Revelation 12

[Laudate_Dominum]

I've devoted an excessive amount of time over the years to this one pericope, and since I am at the point where it is rare and most difficult to find an argument of any kind that I have not already encountered and dealt with, I am quite confident in my conclusions. I also have a few tid bits which are the fruit of my own research which I have not seen brought to light in any work of Biblical scholarship which treats of these passages. I am also quite familiar with the history of the interpretation of this narrative.

But remember, I claim that the Marian interpretation is the primary sense, not the exclusive meaning of the text.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The woman in Rev. 12 looks like Our Lady of Guadalupe. Check into that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

There are many reasons why I've been sort of obsessed with this narrative.
It basically crowns my entire understanding of Lucan and Johannine Theology, and really the Gospel in general. I realize this is odd, but I don't consider Luke's gospel to be a synoptic in the usual sense. I have studied common thematic and structural elements between the Johannine and Lucan writings and I view Luke-Acts as a sort of bridge between the synoptics and the Johannine writings. I argue for the validity of using Lucan material to discover the meaning of Johannine themes and concepts, and vice versa. Perhaps the most controversial and least substantial move I make (and for the record its not a crucial point) is to argue for a Lucan priority. Or more precisely, the priority of Luke I & II and its importance principally as an interpretive key for understanding the rest of Luke and Acts and as a set of thematic keys for grasping further the Theology of John, insofar as the themes can be shown to derive from shared source material. I reject Q theory (and similar theories) and prefer exploring a hypothetical oral tradition above positing imaginary Gospels.

Anyway, I'm totally rambling so I'll be quiet now.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='scardella' date='Dec 3 2005, 02:01 PM']No, not really.  Every argument that I can think of is too easily refuted.  The only effective argument I can see is to make the interpretation irrelevant. 
[right][snapback]809803[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I suppose the principle I would refer to in this case is that of, does the approach/interpretation shed interpretive light on other related passages? This is the mark of a good (or "better") interpretation or approach. And I believe that my interpretation fulfills this requirement to a most remarkable degree.

My main problem right now is the sheer size and scope of the information I would like to present in order to substantiate my position. But I really feel that the message board medium is entirely inadequate. It could easily fill 800 pages.

[Theoketos]

Holy Lord how awesome you are!

I am writing a paper on this right now. I absolutely agree. I am one my 15 page of the paper and cannot stop writting about.

LD have you ever read Rahner's [i]Our Lady and the Church[/i]? He devotes a whole chapter on the subject of Revelation 12.

I disagree with Raymond Brown, but agree with Fuilette and Potterie on the subject

I also like to point out to that the Ark seen in the Pervious Verse is clearly related to the woman in the next verse.

[MichaelFilo]

All I can say is my NAB and all it's footnoting disagree with you LD. And all I can say is, the NAB is the product of Ecumenism. So, the remenant philosophy sounds like the footnotes, so yes. The woman is the church, first the old testament church, then the new testament church. Whats my defense? The NAB, and it's protestant food notes. It's the official bible of the Catholic Church in the United States.

I'm sorry, thats the end of my little thing on why you are wrong; because my bible tells me so.

God bless,
Mikey

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Dec 3 2005, 08:18 PM']Holy Lord how awesome you are!

I am writing a paper on this right now. I absolutely agree. I am one my 15 page of the paper and cannot stop writting about.

LD have you ever read Rahner's [i]Our Lady and the Church[/i]? He devotes a whole chapter on the subject of Revelation 12.

I disagree with Raymond Brown, but agree with Fuilette and  Potterie on the subject

I also like to point out to that the Ark seen in the Pervious Verse is clearly related to the woman in the next verse.
[right][snapback]810089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's awesome! And yes, while I find much of Rahner's stuff (I haven't read a ton) to be distasteful, I actually like that particular book.
And while I consider myself to be doing something entirely different from the project of Raymond Brown, I was able to glean a great deal of insight from his work, particularly from Birth of the Messiah. And Potterie is a big source for my Rev 12 stuff, although a lot of my ideas hinge on a view of the Gospels that is kind of "different".

I'd love to read that paper whenever you finish.

So far all I have is outlines and notebooks filled with random scraps. I think its going to be a long time before I actually set out to write anything coherent. But its great fun to work on this project anyway.

My biggest set back is that I have a rather large bibliography of texts and articles that I MUST read that don't happen to have ever been translated into English. I can muddle my way through Italian, but I'll need to master French and German before I can really complete my research. In reality, I really feel that I am just beginning.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Dec 3 2005, 10:57 PM']All I can say is my NAB and all it's footnoting disagree with you LD. And all I can say is, the NAB is the product of Ecumenism. So, the remenant philosophy sounds like the footnotes, so yes. The woman is the church, first the old testament church, then the new testament church. Whats my defense? The NAB, and it's protestant food notes. It's the official bible of the Catholic Church in the United States.

I'm sorry, thats the end of my little thing on why you are wrong; because my bible tells me so.

God bless,
Mikey
[right][snapback]810189[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Haha! Yeah, I do realize that my views are odd in comparison with contemporary Biblical scholarship. But I still believe my approach is methodologically sound and that my conclusions are solid. We'll see I suppose.
Oh, and in my lowly opinion, the NAB is carp.

[Aloysius]

i'm pretty sure Mikey was being sarcastic, i dont think he likes the NAB(S) footnotes either

anyway, you're finding lots of agreement on phatmass :

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 4 2005, 03:30 AM']i'm pretty sure Mikey was being sarcastic, i dont think he likes the NAB(S) footnotes either

anyway, you're finding lots of agreement on phatmass :
[right][snapback]810353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm thinking of maybe emailing some protestant and liberal Catholic Biblical scholars so I can duke it out with them.
I just want to refine my position before I set out to write something about it.

I discussed my views last year with a pretty well known Catholic Biblical scholar (a modernist by training, but he's not over the top) and a very well known Catholic Theologian, and they were both impressed and extremely encouraging. At least I know I'm not way off.

Actually its kind of funny because the very well known Catholic Theologian came out with a new book about 6 months after our conversation and there was a part of it that was clearly influenced by our discussion. I thought that was really awesome.

[Aloysius]

sweet.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thanks Al. I just have this crazy dream of being a real Theologian someday so it was really neat.

[phatcatholic]

what do you mean by the "primary sense" of the verse? fill in the blank: a particular understanding of a verse would be its primary sense because _____ . it is the one intended by the author? it fits the context of the passage? what?

i may be interested in debating this, but i need to know how you answer these questions first. it may also turn out that i agree with you, in which case there would not be much of a debate, unless i chose to play devil's advocate, which i think i could probably do

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 4 2005, 09:05 AM']what do you mean by the "primary sense" of the verse? fill in the blank: a particular understanding of a verse would be its primary sense because _____ . it is the one intended by the author? it fits the context of the passage? what?

i may be interested in debating this, but i need to know how you answer these questions first. it may also turn out that i agree with you, in which case there would not be much of a debate, unless i chose to play devil's advocate, which i think i could probably do
[right][snapback]810507[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Precisely what I mean by that would take a bit of explaining.
I'm not working within the old school exegetical paradigm which interprets Scripture according to primarily three senses (literal, allegorical and anagogical), but rather according to modern hermeneutics. I hold that the literal sense, as in "the author’s original intention", in the case of the woman of Revelation 12, is polyvalent. I believe the symbol can be shown to have more than one referent, which is no doubt common for symbols of personification in this genre.
In all actuality, my understanding of the nature of this type of symbolism makes the question of the "primary sense" or "primary referent" pretty much useless because it introduces a tension that is in my opinion idiomatically foreign (unless we're talking about a relationship). However, in the pertinent scholarship this question inevitably seems to be raised for reasons that I consider to be particular to modern scholarships epistemological character. Thus for me the question is more a matter of method and interpretive application than a mind-reading of the authors intent. The importance of the question is revealed, I'd say, when one attempts to derive a biblical Mariology. When speaking of the symbol in itself, the question is superfluous.

Does this answer your question to some degree?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I should also say that given the recent history of the interpretation of this passage I think it is a good move to stress the Marian sense of the woman. It has been denied or downplayed even in Catholic scholarship and is almost a laughable proposition in many circles. This is troubling for many reasons and I believe it is simply false.