Ship of Fools: Revelation 22:19... If anyone takes words away...

Thread: Revelation 22:19... If anyone takes words away... Board: Chapter & Worse / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=76;t=000017

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Verse nominated by The Great Gumby

"And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:19, in context)

The Great Gumby comments: If you're going to be cutting verses from the Bible, you should probably start with the one that's usually taken to threaten dire consequences for anyone who, er, cuts verses from the Bible.

How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!

[ 03. August 2009, 20:07: Message edited by: Simon ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Nah, this verse refers only to people who take anything away from the Book of Revelation. Which, as everyone knows, was written while John was on a particularly bad acid trip and is thus of very little use to any believer.

Though the book did provide a kick-ass introduction to Iron Maiden's Number of the Beast single.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

[Big Grin]

Gumby, you are a genius. I was wondering when this would come up.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Not genius, Kel, just the result of a random domestic conversation. Keren-Happuch deserves the credit, but I was the one who got round to nominating it.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nah, this verse refers only to people who take anything away from the Book of Revelation. Which, as everyone knows, was written while John was on a particularly bad acid trip and is thus of very little use to any believer.

I agree, but seeing that most of these verses are being nominated because of the unpleasant consequences when people abuse them, this is surely worthy of consideration, flippancy aside.

I've come across far too many people who use this as the final word on any question about the true Biblical text, beginning to end. In fact, I've known people to use it both in support and in opposition to the disputed second half of Mark 16. One lot say its presence is an addition, another lot say its absence is a removal, and both claim the same passage as incontrovertible proof that they're right.

It's been widely used to stifle scholarship and debate on the subject of the Biblical record, so I'd rather do without it. Even if the verse were universally agreed to refer to just Revelation, it's still an obstacle to dropping that whole trippy book, and at least its absence would leave the apocalyptic nutters one less reason for treating their numerological bollocks as divinely ordained.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Yeah, but what a cunning way to get your trippy stuff into canon. It's a poison pill to those who'd dare argue it out. Kudos, John! [Overused]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Maybe he was preserving his art from the poison pen of the editor.

Just think if someone had thought "googoo ga joob" was just too weird to include in "I am the Walrus."

Yeah. Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel-- St. John. [Overused]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

When I was a small boy I trembled for the immortal soul of the writer/editor of an abridged Bible for children who (for fairly obvious reasons) had left out much of the Apocalypse. I was convinced that the poor man had wantonly condemned himself to the Lake of Fire.

Posted by Kid Who Cracked (# 13963) on :

I actually worried very much about this as a young child. I thought I might have accidentally done it and might be going to hell.

[ 01. August 2009, 16:18: Message edited by: Kid Who Cracked ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, and Gumby's right, this verse has been abused (I remeber having the same worries, until I became more informed bout how canon evolved.)

If someone is in a church where they don't encourage learning about hings like the formation fo Scripture, this could not only cause problems with your own expectations of yourself, but lead them to distrust people who even discuss things like "primary sources" and "Authorship"

[ 02. August 2009, 03:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

Anyone who has studied actual Biblical manuscripts (particularly the NT ones) knows why this is there. Way too many liberties were taken by copyists over the centuries.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

???

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

Some of the most famous passages in the New Testament were "not in the New Testament".

Every one of these passages were later additions by creative copyists:

- The classic statement of the Trinity (1 John 5:7)

- The entire story of: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" John 8:2-11

- Jesus sweating blood at Gethsemane (Luke 22:44)

- Jesus took the cup and said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20)

- The "long ending of Mark" (Mark 16:9-20)

- The angel in the healing pool at Bethsaida (John 5:4)

- Peter at the tomb (Luke 24:12)

- Jesus ascends to heaven (Luke 24:51)

This Revelation passage is designed to prevent similar corruption of his own text.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Every one of these passages were later additions by creative copyists:

Evidence?

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

Open any modern translation and check out the footnotes.

None of the above are present in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

(Particularly the 1 John verse, which is a case of Erasmus, being unable to find any Greek texts with the verse, intentionally took a spurious Latin manuscript and translated it back into Greek himself...)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Open any modern translation and check out the footnotes.

None of the above are present in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

I can't think how this is a problem for anyone who understands the Bible to be the expression of the faith of the Church, as opposed to understanding the Church to be an organization based on the Bible.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Open any modern translation and check out the footnotes.

None of the above are present in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.
I can't think how this is a problem for anyone who understands the Bible to be the expression of the faith of the Church, as opposed to understanding the Church to be an organization based on the Bible.

How does this follow? I certainly believe the Bible to be an expression of the faith of the People of God (including the ekklesia of Israel). But this belief causes me to place great value on knowing what the Bible actually says - because in so doing, I will learn about our faith. Accurate translations which are attentive to the best results of textual criticism are integral to this.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

DoD is right. The Bible is important so it is important to have some idea of what is or is not the Bible, and why.

The story of the woman taken in adultery is a sort of special case. Its as well-attested as anything else in the New Testament but it doesn't seem to *belong* anywhere. There are ancient manuscripts (not just modern critical texts) that include it as a sort of appendix to John's Gospel. And one strand that puts it in Luke.

So its as if it really is part of the New Testament but not really part of John. But no-one wanted to add a new, very short, book called "Jesus and the Adulterous Woman".

The 1 John "trinitarian" verse is pretty clearly an error - is it in any ancient Greek manuscript at all?

The long ending to Mark is a much more confusing story which there is no time to describe here... there are perfectly respectable arguments for thinking its genuine, though maybe most scholars don't believe them.

BUT, seriously, the author of the Revelation probably didn't know all that when the book was written! Would have known that manuscripts get changed of course - but not those specific changes.

Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on :

John a prisoner in the Roman penal colony on the isle of Patamos? Writes a coded letter of encouragement to his church, describing the destruction of the city of Rome and the reign of the Emperor Nero? Read the letter with this in mind and see what you think. It had a hard time making it into the Cannon.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

If you think that John's letter is merely a coded message about things that will happen to Rome then the issue goes away completely.

The warning only makes any sense at all, at least any sense as a warning that applies to us, if we think that it is actually a message from God.

This, of course, is the whole idea behind "canon." If it is in the canon then the church thinks that its ultimate author is God. Naturally there are plenty of people who laugh at that idea.

If you accept the premise that the words are God's words then it makes sense to worry about "taking words away" from the book of Revelation. And if you see the entire canon as a single work written by God Himself, as the church has taught from the beginning, then it makes sense to worry about taking words away from any part of Scripture.

As I have understood this, it is not just a warning to copyists. It is a warning to anyone who might be inclined to discount certain parts of Scripture, or to add their own thoughts to it. This would especially apply to preachers who preach their own ideas rather than the ones they find in Scripture, and avoid what the Scriptures say.

Again, this only makes sense if you posit a divine origin for the Bible. And if you don't then the words are nothing to worry about.

Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on :

Canonization of the NT as I remember came very slowly over some period of time. This was during the time when the so called "Church Fathers" were on the scene. I believe I am correct in saying that at the time it was the process of individual Bishops deciding which material was to be read in the churches in his Diocese and which was not. After some time there was a general census;however, it was some time before Revelations showed up on everyone's list. There was never a big gathering of Bishops and a supernatural laying on hands or anything like that. I think it was later when the material canonized into what became the NT begin to be thought of as the direct word of God. Somebody want to check me out on this?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
I think it was later when the material canonized into what became the NT begin to be thought of as the direct word of God.

I think that the Old Testament scriptures were seen that way in New Testament times, and that the Gospels in particular were seen that way very early in Christian history. The early Fathers spoke of them that way, as can be seen in this discussion about Irenaeus.

No one doubts that the Reformation theologians saw Scripture as the Word of God, but Catholic statements such as Dei Verbum, relying on the testimony of the Church Fathers, taught the same:

quote:
For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. Dei Verbum article 9

I don't think that you will get a different view of the Gospels even in the earliest Christian documents that refer to them.

Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on :

I find the real thing that bothers people who think about the NT is why if an all powerful God wanted to give a bible why do it through humans? The history of the NT; we do not know the authors except Paul. The authors do not claim to be eye witnesses. The material they share they change to fit their idea who Jesus was. They pulled material from the OT and recast it to say it foretold the coming of Jesus and so on. Why should people who read the NT not focus on the teachings of Jesus and his humanity and let them decide for them self about his super national side? Focus on the religion Jesus taught not the later religion about Jesus the Church Fathers developed after his death.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
I find the real thing that bothers people who think about the NT is why if an all powerful God wanted to give a bible why do it through humans?

Good point. So maybe it is not divine after all and John's words are nothing to worry about.

Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on :

Everyone please, I am not a scholar, expert or anything of the sort. Most of what I know about the Bible comes from taking these courses:

The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers
From Jesus to Constantine
Historical Jesus
Lost Christianities
New Testament
The Making of the New Testament Canon
Apostle Paul
Jesus and the Gospels
Story of the Bible
Exploring the Roots of Religion
Early Christianity
History of Christian Theology
Philosophy of Religion
Great Figures of the New Testament
Old Testament
Natural Law and Human Nature
The Catholic Church: A History
Popes and the Papacy
Book of Genesis
Skeptics and Believers: Religious Debate in the Western Intellectual Tradition
Luther: Gospel, Law, and Reformation
Augustine: Philosopher and Saint
Late Antiquity: Crisis and Transformation
Great World Religions
Emperors of Rome
Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World.

Are the professors who give these courses scholars, authorities, experts? In my opinion you have to take the course and decide for your self. The courses are available to all. What I do is pick out of the courses what I think are religious sticky points and post them with the hope that someone out there will have a source that throws a different light on the point.

Hamp

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0