Authority of Scripture?

[Gorgias]

The Catholic canon wasn’t really established until the fourth century, and the Protestant canon wasn’t established until the sixteenth century.

Formally established. Important distinction, there…

In other words, the “Bible” didn’t come into play until at least a couple centuries after Revelation’s writing

Except that the criteria later utilized in the formal promulgation of the canon already were in play at the beginnings of the Church: it taught faithfully what all apostles taught, it was used universally in liturgy, and it had a provenance understood to be apostolic.

Whether or not you give a name to the collection of writings thusly described seems moot. It was already (largely?) what the Church did, with some exceptions at the fringes.

, and, with that in mind, the idea that a comment in Revelation would use “this book” to refer to the Bible is ludicrous.

Given that the writings were found on individual scrolls and not a single bound book at the time, that’s a reasonable comment. However, the exegetical question would be one that asks the author’s intent. Are we really going to suggest that the author of Revelation meant “you absolutely cannot change the contents of my book of Scripture, but the others? Oh, yeah… have at it to your heart’s content with those books”…?

 

[ZMystiCat]

The Bible is a collection of Books, those books written by the end of 1AD.

But written as individual works. They were not written as a collection. While they are a continuous revelation from one Divine author, it is ludicrous to think that a reference to “this book” would reference that as-of-yet-established collection over the individual book that later became part of that collection.

Unless you are St John, companion of Jesus, guardian of His mother, writing the book of Revelation in a cave in exile, it’s quite a stretch to dismiss it as exaggerated text, not intended to be taken literally.

I could, of course, say the same of your literalist reading, which the Church has not officially endorsed. Of course, though, in a book of mostly exaggerated, apocalyptic imagery fitting of the apocalyptic genre, I think it’s safe to say that it is an exaggerated, apocalyptic statement.

And of course the Church does officially endorse many translations of slightly different wording. That only adds to the evidence that it was not historically read so literally.

Oh, yeah… have at it to your heart’s content with those books”…?

I don’t think John cared little of what people did with other Scripture. I just take issue with the ultra-literalist, collection-level reading presented, especially to “disprove” historical fact. Based on my experience in Protestantism, such a reading only leads to weird teachings and practices that, at best, aren’t required by the Church and may even run counter to it.

 

[MikeInVA]

it’s quite a stretch to dismiss it as exaggerated text, not intended to be taken literally.

I think you have a false dichotomy here. Not everything in the Bible is written to be taken literally. The Book of Revelations is meant to be taken figuratively, as it describes the wedding feast of God and the Church. A reflection I read a couple of weeks ago linked Revelations to the Song of Songs as both describing the relationship between God and the Church.
I think that a lot of people struggle when they take the Bible too literally, or when they try to use it as a science book or a history book.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think John cared little of what people did with other Scripture.

I agree. That being the case, if we picture him writing the Book of Revelation, then what do we think that he had in mind when he wrote about “not adding/removing” from the book? Just his? Or would he have been of the mind that this was de rigeur for Scripture in general – or even the NT writings (that had already been being circulated) in particular?

I just take issue with the ultra-literalist, collection-level reading presented, especially to “disprove” historical fact.

Sorry… what’s the ‘historical fact’?

such a reading only leads to weird teachings and practices that, at best, aren’t required by the Church and may even run counter to it.

Fascinating! The entire history of the Church demonstrates that the Church takes very seriously its duty to protect the Deposit of the Faith, and to react – strongly! – when such attempts to alter it are made. It would seem that the “collection-level reading” fits precisely with the mind of the Church on the matter of ‘third-party modification of Scripture’, wouldn’t you say?

 

[LateranBasilica]

It goes without saying that we should not alway give Sacred Scripture a fundamentalist reading. I cite the debate over the first 11 chapters of Genesis in support of this.
However, the meaning of those last few verses of Revelation is pretty clear, don’t change , add to, or take away from Sacred Scripture. We cannot add more or take away from the Gosoels, for example.
We cannot erase all mention of slavery and write a ‘politically correct’ Bible.

 

[ZMystiCat]

what do we think that he had in mind

That’s left a bit too much to the imagination for me to say anything definitive on. It’s reasonable to assume that it isn’t referencing a collection that hasn’t been compiled, but we can say that from mere historical knowledge. Wondering about the musings of John, unless recorded, is too speculative.

Sorry… what’s the ‘historical fact’?

The original claim that started this conversation was that not a word changes in the Bible. When challenged, @LateranBasilica cited the passage in Revelation as if citing it would somehow erase all that happened in transcription and translation.

With that said, the Church’s preservation of Scripture is still a marvel. The Bible today may not be a word-for-word copy of the original manuscripts, but it still preserves a teaching consistent with what the Church has always taught. That’s not something you’d expect to be so well maintained for two thousand years.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s left a bit too much to the imagination for me to say anything definitive on. It’s reasonable to assume that it isn’t referencing a collection that hasn’t been compiled, but we can say that from mere historical knowledge. Wondering about the musings of John, unless recorded, is too speculative.

Right, but remember, when we’re thinking about what the “literal sense” of a passage of Scripture is, we ask two questions: what was the intent of the human author, and what was the intent of God who inspired him? I think we can reasonably say that John wasn’t thinking “don’t change a letter of what I wrote – but those other scrolls? The Gospels, and Paul’s letters? Yeah… here’s an eraser and a pen; have your way with them!” So, John’s intent may have been the scroll he was authoring, but it would have been in the context of an understanding that we must not alter what God has inspired.

But, what about the intent of the divine author? We know that God inspires people to write Scripture that has meanings that they couldn’t possibly have even dreamt of at the time pen hit paper, and when we see these, we know that this is the work of God that we’re witnessing. So, is it beyond the pale to suggest that it’s the intent of the divine author that none of Scripture be changed?

I think the answer to both questions moves us in the direction of taking a broader, rather than narrower, interpretive view of the passage in question.

The original claim that started this conversation was that not a word changes in the Bible. When challenged, @LateranBasilica cited the passage in Revelation as if citing it would somehow erase all that happened in transcription and translation.

Hang on, though: we don’t make the claim that a particular transcription or translation is inerrent. We only make that claim about the autograph (which, unfortunately, we don’t have). Experts can piece together – from extant manuscripts – what we believe is as close as possible to the original text. It’s that text that we call ‘inspired’ and ‘inerrant’.

What John is warning about, though, isn’t accidental transcription error or poorly-worded translation; he’s talking about intentional warping of the text, isn’t he? You know – things like taking “saved by faith” and changing it to “saved by faith alone”?

The Bible today may not be a word-for-word copy of the original manuscripts, but it still preserves a teaching consistent with what the Church has always taught. That’s not something you’d expect to be so well maintained for two thousand years.

 

[ZMystiCat]

We only make that claim about the autograph (which, unfortunately, we don’t have)… What John is warning about, though, isn’t accidental transcription error or poorly-worded translation; he’s talking about intentional warping of the text , isn’t he? You know – things like taking “saved by faith” and changing it to “saved by faith alone”?

I agree and think I made the point once or twice. As far as I know, though, LateranBasilica never made that distinction, even when I brought it up.