Whose Historical Jesus?

17. Apocalypticism: Context

17. Apocalypticism: Context Dietmar Neufeld Edith Humphrey's paper introduces the reader to the slippery concept of "apocalyptic" and the potential difficulties that it presents for authors of recent historical-Jesus studies. She insists on the centrality of "things apocalyptic" to the various contemporary discussions of the historical Jesus, and accordingly discusses three critical questions foundational to historical-Jesus research. First, given that the term apocalyptic is ambiguous enough conceptually to render it open to a plurality of meanings, how can its meaning be usefully fixed? Second, is it possible to understand Jesus in the context of apocalyptic thought, thus defined? Third, what difference does the definition adopted make for reconstructing the historical Jesus? Contrary to those who would argue that the Jesus of history is rendered incomprehensible by placing him in such a context, she avers that the category, rather than being an impenetrable veil, might well serve as a "beckoning vision in our understanding of Jesus." The tensive potential and conceptually-ambiguous character of "apocalyptic" is readily seen in the nine representative scholars Humphrey surveys and with whom she debates. She shows that John Dominic Crossan, Burton Mack and Geza Vermes take apocalyptic in the traditional sense of the imminent cataclysmicjudgment of this world, radically dualistic and apolitical, but one which ultimately does not belong to the authentic voice or stance of Jesus. Ed Sanders, Paula Fredriksen and Richard Horsley opt for a sociopolitical understanding of apocalyptic eschatology which speaks of the coming to an end of the present order in preparation for its renewal. Tom Wright, Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza and Marcus Borg argue for the flexible character of apocalyptic imagery which has a metaphorical component that points to transcendent realities, while not remaining insensitive to these realities' earthly ramifications or reflections. There is no doubt that the understanding and evaluation of "apocalyptic" in relationship to Jesus and the gospels will have profound consequences on the picture of Jesus. Apocalyptic themes and images play an unquestionably important role in the writings of Paul and in the synoptic gospels, but not everyone is as confident that the apocalyptic thread can be tied to Jesus as securely as was once thought. Many new constructions of Jesus as a sapiential figure are dependent on a dichotomy between "apocalyptic" and "wisdom" perceived to be distinct and alternative Jewish cultural entities. Humphrey is of the opinion that a more appreciative understanding of apocalyptic will render irrelevant the stand-off between Jesus as a wisdom teacher and Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher. Apocalypticism: Context 213 The many attempts to reconstruct the historical Jesus during the 19th century focused primarily upon Jesus as a social reformer and teacher. In 1892 Johannes Weiss published a book which signalled a radical change from the usual liberal lives of Jesus by introducing the theme of "apocalyptic."1 Albert Schweitzer gave force to this discovery by engaging in a thoroughgoing critique of German scholarship, showing, among other things, that the various scholarly reconstructions of Jesus were in large measure shaped by the horizons of a modem world-view.2 He insisted that the first-century Jewish world-view was fundamentally alien to the modern. That first-century world-view, for Schweitzer, was essentially eschatological, and the teaching about the kingdom of God must be understood in eschatological terms. Jesus expected the coming of the kingdom of God, by which he meant that the end of the world was soon to come, perhaps even in his own lifetime. Careful form- and redaction-critical studies of the synoptic gospels confirmed that the gospels were apocalyptic in outlook; but under the influence of Schweitzer's work, the word eschatology came to have a much broader range of meanings. Indeed, so broad-ranging were the connotations that in contemporary usage the term "eschatology" in particular risked being rendered almost meaningless. Taking note of the limited heuristic value of terms so broadly defined, many scholars argued for more narrow and precise meanings. Yet, despite disagreement over the meaning of the crucial terms, virtual unanimity remained about the eschatological core of Jesus' message. Contemporary reconstruction of the historical Jesus witnesses to the weakening, and, in some circles, the total collapse of this consensus. In particular this collapse is reflected in studies of the sayings source Q. Initially posited to explain the relationship between the synoptics, Q contains brief narratives and sayings of Jesus, and appears to be heavily influenced by apocalyptic eschatology. Recently, however, John Kloppenborg has proposed a three-level stratigraphy for Q in...