The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity

by John J. Collins

Book by Collins, John Joseph

Genres: Religion, Biblical Studies, Judaism, Theology, History, Christianity, Old Testament

Paperback

First published January 1, 1984

About the author

John J. Collins is Holmes Professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. A native of Ireland, he has a doctorate from Harvard University, and earlier taught at the University of Chicago, and the University of Notre Dame. He has published widely on the subjects of apocalypticism, wisdom, Hellenistic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls and served as president of both the Catholic Biblical Association and the Society of Biblical Literature.

Reviews

[Brandon Hawk]

As an introduction to apocalyptic literature, Collins's book is indispensable. It provides excellent discussions of generic considerations, previous scholarship, emerging conceptions, and the main issues related to apocalypses in early Jewish and Christian traditions.

Many of the conceptions underlying Collins's book (esp. in the first chapter on the "Apocalyptic Genre") are directly influenced by his work with the collaborative team for Semeia 14 (Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, 1979). The ideas of "definition" and "genre" in relation to apocalypse are, of course, problematic issues, and have met with criticisms. James H. Charlesworth, for example, claims that "an apocalypse cannot be defined; it can only be described" (The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Metuchen, NJ, 1987), 53). Throughout his book, Collins navigates this problem, discussing the ways that scholars have sought to define and to schematize based on genre and the ways that new approaches seek to leave behind old assumptions and strict definitions. His two chapters on "Related Genres" and "Qumran" in particular highlight this, as they speak to the ways that early Jewish literature does not fall into clear definitions but offers an array of types.

One of the most insightful aspects of Collins's discussions is the generic fluidity he espouses; in effect, his overview offers only an idea of the "generic framework" (5). As he emphasizes throughout, scholars must continually be aware of the plurality manifested in apocalypses. Plurality, essentially, is at the heart of his discussion. For example, he points to the "different types of apocalypses... correspondingly different types of apocalyptic eschatology" (11), "different types of apocalyptic movements" (13), and "different levels of meaning" (18). While all of these are tied together by commonalities, there is also a diversity of qualities that must be accounted for in individual studies of apocalypses.

While several of the chapters are adapted from earlier essays (see the preface to the first edition), the book possesses a synthetic unity. These are not merely reprints of Collins's previous work but essays reworked to fit together within the overall goals of the book. The chapters, then, fit together coherently, and the studies of individual works point to specific ways that they fit into the general understanding of apocalypses that Collins establishes throughout the book.

Furthermore, the second edition is obviously updated from the previous version, with much expanded references and analyses. Collins's work clearly points to the issues at stake in understanding apocalyptic literature, and his book provides a definitive basis for anyone interested in this subject.

[Scott Gamble]

Fascinating and *very* in depth look into Jewish Apocalyptic literature. My copy states the subtitle as "An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity", but in classic scholarly style, the conclusion you actually want to read about is given the barest whiff of attention as a conclusion. That being said, the exhaustive treatment of Jewish Apocalyptic literature speaks volumes about its implications for both the development of early Christianity, and our reading of apocalyptic literature today. I was particularly struck by explanations on cosmologies and the periodization of history, and how they're used as ways to order and understand the world around us, especially in times of chaos and uncertainty.

I have long avoided Revelation and Apocalyptic literature as a topic for teaching and study in the church (I'm a pastor), partly because I don't want to deal with people's gross misinterpretations and trying to dismantle them (yes that's judgmental, but I meant it in the kindest way possible), but also because I haven't felt like it's a particularly relevant book, outside of a broad understanding Jesus conquering of sin and death and the promise of eternal victory for his saints. This book helped put some meat on the bones of my suspicion that our eschatology makes a significant difference for the practical living of our faith day to day, and that the North American church's current misreading of Revelation is having significant repercussions on the expression of Christianity we see around us. Collins does a good job of connecting the dots between the lived experience of the historical audience, and then how that gets addressed in the apocalyptic literature. I think he might err a little too much on the side of rationalistic scholarly presumptions about what we can say for certain about how to interpret the Bible and other religious documents, but the general principle that these are documents meant to both interpret the world of the reader, and then impact the living in that world, is a sound and beneficial one. Which is to say, some church members better buckle up for one hell of a Bible Study on Revelation.

[Luke Wagner]

John J. Collins' "The Apocalyptic Imagination" is a must-read for anyone interested in the study of apocalypses and apocalypticism. The opening chapter discusses the genre of "apocalypse" and its defining features, after which Collins surveys a large corpus of Jewish apocalyptic writings in the subsequent chapters. I particularly enjoyed Collins' treatments of the Book of Daniel, 1 Enoch, and apocalypticism in Early Christianity. Much of the book surveys pseudepigraphal works; while Daniel and Revelation are the only full-blown apocalypses in the Christian Bible, there are a number of fascinating apocalyptic works that lay outside the canon, and which help us better understand the genre and what the goal of apocalyptic literature is. Above all, apocalypses seek to provide hope and consolation, while also usually giving exhortation and ethical instruction, by means of a heavenly revelation. For readers of Scripture, Collins helps us to better approach and understand the enigmatic books of Daniel and Revelation.

[Avery Amstutz]

I read half of it while studying. Collins is reading in conversation with a lot of German scholars that I don’t have good placement for so I am not understanding as much as I aught. It’s also an academic book through and through so if that’s not your speed then stay away? Giving it 5 stars for being top notch scholarship… would give it 3-5 for page-turningness. Plan to finish the book at a later date

[Erik Tuttle]

Collins provides the foundational survey and description of various apocalyptic texts. He also identifies common threads that are found throughout as well as their historical or prophetic implications. Some of his underlying assumptions I disagreed with, such as the compositional history of biblical texts, but for an analysis of apocalyptic material, it was awesome.

[Brian Coltin]

Informative, scholarly book, gives a good overview of the different sides of various debates even when the author has a strong opinion. Was easily accessible for someone with only rudimentary background knowledge.

[Jeremy Manuel]

If you're interested in apocalyptic literature then John J. Collins' book The Apocalyptic Imagination will be a book that you could be interested to read. The problem is, how many people can actually admit to being interested in apocalyptic literature enough to read an introductory scholarly work on the topic? Therein lies the difficulty of such a book. It was a fine book as far as I could tell about introducing a reader to apocalyptic literature. Collins tackles the idea of what makes a work apocalyptic in the first place, and then looks at books that are either considered apocalyptic or contain apocalyptic themes within it.

I found his treatment of the subject interesting and I could see how looking at other apocalypses could help Christians, like myself, realize that maybe the book of Revelation isn't all about one-to-one correlations to future events, but rather a work that is doing something very different. The problem is that I probably wouldn't point most people to this book because it is deep reading bouncing off of scholarly opinions about books most people have probably never heard of.

If you are a scholar or someone with very scholarly leanings, this book will be very enjoyable to you. However, for most people this book would just be a confusing mess and a slog to get through with limited benefit. It's useful for the niche, but I can't say that I found it particularly enlightening or that I really received a lot of useful insight from its pages.

[Max Wilson]

This book was recommended by Dr. Justin Sledge during his Merkavah Mysticism course (see Youtube channel: Esoterica). It was extremely helpful. This is a masterful and comprehensive coverage of Jewish apocalyptic literature. It is a text-focused and largely neutral treatment (in the good way) of the subject. This is not an ideal starting place for Philosophy, History, or Religious Studies neophytes, but I found it more approachable than I expected.

[Fred Kohn]

I was very excited to add this book to my library because of its stellar reputation, although after reading it I think it would have been ok just to find a copy at the library. I doubt it will be a book I will refer to often. One reason I got the book was to investigate the claim made by Google that John J. Collins is a preterist.

In the chapter "Apocalypticism in Early Christianity," "The Book of Revelation" is the longest and most significant of the four sections, the other three being "Jesus and Eschatology", "Son of Man and Messiah", and "Paul's Apocalyptic Perspective". The following paragraph shows that it is probably fair to call Collins a preterist, although with some qualifications: "Revelation, then, shares the same apocalyptic view of the world as the arena of angels and demonic powers in the present and subject to a definitive eschatological judgement. The problem addressed by Revelation, the present sovereignty of Rome, is put in perspective by this view of the world. Christ is the firstborn of the dead, and his death and resurrection are held to inaugurate the eschatological era. *Consequently, history is foreshortened in Revelation*. Interest is focused on the period between the death of Jesus and the end. Yet the contrast with an apocalypse such as Daniel should not be exaggerated. The eschatological age which has begun is the age of eschatological woes, as can be seen clearly in chap. 12. It is not a period of proleptic fulfillment but corresponds rather to the reign of the fourth beast in Daniel (emphasis added)." Collins's view of Revelation is also evident in his statement that "The new situation of Christianity led to some modifications in the apocalyptic genre, intensifying the focus on the present and imminent future and expanding the role of the messiah."

The Jewish Apocalypses considered in this book are 1 Enoch, Daniel, Sibyllene Oracles, The Testament of Moses, The Testaments of the Twelve Partiarchs, The Psalms of Solomon, the Deas Sea Scrolls, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, The Apocalypse of Abraham, The Apocalypse of Zephaniah, and 2 Enoch. They are arranged chronologically, so that 1 Enoch and Sibyllene Oracles are considered in multiple chapters, since parts of them were written at different times.

I am a big enough fan of Collins's Hermeneia commentary on Daniel that I bought a copy for my personal library, and consult it frequently. Nonetheless I enjoyed Collins’s comments on Daniel in this book. He makes his stand clear from the first, saying that "The assumption that the 'word of God' must be factual historical reporting , and cannot be literary fiction, is theologically unwarranted," and "Everyone recognizes that the predictions of Enoch are after the fact. The same logic holds in the case of Daniel."

A statement that caught my attention was "The original statue in the dream [Daniel chapter 2] would have symbolized Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus. The iron mixed with clay might refer to the coregency of Belshazzar with Nabonidus." Collins floats the same hypothesis in his Hermeneia commentary in his "Excursus: The Four Kingdoms," although I admit this fact didn’t stick in my head either of the two times I read this commentary. It became more prominent when I read *Daniel Unplugged* by Sam Frost. Unlike Collins, Frost believes this is the primary interpretation of the dream, but Collins notes that 2.43 references the intermarriage of Ptolemaic and Seleucid houses, meaning that the original symbolism of the dream has been altered to fit a four kingdom schema, with Greece as the fourth kingdom.

I didn’t find much else in the book to write into my notes. My primary interest in apocalyptic is in the book of Revelation, though obviously Daniel was a big influence on that book. Another book that I am somewhat interested in is 4th Ezra, and someday I will probably pull the trigger on buying Michael Stone's commentary on that work from the Hermeneia series. Based on my short Goodreads review of Stone’s work, I should probably get a copy of 2 Baruch as well. To that end I may pull the trigger on buying Charlesworth's magisterial work 2100 page work *The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Two-Volume Set: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments; Expansions of the Hebrew Bible*.

Outside of my notes on Revelation and Daniel, all I found to write in my notes was: In the Jewish tradition stars were identified with angels Judges 5.20 Job 38.7. Compare 1 Enoch 104.2-6 moreover astral imagery has messianic connotations because of Balaam's oracle Numbers 24.17. Although Balaam’s oracle was not originally messianic, over time as the image of a Messiah grew in the Jewish imagination, it came to be associated with the Messiah. Christians have long seen it as a prediction of Jesus Christ.

[Rodney Harvill]

As I was reading this book, I learned a new word, “mantic,” relating to divination and prophecy, which in the book was frequently applied to Babylonian wisdom. In other words, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were trained in mantic wisdom and techniques. Having read this book, I have come to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams described in chapters 2 and 4 of Daniel both took place on a Sunday night. Why, might you ask, do I think this? The next day, when the wise men were scratching their heads and scrambling to interpret the dream, would be just another mantic Monday.

All jokes aside, I found the title “Apocalyptic Imagination” very telling, with the implication that apocalyptic literature constitutes an imaginative interpretation or reinterpretation of existing traditions in the face of current events from the perspective of the writer or redactor. I bring this up because the apocalyptic literature so characterized includes the canonical books of Daniel and Revelation. Regarding Daniel, the traditional view is that Daniel was a historical Jewish figure during and after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon and the book of Daniel was written by him and that the prophecies of four kingdoms refer to the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek/Hellenistic and Roman empires. During the nineteenth century, scholars began to challenge this view and argue that it was written around the time of the Maccabean revolt during the time of Seleucid king Antiochus IV because the high level of detail in Daniel 11 does not correspond to any known historical events beyond the events of that revolt. In other words, the prophecy was written after the fact. Dr. Collins hold a variant of this view. I hold to the traditional view, and intend to do a basic critique of how he portrays the book of Daniel. Before I go any further, I consider it important to point out that I am not a theologian or an expert on ancient literature and culture. I am a layman, an engineer. There are and have been smart and knowledgeable scholars holding either the traditional view or the more recent one. In one way, these scholars function as dueling expert witnesses offering differing interpretations of the forensic evidence in a trial. They can’t both be right, and the jury of non-experts has to weigh their arguments and the evidence. We non-experts are that jury. So, my critique is that of a non-expert.

I first encountered this issue last year when I was studying Daniel in preparation for a study of Revelation on account of the numerous parallels between the two books. Some of the commentators discussed the issue, and I ultimately read some of the late Robert Dick Wilson’s work on the subject (Studies in the Book of Daniel, etc.). He had been a professor at Princeton Seminary until he departed along with Gresham Machen to found Westminster Seminary after their theologically conservative views became less welcome at Princeton. Professor Wilson had been an expert on ancient literature and languages and used this expertise to good effect in his critique of the non-traditional view and defense of the traditional view. One of Professor Wilson’s objections to the alternative view is that Daniel was the functionary of the same Babylonian king who had destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. Why would Jews of the time of Antiochus IV choose to fake a document (pseudepigraphia) supposedly written by him and about him to inspire resistance against Antiochus and his militant Hellenization policies. To his credit, Dr. Collins appears to incorporate some aspects of this objection into his explanation of the origins of the book of Daniel, that it was pseudepigraphia written by what was essentially a peacenik group in support of their program of nonviolent resistance. Given that1 Maccabees 2 describes how soldiers of Antiochus slaughtered Jews who refused to break the Sabbath to defend themselves and that 1 Maccabees 7 documents how Alcimus, the High Priest, executed sixty teachers of the law who had come to seek peace, Dr. Collins’ conjecture is not without merit. On the other hand, it fails to explain why Mattathias, who started the violent resistance, drew inspiration from the deliverance of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah from the fiery furnace and the deliverance of Daniel from the lion’s den (1 Maccabees 2:59-60). Why would the violent resistance draw inspiration from a document written and championed by the proponents of nonviolent resistance? Another of Professor Wilson’s objections was that the Jewish religious leaders of the time of Antiochus IV would have had to be profoundly gullible to accept as legitimate a document that just showed up while claiming to be four centuries old. Dr. Collins’ explanation also appears to be informed by this objection. He argues that the religious leaders knowingly faked the document and preyed on the gullibility of the people, assuming that they would be willing to follow their leaders unquestioningly. As before, there is some merit to this argument although it seems to be in the “he said, she said” category. There is no way to prove it or disprove it. The strongest of Dr. Collin’s arguments against the traditional view is that there is no historical record of Darius the Mede. He argues that the alleged 2nd century writers of Daniel conflated the first Medo-Persian leader of Babylon with one of the later Persian emperors named Darius. Scholars such as Professor Wilson and John Whitcomb have posited theories regarding his identity, but until archaeologists manage to dig up some inscription or stele identifying him, those theories will have to remain theories. That said, if one wants to play the argument from silence card, Dr. Collins and other proponents of the alternative view will need to explain how the alleged 2nd century writers of Daniel knew anything about Belshazzar, a point made by Professor Wilson. That name had been so completely forgotten by contemporary historians that early proponents of the alternative view had used the account of him in the book of Daniel as an argument against the authenticity of the book. Since then, archaeologists have found inscription evidence that is consistent with his portrayal in the book of Daniel. So, I will hold out in faith for more evidence from the ground as I hold to the traditional view.

Regarding the book of Revelation, Dr. Collins argues that it was not necessarily a vision, but a reimagining of Old Testament passages, etc., in an attempt to explain and cope with current events and concerns. As with his arguments on the book of Daniel, this is not without merit on account of the numerous Old Testament allusions with which the book is peppered. On the other hand, could not God, the creator of heaven and earth, be smart enough to come up with such connections powerful enough to deliver it to a faithful servant in a vision as a means of comforting his suffering followers and to rebuke and correct his wayward followers? Because we don’t have access to the writer of Revelation, Dr. Collins cannot prove his view, and I can’t prove mine. We both are operating on some form of faith.

While my previous two paragraphs have been critical of Dr. Collins, I still respect his scholarship. My purpose in reading this book was to better understand the apocalyptic genre, and the book served it well by addressing 1 Enoch, the book of Jubilies, the Jewish Sibylline Oracles, the Testament of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Psalms of Solomon, the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham and apocalyptic elements of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of early Christianity. So, it is quite the overview, even if I don’t agree with all of it. As a result, I plan to read more works written by Dr. Collins. I don’t have to agree with him to learn from him.

[Reinhardt]

An overview of the apocalyptic literature that shaped the background of early Christianity.

This book works through the key 1st century and older Jewish apocalyptic texts as contained in Charlesworth’s vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, as well as some apocalyptic Qumran texts and the Old Testament apocalyptic text of Daniel.

It begins by working through the oldest known text, which is 1 Enoch, which is potentially as old as Daniel. It follows with Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Apocalypse of Abraham, the Sibylian oracles, the Testaments of Moses and the Twelve Patriarchs, the Qumran texts, and Daniel. Most of the text are contained in Charlesworth’s vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, which itself provides introductions and analysis as well as the complete texts. This book is a helpful companion to Charlesworth and it is helpful to read a selection of the texts to get a sense of their style.

Through the analysis of these apocalyptic texts, we come to understand the genre. Genre identification being the first step to understanding any text. So many misunderstandings of texts (and even all communication) are due to overlooking genre, which clarifies how a text works. This understanding also clarifies the 1st century Jewish mindset, the matrix in which Christianity grew.

The final chapter includes a direct look at the influence of the apocalyptic matrix on New Testament texts. Both the gospels and the letters have an apocalyptic background even if they are not themselves apocalyptic texts. The book of Revelation can only be understood in the light of the Jewish apocalyptic texts, and he provides some guidance on how it helps us understand the only New Testament apocalypse, from which the genre’s name derives.

Interesting, Informative, Clearly Written. Recommended.

[Brad]

This is a good study, and a great introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Collins has a complete and broad understanding of various ancient texts that is really valuable. By contrast his anti-supernatural bias heavily limits the options he will entertain and he has an abysmally superficial view of modern Christianity. If you are interested in getting the landscape of some of the important apocalyptic texts this is a good place to start.

[Delton Sylvester]

Excellent Scholary Work

This book is well written and thoroughly researched.

We are dealing here with a master on the subject, whose deep knowledge is evident in this book.

The book is not easy, light reading for tge laymen, but more for scholars of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.

That said, this is a very important book for those who wish to dig deeper into this field of study.

[James Kerr]

This book is well researched and provides good information in a very niche field.
Collins writes very much about various things and then ends with “the evidence/information on this is scant.” He says this after going on for pages and pages (the Enoch Calendar issue). It is in several places within the book.

Should you read this? Only if you have to read this as part of a class like me. It’s quite boring.

[Adam Marquez]

The Apocalyptic Imagination is a helpful book for anyone interested in becoming familiar with apocalyptic literature. Without books like this, works like Revelation are all but incomprehensible. This book provides more than just an introduction, and sets the tone for how one ought to be thinking about apocalyptic texts.

[Benedict Andersen OSB]

Indispensable ...

... standard introduction to modern scholarly takes on the genre of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. I find Collins a bit “safe” in many of his conclusions, but Collins is the undisputed leader in the field.

[John]

A helpful introduction to Jewish apocalyptic literature, up through the end of the first century. Most of the book tracks the Jewish apocalyptic material in chronological order, focusing on the key elements of each writing, their historical context, and the way they compare with the other apocalyptic literature he tracks in the book.

Collins includes a chapter on Christian apocalyptic to close the book, which serves as an excellent point of comparison and contrast with the Jewish material. In particular, the contrast highlights the fundamental difference between the two groups, noting that the Christian material presents Jesus as the Messiah who receives worship. In many other ways, though, the Christian apocalyptic material in Revelation and elsewhere in the NT closely reflects the emphasis from the Jewish material--particularly the emphasis on a coming judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the presence of angels and demons locked in heavenly battle, and the need for supernatural revelation to break through a world scaled over with sin. This leaves much of John's Apocalypse looking decidedly Jewish in content and emphasis.

[Glenn Crouch]

This is a good technical coverage of Apocalyptic Literature - and I especially enjoyed the Author's coverage of Enoch and other Pseudopigrapha.

I am more conservative then the Author, and thus don't except all his assumptions about the Book of Daniel - however I did like that the Author at least gave some reasons for why he doesn't accept the Conservative approach rather (as far too many do) just being dismissive.

I also found his examination of the Apocalyptic in the Early Christian Sphere quite enlightening and gave me a fair bit to think about - once again I have a far more conservative view to the Gospels than the Author, but he does help to paint a better picture of First Century Christianity. His examination of Revelation was good, but I think a little short - I would've appreciate a bit more coverage of the imagery - but what the Author does include and how he compares to Jewish Apocalyptic is most interesting.

Not a book for the beginner, but a worthwhile edition to the Library of any serious Bible Student - and I found the book to be a pleasant read :)

[Greg]

This is a excellent review of Jewish Apocalyptic literature from 300 BCE to 200 CE. It covers all the major Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, the primary Dead Sea Scrolls, Daniel, and Revelation. The introduction to the genre at the beginning is worth the price of the book although it is duplicative of the introduction in Collins' commentary on Daniel in the Forms of Old Testament Literature series. Collins' perspective on the historical Jesus may raise some hackles on the right and the left, but well worth reading even if you challenge his conclusions.

The ability to appreciate this book outside a seminary or graduate school presupposes a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and familiarity with the Bible and the Pseudepigrapha. I recommend having on hand a copy of Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha for reference as wells as a good Bible (such as NRSV, NIV, or ESV).

[Dmcconkey]

An interesting and in depth volume on apocalyptic. This is not in the popular format of normal apocalyptic. It provokes many questions and thoughts and gives a broad overview of scholarship from many different perspectives.

[Adam]

Excellent introduction to Jewish apocalyptic covering texts from early Enoch literature, Daniel, Qumran, and Christianity. Not only is the commentary erudite but the prose reads extremely well and does not bore. Great addition to any biblical studies library.

[Tyler]

Heavy but good.

[Michael Carlson]

While I read this as assigned reading in class, it really is an excellent and readable book about apocalyptic literature. I highly recommend it!

[Brett]

Really the classic introduction to this genre of literature.