apocalyptic lit, textbook interaction

8/9/2019 Apocalyptic Lit, Textbook Interaction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/apocalyptic-lit-textbook-interaction 1/6

Book Review: The Apocalyptic Imagination, by John Collins

B 224: Apocalyptic Literature

Instructor: Tim Beech, Ph. D.

Donovan Neufeldt

21 May, 2010



-2-

Collins’ book, The Apocalyptic Imagination, helped me to understand the broader

framework of Judeo-Christian Apocalyptic literature, and has allowed me to acknowledge that

framework in the reading of biblical apocalyptic texts. Despite the authors views, however, I

think that similarities and relation of the biblical apocalyptic to the non-biblical texts and the

genre as a whole was stressed far too much, so as to possibly force consistency when there is

none and neglect discussion of some distinctive. The “framework” or the “mold” of the

apocalyptic genre ought not to be set as the standard into which texts containing some consistent

features are forced; a more honest approach acknowledges the characteristics of a text, then

groups the works based on consistent features. If the biblical texts do not entirely fit the mold

(either by existential evidence or by theological necessity), the texts should be re-classified, or

the genre should be redefined. One such example is the defining of biblical book of Daniel as a

historical apocalypse and thus saying it contains ex eventu prophecy and pseudonymity.

Collins was helpful in introducing be to apocalyptic thought communities, and texts that I

had been formerly unaware of. This includes much of the Enochic literature, the Sibylline

Oracles, the Testament of Moses, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the extra-

biblical apocalyptic writings of the first century AD. In the expounding I found it helpful and

interesting to see the messianic expectations and the apocalyptic eschatology of some Jewish

communities prior to the coming of Jesus of Nazareth.

I found the book to be a very difficult read because of such high level vocabulary, jargon,

and narrow semantics, and because much of the chapters on extra biblical apocalypses made

reference to and expounded upon text that I have never read, without much explanation of the

content of original text itself. The chapter about the book of Daniel was very easy to follow for

me, however, because of familiarity to the book itself as well as familiarity with scholarly

discussion concerning the book of Daniel. Although I understood the chapter very well, I was



-3-

very troubled by many of the thing the author said so as to discredit the Bible and

attack/undermine the inerrancy of scripture, which is a part of the Christian doctrine Word of

God. Without assurance of the truth and authority of scripture the Christian faith itself crumbles

to pieces. We are left to guesswork and a halfhearted hope concerning the eternal destiny of

ourselves and the rest of mankind.

Collins begins the chapter by acknowledging that an agonized attempt has been made to

disassociate the canonical book of Daniel with the rest of the genre, and that all these attempts

should by now be discredited (Collins, 85), yet he does not tell us why they should be

discredited. By the simple fact that it is in the cannon of scripture, it is distinctive from other

non-canonical text (thought they may have similar content). We do not treat a letter from our

pastor the same way we treat a letter from the apostle Paul, despite that there may be many

similar features. This is equivalent with saying a certain theology is wrong and should now be

discredited simply on my own authority, without appealing to some evidence, whether that is

scriptural or existential. More justice would be don if the main points of the opposing view were

presented and responded to, rather than a simple “every good little school boy and school girl

knows that Daniel is basically the same as the rest of second temple apocalyptic literature” type

of approach (Collins, 88). Rather than presenting the views, strengths and weaknesses of both

conservative and liberal scholarship on the authorship of Daniel, only the liberal position is given

and assumed with occasional attacks on the ignorance of dogmatic conservative scholars.

Collins overtly takes sides with the neo-platonic philosopher Porphyry who postulated

that Daniel was written during the Maccabean crisis using ex eventu prophecy to explain all the

accurate “predictions” that had taken place prior to Antiochus, and that all predictions following

were inaccurate and did not come to pass (87). Jerome exposed porphyry as a pagan and a heretic

who was fueled by a desire to discredit the scriptures, as well as an anti-supernatural bias that



-5-

that 2 Thessalonians was written pseudonymously after Paul’s death (Collins, 266). This is an

absurd suggestion, as the letter states, “I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the

distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write. ” (2 Thess. 3:17). This is equivalent to

saying that the New Testament Cannon contains fraud (and error), in a context that cannot be

excused by apocalyptic genre. Surely this man’s materials ought not to be taught in any

institution that calls itself Christian. In the same way, the Maccabean hypothesis of Daniel’s

authorship and dating is incompatible with Christianity as it contradicts the Doctrine of the Word

of God, and asserts that Jesus was a liar (Matt. 24:15).

I am glad that the book gives a little more respect to the book of Revelation, despite the

preteristic hermeneutic. Collins does well do acknowledge that the book is an apocalypse and a

prophecy as well, and also assert its distinctiveness from much of the genre in its form as a

circulated letter (even denying pseudonymity and ex eventu prophecy). I found it quite odd and

irrelevant, however, that the question is brought up as to whether or not John was trying to bring

transformation to the genre (Collins, 272). The debate about the definition of genre was

completely foreign to that time and context, and would be the last thing on his mind. This

question also assumes that John did not have the experiences as recorded but formulated them

with an agenda (Collins, 275). Both the latter half of Daniel as well as the book of Revelation

present themselves as encounters that happened to them, not just words formulated by them for a

personal agenda. Again, the issue of the Bible’s authenticity is brought into question. Collins’

concluding remark that Revelation is mere symbols to express fundamental hopes and fears

(Collins, 279) was disappointing; it is way more than that and surely all events will come to pass.

To believe that appreciating Biblical apocalyptic material “entails an appreciat ion of the

great resource that lies in the human imagination…” (Collins, 283) as the book concludes, would

decimate all appreciation for the Biblical apocalypses that I now have.



-6-

Works Cited

Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

apocalyptic lit, textbook interaction

Documents