John J. Collins. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Third edition). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. xiv+442 pages paperback ISBN 978-1-4674-4517-7 $40.81

John Collins guides students through a body of mysterious and fascinating Jewish Apocalyptic literature in The Apocalyptic Imagination. He detects both scholarly reticence to engage the material and fanatical devotion to it of other groups. With this in mind, he sets out to defend and explain a definition of apocalyptic literature given in the journal Semeia 14 as “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being 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” (5). He further classifies the relevant literature into “otherworldly journeys” and “‘historical’ apocalypses” and proceeds to devote roughly a chapter to each major group of works, combining compositionally and thematically similar works such as the early Enoch Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

After establishing and situating the genre, which appears to be no small task given the scholarship, Collins generally moves according to a critical chronology of composition through the material, devoting chapters to the Early Enoch Literature, the biblical book of Daniel, related genres of oracles and testaments, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Similitudes of Enoch, a collection of documents from after the Jewish revolt against Rome in 66AD (4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Abraham), literature from the Roman-era diaspora, and finally a discussion of apocalypticism in Early Christianity. 

Collins is an expert in this field, and he balances a wealth of scholarship quite helpfully. He is careful to avoid ideological devotion to one “school” or another. His appraisal of previous scholarship leads to helpfully nuanced conclusions that recognize both the variety and scarcity of historical evidence, and he avoids the overstatement of theories. He convincingly shows the mix of ancient Canaanite symbols, Babylonian culture, and Hellenistic influences that the apocalyptic authors used to communicate.

While writing from a theological perspective this reviewer does not share, Collins’ study of the social settings and social aims of the documents does provide a helpful background to understand why the apocalyptic authors might have written to their audiences. His command of historical backgrounds and the works themselves allows him to draw relationships and connections between the documents and their cultures that illuminate the meanings of obscure references and distinguish ideas that may have been confused. For example, the idea of dual priestly and kingly messiahs that are present in some of the Qumran writings is very different than the one Messiah in 4 Ezra; failure to acknowledge these differences and assume they wrote from similar perspectives would lead to a very confusing synthesis if someone were to try to present a “second Temple view” of messiah. This in turn helps more conservative readers understand what the apocalyptic authors were trying to accomplish in their works and can be a useful corrective to overly narrow or literalistic readings. The correspondences Collins brings out between the canonical and non-canonical apocalyptic literature can help readers see how the Biblical authors utilized common symbols, concepts and phrases for uniquely Christian purposes. Regardless of Collins’ assertion that the first disciples concocted an apocalyptic outlook, he helpfully makes the point that there is great agreement between the Jewish and Christian apocalyptic outlook, and that there is an element of realized eschatology in the New Testament (337).

A modern, secular, source-critical, historical perspective both provides the structure for the book and serves as the lens through which Collins sees this body of literature. While discussing the Similitudes of Enoch, he paradigmatically states with A. Lacocque that the questions he considers “are a question of men before they are a question of angels” and that “the human community is the datum of our experience and knowledge” (231-232). Indeed, there is much to be gained from paying close attention to historical and textual evidence. I learned much from Collins’ mastery of the sources and their surrounding scholarship. Questions of historical setting and cultural influence helpfully shed light on the mystifying symbols and visions of these strange documents. However, Collins sometimes gives too much weight to his own tentative reconstructions and appears to be unnecessarily antagonistic toward conservative scholars. In his chapter on Daniel, he dismisses the possibility of the book’s historicity on grounds of genre and rejects that a historical Daniel composed the work, or even that an early set of redactors brought it together,. Instead, he favors a “secondary unity” composed during the second century BC (111-112) because he sees a more fitting social situation that explains the book’s origin. While alluding that the book “bristles with historical problems,” the strongest arguments he actually gives for the historical unreliability of Daniel appear to be that other apocalyptic works based on historical figures are unreliable (such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch), and that there is a lack of historical evidence to satisfy his demands (112). However, none of this disproves the historicity of Daniel. Genre considerations, while crucial to shape readers’ expectations, are fluid approximations at best and cannot be the final say in interpretation. 

In the epilogue, Collins gives a helpful summary of the purposes to apocalyptic literature, that it “provides a comprehensive view of the world, which then provides the basis for exhortation and or consolation… the problem is put in perspective by the otherworldly revelation of a transcendent world and eschatological judgment” (352). This is an illuminating point, one that he relates to the specific content of every chapter. However, if this sociological concern is the only concern or the overriding concern, there appears to a be a case of circular logic at play. If every piece of apocalyptic literature is solely or primarily a way for humans to provide exhortation or consolation to other humans, the possibility of divine revelation in history is discounted a priori, and what may be true for some texts must be said to be true for all of them. This approach seems to do injustice to the God-oriented, theologically-saturated nature of books like Daniel, John’s Revelation, and even some of the non-canonical literature. It appears that in attempting to be even-keeled in his analysis, Collins leaves some of the theology of his material underdeveloped. The faithfulness of God is instead labeled “determinism” and messianic hope seems to become a political wish-projection. In refusing to consider the revelatory nature of the canonical texts, he smooths over a major contrast within the body of literature he analyzes, namely the different theological claims that these works make..

It is difficult – probably impossible – to set aside theological convictions when reading religious texts. The complex, allusive imagery and controversial interpretations of apocalyptic literature can turn the task of understanding it into a terrifying beast of three heads and a multitude of wings. However, even with his biases, Collins largely accomplishes his thesis and creates a useful generic paradigm through which this body of literature can be read. This book is an important resource for those interested in a body of work that has much to do with rightly understanding the Scriptures. Collins serves readers as a capable apocalyptic guide, an informative – if skeptical – Uriel, directing the reader’s attention and explaining what can be seen in these mysterious texts. Indeed, the believing reader is left much like that Ezra is left by that angel; he is grateful for the insights, vastly informed beyond his own weak capacities, but still left with the feeling that he has not quite been answered to his satisfaction.

Cade Patterson

Henderson, North Carolina