quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To get the ball rolling ... my 'take' would include the following observations:

- 'Veiled' or apocalyptic literature primarily addresses issues of its own day and time and was not necessarily meant to be predictive in the sense that fundamentalists understand it to be.

- It can contain pseudographia and attibutions which fundamentalists would reject.

- It deals in symbols and allegories so, no, there aren't going to be any literal creatures with the heads of men and the tails of scorpions (Rev:9:10)

http://biblehub.com/revelation/9-10.htm

So the way we approach such literature must take those elements into account.

Daniel and Revelations are the paradigm examples in the canonical scriptures (seen from a Protestant perspective) with other examples in the deutero-canonical and apocryphal corpus.

Any interpretation that seeks to build a detailed eschatological schema on such literature is wrong-headed at best and harmful at worst.

Why? Because it misses the point and the original intention of such writings and acts as a distraction.

That's my take ...

Now your turns ...

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel said:
- 'Veiled' or apocalyptic literature primarily addresses issues of its own day and time

---

quote:

---

The alternative, suggested by Don Isaac Abarbanel, is that the books of "prophets" were those who were given prophecy to convey to the people at that moment, for some purpose. Daniel was an "armchair prophet" (to quote Leiman); while he had visions, he was never ordered to convey them. So he may have been a "seer", but not a "speaker."
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/596/why-daniel-is-not-among-the-prophets

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting. So how does that work out in terms of Jewish eschatology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam
My personal take is to listen to the persecuted, both Jews and Christians, and see the comfort they get from the Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
This is surely a gross oversimplification, but perhaps at the most basic, the Prophets are about calling Israel—and particularly the powerful in Israel—to remember who they are as a covenant people and to be faithful, righteous and just.

---

quote:

---

Apocalyptic writings, on the other hand, encourage a powerless and persecuted Israel, or later the early Church, with hope of God's ultimate defeat of evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Possibly, although some traditions don't make the same distinction between canonical and deutero-canonical or apocryphal as Protestantism does ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Possibly, although some traditions don't make the same distinction between canonical and deutero-canonical or apocryphal as Protestantism does ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It's far more enlightening to compare and contrast the Revelation of John to Daniel...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I am doing is firing a warming shot across the bows of those who take it as some kind of blue-print for the end of the world ... 'The Final Count down ...'

By highlighting the difference between a text like The Apocalypse of John (as it's sometimes called) and Proverbs, say or Romans or James, I'm drawing attention to facets that uber-literalists might overlook.

That's the point of categorising it differently

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You go, "Oh. What other texts are apocalyptic? Let's compare and contrast this one with those." It's far more enlightening to compare and contrast the Revelation of John to Daniel, than to Watership Down. (Although that would certainly not be entirely without use.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see what you are getting at but are Shakespeare's sonnets diminished by categorising them as such?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
I was taught that the whole of Daniel was apocalyptic, the presence of the angel in the fiery furnace as well as closing the lions' mouths points to that.

---

I think that would be to move the Apocalyptic slider too far to the left along the narrative spectrum. I agree that it is not uncommon to find a commentary that says something like, “Daniel (or Revelation, etc.) is an example of apocalyptic literature.” However when you get into the detail, you find that the commentator distinguishes between Daniel 1-6 as prophetic, and 7-12 as the apocalyptic section. If we were to define a segment of a larger text by singular instances, then logically we would have to say that the book of Jonah is apocalyptic because God sends a big fish to swallow Jonah, or that the whole of Exodus is apocalyptic because God sends an angel to speak to Moses out of a burning bush.

On the point about educating people (made above in more than one post), I am still not convinced that the approach suggested is worthwhile. A more economical way would be to say, “Here is a good way to read Revelation…” rather than “This is Apocalyptic and here is a good way to read it…”
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Oh, and another thing! (Sorry about this)

Another one of the issues associated with the attraction to the genre is that readers (perhaps more at a popular level) tend to focus on the passages containing enhanced symbolism, to the detriment of the non-apocalyptic passages. Daniel 7-12 gets the focus in preference to chapters 1-6. Revelation 4 onwards to the disadvantage of chapters 1-3.

This runs counter to the author’s own intended meaning. The author of Revelation included the seven letters to the Christian communities under the rubric of ‘prophecy’ (1:3) and these flow right into the ‘seeing’ (4:1 = “After these, I saw…”). I would argue that the seven letters constrain and direct the interpretation of the following symbolism. They do this because the author inherits the covenant worldview of his ancestors, expressed in places like Deut. 28, with the principle: “If your behaviour is ‘x’, then the outcome will be ‘y’.” This is what we find propping up the teachings in the seven letters, e.g., “To the one who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority…” (to Thyatira), or “Repent, therefore, or I will soon come to you and fight against you…” (to Pergamum). That principle underlies and stitches together what follows, despite the symbolism.

This is why I think it important to treat narrative (which includes dialogue) as the fundamental matrix within which interpretation needs to take place. Literary analysis, bolstered by contextual research (archaeology, sociology, linguistics), needs to be the approach. The ultimate starting point is the question, “Why is that there?” as a way into determining the authorial intention. Asking what the type / category / genre is doesn’t really get us very far at all; in fact it only opens us up to the issue I outlined above and into a world that is difficult to resolve.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
None of which is incompatible with what I've been trying to say.

'Here's a good way to read Revelation ... Apocalyptically ...'
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
But why add that term "Apocalyptically"? What is gained by referring to a genre label, given the risks and issues that come with it?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Are the 'risks and issues' you mention any greater than they would be by not using the term?



At the very least, using a term like 'apocalyptic' at least conveys to the reader that this is something that should be handled differently to a 'straightforward' narrative (if there is indeed such a thing?).

That said, there's no accounting for folk ...

I well remember during the interval at a performance of King Lear in Stratford overhearing some old ladies in the row behind me discussing the putting out of Gloster's eyes.

'As if you'd be able to say all that when they were gouging your eyes out,' said one.
'Oh, I don't know,' said her companion. 'They were a lot tougher in those days ...'


 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Well you can’t beat a good hung-drawn-and-quartering, is what I say; and when it comes to beasts from the Abyss, God does a nice line!

Anyway, shovelling the dead bodies off the path, I have another question: In what sense, if any, could this type of literature be said to be predictive?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My point, of course was that the old ladies behind me should have been alert to the genre.

Gloster's response is uttered in prose - although it's close to iambic pentameter - and he reverts to iambics a few lines later on.

It's a play not 'reported speech.'

Likewise with your beasts from the Abyss.

It's apocalyptic literature we are dealing with.

Apocalyptic literature features beasts from the Abyss and similar phenomena.

It's the genre that gives us the clue how to understand these things.

That's.my.point.

Like the old ladies in Stratford you appear to have missed it.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It's like that argument parents make about not wanting to "label" their slightly off-kilter child. People are going to label your kid whether or not you like it. You might as well get an accurate label that will help in providing services, and readjusting expectations, to help him or her thrive.

Just so, one little voice saying, "Let's not label works as to genre! It will lead to stereotyping!" isn't going to stop people from labeling works as to genre. Categorizing is what we humans do. Anyway you're taking a claymore to something that prefers a scalpel. Don't prohibit labeling, teach people how property to read apocalyptic literature. THAT is the real issue. Not the existence or application of the label.

It's like arguing about how best to fix your car's alignment when the real issue is the crappy roads. Fix the roads and everything else fixes itself.

---

I've missed you mousethief. It's good to be back.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
How do you know that the two old ladies were not in fact having a private joke? Why did you jump to the conclusion that they had misunderstood the genre? A colleague of mine in Northern Ireland during the troubles there told me he had overhead two ladies talking about an army helicopter that had been spotting overhead. “Do you know,” Said one to the other,” That helicopter has been stationary up there for a long time.” “Ah, well;” Said the other, “Perhaps it’s run out of petrol.”

Now some might assume they had a lack of knowledge about the function of helicopters and the role of fuel in maintaining that function, but a more likely interpretation is that they were having fun. I know of some who, having heard the tale, assumed the former, but others understood it to be humour. Genre was irrelevant there. One had to have an understanding of the context and nature of the situation and people involved.

You don’t interpret a play by calling it such. A ‘play’ is just a category – a rather broad one. The mistake is not in categorising, it is in interpreting. You do not need the category to define the interpretation. The latter comes – as I said earlier – by applying literary analysis with the contextual limbs in support. Giving it a label is perhaps at best a starting point (we humans do like to categorise), but if taken on the journey too far can get in the way of interpretation. That was my point. Too often in Christian Theology and Biblical Studies (more so at the popular level, I suspect) the genre drives the interpretation and we end up with the issues to which I referred.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Context, my friend.

I'd have understood the two Ulster ladies as sharing a private joke.

I'm a nosey bugger and ear-wig on people a lot. So I could tell that the two old ladies in Stratford weren't sharing a joke at all. They were serious.

I was there. You weren't. So don't presume to tell me what I did or didn't understand.

Revelation is 'apocalyptic' literature. Get the hell over it.
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
Rather than a specific kind of poem like a sonnet, perhaps the better analogy is a genre of fiction, such as science fiction. Labeling a piece of fiction as “science fiction” tells us that certain conventions are at play in the piece, that a certain framework can be assumed. It doesn’t relieve anyone of the need that analyze the piece as a work on its own, nor does it limit what an author does within those conventions. Likewise with apocalyptic literature.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As so often, Nick says what I wanted to say a lot better than I have or could.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Context, my friend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...perhaps the better analogy is a genre of fiction, such as science fiction. Labeling a piece of fiction as “science fiction” tells us that certain conventions are at play in the piece, that a certain framework can be assumed. It doesn’t relieve anyone of the need that analyze the piece as a work on its own, nor does it limit what an author does within those conventions. Likewise with apocalyptic literature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
The issue, though, is with moving from there to the assumption that because a group of texts share common characteristics that they then must be interpreted in the same way each and every time.

---

quote:

---

The driver should be authorial intention, but I think where this thread has its motivation is in the issue of interpretation on the basis of genre, rather than authorial intention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But has anyone actually argued that? Seems like a straw man to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But has anyone actually argued that? Seems like a straw man to me.

---

I don't think anyone on this thread has arguded for it, Nick (unless I missed something), but it gets frequent airing from popular pultpits (I hear the move being made often, for example, on God TV!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...rather it sounds like a misuse of the implications of belonging to a genre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
But who is choosing the genre? Some authors embrace genre; others acquire genre; some have genre pinned on to them...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
On the point about educating people (made above in more than one post), I am still not convinced that the approach suggested is worthwhile.

---

quote:

---

A more economical way would be to say, “Here is a good way to read Revelation…” rather than “This is Apocalyptic and here is a good way to read it…”

---

quote:

---

This is why I think it important to treat narrative (which includes dialogue) as the fundamental matrix within which interpretation needs to take place.

---

quote:

---

In what sense, if any, could this type of literature be said to be predictive?

---

quote:

---

The issue, though, is with moving from there to the assumption that because a group of texts share common characteristics that they then must be interpreted in the same way each and every time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
But who is choosing the genre? Some authors embrace genre; others acquire genre; some have genre pinned on to them...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...rather it sounds like a misuse of the implications of belonging to a genre.

---

And that, folks, is a nice summary of what I have been trying to say thus far!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I've missed you mousethief. It's good to be back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Get on with the interpretation without taking genre into account?

That wouldn't get you very far on a 'normal' literary study course, so I can't see why it shouldn't apply equally to theology or biblical studies.

I'll bow to your wider reading when it comes to the esteemed N T Wright's concerns, but I really don't see any of us mere mortal non-academic theologian posters closing things down by applying the term 'apocalyptic' to Revelation.

Rather, I see us avoiding the kind of hermeneutical traps that posters like Jamat have become ensnared by - Dispensationalism and all that malarkey and shite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, I get that but as someone with literary rather than theological qualifications it goes against the grain.

I get that the genre pool (see what I did there?) is small but I'm not citing it as THE be all and end all in biblical interpretation.

I'm simply suggesting that it doesn't even seem to come into the equation in certain traditions.

I'm suggesting that those traditions might talk less bollocks if they actually took genre into account in some way or other at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Oh come on mousethief! Wake up and smell the coffee!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
It’s because people get so preoccupied with the label that it is not worth the time and effort explaining the label ‘apocalyptic’ AND then moving on to the content. Just get on with the content.

---

quote:

---

Apocalyptic however, approached as a genre, has set up a firewall of expectations before you can get down to the literary analyses.

---

quote:

---

I do not have to go far to find it generating ink in the scholarly world either. N. T. Wright, for one, has had to expend some considerable resource in his works over the past few years in combatting – as he would argue – misguided approaches to apocalyptic literature in academia. Happy to provide references at length if you wish. By all means, if people want to learn about genre criticism then leap on the hog and let them know. But if they want to know what a book like Revelation means, why run the risks associated with genre criticism? Why not just get on with the interpretation?

---

quote:

---

You have assumed that apocalyptic literature is not predictive. Why?

---

quote:

---

Letters (as a genre) do not generate the same level of contortion as Apocalyptic. But you can apply useful literary tools, such as semantic structure analyses, to them without being distracted by genre criticism (when was the last time you came across the type of argument that runs “This is an example of Letter, therefore it must refer to…”)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to think that apocalyptic literature isn't predictive in the way fundamentalists understand such things.

If that helps ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
I seem to recall that the meaning or punchline of a sonnet is the final couplet: a feature of the genre. There is a link between form and interpretation, is there not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I can think of a number of shipmates who employ this rhetoric. I thought it above you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Once you write something and present it to the world, it's out of your hands. You have no more say about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Keep 'em ignorant, eh? Easy to control?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
In which case you haven't said anything, or at least anything that nobody else here has said

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You're borrowing trouble that doesn't exist.

---

quote:

---

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John, who then testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God and the testimony about Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near!

---

quote:

---

From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from “he who is,” and who was, and who is still to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ—the faithful witness, the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood and has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving his God and Father—to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen.
(Look! He is returning with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him,
and all the tribes on the earth will mourn because of him.
This will certainly come to pass! Amen.)

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God—the one who is, and who was, and who is still to come—the All-Powerful!

I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day when I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, saying: “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches—to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

---

Clearly references there back into the Jewish Scriptures upen which much of Revelation as a book depends. But the mix of style and rhetoric is also clear. Even in just these first 10 verses I fail to see how relevant a prolonged discussion of the issues around an apocalyptic genre is going to be for interpreting the text. One need only get on with reading it and applying literary analysis with contextual support. That is the main driver for an interpretive output. Genre here would impose articial boundaries and risk bracketting out parts of the text that the author put together quite smoothly and without boundary.


* Wright, N.T., Paul, Fresh Perspectives. London: SPCK, 2005, p.41
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I 'get' what you are saying, Nigel M and have a lot of sympathy with your approach.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that there is some kind of clear cut transition from 'non-apocalyptic' to 'apocalyptic' genres (for want of better terms) as you used to have in 'flash-backs' in films - where the screen would go all wobbly and you'd have twiddly music to show that some kind of time-transition was taking place.

All I am suggesting is that for the man on the Clapham Omnibus, so to speak, introducing the idea of an apocalyptic genre - however slippery that term might be, as N T Wright observes, does, at the very least, put us on our guard against the kind of elaborate eschatological speculations found in some traditions.

That's all.

As for the predictive element, yes there are hints of that in Revelation but it's clearly addressing contemporary concerns - 'what must soon take place' - rather than a case of, 'Look folks, this is going to be nothing to do with you but it's there so that people can get the right end of the stick from the 1830s onwards and be fair warned about the end of the world ...'



I may be over-stating my case but you're as aware - if not more aware - of the sort of bollocks there is out there on eschatological websites and God TV and all that malarkey.

Yes, let's got on and interpret what it says - but in the context of the genre in which it was written.

Both/and ...
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Fair enough, I’d say, if it genuinely assists with interpretation within the particular context in which you find yourself.

Thinking a bit further about the predictive sense, I wonder if it is helpful to distinguish between 3 types:

[1] The short-term prediction: the communication from the author to his/her audience relates to a current or near anticipated issue. That’s the scenario you set out in the OP. I would guess that there is no one on the Ship (now there’s a hostage to fortune) who would object to a text like Revelation being at least that. Perhaps this comes closest to what has been called the preterist position.

[2] A ‘weak’ longer-term prediction: the communication from the author to his/her audience builds on the expectations of God’s people expressed in the Jewish Scriptures (and beyond) where promises can take several generations before fulfilment. One example would be Abram who had a promise of land, but for a later generation to possess. Then there are the more widespread examples of how persistent wrong behaviour under a covenant would result in exile; the people exhibiting the wrong behaviour could be several generations before the actual exile, but it was reasonable for a prophet to say that the exile would come one day. I think we could probably put into this category Jesus’ prediction of the end of the Jerusalem temple. If a ‘weak’ option is held here, prediction would be reasonable because Jesus could be said to be building on the known expectations of his era that God would let (or even organise) destruction as a sanction against persistent wrong behaviour.

As an aside here, I know Martin60 voiced a concern (another thread) about magic. In this ‘weak’ option, there is no magic; the prophet could be said to be acting – as a good little theologian – on what he understood about God and God’s expectations under a covenant worldview, and is quite reasonably saying: “You know it is the case that behaviour ‘x’ results in outcome ‘y’? Well, your behaviour is ‘x’ so you can be assured that ‘y’ will come down the line.”

[3] A ‘strong’ longer-term prediction: the communication from the author to his/her audience includes, whether consciously intended or not, an expectation that there is a more definitive fulfilment at a further remove in time, the detail around which is contained in the enhanced symbolism used by the author.

I assume it this third option that is the real focus of attention on these threads. An argument in support of three above could run:

By the time of the second temple era in Judaism (i.e., post Babylonian exile and up to the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD), theologians had acquired sufficient knowledge of how God worked to enable them to say that there would be a final, one-off, event in the future when God would return to rule his creation, reward his loyal people and sanction traitors. They could also build on their knowledge to begin answering the “Yes, but how?” question, although the preference was to use the rhetoric of enhanced symbolism to picture God’s action in the world.

In the biblical literature I think we have authors who are really bedded in the past for their predictive elements. I know there is literature that comes along a bit later in both Judaism and Christianity that seems to go on flights of fancy, cut loose from any past anchor.

As to the “When?” question, my personal preference is to take seriously Jesus’ statement in Matt. 24:26 (= Mk. 13:32):

quote:

---

“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

---

quote:

---

Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.”

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: All I am suggesting is that for the man on the Clapham Omnibus, so to speak, introducing the idea of an apocalyptic genre - however slippery that term might be, as N T Wright observes, does, at the very least, put us on our guard against the kind of elaborate eschatological speculations found in some traditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Gamaliel: All I am suggesting is that for the man on the Clapham Omnibus, so to speak, introducing the idea of an apocalyptic genre - however slippery that term might be, as N T Wright observes, does, at the very least, put us on our guard against the kind of elaborate eschatological speculations found in some traditions.

---

But really you are suggesting more than that. You are suggesting that the label 'apocalyptic' is a mental barrier against theology that you believe has led to futurist interpretations that you see as damaging.

The problem I have with that, (despite being one of those nutty people,) is that you do not discriminate almonds from cashews. Your thinking leads to a generalised dismissal of any scripture you choose to define like that eg Daniel ch 7-12..

" Oh well, lets forget what it means or what is intended by the author .. probably it's redacted anyway..too hard basket .. etc"

But if that is the case why is it in the Bible in the first place?

---

No, I am not suggesting that it's a 'mental barrier' against the kind of theology you espouse, rather that - alongside other considerations such as those eloquently outlined by both Nigel M and Thunderbunk - it can help us understand:

- The author's intentions.

- Why it's there.

- How we can go about interpreting it.

Namely, not how you do ...


You've yet to show me how I've failed to engage with the passages you cite. I've done that in the Daniel 9 thread.

Because my approach and conclusions don't conform to yours you dismiss them out of hand ... whilst accusing me of doing the same simply by the expedient of referring to them as 'apocalyptic literature.'

If you actually bothered to read my posts properly you'll see that I am actually engaging with the texts and not switching my brain off as you allege.

I wouldn't completely rule out a 'futurist' approach, but would add certain caveats. Nigel M has done a good job of outlining what those might be.

'Of that day and of that hour ...'

I really don't see the point of interpreting these things in a way off, futurist way. What possible value would that have had for the first hearers/readers?

Why are passages like Daniel chapters 7-12 in the Bible in the first place?

Same reason as why Malachi is in there, or Song of Songs, or Esther or Job, Jonah, Amos, Obadiah, Proverbs or Deuteronomy, or Hebrews or Jude or the Epistle of James ...

Because it was agreed to 'canonise' them at some point.

Are they profitable to read and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness?

Yes, most certainly.

That doesn't mean that they are there to provide us with some kind of tour-guide to the end of the world.

Why do you think the Eastern Churches were late and reluctant in accepting Revelation into the canon?

Precisely because they realised that people would read all sorts of whacky theories and forecasts into it, which is exactly what has happened at your end of the spectrum.

One way of guarding against that is to categorise such writings as 'apocalyptic' and therefore subject to other rules of interpretation to some extent than those that might be applied to other parts of scripture.

It ain't the only way, but it is one way of setting a marker. 'Watch out folks, don't try this at home ...'

I fully accept that there are dangers associated with applying that label - and Nigel M has made out a strong case for that.

Fine.

But surely treating these passages with caution and applying an 'apocalyptic' label to them, however slippery the gum on that adhesive label might be - is eminently preferable to opening the bottle, drinking it all down without reading the label and then wondering why you've got a tummy ache ...

Bottles of medicine and bottles of aspirin have safety labels on for a reason.

Some of the more 'spaced-out' sounding biblical passages can go to people's heads. People do daft things with them ... think Munster ... think millenarian sects taking themselves off to the hills ...

Of course, there are dangers with everything, but at least by labelling something 'apocalyptic' we are making some attempt to provide a warning.

If you choose to ignore such warnings and end up with your head in the clouds, then that's up to you.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Gamaliel: why are passages like Daniel chapters 7-12 in the Bible in the first place?

Same reason as why Malachi is in there, or Song of Songs, or Esther or Job, Jonah, Amos, Obadiah, Proverbs or Deuteronomy, or Hebrews or Jude or the Epistle of James ...

Because it was agreed to 'canonise' them at some point.

Are they profitable to read and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness?

Yes, most certainly.

That doesn't mean that they are there to provide us with some kind of tour-guide to the end of the world.

Why do you think the Eastern Churches were late and reluctant in accepting Revelation into the canon

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course the Rabbis saw these texts as significant and that's why they canonised them.

How they regarded / regard them, I don't know as I'm not Jewish but you'll know as well as I do that there are a wide range of views within contemporary Judaism as there are within Christianity.

I used to live within easy walking distance of 4 synagogues and they all had their own flavour, whether Orthodox, Reform or somewhere in between.

I don't know enough about Jewish eschatology to comment on how they see things panning out 'at the end of the age' but I'd imagine there's a range of views there just as there are among Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How they regarded / regard them, I don't know as I'm not Jewish but you'll know as well as I do that there are a wide range of views within contemporary Judaism as there are within Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I have no knowledge of the Eastern churches and am not sure why you think they are relevant to the discussion.

---

quote:

---

So now that’s off your chest why aren’t these so called apocalyptic narratives ‘tour guides’ to the end of the age given they are in the canon and the intent of the authors was to pass on divine information about how history will wrap up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
You’d been adopting the genre labelled ‘sarcasm’, which was unnecessary and needed to be challenged.

---

quote:

---

In major part this is because although the text is in the public arena (it’s out there), control is maintained by the fact that the author has written what he/she wrote, using the words he or she used in the way he or she used them, to effect an affect on an audience.

---

quote:

---

“…this term has proved so slippery and many-sided in scholarly discourse that that one is often tempted to declare a moratorium on it altogether.”*

---

quote:

---

That leads me (obviously we are doomed to lengthy posts) to the question of just how useful the genre label is when we get into the text.

---

quote:

---

What I don't accept is the use of these apocalyptic texts to construct an elaborate schema to predict, forecast or delineate a blue-print sequence of events to chart the end of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Then you are simply displaying your own ignorance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat
So now that’s off your chest...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

What I don't accept is the use of these apocalyptic texts to construct an elaborate schema to predict, forecast or delineate a blue-print sequence of events to chart the end of the world.

---

It’s also not something You have proved futurists do though you assert it often enough!

---

quote:

---

One man's 'plain reading of scripture' looks like another man's convoluted and contrived eschatological speculation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, constructing tiered and multi-layered accounts of the Eschaton involving multiple returns of Christ and a literal Millennium and Raptures and goodness knows what else falls into the category of unhelpful speculation as far as I can see ...

But our mileages will vary.

I'm not 'ignoring' anything.

---

quote:

---

You also seem unwilling or unable to recognise elements that are clearly allegorical. If many-headed beasts and strange, surreal creatures aren't allegorical then what are they?

---

No That is a generalisation. If I look at the beasts of Daniel it is clear that each represents an earthly kingdom. They are not seen as real leopards or bears. The text clearly shows us how to interpret them.

If you are referring to angelic beings that speak to Daniel or John and administer the judgements of God, then these are known only by their appearance to Daniel eg man-like, or by their function as oracles and transmitters of God’s Judgements.

If you assume the ancient texts are written by simpletons then you tend to judge them from a position of superiority. Apart from technologies, why is this fair?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Nobody is saying the ancient texts were written by simpletons. They are very sophisticated.

I've seen you take references in Revelation literally that I wouldn't interpret that way. That says something about us, not about the original authors.

I don't mean that performatively either. It simply means that we are using somewhat different interpretative tools in some me instances.

In other instances our interpretations would be identical or broadly similar.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
If we assume that God is the ultimate author of this literature, then I would think that we would assume that it is about what He is interested in. Not about kingdoms or political events, or even about events that can be physically observed. It is about the spiritual progress of humanity.

Isn't it reasonable to read these curious texts as saying simply that there are spiritual threats and serious bumps in the road in humanity's future, but that all will be well in the end?
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Gamaliel: nobody is saying the ancient texts were written by simpletons. They are very sophisticated.

I've seen you take references in Revelation literally that I wouldn't interpret that way. That says something about us, not about the original authors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I'll thank you not to second-guess what my reasoning is and allow me to speak for myself rather than you imposing assumptions about what I'm saying based on what strikes me as broad brush generalisations.

You accuse me of not being specific enough but your posts often strike me the same way, a rehashing of entrenched Pre-millenialist Dispensationalist positions in a way that dismisses any other view as a slippery slope towards apostasy.

If you want a specific example, I once read a post of yours in which you appeared to believe in literal humanoid 'locusts' with poisonous stings in Revelation 9.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: ..not saying that certain biblical writers wrote that way because they were stupid or ignorant. Rather, I'm saying they wrote that way because it suited their authorial purpose and it helped them get their point across

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, in terms of imagery and bearing in mind the genre - 'apocalyptic literature' - then I'd argue that it's possible to derive some insight from the kind of tropes and pictures painted.

<snippety snip>Both the 'locusts' and the 'horses' in Revelation 9 have poison in their mouths and in their tails - they sting at both ends as it were. The 'locusts' wear crowns - 'principalities and powers'? They look a bit like people - and yet have lions' teeth. The 'horses' later on have the heads of lions - what does that remind us of?

Our enemy, the Devil, we are told in 1 Peter 5:8 prowls around 'like a roaring lion' seeking whom he may devour:

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/5-8.htm

We're dealing with 'picture-language' that describes embodiments of evil. It's a bit like heraldry.

---

quote:

---

But why do you have to interpret them as literal, physical entities at all, Jamat?

---

I didn't. What I said was John saw something literal..nothing about physical but real in effect if you like in the power to inflict pain.
It seems to me that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions in categorising.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In what way? Jumping to a lot of conclusions about you or about Revelation?


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
How can it be literal when it's a dream or vision?

The whole point about dreams and visions is that they aren't 'literal' but act like visual metaphors.

That's the whole point of them.

It'd be like saying that 'My loves is like a red, red rose' means that the author's beloved is some kind of garden plant ...

Sin, evil etc causes all kinds of pain, emotional, psychological, physical ...
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How can it be literal when it's a dream or vision?

The whole point about dreams and visions is that they aren't 'literal' but act like visual metaphors.

That's the whole point of them.

It'd be like saying that 'My loves is like a red, red rose' means that the author's beloved is some kind of garden plant ...

Sin, evil etc causes all kinds of pain, emotional, psychological, physical ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course.

But literally seeing something and seeing something literally are quite differeny things ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You could argue that it shows that people still continue to 'follow evil' despite the harm it causes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
Apocalyptic:
No matter how bad things seem
judgement comes. God wins.

---

Sums it up perfectly.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, and I think it's been observed on these threads that the Jews classify Daniel among the 'Writings' rather than among 'The Prophets'.

I wouldn't make too fine a distinction between prophetic and apocalyptic writings/genres, but I think the Jewish categorisation is instructive.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Also, I'd have thought the whole 'point' of biblical prophecy and NT apocalyptic is to act as a, 'revelation of Jesus Christ', as the Book of Revelation puts it.

Whatever else it might be there for, the prime reason is to tell us something about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Trying to concoct some kind of blue-print for the Eschaton based on snippets and passages in the scriptures - both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament - strikes me as being of a way, way, way, way lower order of priority.

It descends into the realm of pure speculation however much certain kinds of highly-literal Millenialists and Dispensationalists go in for their elaborate and self-referring hermeneutics.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye, their prime reason. Men who lived two to two and a half thousand years ago. But God's? May be. To us? May be. I always liked Ezekiel's style, 'Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God'. I can see that happening to John of Patmos too, down on the beach. Wonderful, strange, harmless, encouraging stuff of its time and all times I'm sure.

[ 05. January 2018, 16:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 

---

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It descends into the realm of pure speculation however much certain kinds of highly-literal Millenialists and Dispensationalists go in for their elaborate and self-referring hermeneutics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So if they are into the kind of pre-millenialist and Dispensationalist schemas that Jamat favours, then they'll apply those.

If not, they won't.

---

quote:

---

Previously stated on thread
The Hebrew understanding had relatively little to do with foretelling future events and much more to do with conveying the divine message to people now. The prophet was the spokesperson of God. In traditional Jewish understanding, Torah and the Writings were also written by prophets, such as Moses, David and Solomon. What distinguishes the books classified as Prophets is a focus on calling Israel to faithfulness, on challenging Israel's unfaithfulness, and on describing what God intends for Israel.

---

quote:

---

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Acts 3:19-26

---

quote:

---

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0