Apocalypses and apocalyptic: A response to Benjamin E. Reynolds

The Semeia 14 definition of the genre apocalypse (1979) is a landmark in the study of early Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. In a recent article in this journal, Benjamin E. Reynolds argues that scholars have over-emphasized the definition’s temporal component against its spatial component, and the eschatology of texts against their form. This imbalance has resulted in the misidentification of the genre and the misapplication of the label “apocalyptic” in the literature. He proposes to return to the strict use of the definition and thus a restoration of the centrality of its spatial component and generic form. While Reynolds’s attempt to restore balance is welcome, his methodology is problematic. For example, although his solution relies on a strict application of the definition, he uses its components selectively. In addition, his distinction between eschatology and apocalyptic is based on a categorical error and is not reflected in the ancient evidence. Both issues impair Reynolds’s use of the definition to detect false positives (works that have been improperly labeled apocalypses or apocalyptic) and false negatives (texts that are not normally regarded as apocalypses or apocalyptic but which in fact are). Most importantly, the genre apocalypse as defined in Semeia 14 is a weak diagnostic category. As such, the genre cannot adjudicate the application of the label “apocalyptic” across its myriad expressions.