Horsley attacks consensus on Jewish apocalyptic literature

[neilgodfrey]

Who was the historian who said something memorable (I forget the details) about the central importance of first looking at the historian behind the book?

It would likely have been a postmodernist historian with a "deconstructionist" bent, as they think that historical events are constantly reinterpreted over subsequent time, since the spirit of the age (episteme) with which the historical evidence is interpreted is also a moving target. So, to get the most out of a historian's contributions requires you learn about the times s/he lived in, and not expect them to give you a spot-on historical explanation as if you were right there to experience it. We may not be thinking of the same person, but Hayden V. White comes to my mind.

Nope. I've found it. It was E.H. Carr, in What Is History? . . . .

Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. This is, after all, not very abstruse. It is what is already done by the intelligent undergraduate who, when recommended to read a work by that great scholar Jones of St Jude's, goes round to a friend at St Jude's to ask what sort of chap Jones is, and what bees he has in his bonnet. When you read a work of history, always listen out for the buzzing. If you can detect none, either you are tone deaf or your historian is a dull dog.

[neilgodfrey]

It seems that Collins sees the one like the son of man as the angel Michael.

He does.

On the same page and previous one (128-129) he also explains more fully:

As we have noted, there is no doubt that Daniel 7 is describing the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes. The exaltation of the one like a son of man represents the triumph of the Jews. What is at issue in the scholarly debate over the one like a son of man is the manner in which that triumph is conceived and symbollized. . . .

The supernatural backdrop of the struggle is made fully explicit in Daniel 10-12. There we are told that behind the human conflicts of the Hellenistic age there is an ongoing battle in heaven between Michael . . . and the angelic "princes" of Persia and Greece. At the end of the conflict Michael will "arise" in victory. In view of the parallelism between Daniel 7 and 10-12 it is apparent that the conflict is not envisaged in purely human terms. It is unlikely that the one like a son of man is merely a corporate symbol for the Jews. Rather, we should expect him to represent their angelic or supernatural counterpart.

That is, Collins sees two conflicts taking place, one on earth and the other behind the human eye in the spirit realm. The spirit struggle is mirrored in the visible human one and it decides the outcome of the human struggle.

Collins is not saying that the spiritual figure of the son of man is going to visibly rule this earth. He is saying that the spiritual struggle is a secret knowledge revealed to him to show him who is really in control of what is happening on earth in the human realm.

There are opposing arguments. Some question Collins' interpretation and insist that the son of man figure in Daniel 7 is entirely figurative as are the four beasts preceding him. But they do not say that Daniel is predicting the arrival of a literal son of man to rule on earth -- even though in Collins' view Daniel saw that son of man as a literal angelic figure. For Collins, he remains hidden except to Daniel in vision.

[Michael BG]

Clearly I am much less interested in the scribal understanding of apocalyptic imagery and more interested in how this imagery can and was interpreted in the first century CE.

How is the 'scribal understanding of apocalyptic imagery' different to 'how this imagery.. was interpreted in the first century CE'?

Exactly. There is no conflict. One question relates to how the writers themselves understood the words they wrote; the other question relates to a time period. There is no conflict. Scribes functioned in a wide range of time periods.

If we are asking how words were understood then we need to specify the people we are asking about. Are we talking about those who were trained to read and write that sort of literature? Or are we talking about others? If others, who, exactly?

The question brings us into the realm of the nature of literary culture, what the scribal schools were like, what conventions they used, whether or not they followed conventions over extended periods of time....

I think we are working with different assumptions.

Horsley assumes that Jesus actually said the sayings he discusses and I haven’t attempted to counter this position.

Therefore when discussing the understanding of say Daniel, I think both Horsley and myself are looking at the understanding of Jesus and those he is talking to and not a school of scribes. It seems possible that you have misunderstood the position of Horsley and projected on to him the position of other scholars regarding the historicity of the sayings Horsley discusses and their conclusion that they were written by a school of scribes rather than being said by a historical Jesus (as Horsley believes).

In these two verses we have the angles receiving “the kingdom” which will last “for ever and ever”. This is clearly a heavenly kingdom at the end of time. Daniel’s vision is of the heavenly plane.

Michael -- Imagine yourself as Daniel writing at the time of the Maccabean revolt. He sees or foresees the Maccabees winning their independence and writes happily that this is to be the new order and it will be "forever and ever" -- indefinitely, the new order of things, no more subjection to Antiochus. "For ever and ever" has taken on a meaning for us today that goes well beyond the original words and meaning that were used in the biblical literature. Aaron's and David's status and other things relating to tabernacle rituals were also to be forever but they did come to an end. The words "forever and ever" do not mean an absolute ironclad infinity spoken by the mouth of God and therefore can never fail.

You set Collins' interpretations against Horsley's but did not explain why you prefer Collins' over Horsley's interpretation. Horsley is certainly not the only one to interpret Daniel 7 as speaking of the successful rebellion of the Maccabees. You also speak of restoring the Kingdom of David in the context of Daniel 7 but there is no mention of David there.

You have not explained why you believe Collins' literal interpretation was what the author originally had in mind as opposed to Horsley's metaphorical interpretation. You have taken the literal meaning and said that it clearly means what it says literally but have not addressed the opposing argument. You have simply dismissed Horsley's interpretation of Daniel 7 because it is not the same as that of Collins.

Firstly thank you for engaging with what I have written.

Secondly I accept that Daniel was writing at the time of the Maccabean rebellion.

I original wrote this:

Daniel 7:18, 22

[18] But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever.'
[22] until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom.

In these two verses we have the angles receiving “the kingdom” which will last “for ever and ever”. This is clearly a heavenly kingdom at the end of time. Daniel’s vision is of the heavenly plane.

Verse 18 states that the angels receive the kingdom and possess it for ever and verse 22 states it is the judgment of God given in favour of these angels whereby the angels receive the kingdom. It is not possible for me to understand these verses as giving an earthly perishable kingdom to angels. And a judgment implies a finality. I don’t understand how God could make the same judgment twice.

Thirdly I thought it was clear why I prefer Collins’s interpretation to Horsley, and this is because he provides the argument for his position, which I extensively quote, but I can’t quote Horsley’s argument because he doesn’t present one in what I have read. The argument of Collins that the son of man is an angelic or heavenly figure and that the Holy Ones or Saints of the Most High are angels I find compelling.

I do discuss Daniel 7:24-27 which I think Horsley should have mentioned in support of his position but doesn’t. I do accept that here on the earthly plane “the people of the saints of the Most High” can be seen as the “people of God”. When I use the phrase “a restoration of the Davidic kingdom” you shouldn’t read too much into it, I just means an earthly Jewish kingdom comprising the area thought to have been ruled by King David.

I think verse 27 goes further than your interpretation,

And the kingdom and the dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey them.'

This is not just “the Maccabees winning their independence”, it is their dominance over all the kingdoms of the earth and over all the people of the earth and it has no end (everlasting). It can only have no end if time has ended.

It seems logical to interpret “for ever” to mean for ever and to conclude that from Jewish history Jews would know that the only “for ever” that can exist is after God has stopped time. This is why the promises made to David about his kingdom lasting “for ever” are moved from the earthy plane to the heavenly at the end of time. How do you present the argument that says when someone writes “for ever” they don’t mean for ever, but understand that during the course of history it might not last forever?

[neilgodfrey]

Horsley assumes that Jesus actually said the sayings he discusses and I haven’t attempted to counter this position.

Therefore when discussing the understanding of say Daniel, I think both Horsley and myself are looking at the understanding of Jesus and those he is talking to and not a school of scribes. It seems possible that you have misunderstood the position of Horsley and projected on to him the position of other scholars regarding the historicity of the sayings Horsley discusses and their conclusion that they were written by a school of scribes rather than being said by a historical Jesus (as Horsley believes).

I'm aware of Horsley's views but we are discussing our own point of disagreements.

Your interpretation of the vision -- taking over the entire earth and ending history (as per our 21st century concepts of those terms) -- is not what Collins is saying. You misunderstand his position if you think he is saying the prophecy happens "twice". Your interpretation of what is meant by the fulfilment of Daniel 7 is not what Collins is saying at all. You do not seem to be reading him for understanding of his point of view but to find isolated sentences to use to support your own interpretation.

You are also making fundamenrtal errors of interpretation with your views of what the Jewish texts meant by "whole earth" and "forever". These points I think are normally addressed from the very start of any discussion where apologists or fundamentalist Christians who rely upon contemporary English meanings and their own doctrinal teachings need to learn the basics.

You turned to Collins book to counter what I was saying but you are only reading your own views into Collins.

[neilgodfrey]

I've begun reading Anathea Portier-Young's Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, and the introductory pages present a very interesting picture of why apocalyptic texts emerged as they did and the functions they served. They served to empower resistance to imperial domination. The dramatic imagery of heavenly figures at war in and from the heavens enabled subject peoples to reverse the world-view their imperial conquerors were attempting to impose. Instead of the earthly power of the Seleucid king it was really God who was in complete control of all events, and he was shown to be acting out his controls through various angels pulling the strings behind the scenes.

The imagery gave the oppressed people an alternative reality to grasp as a form of resistance against their earthly conquerors. The struggle of the Maccabees was, for example, the earthly manifestation of the heavenly events depicted in Daniel 7's son of man figure approaching the Ancient of Days to claim ultimate victory.

Incidentally, and given this thread's interest in pitting the views of Horsley against those of Collins, Portier-Young acknowledges considerable debt and appreciation for both Collins and Horsley. Collins writes the foreword highly commending the author's work.

The scribes responsible for this literature were the intellectual dissidents of the day, inciting popular resistance against their conquerors.

[Michael BG]

Horsley assumes that Jesus actually said the sayings he discusses and I haven’t attempted to counter this position.

Therefore when discussing the understanding of say Daniel, I think both Horsley and myself are looking at the understanding of Jesus and those he is talking to and not a school of scribes. It seems possible that you have misunderstood the position of Horsley and projected on to him the position of other scholars regarding the historicity of the sayings Horsley discusses and their conclusion that they were written by a school of scribes rather than being said by a historical Jesus (as Horsley believes).

I'm aware of Horsley's views but we are discussing our own point of disagreements.

No we are not. We tried that in the thread - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2452 and just ended up misunderstanding each other. We can go back to that thread and try again, but we would need to agree a definition of what we are discussing as I don’t think we were always discussing the same thing. But this thread is a discussion of Horsley’s views regarding the non-existence of any aspects of the “Apocalyptic Scenario” within Jewish thought and in the sayings of Jesus Horsley “discusses”.

Your interpretation of the vision -- taking over the entire earth and ending history (as per our 21st century concepts of those terms) -- is not what Collins is saying. You misunderstand his position if you think he is saying the prophecy happens "twice". Your interpretation of what is meant by the fulfilment of Daniel 7 is not what Collins is saying at all. You do not seem to be reading him for understanding of his point of view but to find isolated sentences to use to support your own interpretation.

You are also making fundamenrtal errors of interpretation with your views of what the Jewish texts meant by "whole earth" and "forever". These points I think are normally addressed from the very start of any discussion where apologists or fundamentalist Christians who rely upon contemporary English meanings and their own doctrinal teachings need to learn the basics.

You turned to Collins book to counter what I was saying but you are only reading your own views into Collins.

From your website you state you have an Australian BA, plus Australian PG Educational Studies and PG Diploma, I assume that while studying for your BA you would have been familiar with writing essays to express your views on topics (is your BA in history?) and backing them up with quotations from scholars, which is what I think I am doing. I am not directly comparing Horsley with Collins as an end in itself. This would in any case be impossible because of the poor methodology of Horsley in the sections of his book I have read.

You assert that I have interpreted Collins incorrectly but provide no evidence!

John Collins writes,

When we turn to the second half of the book of Daniel (chaps. 7-12) … The Gentile kingdoms were no longer seen as potential servants of God. Instead they were rebellious monsters that could only be destroyed. The aspiration of the faithful Jews was no longer to rise to high position in the Gentile court but to shine like the host of heaven in the afterlife.”

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 122-23

It seems that Collins here is stating that in Daniel 7-12 the Gentile kingdoms have to be destroyed, which is what I wrote as

it is their dominance over all the kingdoms of the earth and over all the people of the earth

He also seems to be saying Daniel 7-12 refers to the afterlife.
I have interpreted Daniel to mean an unending kingdom as I am not sure Daniel does talk of an afterlife implying a death first.

Collins writes

we must assume that the immediate circles of apocalyptic writers were aware of the fiction of pseudonymity, but although this literature was produced by scribes of considerable learning, it was addressed to the masses at large. Its general effectiveness was undoubtedly enhanced by the willingness of common people to accept the ancient authorship of newly promulgated books.

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 138

Collins concludes,

… the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the light of that crisis, the tradents of the Daniel stories sought a new genre that could symbolize more fully the forces behind events – which seemed beyond human control – and could also articulate a hope that transcended what is possible in this life.

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 142

Collins must be talking about something outside the earthly experience as I have argued.

I am saying that your position not Collins’ implies that God makes his judgment twice.

I've begun reading Anathea Portier-Young's Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, and the introductory pages present a very interesting picture of why apocalyptic texts emerged as they did and the functions they served. They served to empower resistance to imperial domination. The dramatic imagery of heavenly figures at war in and from the heavens enabled subject peoples to reverse the world-view their imperial conquerors were attempting to impose. Instead of the earthly power of the Seleucid king it was really God who was in complete control of all events, and he was shown to be acting out his controls through various angels pulling the strings behind the scenes.

The imagery gave the oppressed people an alternative reality to grasp as a form of resistance against their earthly conquerors. The struggle of the Maccabees was, for example, the earthly manifestation of the heavenly events depicted in Daniel 7's son of man figure approaching the Ancient of Days to claim ultimate victory.

…. Collins writes the foreword highly commending the author's work.

I am not sure that Anathea Portier-Young's view is very far from John Collin’s position, But from the little of the book I could read she seems to disagree with Richard Horsley about something.

[neilgodfrey]

Collins concludes,

… the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the light of that crisis, the tradents of the Daniel stories sought a new genre that could symbolize more fully the forces behind events – which seemed beyond human control – and could also articulate a hope that transcended what is possible in this life.

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 142

Collins must be talking about something outside the earthly experience as I have argued.

I am saying that your position not Collins’ implies that God makes his judgment twice.

Read the preceding two paragraphs and the preceding sentences of the paragraph from which you quote. The transcendent hope he speaks about is the resurrection. The vision of the son of man and heavenly throne is hidden from the world and Daniel is chosen to explain to his people that the events he saw are what is happening "behind events" on earth. The preceding sections that I suggest you read explain that these hidden events are revealed to give hope and encouragement to the Jewish rebels in their deadly struggle. In fact, even the section you quote says that -- it says the vision Daniel sees is of events that take place out of sight from this people in this world. They give hope to the earthly warriors. The people on earth will only ever see their own struggle but be assured by Daniel's words that they have a greater power on their side that guarantees them victory.

I might be mistaken but I don't think Collins anywhere claims that the hidden heavenly operations are going to burst out visibly to all on earth and literally take over and replace the human kingdoms on earth. Everything Collins seems to say (though I admit I have not read all of this book or several others of his) is that the vision of hidden things is all meant to give encouragement to the human actors on earth. The divine powers will ensure the Seleucid empire will be driven out of Judea and become powerless just as happened to the Babylonians, the Medes and the Persians before it.

[andrewcriddle]

Collins concludes,

… the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the light of that crisis, the tradents of the Daniel stories sought a new genre that could symbolize more fully the forces behind events – which seemed beyond human control – and could also articulate a hope that transcended what is possible in this life.

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 142

Collins must be talking about something outside the earthly experience as I have argued.

I am saying that your position not Collins’ implies that God makes his judgment twice.

Read the preceding two paragraphs and the preceding sentences of the paragraph from which you quote. The transcendent hope he speaks about is the resurrection. The vision of the son of man and heavenly throne is hidden from the world and Daniel is chosen to explain to his people that the events he saw are what is happening "behind events" on earth. The preceding sections that I suggest you read explain that these hidden events are revealed to give hope and encouragement to the Jewish rebels in their deadly struggle. In fact, even the section you quote says that -- it says the vision Daniel sees is of events that take place out of sight from this people in this world. They give hope to the earthly warriors. The people on earth will only ever see their own struggle but be assured by Daniel's words that they have a greater power on their side that guarantees them victory.

I might be mistaken but I don't think Collins anywhere claims that the hidden heavenly operations are going to burst out visibly to all on earth and literally take over and replace the human kingdoms on earth. Everything Collins seems to say (though I admit I have not read all of this book or several others of his) is that the vision of hidden things is all meant to give encouragement to the human actors on earth. The divine powers will ensure the Seleucid empire will be driven out of Judea and become powerless just as happened to the Babylonians, the Medes and the Persians before it.

The obvious meaning of Daniel 12 is that the author hoped for a visible physical resurrection upon this earth.

This need not imply the end of the world but it does imply very drastic changes to how the world operates.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

This need not imply the end of the world but it does imply very drastic changes to how the world operates.

Andrew Criddle

What does Collins say about this?

[Michael BG]

Collins concludes,

… the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the light of that crisis, the tradents of the Daniel stories sought a new genre that could symbolize more fully the forces behind events – which seemed beyond human control – and could also articulate a hope that transcended what is possible in this life.

The Apocalyptic Imagination p 142

Collins must be talking about something outside the earthly experience as I have argued.

I am saying that your position not Collins’ implies that God makes his judgment twice.

Read the preceding two paragraphs and the preceding sentences of the paragraph from which you quote. The transcendent hope he speaks about is the resurrection. The vision of the son of man and heavenly throne is hidden from the world and Daniel is chosen to explain to his people that the events he saw are what is happening "behind events" on earth. The preceding sections that I suggest you read explain that these hidden events are revealed to give hope and encouragement to the Jewish rebels in their deadly struggle. In fact, even the section you quote says that -- it says the vision Daniel sees is of events that take place out of sight from this people in this world. They give hope to the earthly warriors. The people on earth will only ever see their own struggle but be assured by Daniel's words that they have a greater power on their side that guarantees them victory.

I might be mistaken but I don't think Collins anywhere claims that the hidden heavenly operations are going to burst out visibly to all on earth and literally take over and replace the human kingdoms on earth. Everything Collins seems to say (though I admit I have not read all of this book or several others of his) is that the vision of hidden things is all meant to give encouragement to the human actors on earth. The divine powers will ensure the Seleucid empire will be driven out of Judea and become powerless just as happened to the Babylonians, the Medes and the Persians before it.

Yesterday I purchased this book, but it might take two weeks to get to me.

Again you fail to quote Collins.

This need not imply the end of the world but it does imply very drastic changes to how the world operates.

Andrew Criddle

What does Collins say about this?

Collins talks about the resurrection a few pages back and this includes the resurrection of the dead (including a time of trouble) and the resurrected will have everlasting life. (Dan 12:1-3). Collins states that those resurrected will “mingle with the angels.” Collins also writes, “the attempts in Daniel to specify the number of days until the end (bold added) and “the destiny of the wise lies beyond this life in a resurrection and pertains to the world of angels.” This is the previous paragraph to my quotation starting “… the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the light of that crisis”.

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 even if we can’t agree that in Dan 12:1-3 the delivered also end up in heaven. Collins does not seem to adequately deal with what the future will be like, but he assumes that the continuation of life on earth is implied. While I believe that we should assume that life on earth will be changed after the victory especially because of the reference to “the end” and “the end of days” (לקץ הימין 12:13).