Is literal interpretation of Revelation valid among Catholics?

[normdplume]

Hi. I’ve been reading about the various ways to interpret the Bible, and one is literal. Is this a valid way for Catholics to interpret the Book of Revelation? If not, how should it be interpreted?

Thanks.

 

[Dlee]

As a former baptist, I believed in the whole protestant-hype about Revelation. After I became Catholic, I found a complete different understanding. I would suggest that you participate in Jeff Cavin’s study on Revelation. He covers who it was written to, how it would have been interpreted by the early church, and then how ultimately it is a vision of Heaven and the Eucharist. It gives an interpretation that is actually comforting.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve been reading about the various ways to interpret the Bible, and one is literal. Is this a valid way for Catholics to interpret the Book of Revelation?

Not really. The genre of literature that Revelation belongs to is called “apocalyptic”, and it’s far from literal. Instead, it’s highly symbolic, and is written to comfort an oppressed audience.

The Catholic approach to the Book of Revelation is somewhat preterist (i.e., we believe that much of the content therein may have been in the future of the author, but is in our past). @Dlee’s citation of the Cavins study is a good one. If you’d prefer reading a book, then Michael Barber’s Coming Soon would be my recommendation.

 

[BartholomewB]

Fr. Felix Just’s website has a wide selection of Catholic resources dealing with the many questions arising from the book of Revelation:

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Revelation.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

There are several “schools” of interpretation of Revelation. One of them is millenarianism. Here is want the Catechism says:

676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.

 

[SaberBob]

I highly recommend David Currie’s Rapture: The End Times Error that Leaves the Bible Behind

 

[Gorgias]

There are several “schools” of interpretation of Revelation. One of them is millenarianism.

Ahh… that was the word I was trying to think of earlier, in my reply to @normdplume, but I couldn’t remember it! The Church’s approach to Revelation is preterist and amillenial! Thanks!

 

[Wesrock]

Also, the “literal sense of scripture” isn’t how we’d use the word literal today. It means identifying the truths the author wished to convey.

That may overlap with what we mean by literal today, of course, but not necessarily.

 

[normdplume]

Thank you, all.

 

[DIERM]

Also, the “literal sense of scripture” isn’t how we’d use the word literal today. It means identifying the truths the author wished to convey.

That may overlap with what we mean by literal today, of course, but not necessarily.

Apples and oranges.

“Literal Sense” and “Literal” are two very different things, and there is absolutely no overlap between the two other than “Literal”…the Literal Sense is to put into the social context of the time of its writing…to take literal, means it is was it says, with no room for thoughtfulness…Revelation, like all scripture needs to be viewed from the Literal Sense, but scripture taken to be simple Literal is very dangerous…if scripture was to be taken literally, we would be stoning adulterers, prostitutes, homosexuals, etc.
Rejoice in the Lord always!

 

[Gorgias]

scripture taken to be simple Literal is very dangerous…if scripture was to be taken literally, we would be stoning adulterers, prostitutes, homosexuals, etc.

Umm… just wanted to point out that that “literal sense” of those passages – that is, what the intent of the human author was – is precisely that these folks should be put to death according to the law! That is literally what was intended.

What you’re attempting to address, I’m guessing, is whether we’re still bound by the prescriptions of the Mosaic law. (We’re not.)

 

[DIERM]

What you’re attempting to address, I’m guessing, is whether we’re still bound by the prescriptions of the Mosaic law.

No, not at all…what I am trying to address is the nuance between literal sense (which is what the writer was trying to say in a snapshot in time) and literal (which means even today what was said in ancient times is to be taken exactly as it means).

There is a huge difference, and the Church speaks well of the difference in the Catechism.

 

[Gorgias]

No, not at all…what I am trying to address is the nuance between literal sense (which is what the writer was trying to say in a snapshot in time) and literal (which means even today what was said in ancient times is to be taken exactly as it means).

Yeah, but in the example you give, both “the literal sense” and what was literally on the page are the same: kill these folks. Literal doesn’t mean “it means today what it meant back then”.

 

[DIERM]

Literal doesn’t mean “it means today what it meant back then”.

You are putting words in my mouth, and you are saying what it does not mean, while obscuring what it does mean…taking every scripture literally, instead of considering the literal sense is misguided and dangerous.

 

[Gorgias]

You are putting words in my mouth

I don’t think I am. You seem to be defining “literal” as “the application of the text in a particular period of time.” Am I mistaken?

So, by that standard, “literal” meanings change over time. I don’t think that this works for a definition of ‘literal’.

 

[mdgspencer]

.
The Catholic Church hasn’t definitively said how the Book of Revelation should be interpreted. So you can’t say what interpretation is valid or not according to the Church.
You can argue what interpretation is true or not. But that is a different thing.
Actually, Catholics have held quite different opinion about how to interpret it, without the Church saying what interpretation is correct.

 

[goout]

DIERM:

You are putting words in my mouth

I don’t think I am. You seem to be defining “literal” as “the application of the text in a particular period of time.” Am I mistaken?

So, by that standard, “literal” meanings change over time. I don’t think that this works for a definition of ‘literal’.

Sure the meanings of words change over time. How can that be debated? That’s why we do exegesis, to determine what the author intended to convey under God’s Inspiration.

[116] The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

Words convey meaning. The text has an integrity that must be respected. We cannot throw words out.
At the same time, we cannot look at texts and demand they fit our personal modern contexts like the fundamentalists do. We have to discover the original context to have full appreciation.

Please note: the spiritual senses are also based in the literal. For the spiritual sense, you must take the words as written as the basis of meaning.
But “Literal” should not be confused with factual or historic accuracy at the expense of spiritual meaning. They are of one cloth like so many things in Catholicism.

the problem arises when people see literal and spiritual senses as separate things, or when the limit the literal sense to a fundamentalist reading out of context.

 

[Mintaka]

The literal sense is “what was intended by the author.”

Now, this is complicated by the fact that the Bible has both human authors, and a Divine Author. But we generally include “what the Divine Author meant by it” under other senses of reading Scripture: spiritual/allegorical, moral (what God is poking you to take personally and apply to your life), and anagogical (what relates to Heaven and the afterlife, as well as to divine stuff happening right now).

The tricky thing with Revelation is that the literal sense is “I had this prophetic vision and God told me to write it down.” The literal sense is something that reaches from the present to both the past and future, and even to the end of the world and the beginning of the world to come.

The helpful thing is that John has a vision almost entirely in terms of past prophecies and past happenings in the history of Israel and Christianity. His Greek is weird because he keeps making exact quotes from the Septuagint, in weird places. So you’re spending the whole book thinking in terms of Daniel, Ezekiel, Sinai, etc. as well as Christian history.

The unhelpful thing is that John is one of those writers who goes back and forth in time. You have stuff happening, and then he mentions X thing. And then he goes back to the beginning, and runs forward again until you get to the same X thing. And then you go further forward, and suddenly you go back and run into Y thing that was previously mentioned. This isn’t totally uncommon in Middle Eastern literature, but it’s not what we’re used to. But usually X thing or Y thing is something that has already been mentioned in the Prophets, so it’s not totally wacky.

 

[goout]

The literal sense is “what was intended by the author.”

Now, this is complicated by the fact that the Bible has both human authors, and a Divine Author. But we generally include “what the Divine Author meant by it” under other senses of reading Scripture: spiritual/allegorical, moral (what God is poking you to take personally and apply to your life), and anagogical (what relates to Heaven and the afterlife, as well as to divine stuff happening right now).

I have never heard this distinction made.
The CCC itself says:
[116] The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

The literal sense of scripture is not limited to the original author’s intent as you seem to be saying above.
Scripture is given as revelation, so that we might know God. Scripture is not locked into a particular context. We do exegesis so that might gain meaning.

“What the Divine Author meant by it”…is also based in the literal sense.

You just have to get away from the modern connotation of literal as meaning “factual” scientifically accurate, or historically accurate"."

Literal as used by the Church speaks more about the integrity of the words. Meaning of all types comes from the “literature” , as it is written.
(that’s why bad translations and personal modifications of scripture are a bad thing)

 

[Gorgias]

Sure the meanings of words change over time. How can that be debated?

Ahh, but we do exegesis in order to determine what the human author intended. The concept of the “literal sense” doesn’t depend on our understanding of the words [in translation], but the author’s [in the original time and place].

Besides, it seems that @DIERM is making precisely the argument that, since words & meanings change over time, so does the literal meaning of the text… and that’s just not true!