The birth pangs of apocalyptic

Several years ago, Bruce Rosenstock recommended that I look at 2 Maccabees as a way of contextualizing Paul’s discussion of God’s “adaptive” approach to historical events in Romans 9-11. His general thought was that the Jews had gone “off-script” in actually rebelling against the oppressive rulers, because they could no longer sustain the traditional idea that their political misfortunes were the result of disobedience. It was difficult for me to see what he was getting at initially, as 2 Maccabees at first seems to be little more than a poorly organized and highly editorialized version of 1 Maccabees, but as I’ve digested over the years and especially as I’ve returned to the text for my devil course, I’ve come to believe that the whole problem of political theology and apocalyptic is somehow “all there.”

I recommend homing in on the section on Antiochus Epiphanes’ storied career (5:11-10:9), where the most contradictory elements are simply juxtaposed — most jarringly, graphic accounts of martyrs submitting to torture rather than betray God’s law are placed alongside the emergence of a violent insurgency led by Judas Maccabeus. Both come in for approval, and the editorial voice makes heroic efforts to shoehorn it in to the old Deuteronomistic framework, but that only increases the contradictions. And to top it off, we see the emergence of the apocalyptic theme of the resurrection of the dead, which is only hinted at in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures. It’s as though we’re watching the breakdown of the Deuteronomistic paradigm and the first seeds of apocalyptic emerging, all in real time — and it’s all the more striking in that the editor clearly doesn’t understand that that’s what’s happening.

In short: take and read.

About these ads

One Response to “The birth pangs of apocalyptic”

  1. Matt Says:

    With apocalyptic and resurrection joined at the hip, it’s also telling that the text clearly doesn’t quite know what resurrection is either. Resurrection becomes bound up with the dualist thinking endemic to apocalyptic: it is clearly something that the text’s protagonists will get, while their enemies will not. However, what exactly that looks like is incredibly murky, and remains so for centuries. The text attempts to explain the practice of praying for the dead with what amounts to a non-sequitur. For a text seen as a kind of touchstone in the history of resurrection theologies, it’s remarkable just how messy the whole ordeal is.


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,564 other followers