2) Where then does the millenialism come
from that was so clearly
voiced around
Y1K in documents such as 'Wulfstan's Address to the English?' Why did
they
think that there was something likely to fulfill prophecy in the year
1,000?
wulfstan's address is not millennial it's apocalyptic. he, in good
augustinian fashion, did not expect the millennium in the year 1000,
but the end of the [invisible] millennium as augustine argued in the
city of god -- antichrist, armaggedon, last judgment, not heaven on
earth. if you want further on this, i recommend two new books on
apocalyptic and the year 1000, one by me, one by Michael Frassetto.
VKI: I agree that Wulfstan saw the Christian
Church Age as the Millennium and
saw it as coming to a close about 1000 AD not at all beginning in
1,000 AD as
present day premillenialists saw the possibility of a millennium
beginning in
2,000 AD. But why does this make him apocalyptic and not millennial?
This is
hair splitting.
i beg to differ. historians, anthropologists, even the church fathers
who denounced the subversive ideology, understand "millennial" only to
refer to expectations of collective salvation on this earth,
in the flesh, a messianic kingdom traditionally lasting 1000
years (hence, millennialism, of which messianism is a subset of
millennial movements led by a messianic figure).
i have suggested using the term "apocalyptic" to mean that one
believes the great transformation is imminent -- cd be millennial (as
i think the peace of god is) or eschatological (as is wulfstan's).
apocalyptic also refers to the scenario whereby we get from this world
(ruled by evil and injustice) to the full manifestation of god's
justice, whether on a cosmic or an earthly plane.
almost all formal church writing, hence our documentary base, is
carefully cleansed of any explicit millennialism. not until joachim
did it re-enter formal discourse, and then with explosive results.
if you think this is splitting hairs, you need to re-enter a world
where ecclesiastical authorities held millennialism as taboo, with
grave consequences for those who broke that taboo.
They were being apoclyptic specifically because they were
millenialists--today they would be called post-millenial by those who
classify
various millenialists.
as one of those who classifies these movts, i permit myself to correct
you. the pax dei was post-millennialist -- ie the
millennial kingdom is built by divinely inspired human agents and only
after (post-millennium) does xt come again.
wulfstan, aelfric, other churchmen who believed they lived at the
apocalyptic moment and who's writings are preserved, are careful to be
eschatological (last judgment, heaven and hell, no earthly salvation).
not millennial of any variety.
somewhere, i'm not sure where, i have suggested that the pax dei of
1033 was an early manifestation of post-millennialism and the
mass-pilgrimage to jerusalem of the same year was either
eschatological or pre-millennial (jesus is coming back, be at the
center of the cosmos for the resurrection of the dead). the desire of
pilgrims not to return is a good sign of such motivations.
Please e-mail me the titles of the two books you talk
about.
one edited by me, Andrew Gow and David Van Meter, the other by Michael
Frassetto, both called The Year 1000, both with
excellent articles.
r
