temple period. "Apocalyptic" embraces a vast amount of literature, including both primary and secondary sources, and there tends to be a fog surrounding any attempts to define the term. One of Hanson's goals in the book is to help correct the often misdirected attempts of many authors who have offered a definition. But the primary purpose in the book is to demonstrate that apocalyptic emerged on the scene gradually, partly as a result of political upheavals among the ruling nations around them and also (indeed, primarily) as a result of the class struggle between two groups within Judaism itself. The following critique will attempt to summarize the essential information Hanson presents and to critically evaluate his conclusions, both positively and negatively.


General Comments

 It will be noted that Hanson's book was published first in 1975 and then a revised edition in 1979. The only essential difference between the two editions is an 18-page appendix entitled "An Overview of Early Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism." On the one hand, the appendix does exactly what its title suggests, viz. it puts his previous 426 pages into a condensed synopsis. On the other hand, however, it does provide two helpful contributions to the work. The first is that he spends a little over a page discussing and analyzing the opening verses of the book of Revelation and how these contribute to the definition of apocalyptic. He sees it contributing to the definition on three levels of meaning: that of genre, the author's perspective of reality in relation to Hebrew prophecy, and the type of religious movement that led to the literary product (p. 428).

The second helpful contribution to the work is the author's concise definition of apocalyptic eschatology. His treatment in the foregoing material certainly discusses apocalyptic eschatology, but a concise definition is wanting. Here, in the appendix, he provides it. His exact wording is found on page 431 and is as follows:

There is one other general comment that should be made and that regards the need for a critique of a book that was published almost 25 years ago. One could argue that the book has already made its splash and that such a critique is belated. This is a valid concern, but there are three responses that justify a scholarly critique on Hanson's book at this late date. First, apocalyptic is a vast field with few scholars offering very little original thinking (in published form anyway) in this area.1 Hanson is one of those few, for he has provided some keen observations and insights that have moved the scholarship on apocalyptic forward significantly. Thus, much of what Hanson says still needs critical evaluation. Second, while many scholars have cited Hanson's work in various subject-related material, there have been very few who have offered a critical examination from a conservative standpoint.

A final response to the question of need for such a belated critique is that Hanson has continued to write on apocalyptic since this publication up to the present time. In 1983, he published Visionaries and Their Apocalypses (Fortress Press). He provided another title in 1987 entitled Old Testament Apocalyptic (Abingdon Press). Most recently, he authored Isaiah 40-66 (John Knox Press, 1995). All of these works build upon his seminal work The Dawn of Apocalyptic. If one is to fully grasp the implications of his later writings, it is necessary to first understand the work which serves as a foundation for his other related writings.2It is on the basis of these three observations that this critique is offered.


Overall Layout

 Hanson's book is 444 pages long, not including the 12 pages of prefatory material. The work is divided into five chapters of differing lengths followed by ending material (Selected Bibliography, Indices, and appendix). I found at least one excursus in each of the five chapters (with the exception of chapter two), which I found, for the most part, to be quite provocative and insightful. Indeed, I found much helpful material here. Below are the chapter titles and the amount of space each chapter occupies.

A quick glance at the chapter titles and their length will reveal that chapter two is the centerpiece of the book. It constitutes roughly 40% of the entire work. Clearly, it is a foundational chapter. Chapter one, though it is not given the title as such, is basically an introduction. Chapters two through four are programmatic, building the one upon the other. Chapter five could be considered an epilogue, in that Hanson simplifies and recasts everything he has argued in the foregoing discussion in the form of an allegory whereby King Royalty weds Queen Prophecy whose union ultimately yields the offspring whom Hanson has the privilege of naming "Apocalyptic Eschatology."


Critical Evaluation: Positively

 Paul Hanson's work is a valuable contribution to the world of biblical scholarship in general and to the subject matter of apocalyptic in particular. As with most works that offer original thinking that departs from the paths most traveled, there will undoubtedly be negative reactions. This critique will highlight some of those objections in its turn, but such objections should not prevent one from recognizing genuine contributions and strengths where they are rightly to be found. And The Dawn of Apocalyptic has several strengths to be duly noted.

First, probably Hanson's greatest contribution in his work is to trace the concept of apocalyptic back to its roots. These roots, he observes (contrary to the then current notions), are not to be found in the lineage of foreign soil, but in the Jewish historical roots of pre-exilic prophecy. Because apocalyptic had often been viewed from the standpoint of myth and cosmological wonders, many were drawn to the book of Daniel to find its ancestral roots. By looking there, many scholars were led to the conclusion that the roots of apocalyptic was Persian because of the strong Persian influence recorded in the book of Daniel. Hanson rejects this notion. He recognizes that Persian influence is undoubtedly evident, but only casually, or incidentally, and not causally. This is the primary function of Hanson's first chapter. Part of the reason scholars sniffed the wrong trail is due to the fact that they were chasing the wrong scent, viz. a definition based on genre features. A focus on genre-based features is a one-level approach and will lead the apocalyptic scholar astray. As noted in the definition above, apocalyptic is multi-leveled and must be pursued accordingly. One of the chief sources is the socio-political factors which often led to a particular ideological perspective. For Hanson, when one examines the early periods of prophecy with the later periods of prophecy, one is able to discern distinct differences in the literary products of the visionaries (Hanson's term). These distinct differences are due to an evolution of perspective resulting from two things: (1) externally, the political factors adversely affecting the Israelite community, and (2) internally, the social class struggle between the priestly group (hierocrats) and the visionaries (prophets). In the early days, when the prophets spoke with divine authority as counterparts to keep the king in check, prophecy was tied directly to history. In later days, when "thus saith the Lord," was only an echo, the visionaries began to resort to a new form of prophetic utterance: apocalyptic. While there are problems inherent in Hanson's development of this concept, his primary thesis is a valuable contribution.

A second positive effort Hanson has made is his painstaking analysis of Hebrew prosody. Each of his central chapters (2 and 4) provide such an analysis for each verse of the respective passages he is evaluating (Isaiah 56-66 and Zechariah 9-14). He provides facing pages (English-Hebrew) along with a parallel metric schema that allows for a visual representation of the metrical parallelism according to each colon. The purpose of this device is to determine the relative date of a given text and to see where there might be evidence of a later hand at work reflecting an ideological shift in the text. Again, though there is a methodological problem inherent in that approach (discussed later), credit should be given to Hanson for such meticulous concern for both the text-critical work he offers and the careful analysis of the data.

A final observation of the positive contribution Hanson has made in The Dawn of Apocalyptic is his keen insight into sociological evolution and issues as it pertains to the pre- and post-exilic history of the Israelites. He sees two groups in Jerusalem struggling against each other. He sees the visionary group as those who are the alienated and the oppressed. Their lot in life is rough and difficult. They are clinging to the promises of the biblical prophets that another day is coming when the Lord will cause a reversal of fortune. On the other hand, there is a group of priests who are seeking to maintain the status quo because they are in the place of privilege and plenty. If what the prophets have declared about judgment comes true, they lose not only their identity, but also their wealth and position. Thus, there is a struggle inside the Jewish community between these two groups. Once again, how Hanson works this out in the micro-structure of biblical texts is a methodological problem from a conservative standpoint. But his overall observation, from a sociological viewpoint, is a worthy consideration, for there are, indeed, prophetic passages where the prophets decry the state of the priesthood and the oppression of the poor. In a fresh way, Hanson causes one to appreciate the kind of struggle going on between the two parties.


Critical Evaluation: Negatively

 As worthy as the foregoing commendations are, there are, nevertheless, some strong objections against The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Only two will be offered, but they are significant. The first problematic area is Hanson's atomization of prophetic Scripture. He appears to be sensitive to this initially, since he is critical of others whom he deems to be guilty of such a method, but he apparently is not cognizant to his own adoption of this technique. For instance, in discussing Isaiah 66:1-16, he criticizes any scholar who would divide these sixteen verses into four or five separate units. In fact, he calls this an "atomizing tendency." Yet, Hanson's method is different only by degree. Yes, in this particular case, he argues for the unity of the passage. He bases this on the "contextual-typological" methodology of analysis. It is clear from the chapter titles (above) that Hanson has a presuppositional bias against the unity of the Scriptures. He holds to the Third-Isaiah theory, believing that Isaiah the prophet was responsible for the first 39 chapters, a second group (viz. Isaiah's disciples) are responsible for the production of chapters 40-55, and that a third group of visionaries are responsible for chapters 56-66. Below is an example of his criteria (i.e. contextual-typological method) for determining the unity of Isaiah 63:7-64:11.



Such an approach to Scripture is fraught with subjectivity. Admittedly, Hanson is quite thorough in his contextual-typological method, and attempts to be painstakingly consistent, but he cannot escape the inherent weakness of the method. Hanson's approach is based on internal evidence only and not on any manuscript evidence that he offers. In other words, he offers no manuscript evidence suggesting three separate collections of an Isaiah tradition according to his (et. al.) chapter divisions. According to Motyer3 (1999), there is a trend toward synthesis and against analysis in the book of Isaiah.4 Since Hanson's fragmentary approach is the foundation of his book, it is worthwhile to quote a more extensive passage from Motyer regarding the difficulty with such a methodology.



If such is true of the larger blocks of material, then there is even less of a basis for a micro-division of sub-units within Isaiah. This, then, is a methodological weakness of Hanson's work.

A second objection to The Dawn of Apocalyptic is Hanson's dilution of predictive prophecy. This dilution is part and parcel of his thesis. According to Hanson, there were two rival groups within the Jerusalemite community: the hierocratic group and the visionary group. It was the visionary group that had become dissatisfied with the events of history and began to pull away from the traditional understanding of the message of the pre-exilic prophets. Hanson argues that there is a shift in polemic. In the earlier pre-exilic days, the polemic was between the Jewish community and the pagan enemies of Israel. But this polemic changed in post-exilic times and there was an intra-community struggle for control. Hanson goes so far as to say that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah offered prophetic oracles opposing that of Ezekiel's. Ezekiel had prophesied the restoration of the temple (40-48). But when Haggai and Zechariah appeared on the scene, they proclaimed that the eschaton had arrived in the contemporary events that were unfolding around them. But when Zerubbabel came as governor and consecrated a Zadokite high priest, the visionary group was even more polarized over this illegitimate priesthood. After a bitter attempt at a priestly takeover with the visionaries coming up short, they came away feeling even more alienated and more open to reinterpretation of how the fulfillment of restoration would actually take place. Hanson states that a "sudden resurgence of myth began to offer the possibility of escape rejected by early prophecy, and the result of this development was the death of prophecy and the birth of apocalyptic eschatology" (p. 282). He elaborates in greater detail in yet another passage:

Thus, according to Hanson's understanding, the three divisions of Isaiah represent an evolution in the prophetic situation in Israel and consequently in the prophetic message. In First Isaiah (1-39), there is classical prophecy; he labels Second Isaiah (40-55) as "proto-apocalyptic" and Third Isaiah (56-66) as "early apocalyptic." In other words, Hanson does not regard predictive prophecy as requiring a historical fulfillment, even if that prophecy was originally intended to be fulfilled in the events of history.


Conclusion

 This review has attempted to be balanced in critiquing Paul Hanson's 1979 edition of The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Though it was written nearly 25 years ago, his unique contributions to the thinking and research on apocalyptic eschatology still need to be answered. He has made some significant contributions, but he has also employed a methodology that is highly problematic for the conservative Bible scholar who adopts the historical-grammatical-literary interpretation of Scripture. While his overall theory that apocalyptic finds its roots in the prophetic history of Israel has merit, his development of that theory which destroys predictive prophecy must be rejected. The oracles of God through the voice of various prophets over centuries must stand or fall as a unit. It will not do to have conflicting prophetic voices proclaiming substantively different programs for Israel. The meaning God intending to communicate through an earlier prophet cannot be changed by a later prophet. Hanson's approach does not respect this essential unity of Scripture.

Notes

1This is certainly not to say that he is the only scholar offering unique contributions, but his work must certainly be addressed in any discussion of the topic.

2I have only interacted with his seminal work and not his later titles.

3Alec Motyer, Isaiah, The Tyndale Old Testament Commmentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999): 27-28. His comments include a citation to this effect from B. W. Anderson, "The Aocalyptic Rendering of the Isaiah Tradition" in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 1988.

4 This study has yet to consult Hanson's more recent works to verify whether he has modified his approach toward the authorship of Isaiah since 1979.

5Motyer, 30-31.

Back to Top

Back to Apocalyptic Reference Materials page

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.