Horsley attacks consensus on Jewish apocalyptic literature

[neilgodfrey]

[
Again you fail to quote Collins.

I'm hoping you won't look it up for yourself and that everyone else will be fooled by my baseless assertions. Or alternatively I don't see any point in quoting words when it is clear that you consistently misinterpret what you do read, forever reading your own beliefs and hopes into the words of others. I am trying to challenge you to actually read what Collins says without imputing all sorts of stuff into his words that are not there.

Including what he says about the resurrection. Just read what is there in front of you. Leave your dogmatic presuppositions at the door. Just read the words you yourself quote. And then ask yourself, where the hell does he say all the other stuff you keep saying he "must be" saying or is "implying" somehow.

[neilgodfrey]

What is most ironical about this topic is that you are repeating the very problem Horsley is attempting to address. Horsley is addressing the way even scholars tend to make assumptions about what the apocalyptic writings say and read their assumptions into it -- and that's exactly what you are doing in order to "counter" Horsley's views. That is, simply repeating the problem he is trying to address. On the Daniel 7 passage, Horsley and Collins actually agree (so your header about Horsley attacking the consensus is a bit off.) Where they differ is that Collins says the son of man etc is a literal being (operating behind the scene) while Horsley says he is entirely symbolic. (Both agree that later interpreters saw the son of man as literal.) Both sides have their supporters among those who write about Daniel 7. If you are upset that I am not bothering to go to the trouble to copy and paste or type out lots of quotes, then it's because I don't think such an activity will make a bit of difference. You have the book yourself. You can read both Horsley's and Collins' works. The only difference is that you keep saying that anything Collins writes must mean more than what he is actually saying.

[Michael BG]

Again you fail to quote Collins.

I'm hoping you won't look it up for yourself and that everyone else will be fooled by my baseless assertions. Or alternatively I don't see any point in quoting words when it is clear that you consistently misinterpret what you do read, forever reading your own beliefs and hopes into the words of others. I am trying to challenge you to actually read what Collins says without imputing all sorts of stuff into his words that are not there.

Including what he says about the resurrection. Just read what is there in front of you. Leave your dogmatic presuppositions at the door. Just read the words you yourself quote. And then ask yourself, where the hell does he say all the other stuff you keep saying he "must be" saying or is "implying" somehow.

The reason you don’t quote Collins is because my quotations are correct and my conclusions regarding Collins’ position are correct and so you are left with making baseless assertions. Maybe I should make allowances for you considering your experiences.

I wrote,

Hopefully we can agree that Collins sees Daniel stating that those killed during the Maccabean rebellion will end up resurrected in heaven with the angels

And you can’t even agree with something Collins clearly sees.

On the Daniel 7 passage, Horsley and Collins actually agree (so your header about Horsley attacking the consensus is a bit off.) Where they differ is that Collins says the son of man etc is a literal being (operating behind the scene) while Horsley says he is entirely symbolic. (Both agree that later interpreters saw the son of man as literal.) Both sides have their supporters among those who write about Daniel 7.

You are correct here about one of the differences between Horsley and Collins. Where you misunderstand Collins is where his literal interpretation of the heavenly side takes him – to the resurrection of the wise, and the martyrs. His position regarding the end is unclear as I have already pointed out. But he might keep the door open when in his introduction he writes

The eschatology too is rather different from the later apocalypse. In the “new earth” of Isaiah 65 “the child shall die a hundred years old and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed” and “like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be.” Life will be transformed, but it will still be distinctly this-worldly (“they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit”). It will also be finite, however lengthened it may be. This conception is quite different from the expectation of resurrection or of the judgment of the dead as we find it in Daniel and Enoch.

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 24.

It is the eschatological side of the apocalyptic literature and Jesus’ sayings that particularly interest me.

[neilgodfrey]

The reason you don’t quote Collins is because my quotations are correct and my conclusions regarding Collins’ position are correct and so you are left with making baseless assertions. Maybe I should make allowances for you considering your experiences.

In other words you believe I am lying and I have a hostile anti-religious agenda and that's why I disagree with you. You are very adept at reading minds and intentions in words that are not expressed, aren't you. Nice. Would you suggest H and C also have a hostile anti-religious agenda because I'm simply trying to point out what they themselves are saying -- contrary to all the assumptions you impute to their words.

Besides, I keep telling you that your correct quotations of Collins do not support the comments you add to them. I can only quote Collins like you do -- but you find it necessary to add explanations to tell us what you believe he is really meaning to say.

For you mere quotations are not enough.

I wrote,

Hopefully we can agree that Collins sees Daniel stating that those killed during the Maccabean rebellion will end up resurrected in heaven with the angels

And you can’t even agree with something Collins clearly sees.

Classic. MBG -- my complaint is that you persistently read what you want into what others write and here you are doing it again with my own words. I didn't bother to reply to that point because I thought it was so obvious there was no need. Of course Collins acknowledges what the text is saying -- that those killed in the Maccabean rebellion will be resurrected. So what's your point? It's all the other kerfuffle that you add surrounding that event that is the point of dispute.

(Do you really think I'm so dumb that I was hoping you would not notice what Collins said about the resurrection because I believed it undercut my opposition to what you are saying? Gosh, the resurrection has no relationship at all in Collins discussion to what you imagine Collins and Daniel are saying -- that the fifth spiritual kingdom is to appear on earth. No, it is a hidden event that is revealed only to give encouragement to those fighting the physical war on earth.)

You are correct here about one of the differences between Horsley and Collins. Where you misunderstand Collins is where his literal interpretation of the heavenly side takes him – to the resurrection of the wise, and the martyrs. His position regarding the end is unclear as I have already pointed out.

In other words Collins does not say Daniel is the sort of prophecy of a future event -- the son of man coming with his kingdom visibly on earth -- as you say it is. The resurrection is something else that happens at the end. Collins himself says the resurrection event is somewhat vague as to its time and circumstances.

But he might keep the door open when in his introduction he writes

The eschatology too is rather different from the later apocalypse. In the “new earth” of Isaiah 65 “the child shall die a hundred years old and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed” and “like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be.” Life will be transformed, but it will still be distinctly this-worldly (“they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit”). It will also be finite, however lengthened it may be. This conception is quite different from the expectation of resurrection or of the judgment of the dead as we find it in Daniel and Enoch.

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 24.

It is the eschatological side of the apocalyptic literature and Jesus’ sayings that particularly interest me.

Right, so Collins does not support your view of the Book of Daniel. You have to say he "might keep the door open" etc and "is unclear" etc -- because he is not damn well saying what you want him to be saying.

More than that, he is of the same view as Horsley when it comes to what is meant by the "fulfilment" of that "prophecy" -- that it is to be fulfilled in the victory of the Maccabees and turning back of the Seleucid kingdom. The vision of the son of man etc remains entirely hidden from earth (except via vision). It is only revealed to encourage the Maccabees with the assurance that they will win. The only difference between H and C is that H sees the vision as a metaphor and C as a literal event BEHIND the scenes -- just like the way angels control events on earth FROM BEHIND the scenes elsewhere in Daniel.

[Michael BG]

The reason you don’t quote Collins is because my quotations are correct and my conclusions regarding Collins’ position are correct and so you are left with making baseless assertions. Maybe I should make allowances for you considering your experiences.

In other words you believe I am lying and I have a hostile anti-religious agenda and that's why I disagree with you. You are very adept at reading minds and intentions in words that are not expressed, aren't you. Nice. Would you suggest H and C also have a hostile anti-religious agenda because I'm simply trying to point out what they themselves are saying -- contrary to all the assumptions you impute to their words.

Firstly I did not say you have an anti-religious agenda. You have read more into my comment than there was. I think it unlikely you are lying I think you are mistaken.

Secondly I am an ex-Christian too, but I didn’t have such a negative experience as you. Therefore I have no agenda in defending church teachings, my only agenda is considering the evidence and deciding for myself and engaging in debate to assist in this process for me and others.

Thirdly I understand that the type of Christianity than you experienced was deeply apocalyptic and therefore I was wondering if your experience of such a type of Christianity has affected your re-interpretation of how apocalyptic literature was understood by those who read it, or listened to it being read. Also I wonder if that is why you reply with such vehemence (anger or heat) and fervour rather than a considered rational consideration of what I am actually writing.

I wrote,

Hopefully we can agree that Collins sees Daniel stating that those killed during the Maccabean rebellion will end up resurrected in heaven with the angels

And you can’t even agree with something Collins clearly sees.

… my complaint is that you persistently read what you want into what others write and here you are doing it again with my own words. I didn't bother to reply to that point because I thought it was so obvious there was no need. Of course Collins acknowledges what the text is saying -- that those killed in the Maccabean rebellion will be resurrected.

Thank you for finally accepting that I have understood Collins correctly (even if on such a small point). If you could do it on others our discussion would progress much more smoothly and your misunderstanding of my position decrease.

(Do you really think I'm so dumb that I was hoping you would not notice what Collins said about the resurrection because I believed it undercut my opposition to what you are saying? Gosh, the resurrection has no relationship at all in Collins discussion to what you imagine Collins and Daniel are saying -- that the fifth spiritual kingdom is to appear on earth. No, it is a hidden event that is revealed only to give encouragement to those fighting the physical war on earth.)

I do not think that Collins actually says this. Can you quote a passage where he does?

As I have said I think Collins doesn’t rule out the idea that the heavenly kingdom will replace the normal way of life. I think this can be seen from the quotation I gave of page 24 of The Apocalyptic Imagination

But he might keep the door open when in his introduction he writes

The eschatology too is rather different from the later apocalypse. In the “new earth” of Isaiah 65 “the child shall die a hundred years old and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed” and “like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be.” Life will be transformed, but it will still be distinctly this-worldly (“they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit”). It will also be finite, however lengthened it may be. This conception is quite different from the expectation of resurrection or of the judgment of the dead as we find it in Daniel and Enoch.

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 24.

It is the eschatological side of the apocalyptic literature and Jesus’ sayings that particularly interest me.

Right, so Collins does not support your view of the Book of Daniel. You have to say he "might keep the door open" etc and "is unclear" etc -- because he is not damn well saying what you want him to be saying.

I don’t know what you think I am saying this says. It seems clear that Collins has not rejected in this quotation the idea that in Daniel that life will be distinctly non-this-worldly with the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of the dead. Can we agree on this?

You are correct here about one of the differences between Horsley and Collins. Where you misunderstand Collins is where his literal interpretation of the heavenly side takes him – to the resurrection of the wise, and the martyrs. His position regarding the end is unclear as I have already pointed out.

In other words Collins does not say Daniel is the sort of prophecy of a future event -- the son of man coming with his kingdom visibly on earth -- as you say it is. The resurrection is something else that happens at the end. Collins himself says the resurrection event is somewhat vague as to its time and circumstances.

I am not sure I said what you say I said. I think I wrote that Dan 12:1-3 has the end of time event. Perhaps I have phrased this badly in the past. Hopefully we can agree that within the book of Daniel there is an “end” event. Can we?

More than that, he (Horsley) is of the same view as Horsley when it comes to what is meant by the "fulfilment" of that "prophecy" -- that it is to be fulfilled in the victory of the Maccabees and turning back of the Seleucid kingdom. The vision of the son of man etc remains entirely hidden from earth (except via vision). It is only revealed to encourage the Maccabees with the assurance that they will win. The only difference between H and C is that H sees the vision as a metaphor and C as a literal event BEHIND the scenes -- just like the way angels control events on earth FROM BEHIND the scenes elsewhere in Daniel.

I don’t have a problem with Collins’ interpretation of the son of man as the heavenly parallel to the victory of the Maccabees over Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I do have a problem with Horsley’s position where he rejects all eschatological interpretation of the visions in Daniel.

Collins does not discuss how the events in 12:1-3 relate to those of Dan 7. If the son of man is Michael then there may be a relationship in time.

My point not Collins’ is that after the fall of the Hasmonean dynasty the coming of the son of man could be seen as part of the eschatological end of time. I think this is where we disagree in that you seem to reject that anyone could interpret the coming son of man in this way.

Perhaps you should read my discussion of Lk 17:24, 26-29, 30-31

People are going to be destroyed and it is implied that this is when the heavenly figure the son of man’s day has arrived. The people of Sodom and the people of the time of Noah did not repent and they were destroyed, the people of Nineveh did repent and were spared. These sayings can be seen in the context of Jesus’ call for repentance and this is because the people are going to be judged as they were in the past. The question is, is Jesus’ call for repentance because the final judgment and the end of time is coming, or is it because the Jews are going to have a restored Davidic kingdom, it is not necessary clear from these sayings and I wouldn’t use them as evidence for the coming end of time, but it is also not proof that Jesus is talking about a restored Israel.

(bold added).

[neilgodfrey]

Thirdly I understand that the type of Christianity than you experienced was deeply apocalyptic and therefore I was wondering if your experience of such a type of Christianity has affected your re-interpretation of how apocalyptic literature was understood by those who read it, or listened to it being read. Also I wonder if that is why you reply with such vehemence (anger or heat) and fervour rather than a considered rational consideration of what I am actually writing.

Interesting. So you select one of my religious experiences and ignore the other. I was actually more years in mainstream Christianity than in the cult, and anyone who has read my own account of even that experience would know that after the cult I returned very happily to mainstream religion for some years. Interesting how my cult years are seized upon by some of my less scrupulous critics to impute all sorts of psychological dispositions into me today.

Anger and vehemence??? I would like you to quote me something that you think displays those. Certainly impatient because I cannot take too seriously arguments that simply mis-read or read into mainstream texts what is not there, and that seem to take little interest in critical methods.

Thank you for finally accepting that I have understood Collins correctly (even if on such a small point). If you could do it on others our discussion would progress much more smoothly and your misunderstanding of my position decrease.

I do not accept, and have never accepted, the implications you have drawn from that point and that Collins nowhere makes.

I do not think that Collins actually says this. Can you quote a passage where he does?

No, I could not be bothered. You have the book and I told you which paragraphs to read. Just read them for yourself. I will quote them though in another venue for others who are not going to turn around and say, hey, but that could mean he leaves open other possibilities for things he does not actually say anywhere.....

I don’t know what you think I am saying this says. It seems clear that Collins has not rejected in this quotation the idea that in Daniel that life will be distinctly non-this-worldly with the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of the dead. Can we agree on this?

Of course Collins talks about what Daniel clearly says about a future period involving resurrection. But the point of this thread, I thought, was to pit Horsley against Collins on the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel 7 in particular. Both agree on the meaning and fulfilment of the vision. The only difference is H says the son of man is metaphor, C that he is yet one more spirit beings behind the scenes.

[Michael BG]

I don’t know what you think I am saying this says. It seems clear that Collins has not rejected in this quotation the idea that in Daniel that life will be distinctly non-this-worldly with the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of the dead. Can we agree on this?

Of course Collins talks about what Daniel clearly says about a future period involving resurrection. But the point of this thread, I thought, was to pit Horsley against Collins on the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel 7 in particular. Both agree on the meaning and fulfilment of the vision. The only difference is H says the son of man is metaphor, C that he is yet one more spirit beings behind the scenes.

You have misunderstood what this thread is about. It is not about pitting Horsley against Collins. It is purely taking Horsley’s positions and critiquing them. This is why I posted my comments on Lk 17:24, 26-29, 30-31 which shows me not accepting the position of Horsley or the position that Horsley states Crossan takes on these verses.

When discussing Daniel 7:13-14 I pointed out Horsley’s position and quoted Collins to counter part that position and then presented my own view that there is a reference to “the end” and judgment in Dan 7 and it did contain elements of what Horsley calls the “apocalyptic scenario”. Then I went on to discuss that Horsley was incorrect when he claims there is no apocalyptic figure in the son of man saying in Mark 13:26-27 (and no apocalyptic figure in Didache 16:6-8; 1 Thess 4:13-18).

My conclusion was

It seems fair to conclude that it is more likely that Mk 13:26-27 is an apocalyptic saying about the coming of the kingdom of God and the end of time, rather than a restoration of the kingdom of David on earth.

Again you have not engaged with what I wrote, but only criticise me for what you think I have written. I have not read enough of your other comments here to decide if this is a normal problem for you. But I did notice that in another thread you had problems understanding what Ben C Smith was writing, while I didn’t have this difficulty.

Thirdly I understand that the type of Christianity than you experienced was deeply apocalyptic and therefore I was wondering if your experience of such a type of Christianity has affected your re-interpretation of how apocalyptic literature was understood by those who read it, or listened to it being read. Also I wonder if that is why you reply with such vehemence (anger or heat) and fervour rather than a considered rational consideration of what I am actually writing.

Interesting. So you select one of my religious experiences and ignore the other. I was actually more years in mainstream Christianity than in the cult, and anyone who has read my own account of even that experience would know that after the cult I returned very happily to mainstream religion for some years. Interesting how my cult years are seized upon by some of my less scrupulous critics to impute all sorts of psychological dispositions into me today.

This is what I read,

My name is Neil Godfrey, 48 years, divorced, live with my 2 school-aged sons, presently work as a librarian at an academic library in Toowoomba (Queensland, Australia), and was a baptized member of the WCG for 22 years. Before that I grew up in a Methodist family. My evolution from ‘son of God’ to born-again atheist was both gradual and traumatic, but has left me feeling a far more ‘spiritually’ mature, loving, compassionate, open and relaxed man.

If this is not about you then I apologise. It reads like the WCG was your main experience. There was no mention of how many years after leaving the WCG you were a Christian for. There is no mention of at what age you joined the WCG. However for you to have been in “mainstream Christianity” for more than 22 years you are including when you were under 4 years old.

Thank you for finally accepting that I have understood Collins correctly (even if on such a small point). If you could do it on others our discussion would progress much more smoothly and your misunderstanding of my position decrease.

I do not accept, and have never accepted, the implications you have drawn from that point and that Collins nowhere makes.

This is the context for the above post

I wrote,

Hopefully we can agree that Collins sees Daniel stating that those killed during the Maccabean rebellion will end up resurrected in heaven with the angels

And you can’t even agree with something Collins clearly sees.

… Of course Collins acknowledges what the text is saying -- that those killed in the Maccabean rebellion will be resurrected.

Please can you explain where we disagree on this very small point?
Your failure to even accept such a small point of agreement is the major contribution to your vehement posting that I have misunderstood Collins.

I do not think that Collins actually says this. Can you quote a passage where he does?

No, I could not be bothered. You have the book and I told you which paragraphs to read. Just read them for yourself. I will quote them though in another venue for others who are not going to turn around and say, hey, but that could mean he leaves open other possibilities for things he does not actually say anywhere.....

This is another example of your failure to engage.

[neilgodfrey]

This is what I read,

My name is Neil Godfrey, 48 years, divorced, live with my 2 school-aged sons, presently work as a librarian at an academic library in Toowoomba (Queensland, Australia), and was a baptized member of the WCG for 22 years. Before that I grew up in a Methodist family. My evolution from ‘son of God’ to born-again atheist was both gradual and traumatic, but has left me feeling a far more ‘spiritually’ mature, loving, compassionate, open and relaxed man.

If this is not about you then I apologise. It reads like the WCG was your main experience. There was no mention of how many years after leaving the WCG you were a Christian for. There is no mention of at what age you joined the WCG. However for you to have been in “mainstream Christianity” for more than 22 years you are including when you were under 4 years old.

Omg, now tell me where you read that? Did you notice what site it was on and who its primary audience was? It was for fellow ex-WCGers. Context, sir, context. I wrote there what was directly relevant for my peers who had been through the same experiences. I was not giving the world a summary of my life. I have also written about my bio on my blog and there you will see details that I did not include in the Ironwolf page because they were not relevant.

You will also appreciate, as I have pointed out elsewhere, that my final years in the WCG were token membership. I have explained the reason I continued as a member despite my personal beliefs for those years.

I should apologize for not writing in more details for your benefit at the time. But if you want to know about my experiences and bio then you can do better than rely solely upon a spiel I did at the request of a fellow ex-WCG'er for others who had either recently left or were contemplating doing so, and that was intended to give encouragement to help them make that final decision.

And yes, I grew up in a liberal methodist church and after I ceased to believe in the WCG teachings I did then associate with mainstream churches. I did not switch from WCG to atheist but went through a transition period.

If you knew the first thing about cult and fundamentalist mentalities and the experiences of those who leave such groups (discussed often on my blog and by many others in published and online articles) you would know that relatively few maintain hangups years later, but emerge all the healthier as a result.

(By the way, even the whole WCG itself went on to become a mainstream church in all of its teachings afterwards, and Ruth Tucker wrote glowingly of this change.)

Now tell me, what does any of this have to do with my complaint that you fail to read carefully and impute meanings and thoughts into texts that are not there? This conversation is boring... I'll leave you to your own misreadings ....

(As for misunderstandings -- you will notice that I was the one who told Ben I was having difficulty understanding him. The problem lies with those who do not even know they do not understand what they are reading in works by Collins.)

[Michael BG]

This is what I read,

My name is Neil Godfrey, 48 years, divorced, live with my 2 school-aged sons, presently work as a librarian at an academic library in Toowoomba (Queensland, Australia), and was a baptized member of the WCG for 22 years. Before that I grew up in a Methodist family. My evolution from ‘son of God’ to born-again atheist was both gradual and traumatic, but has left me feeling a far more ‘spiritually’ mature, loving, compassionate, open and relaxed man.

If this is not about you then I apologise. It reads like the WCG was your main experience. There was no mention of how many years after leaving the WCG you were a Christian for. There is no mention of at what age you joined the WCG. However for you to have been in “mainstream Christianity” for more than 22 years you are including when you were under 4 years old.

Omg, now tell me where you read that? Did you notice what site it was on and who its primary audience was? It was for fellow ex-WCGers. Context, sir, context. I wrote there what was directly relevant for my peers who had been through the same experiences. I was not giving the world a summary of my life. I have also written about my bio on my blog and there you will see details that I did not include in the Ironwolf page because they were not relevant.

You will also appreciate, as I have pointed out elsewhere, that my final years in the WCG were token membership. I have explained the reason I continued as a member despite my personal beliefs for those years.

I should apologize for not writing in more details for your benefit at the time. But if you want to know about my experiences and bio then you can do better than rely solely upon a spiel I did at the request of a fellow ex-WCG'er for others who had either recently left or were contemplating doing so, and that was intended to give encouragement to help them make that final decision.

And yes, I grew up in a liberal methodist church and after I ceased to believe in the WCG teachings I did then associate with mainstream churches. I did not switch from WCG to atheist but went through a transition period.

If you knew the first thing about cult and fundamentalist mentalities and the experiences of those who leave such groups (discussed often on my blog and by many others in published and online articles) you would know that relatively few maintain hangups years later, but emerge all the healthier as a result.

(By the way, even the whole WCG itself went on to become a mainstream church in all of its teachings afterwards, and Ruth Tucker wrote glowingly of this change.)

Now tell me, what does any of this have to do with my complaint that you fail to read carefully and impute meanings and thoughts into texts that are not there? This conversation is boring... I'll leave you to your own misreadings ....

(As for misunderstandings -- you will notice that I was the one who told Ben I was having difficulty understanding him. The problem lies with those who do not even know they do not understand what they are reading in works by Collins.)

I am sure that it is entirely my own fault that I have a false idea of your experiences in Christianity as I should have known that you don’t always state the complete story when you inform others of your experiences. It is entirely my own fault that when I looked at the Vridar website I only found a post talking about your professional career and I didn’t put much more effort in to trying to find your posts where you speak more honestly about your Christian experiences.

I have not read anything else about your experiences except the Ironwolf page (I do wonder why you ask where I read the information when you write later where it is). So I have no idea why you remained a member of the WCG as a token member (not that I understand what that means to you either). You are correct I know almost nothing about being a member of a cult, but I while at university I did have friends who were fundamentalists and I have engaged in debate with fundamentalist ministers (maybe they were priests).

I expect you don’t remember what I actually wrote – “Maybe I should make allowances for you considering your experiences.” I am more than happy not to. It is quite possible that if we had a rational and considered discussion of what Collins wrote we might agree on lots with only a small area of disagreement.

I know you think I had strongly held views of apocalyptic literature before we started our discussion, but I don’t think they were strongly held, or that they could be strongly defended. Now I have looked into the situation I am much more confident in arguing my position (please note my position not the position of Collins).