What do you think?
Rate this book
The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (The Biblical Resource Series
This second edition of John J. Collins's widely praised study of Jewish apocalyptic literature represents a complete updating and rewriting of the original work. Especially noteworthy is the chapter on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which now takes into account all of the recently published texts. Other chapters discuss apocalypse as a literary genre, explore the phenomenon and function of apocalypticism in the ancient world, study a wide range of individual apocalyptic texts, and examine the apocalyptic character of early Christianity.
337 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
63 people are currently reading
497 people want to read
About the author
John J. Collins
106 books46 followersJohn 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 7, 2011
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.
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.
June 5, 2021
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.
April 27, 2024
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
March 29, 2022
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.
June 24, 2019
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.
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.
August 15, 2020
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.
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.
October 28, 2019
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.
January 8, 2024
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.
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.
September 3, 2024
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.
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.
December 29, 2018
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.
May 3, 2020
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.
... 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.
March 23, 2012
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.
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.
February 11, 2014
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 :)
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 :)
May 28, 2013
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).
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).
January 10, 2008
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.
April 12, 2012
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.
May 10, 2012
Heavy but good.
June 17, 2015
While I read this as assigned reading in class, it really is an excellent and readable book about apocalyptic literature. I highly recommend it!
September 5, 2008
Really the classic introduction to this genre of literature.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews